Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran Armed Forces

Iran Middle East power status

Removed the two lines of USA qoute about Iran is the most powerful military in the Middle East. There is utterly no proof of it! and its based almost complete on one mans personnel opinion not very reliable. No point in adding that comment until after more information is proven. It seems more like a ego and national pride comment. Ben Harel

I completely agree with this comment. Being a student of military studies, I also find that for the most part, the article is overwhelmingly Pro-Iranian, not an unbiased report on Iran's military institutions and capabilities. Details, range estimates, clear, academic writing is what should govern this page, not what I can only imagine to be Iranian propoganda.

L Diaco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.79.93 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean 'Propaganda'? 86.11.102.64 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. The intro is overwhelmingly pro-Iranian. So silly for a wiki article to have this kind of tone. Also, in attempting to make the claims more substantiated (like Iran's military being one of the most battle-hardened and experienced forces in the world), the author has provided irrelevant references. I will try to tone it down a little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John James II (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, the last edit is totally projective in tone, and the same user insists on using language and making claims not suitable for encyclopedic works. How can Iran's military be encyclopedicaly described as "one of the most experienced armies in the world" and "the strongest in the Middle East" or its defense industry "the strongest in the Middle East", not only without references but against what we in fact know about Turkey and Israel having equally robust defense industries and in some cases even better technology? Iran's defense industry may very well be the most innovative in the Middle East, and it's army may very well be the strongest (whatever that means) in the region, but this is a controversial claim at best and not something to be presented in encyclopedic works.

The reserve figures added in the same edit are also highly debatable. Is the user referring to Basij militia forces?

Also why did the user remove the part about Iran's forces being underequiped? We know the bulk of Iran's air force is outdated, just like its land forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John James II (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@John James II: I think the problem here lies with using subjective and editorialized sentences, without a direct attribution to a reliable source supporting that. One may say Iran is ranked 14th in the world, with GFP Index taken into consideration, that's OK. Feel free to remove anything not backed up by the sources cited in the article. Pahlevun (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User 80.225.159.1 is arbitrarily making edits, insisting on describing Iran's military as "the strongest" in the Middle East, a very non-encyclopedic, propaganda-like claim which might very well be true (though far from obvious) but, mind you, is not the sort of claim that can be used in a Wiki article.

They also insist on removing the part about Iran's military being under an arms embargo and the subsequent shifting of its military doctrine from a conventional, Western-armed force into a less conventional, nationally-supplied army. How can an article about Iran's military not include these things? Or is it that the editor simply doesn't want to mention anything that might, in their childish opinion, fail to make the Iranian military look invincible?

They're still using F-4s, F-5s and Vietnamese-era tanks and naval vessels for God's sake (it's the bulk of their conventional forces)! Obviously, Iran's military advantage doesn't come from tank and aircraft numbers (which are inferior to neighboring countries). How the hell can someone make the bold claim that their forces are "the strongest in the region" when countries like Turkey and Israel boast fifth-generation fighters, tanks and naval assets (and even the PGCC which, yes, lacks the manpower and experience to field these systems?

Even if Iran hypothetically has the ability to neutralize this advantage with ease (a claim far from obvious), you don't just come out and say Iran's navy, air force and land force are "superior" to said fifth-generation-armed forces like it's an obvious thing!

This is foolish and I suggest a moderator put an end to this dispute. Even my own edits and tone might sound too pro-Iranian to an impartial moderator, so I can only imagine what they would have to say regarding silly claims like Iran's army being "one of the strongest in the world" and its defense industry being "the most innovative in the region"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John James II (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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.

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.

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)

What does does nuclear technology have to do with the military? Canada has nuclear technology, is that mentioned under their military bio???

-G

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

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)

what are you talking about? i dont know what about armor and navy.. but in air power for exempel Iran is not even the strongest in the gulf.. the Saudis are much, much stronger.. allmost all of iranians plans are obsolete.. i would say even the UAE got a stronger air force than Iran.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadave (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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.

Also read: [2]

I'll touch up the current version with some refs. and additional details. Please dont replace it with falsified information again. Tototom 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Australian,

1. A "Defence Industry" means, "the commercial production and sale of weapons".

2. Making rifles under lisence is not a defence industry, that is assembly work, which is even done in countries like Ghana and Somalia.

3. The so called project flower that you made today and wrote yourself did not come further than an MoU, and that MoU was cancelled just when the revolution occured. [3]

4. Global Security's information has been disproven many times. They have incorrect information about everything from the specs of Shahab-3 to Iran's inventory of rifles.

5. Come back when you can show from an Iranian source that Iran did more than assembly work before 1979.

6. Video of Iran's Minister of Defence about Iran's shortage of shells and RPG7s during the war

ArmanJan

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)

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)

sorry for the necropost reply buy you can see the video on youtube

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

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)

active troops iran

on the military menu there sais iran has got 768,000 troops is this wrong or is the 545,000 wrong? The Honorable Kermanshahi 13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed Irans Number

It has recently been proven by VatooVatoo that the Iranian navy consists of 25,600 personel instead of 18,000. This is 7,600 more so I have added this to the numbers and changed the active troops to 552,600 and the total troops to 12,292,600. The Honorable Kermanshahi 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this thanks --VatooVatoo 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

News Content

"In 2006, Iran spied on the American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected before returning safely to its base (video). [8][9]"

the rest is also news when you give dates like "on day/month/year so and so happened", when there are many other facts that could be reported of the same nature if we apply the same standard of selectivity.

The testimony of a foreign General (from Iran's point of view) makes it look like Iran's army cannot stand on its two feet by itself and needs the qualification of external forces (from Iran's point of view) to make it look strong. This is an encylopedia and we want an overview of the Iranian Army, not each recent events. We want to have an idea of the structure of command, domestic industrial capacity in defense, inventory and combat experience. The rest is good for Wikinews. SSZ 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should not bring any news mentions Iran military here but important and relevant news with proper reference should be mentioned as far as they enhance the article. I do not see any principle problem with such usage of news articles to enhance the article based on wikipedia policies. But whether each of those lines that you deleted are proper to be mentioned or not is another point. I am not disagreeing with you on particular changes you made, however I wanted to note that blanket deletation of all news-agancy-refrenced material is not proper.

On the testimony of a US General however I must disagree with you. It is common practice to evaluate almost everything through eyes of other professionals in the feild. It enhances the encyclopedia to see evaluation of other professionals about Iran army as far as they are referenced and are from respectable sources.Farmanesh 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, But what will happen when a US General will say that Iran's army is weak? Will you report it as well? Do you see my point? SSZ 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. The subtle point here is that when a precevied rival/enemy reliable source gives credit to another group it is notable to mention it, if it was just a preceived rival talking down it would be simply expectable. We have not here mentioned generals from Iran Military saying how great they are which would simply be ignorable. However when a preceived rival like a high ranking USA general gives such a credit to Iran military it is notable.

That said I agree if we mention this possitive qoute from a US general then in same place we should mention the apposit view from another relaiable US general. If another US general with same regional expertise as this general said Iran military is not that great I agree to mention both to be NPOV.Farmanesh 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, please just remember one thing: Iraq was called "the 4th mightiest army in the world" by the Pentagon before the coalition's invasion in 1991. We know the rest.

I just don't see the utility of having such quotes. When facts are reported, it might be helpful to have each sources quoted, like in a completely different subject: "did the World Trade Center collapse because of the melting structure or implosion" as some media and conspiracy theorists have reported. But when it is a blank statement like for this General, I really don't see any purpose to it. What about the UAV espionage case cited above. Is it news or not? Shall we keep it? You see, I have seen that before on Wikipedia in Iranian related topics and I think that over time this hurts the quality of the article because Wikipedia becomes a fighting field for "soldiers wannabees" (I don't say that for you at all) and Wikipedia is not for that either. SSZ 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and I think we should keep wikipedia from it while keeping relevent info (like US general qoute) in it. On particular news articles as I said above I did not dispute your deletation of them based on their content. I disputed your "approach" of deleting all news related material. My content base objection was only on US geenral qoute not other ones.

For those on each news referenced material, there can be seperate discussion on whether they are helping the article or not.Farmanesh 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the news and I do not think it should be removed, it tells about Irans military capabilities. This proves what Irans UAVs are capable of so I think re should keep it. About the US general, that should defenetly be kept because if an enemy reliable source gives credit to another group it should be mentioned, as for if a US general says Iran is weak well Abdolrahim Mousavi said Us army was weak and we don't mention that on the US military page do we? But if an Iranian general would say: the US has the most powerfull army in the world I think that would be worth mentioning.

About Iraq, they did have the 5th strongest army in the world only it was destroyed by the 1st strongest. The Honorable Kermanshahi 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chemical Weapons

"The U.S had been accused of supplying Iraq with chemical weapons, yet an international coalition reported no evidence of such U.S. manufactured weapons after a 2003 invasion of Iraq. This could however be attributed to Iraq disposing of its weapons of mass destruction after the conflict with Iran."

This reeks of POV and bias. I know that there is an ongoing arguement that Iraq may or may not have disposed of its weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, but why does this issue have to be brought up in a section about another country? I asked that it be removed, please, to improve the quality of this article. Thanks.

I'll give till Sunday to have this edited, then I'll do it myself. Thank you for the discussion on this topic.--splashallison

I took out the link about the chemical weapons coming from the west. May well be true, but shouldn't be in there without a supporting reference link. If you have one, feel free to add it back. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.108.104 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Budget

The information about Irans military budget is out of date, it is from 2005. Can anyone find a source for 2007? The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the CIA World fact book Irans military expenditures are 2.5% of it's GDP and it's GDP is $599.2 Bilion meaning Irans expenditures are $15 Bilion.[6] If anyone can find an other source wich actually states Irans military expenditures as of 2007 please do but I have been unable to find it and the current source is out of date as it is of 2005 and we are 2 years further now. But should we change it to $15 Bilion now? The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find some references for the military expenditure. Can someone point me to the reference of the $36 billion (2009) and the 10.5% (2009) %GBP? FFMG (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArteshEmblem.jpg

Image:ArteshEmblem.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fajr-3.jpg

Image:Fajr-3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Artesh Logo.gif

Image:Artesh Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iranchemical.gif

Image:Iranchemical.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Claims in History Section

The author of this sections makes claims that are as sweeping as they are unsubstantiated, and in some cases, outright wrong:

The word navy is a term derived from Persian Naavs (ships) of Achaemenid military expeditions against ancient Greece.

The word navy in English is clearly derived from the Latin, which had such terms as navis, ship, and navigare, to sail. The ancient Greek word for ship (in Latin transcription) is naus. The author seems to be unaware that Greek, Latin, and Persian are all Indo-European languages, and so distantly related. Similarities in their vocabulary are to be expected, and cannot serve to prove the seniority of Persia in military navigation.

Those very same expeditions entailed crossings of entire armies from Asia to Europe over military bridges constructed by extending a floating platform of ships from the Asian land mass to Europe.

Boat bridges were well-known in antiquity, and their use not limited to Persia.

The first Knights complete with shinning armor and plumed helmets were Sassanid Iranian nobles, and European heraldry is directly traceable to the Iranian Knights and overall culture of (lone) heroes and mythic figures such as Rostam, Zal, Bahram, etc.

Any sources for this rather daring assertion regarding European chivalry? There is certainly none to be found in the article on Heraldry. Not to mention that Europe lost contact with Persia almost completely during the early middle ages, when knightly culture developed.

And it was the sovereign head of the Iranian Army that marched un-opposed into Babylon that decreed the first codec of the rights of conquered people and nations.

Again, no proof at all is cited for this claim. Given that the Babylonians rebelled three times against Persian rule after their occupation in 539 BCE, maybe these "rights of conquered people" were not so substantial after all? Also, the entry of Cyrus into the city was unexpected rather than unopposed. See Babylon for comparison.

This section needs to be rewritten in full, with proper sources, and less boasting. Textor (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Expenditure

On the page it is mentioned that the military expenditure was 3.5% of the GDP in 2005. While this is not true: (6.3*10^9/634.563*10^9)*100=0.9928%, which is just about 1% of the GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noaccess2k (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was meant at exchange rate parity prices not PPP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Commanders entry outdated and foreign supplier addition

Should read:

-Major General Hassan Firouzabadi (Head of the Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezappy (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

- Brigadier General Seyyed Abdorrahim Mousavi (Deputy Head of Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces)

(see: http://www.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=951459&IdLanguage=3)

- Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi (Logistics Commander of the Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces)

(see: http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/146666/analysis/20091005_iran_supreme_leaders_irgc_reshuffle)

China (PRC) should be added as a foreign supplier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezappy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone has wrecked the specific ranks of the commanders! And Mighani's rank is wrong! I don't have the time to fix- again. Frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezappy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Were References To The Imperial Iranian Armed Forces Removed?

The external link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Iranian_Armed_Forces> now redirects to the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran page.

Why was the Imperial section removed in its entirety? The two forces are very different in composition, and there is a great deal of valid history that has now been excised from the system.

What gives? Clinkerbuilt18:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC

18 billions is 2.2% of GDP?

In the infobox, it says that Irans budget on their military is 18 billion, 2.2% of their GDP. How is it that 18 billions of Irans GDP(nominal) of 330 billions, is 2.2%? (0,018*330 = 5.94%)

Besides, most reliable and independent sources say that Iran use $4.3 billion dollars, 2.5 % of GDP. [7] [8] - 88.88.215.93 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is probably GDP at PPP (not nominal). See economy of Iran for details.

Well, that doesn't give a good picture at how much their using compared to other countries. Imagine if the US used PPP instead of nominal, then it wouldn't be 650 billions used at their defense, it would be thousands of billions... Jørgen88 (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Links

>> Iran announces missile breakthrough (Lihaas (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)).

History section

Currently, there is a significant amount of information about Iran's Pahlavi era armed forces, in the History section of this article. Considering that this is about the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that information is out of place and unnecessary. It could be moved to the Pahlavi Era section of the Military history of Iran article.

The History section of this article only needs to start from the sentence "With the Iranian revolution in 1979, deteriorating relations with the United States resulted in international sanctions led by the USA, including an arms embargo being imposed on Iran." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddmoto (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The History section also lacks any mention of the armed forces being renamed and the establishment of the IRGC, after the revolution. Those things should be added. Dreddmoto (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions to the History section include a detailed account of the joint operation to rescue the Russian pilot shot down by Turkey, over Syria, in November 2015. While it is relevant to this article, it is not necessary to include so much detail about that operation in the History section. It is a duplication of the section 3.1 Search and rescue of the 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown I suggest converting the paragraph about it in this article, into a summary. What do others think? --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

How on Earth did Persia form the world's first unified army consisting of naval, air and ground forces?? That's simply not true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:4D03:3100:45F6:95E9:5A9:10D7 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Behnamvvv

Recently there has been a series of edits by User talk:Behnamvvv which are clearly pushing a clearly agenda driven and personnel POV that in my opinion can be considered vandalism, he uses unsourced materials, he also removed the pics he doesn't likes and added pictures that are clearly chosen based on his anti-IRI POV(picture of a failed experimental helicopter from 1980s and a mini submarine- Sabehat SDV), the same images have been deleted by bot some times ago because of copyrights violations, he has also threatened to take me to interpol!! and other made nonsense threats in order to intimidate me.Farzam1370 (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013091005/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1Gstwmv_-bbq2W6NOlhaubl5UMw to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1Gstwmv_-bbq2W6NOlhaubl5UMw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515214415/http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=110934&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=110934&sectionid=351020101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013025249/http://www.presstv.com:80/detail.aspx?id=69562&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=69562&sectionid=351020101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912235940/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=68062&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68062&sectionid=351020101
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.globalbearings.net/2011/12/view-irgc-naval-bases-in-larger-map.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019052158/http://www.ieicorp.com:80/about.htm to http://www.ieicorp.com/about.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618194613/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1789.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1789.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526210910/http://www.presstv.com:80/detail.aspx?id=95824&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=95824&sectionid=351020101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108034357/http://www.armyrecognition.com:80/november_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/iran_reported_that_irans_army_has_achieved_self-sufficiency_in_producing_military_equipment_0511123.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/iran_reported_that_irans_army_has_achieved_self-sufficiency_in_producing_military_equipment_0511123.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1075876%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601051006/http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8711271164%2F to http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8711271164%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304121825/http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/357/default.aspx to http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/357/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• IAIO Qaher-313 5.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Emad missile by Tasnimnews 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Add foriegn suppliers or allies

Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Venezuela, Algeria, Syria, Iraq, India, South Africa, etc Jw10u36engeve25be768ko27siw37ppql639sns918nvzfgzb (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The introduction is clearly biased and outright silly

Is this Pompous pompeo serious? How the hell are Tawakalna ala Allah "Operations" and "the" Operation Praying Mantis (terrible English btw) depicted as the "last two major battles" fought by Iranian forces? They're neither major nor last, obviously, and this cherry picking is outright naked. Also, how does Iran's military "largely" consist of outdated US or Soviet arms? I mean obviously the bulk of Iran's "purchased" weapons are old Soviet and US weaponry but every idiot knows Iran's military has invested in a domestic rearmament program and poured in considerable capital. There's a reason why arms proliferation and missile technology is one of the political hot topics between Iran and the West. The person responsible for the intro knows nothing of this rearmament program, or they're simply biased.

He mentions two non-major Iranian defeats (he would have found major defeats if he had looked harder!) and ignored all the major victories during the Iran Iraq war. Not that that's the point, but he's obviously cherry picking, and in doing so he picked two minor engagements in an intro meant to outline a summery of Iran's armed forces. This article has become a platform for anti-Iranian as well as pro-Iranian edits, and this needs to end

 Not done for now, got some cites for all your above claims ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

CsShko0 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, gentlemen, Iran has not participated in the Iraqi civil war, which is written in the Iranian forces' war section, and I ask that it be removed.

 Not done The article about the Iraqi civil war says that Iranian forces were engaged there, this information is sourced (source number 58).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• پیوستن ناوشکن جماران به ناوگان دریایی ارتش (12).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Image again

There is an image of the Iranian army I found on the news. So I uploaded it to Wikipedia commons then to this Wikipedia page Yhyhyhyhy (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)