Iran as we know has refused to give up its nuclear program , Has Iraqs aged airforce (in part) ,Just a guess at least a share of Iraqs wmd along with its own. Now has moved four divisions to IraQs border. My question , Is this a weak defencesive move, A staging point for an afencesive, Or a political statement? ( I will admit I'm very pessimistic about their move to the Border.)

Iran would be fighting a war they cannot win. If we fought iran it wouldnt be a war of liberation but of decimation. I believe that the moving of divisions is a political statement...nothing more. They have nowhere near the resources necessary to win anything. Maybe in the short term a surprise attack may be effective...but once the F-117s and B-2s go up, there is no hope for them.

I haven't seen this information anywhere. Could you provide a link, please?

No kidding. 4 Divisions? A couple hundred bombs will take care of them. It would be a quick war.

Well, Iran was not under sanctions and, unlike Iraq, was probably able to obtain newer air defense systems, fighter jets, ground-to-air missiles, etc. Since they don't have cash flow problems (oil, etc.) I am sure they could buy the best weapons on the market - Mirages, Sukhoi's, MiGs, etc. Our military stretched so thin that we need to juggle our divisions from one continent to another. Soldiers that are scheduled to be discharged are forced to go on a second a third tour of duty. We are forced to spend billions after billions after billions - I am tired to count how many times Bush went to congress for additional funding. And this is after the war with a country which was for 12 years prohibited to buy any weapons, was ravaged by sanctions, and, as it turns out, DIDN'T have any weapons of mass destruction.
Iran is not Iraq. Your saber-rattling is quite... not statesman-like . I hope that we would try to avert the conflict with any possible means. History teaches us that early easy successes lead to crushing defeats. L.A. Lakers are the latest example. Seriously, though, while Iran can not win a war with US, they could inflict MUCH more serious damage than ragtag Iraqi army.

Here is your link, Mrs P.

I'm not sure what this means, but if Iran is crazy enough to pull something at this time, then they are truly crazy. First of all, the US isn't going to pull out of Iraq immediately, the Iraqis have already said they don't want us to do that. Secondly, if Iran does indeed attempt an attack, the US will come to Iraq's aid in a NY second and the first thing we'll do is take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Might save the world a headache.

An "informed source" for Iran is denying this story: Iran Denies Allegations, IRNA, 06.15.2004. Of course, the denial is extremely vague in that it doesn't even say if the informant works for the Iranian government.

I attempted to find the original article but am unable to read Arabic, so I only got as far as the newpaper's website. You could give it go though Asharq Al-Awsat

Even if the source is reliable - still unconfirmed reporting at this stage; little better than hearsay....massing four battalions isn't exactly what I would even call massing forces. Four battalions is little more than an Iranian brigade. That is not even enough for them to secure their border, let alone cross it in an offensive.

Maybe they are placing minimal forces as a precautionary measure for when the government is handed over at the end of the month?

That's a good thought, Mrs P. Perhaps they are afraid that if all hell breaks loose following the turnover it might spill into Iran. Good as any reason I can imagine.

As the insurgency in Iraq has grown, we have put correspodingly increasing pressure upon both Iran and Syria to effectively control their borders with Iraq. Given the length and the nature of the terrain of Iran's border with Iraq, it would take several divisions to do this. Again, something that they would be doing in response to our demands. In that context, moving 4 battalions to the border is relatively meaningless.

In order to truly assess what it may mean, we must know a number of other things; to include the order of battle of current Iranian deployments along the Iraqi border and the precise location of the proposed 4 battalion deployment. Is it a reinforcement along the border, or is it a replacement of forces redeploying to another location in Iran? Data regarding unit designations, commanders, force mix, etc. of the 4 battalion deployment (and of any units replaced/reinforced) would give us indicators of the meaning and importance attached to it - outside of the base indicator given by its relatively small size.

Given the context of current events and Iran, I would be more concerned if I saw a sudden increase of air defense assets and other military movement directed to cover their known and suspected nuclear facilities.

I have to agree with Mrs P- 4 divisions sounds more like border security than any kind of assault- in the Iraq/Iran war, Iran's main weapon was lot's and lot's and lot's of soldiers. If there was to be some actual move on Iraq, there would be half a million men at that border, not 4 divisions!

And lot's not also forget, as Mustang pointed out, there are a great many very bad poeple going in and out of Iran right now, and they can't be to welcoming of ALL of them! There might even be a few in that crowd that are even criminals in Iran as well!

4 BATTALIONS. Not Divisions. Huge difference. I checked As-Sharq Al-Awsat myself, and the Arabic term used is Kata'ib - Battalions. I believe Iran has 12 divisions in its regular Army, with a few independent brigades. In addition, the Pasdaran - Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps - has about 5 divisions, with a number of independent brigades, as well as controlling a large number of Iran's air defense assets. The Pasdaran secure the capital and other sensitive sites throughout the country, the regular Army secures the borders - especially the Iraqi and Afghan borders - as well as providing garrisions throughout the country. A 4 division move at one time would be signficant - 4 battalions not at all.

In general, there are 3 battalions in a Iranian brigade, and 3 brigades in a division. This is a very general rule of thumb, and certainly varies (their SF Division has 4 Brigades) - but it should give the non-military folks a better idea of the size element we're talking about here.

In terms of real numbers, are we talking in the neighborhood of maybe 3,000 troops total, Mustang?

Roughly. If the units are regular Army, then they are probably under-strength. If they are Pasdaran, they are probably at-strength.

Like most armies in the developing world, the Iranian regular Army is made up primarily of poorly trained and poorly paid conscripts - whose quality of leadership is in question. Their Army is racked by desertions and corruption. But the Pasdaran are the true believers in the Islamic Revolution. They are paid much better, receive the best equipment, and are trusted with what the regime perceives as critical and sensitive missions.

As I stated before, I am not too worried about Iranian influence or actions along the Iraqi border. However, given current concerns about Iran, what I would be watching for is any new concentrations of air defense assets in the area of known or suspected nuclear facilities, as well as reinforcement of Pasdaran units with regular Army units at such sites.