Yes Iran really does have an army. And an air force.
Yes, lets talk about Irans Air Farce. The fighters are/and based on 1970’s F-5 technology. Global Security and other military info sights have much about Iran’s AF.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/azarakhsh.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/saeqeh.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/shafaq.htm

http://www.ainonline.com/airshow-convention-news/dubai-air-show/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/iran-struggles-to-field-a-fighter/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1

Western powers increasingly characterize Iran as a potential cause for instability in the Middle East. The U.S. and its allies charge Tehran with funding and supporting the insurgency in Iraq, maintaining a well-developed ballistic missile program and seeking its own nuclear arsenal. But while those high objectives may or may not occupy the Iranian government’s wish list, the acquisition of a new-age fighter aircraft does not seem to command anywhere near the funding priority Iran has reportedly given its missile and nuclear programs. In fact, the country’s efforts to design and develop its own aircraft do not seem to have progressed meaningfully in the last three years, leaving in question its viability as a serious producer.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) has suffered through a difficult history over the 25 years since the 1979 Khomeini Revolution. Today, it maintains an aging fleet of largely Vietnam-era aircraft, supplemented by some acquisitions in the 1990s of Russian-built Mikoyan MiG-29 fighters and Sukhoi Su-24 fighter-bombers.

Many considered the buys from Moscow a first step in a plan to switch from an all-American to an all-Russian-made air force. But the follow-on procurements that Russian defense export agency Rosoboronexport dreamed up never materialized and the IRIAF has had to make do with a fleet of largely U.S.-made fighters equipped with 1970s avionics.

I would answer Michael by saying that I don’t think he is pretending, I think he actually IS that stupid and simply didn’t know Iran had an Army, Navy and Air Force as his comments prove without a doubt….

From the grasp on reality previously shown by Iran’s current President, it does not seem beyond the bounds of probability.  I think that events would prove them to be wrong.  But any country’s actions are based on what they believe, rather than on what is actually true.

The lies and exaggerations  of the fear mongering   sites like Allhpundit are well known to many. 
I also know that Michael sees Iran as a great military threat ( which Iran is not ), but none of us ( me included)  ever resorts to the insults to the owner of this blog, ever… 

Just one ridiculous fallacy from Russert interview:->
He said about Iran invading Israel ( to which Paul said about invading Mars ).
To do that Iranian troops have to march through a few Arab countries first, or they have to have unprecedented navy.
It is just like talking about Italy invading Russia ( do they have to go through some of the European countries first , at least, unhindered.)  There are may be a few suiciders or kamikazes around, but never ever the suicide wishes should be attributed to the sovereign nations as a whole ,even with half-assed rational policies…

Iran has an army, but of course Dr. Paul’s point was not to literally  suggested otherwise. His point was that Iran was in no position to wage an offensive war against Israel, and your veracity-challenged eminations fail to even challenge his assertions.

Reading your assertions is a great way to polish up on old college logic and debate skills – you regularly run the whole fallacious playbook. In case you’re wondering which classical fallacy you’ve employed here, my young student friend, it’s called the straw man. That would be when you misrepresent your opponent or subject’s position so that you might more easily refute your own characterization of the opponents position rather than his actual position.

You must have the ability to read the context of a discussion rather than seizing on a phrase taken out of context – unless intellectual honesty is something you’re purposefully eschewing. The assertion that Iran had no army is clearly hyperbole, and is qualified by noting that Israel has 300 nuclear weapons. In light of that little fact nugget, whatever it is that Iran has (revolutionary guard or whatever else that you’d characterize as an army) isn’t a match for the Israelis.

Michael….. you seem like you are reasonably bright, though you’ve got some intellectual growth that must happen before people should find your opinions worth serious consideration. It might help to look at your own positions critically and make certain you haven’t employed any of the bottom-shelf, easy to spot fallacies for starters. It might you feel like you scored a point, and might get some of your dim readers to say "way to go", but it will only hurt you among thinking people and stymie your grasp fro credibility. If you must include a logical fallacy, don’t quotes sources like ‘Allahpundit’ when you are employing the ’appeal to authority’ tactic. Using the device in itself weakens your argument, but the authority you cite doesn’t do you any favors.