Talk:Military of Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

1 Praying Mantis link
2 Eagle Claw & Mantis Photos
3 Major Changes
4 Nuclear Technology
5 Reserves?? And Other Issues of Contention
6 Budget
7 Suggestions
8 Military Expenditures
9 Iranian Military Industry Development
10 The dictator
11 Introduction
12 The 11 million number for basij is bogus.
13 Changing the format

[edit] Praying Mantis link

ArmanJan, threats are a poor substitute for reasoned arguments. Why do you object to the photo link? I believe it is relevant; it adds to the resources immediately available to the reader of "Military of Iran," which is hardly detailed enough. And, as long as I'm asking, why did you add the Eagle Claw link? PRRfan 00:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, however it is not relevant to add these pictures on the main site of the Iran military. The link to these pictures is already on the operation page. If extra links and pictures of everything is added the page would look very different. If people are interested about the operation, they will go to that link and check the pictures, but not on Iran's military page. User:ArmanJan

Yes, you keep saying that. But a) the page is not very long, so any more information would seem to be useful at this point; and b) you yourself have included a link (Operation Eagle Claw) with less apparent relevance than photos of an action that actually involved the Iranian military. Why do you think that the Military of Iran page needs less information than presently presented? PRRfan 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you go back in the history of that page you will see that the page was very long, with a lot of information. However, it was then divided in many pages, and the Iranian military page links to them all. This is how we would like to keep it (those who attend to the iranian military pages). I added Operation Eagle Claw because I see it as just as irrelevant as the other operations. Someone feld it was needed to also add the small battles, so here you go. User:ArmanJan

Well, if the battle has already been fought to slim the page down, then I won't try to bulk it back up. (Not sure about your reasoning on the last point, tho.) Cheers. PRRfan 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. User:ArmanJan

[edit] Eagle Claw & Mantis Photos

I agree totally with ArmanJan: The mantis photos should not be on this page as they are a minor point on one of the following pages. Additionally, eagle claw as nothing to do with the Iran Iraq war - it was a botched hostage rescue that didn't even involve the Iranian military because it failed too soon.

[edit] Major Changes

I suggest we turn the Millitary of Iran page into a summary page for all the armed forces of Iran and allow them to each have their relevant sections. Any takers?

No, it has made the page really ugly and incomplete.

I liked the setup used for the US Army. The lead page provides an overview and covers cross branch military issues such as entry, overall leadership, budget etc. Then each branch (Marines, Navy, USAF, Army...) has its own section in significant detail.

[edit] Nuclear Technology

Where is there mention of Iran's attempt to obtain nuclear technology?

Iran has already obtained nuclear technology, however this has nothing to do with the Iranian military. It is only in the imagination of the U.S. that Iran uses it for weapons. As can be read in the latest report (GOV/2006/15) of the IAEA "the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".

The above anon statement smacks of POV. However I imagine that until such time as Iran produces a working nuclear weapon and that weapon is handed to the military that mention of it should not be put in this article. NickD

I agree with the Anon statement above. Very much to the point...

However, perhaps we should put a link to Irans Nuclear Programme with the above explanation in the Weapons of Mass Destruction area.

I don't think that Iran's nuclear program should be lumped with WMDs. There is, so far, nothing to prove that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. All we have right now are the Bush Administration claims that Iran is pursuing WMDs, and these claims may turn out to be like the claims regarding Iraqi WMDs. Talmakian 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reserves?? And Other Issues of Contention

Why is the table listing troop stats lacking reserve numbers?? According to List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops Iran has about 350,000 troops in reserve... bringing their total numbers up to just over a million... a difference of almost 33% in capacity.

There's also very little here in the way of analysis of capabillity. Considering current trends and events, it's important for someone to take hold of this and improve this article as I am sure many like myself are researching Iran's capabillities to try and envision the implications of a conventional war if one were to erupt as a result of current tensions.

Furthermore, there is little mentioned about the basij, although it does link to it's respective article. Perhaps more should be noted on how these 11 Million paramilitary fighters play into the larger scheme of Iranian capabillities. Also, what about Hezbollah?? Or for that matter, Islamic Jihad... which is also heavily backed by Iran. Though these don't really figure into the army per se, they surely have some clandestine capabillities in terms of force projection that could loosely be directed by Tehran, making it logical to at least give mention to these quasi-military components and their impact on any conceivable armed engagement.

Also, lastly, why is the table with stats down in its current position? Shouldnt this be up higher as it contains essential data that could likely be the whole reason someone is visiting this article??? I think this should be right on top and prominently displayed... and also expanded to include reserves, and (if possible) equipment numbers (numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, etc) for comparison. Thelastemperor 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Basij don't play a significant role in the military. They are more a case of political 'rent a crowd' at government rallies etc. That is fact, personal opinion follows: if anything were to happen i dont think many of them would do anything drastically different from what most iranians would do. The Hezbullah etc. is a different case. I am not aware of any proven iranian backing for islamic jihad, but i may be wrong.

You are absolutely wrong Databot, without the basij Iran would have been completely destroyed during the Iraqi imposed war. You have no idea what are talking about. The basij is a fully trained paramilitary. Even kids get trained until they grow up. Iran would be in serious trouble without them. They are in fact the backbone of our nation. ArmanJan

During the Iran-Iraq war i agree totally with you. They were instrumental and they saved the country- at that point many regular volunteers were incorperated into the basij. Today is another issue alltogther - and i dont think some stick weilding hezbollahi 17 year old who happens to be a basiji yelling abuse at my girlfriend for not having totally perfect hejab then taking a bribe is very symbolic of a fully trained paramilitary. They are more like the curse of our nation.

POV, it is not reality. User:armanjan

[edit] Budget

First, the sentence was ridiculous. A country does not have a strong military because it spends less. Obviously, you meant something else, but that is not what you wrote.

Second, to know whether Iran has the strongest conventional military is a simple comparison of equipment and personnel. We know that Iran vastly outnumbers and out equips any of its neighbors. One plus one is two, Iran has the strongest military. User:ArmanJan

Training is also very signigicant. Its not all about numbers and hardware. Unfortuntely, Iran suffers from poor training (conscription service is a joke) for the larger part. Tototom 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Iran has a profession army, which means everyone joins voluntarily. Secondly, you have no idea how Iran's military training is. Iran’s military training is kept secret, and the last information that is available is from the Shah’s period, during which time they were training by the American method. User:ArmanJan

PRRfan, why do you not use your brain instead of asking for citations? This is like asking for citations about whether Germany is stronger than Holland or Belgium. User:ArmanJan

ArmanJan, citations are somewhat more persuasive than insults. If it is so obvious, it should be a simple matter to cite a reference. PRRfan 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you have your citation --> User:ArmanJan. We do have brains you know? Who do you think runs all those websites? People like you and I.

Question on this quote: "Still, Iran has one of the strongest conventional militaries in the Middle East because it keeps costs low by manufacturing many of its weapons instead of buying them abroad"

Doesn't make sense to me. It is an interesting fact that they manufacture themselves, but why are costs lower when manufactured instead of bought? Common sense says it should be the other way around (Division of labour) 15:40, 8 Aug 2006 (UTC)

It may be that it is less expensive for Iran to produce its weapons domestically rather than for it to import weapons. It is, after all, subject to a trade embargo from the U.S., so it may be that it is difficult to go "bargain hunting" for weapons. Talmakian 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

You guys have done an excellent job of expanding this series, but I think a couple of things are still missing. First, what about the pre-revolutionary combat history of the army? Didn't they successfully beat back a Soviet offensive in the north in 1946? I know this isn't the place to go all the way back to Nadir Shah, but it would be nice to include at least the rest of the twentieth century. Secondly, you did a great job with the rank insignia tables, but it would be nice to add the Persian spelling. Speaking of that, when I look at the Persian page, it has the lowest rank as سرباز دوم, which would transliterate as sarba(a)z do(o)m; however, the English version calls that rank sarbaz yekom. The Persian page has that word (سرباز يکم) next to the corporal's insignia. Which is correct? Overall, you've done a great job, but please check out issues I've mentioned. --Jpbrenna 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Expenditures

Just incase PRRfan's slow mind deletes my work again. 6.2 billion of $561.6 billion GDP is 1.1% military expenditure. [1] User:ArmanJan

[edit] Iranian Military Industry Development

Armanjan claims (with no backing) that prior to 1979 Iran had NO military industrial capability whatsoever. He/she might not aware of the fact that before '79 iran was embarking on a significant development programe - it just never had a chance to truly come to fuition.

Can ArmanJan explain the existance of Project Flower to me, as well as why G3, and MP5 rifles were produced in Iran under licence of H&K.

[edit] The dictator

I can site a billion and one websites, encyclopedia's, books, and what not to show you that the King's of Iran (especially the last two) were the worst kind of dictators. What proof do you have to call the title "dictator" a POV? Which such a stance calling Saddam would also be a POV because of course, there were people that had it good under him and never had any kind of suffering. If you change it one more time I will complain about your vandalism. User:ArmanJan

I find this one the most interesting one because it is from the most respected journalist in the world: The CIA has also been directly linked to torture training in the Middle East, where the agency for two and a half decades reinforced the repressive state of Shah Mohammed Pahlevi, the dictator of Iran. Shortly before the Shah's overthrow in 1979, New York Times journalist Seymour Hersh reported that "a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak [the Iranian secret police] on torture techniques." Jesse J. Leaf, a former head Iran analyst for the CIA, told Hersh, "I do remember seeing and being told of [CIA personnel] who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the U.S.A." Seymour M. Hersh, "Ex-Analyst Says CIA Rejected Warning on Shah," New York Times, January 7, 1979, p. A3. User:ArmanJan

Arman. No-one is saying he wasn't an autocratic/absolute ruler. However, it is more common to refer to kings by their 'title' of king/shah etc. that to call them dictators.

Please read the existing wiki article on Dictator, so that you can understand that the terms dictator and monarch mean:

Dictators often seize and control power through a coup d'état, or by suspending the existing constitution. Ordinarily democratic nations may temporarily give dictatorial power to leaders during a state of emergency. The term is normally not applied to absolute monarchs although they generally have the powers of a dictator.

FYI: Mohammad Reza Shah inherited his title and power from his father. His father did obtain power in a coup, but was recognised as the king once the majles/parliment gave him the title and power. His son continued to hold the title. He is globally (but it seems not by you) accepted as Iran's last ruling monarch/shah until 1979.

I will change it back, because keeping the term as shah/king is completely in line with ALL the other wikipedia pages (Iran and otherwise). Please refrain from systematically calling him dictator or tyrant on the other pages as you have been known to do. Tototom 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, here on wikipedia you hide that you are a supporter of the dictator and try to change the title with such a bogus excuse? As most people do not even know who these characters are (apart from Saddam), the title 'dictator' is needed to give more meaning to the support of the U.S. within the whole conflict. I could not care any less about the the dead guy, he is gone and no one cares, his family are drugadicts, one committed suicide, who cares. This is not about him or his family, but of western role in middle-eastern conflicts. His so called title as you refer to it by the way, is not recognized in Iran. He came to power through an illegitimate way, and pronounced himself emperor. User:ArmanJan

Shah is clearly the correct term here. I have no doubt that he was a bad guy - but this is about what he should be refered to in an encyclopedia article. I am reverting. Megapixie 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare usage [4] "Dictator of Iran" 300 hits [5] "Shah of Iran" 495,000 hits. Megapixie 11:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Armanjan. Just for the record: I dont believe in the monarchy, but I do think it was far more capable and managed the country far better than the theocratic oligarchs running the country I live in today (iran). I am a nationalist, a patriot, and a republican. FYI- as you imply in your above statement the word "'dictator' is needed to give more meaning to the support of the U.S. within the whole conflict". Dictators don't need US support to be dictators- history can point to a thousands of dictators who existed without any US support. What you could say is 'US backed shah', but even that unnecisarily complicates the matter and reduces the written 'quality' of the article.

Arman- come out of your shell and past all the propaganda they spew out in iran. wake up, do some research, think for yourself. It's not like everything before the Iranian Revolution was evil and everything afterwards was great. Tototom 07:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

"In another case, Iranian UAVs spied on the USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected."

The source for this statement points to an RIAN article which paraphrases the Iranian government only. Is there not a source that includes a response from the Americans? Just seems to me to be a suspect claim that a US Aircraft Carrier would not detect a drone. Perhaps this sentence should be changed to "In another case, Iranian UAVs spied on the USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without, according to Iranian sources, being detected.

Perhaps if you worded it could be worded better? I see your point but id suspect it being correct so wouldn't want it worded to harshly 144.82.192.102 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 11 million number for basij is bogus.

acually they can only mobilize apprx 1 million troops.. the 11 million number includes kids and grandfathers and in no way represents how many they could truthfully bring to battle. Its very misleading. sorry but IRAN does not have the largest fighting force in the world.

that is not true those 11,000,000 are revolutionary guards ...and i'm sure thats true! ;) Smackmonkey 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure it won't include kids and grandfathers Iran has 70,000,000 people men from age of 18 to 45 are about one fifth of the population and that is 14,000,000

[edit] Changing the format

I propose that the format of the page changed, with a more organized view. I believe that the chemical weapons should be removed to the end of the page and the budget to the beginning. also I dont understand why so many names are present, this is one of the few military pages that I have noticed such a thing. A history is definitely needed- not just history of operations but the history of iranian military. The defense industry section is also incomplete and needs more information on the industry after the revolution- especially in the past few years. Also more important there should be a section regarding iranian available weapons. If everyone agrees it would be nice to make it easier to look at.User:Ali Soltani

Sounds good, the defence industry already has an article of its own here that we always need help with. The new format sounds good though. L0b0t 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys should take a look at the Military of Pakistan. I think that is a good template for the Iranian Military page on wikipedia. I know, I wrote it. ;) Mercenary2k 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilitary_of_Iran_9727.html"

Category: Start-Class military history articles