re: IRAN- just how many more weapons depots do they have?Also, not understanding Hormouz

What are the chances that the regime is getting weapons supplies and ammunition reinforcements?

This is the result of a quick search.

Yes, Iran is receiving military supplies and support from external sources, most notably Russia, to bolster its defense capabilities amid ongoing tensions.

Russian Arms and Technology: Russia has increased arms supplies to Iran, with reports indicating a major deal for "Verba" man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) worth approximately 500 million euros. These deliveries are part of a reciprocal relationship, where Iran has previously supplied Russia with drones and missiles for the conflict in Ukraine.
Military Intelligence Sharing: Reports indicate that Russia is providing intelligence support to Iran, including the locations of U.S. troops, aircraft, and ships in the Middle East.

Alternative Procurement Channels: Iran continues to utilize complex networks to procure materials and technology for its weapon systems, including efforts to secure parts for its missile and drone programs.

quote:

---

That size map is misleading as over half of the country is an empty desert. Look at the population density map, it's more like California in size when you control for the empty space.

---

low population density doesn't rule out the land being used for military purposes.

Even though there’s nothing going through, are Iranian drone launchers instructed not hit Chinese ships going through the strait?

The shock waves we're seeing from these ordnances are terrifying and impressive.

quote:

---

Non stop bombing of their military targets and there are still more being targeted.

How many more can they possibly have?

---

It looks to me like Iran was far more equipped, capable and prepared than our Democrats and the MSM want us to believe. But I'm no Intel expert or military tactician, so it's just a layman's hypothesis. Clearly the US and Israel knew the capabilities and locations though, because we're effectively and proficiently just moving right down along the line and destroying target after target with impunity.

quote:

---

It’s hundreds of miles of coastline in enemy territory. Not that simple

---

Its very simple when u have the weaponry and air power we have over there.

I was told weeks ago that we had complete control over the air. Do we? Can't we patrol the coast and blast any launch sites?

quote:

---

It’s easily argued they win if the regime survives.

---

This is just another silly talking point for the sole purpose of you being able to say Trump lost. You don't win a war by merely surviving.

You can't seriously call someone the winner in a war when 99% of the total deaths and destruction are on their side.

You can't even call it a pyrrhic victory when there is so little lost on our side.

quote:

---

This is just another silly talking point for the sole purpose of you being able to say Trump lost. You don't win a war by merely surviving.

You can't seriously call someone the winner in a war when 99% of the total deaths and destruction are on their side.

---

You’re conflating tactical success with strategic success.

If the goal was to overthrow the regime or prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the regime surviving is the last thing you want.

I’ve explained the example of North Korea already in this thread. Taking out leadership certainly m isn’t going to make their replacements less radical.

If winning wars was as simple as who kills more people, then ground invasions would never happen & we’d go to war a lot more often. Fairly certain we always kill more than we lose. That’s not how these things are evaluated.