Who would win in a war? Israel or Iran? [Archive]

Aemilius Paulus

01-20-2010, 23:09

Well, I assume Israel will be the attacking side, because hopefully Iran is not suicidal enough to attempt to attack Israel itself. It would be nearly impossible to win an offensive war against Israel for Iran, especially with the international support behind Israel in such a case of a conflict. Not to mention that Iran knows this, and it knows of the Israeli atomics (Samson option!), and because of this as well as other factors, it is unlikely to strike first. Hopefully. Now, Israel may be forced to attack Iran, if their nuclear program gets too far. So let us say Israel attacks.

Well, with no support, the Israeli aircraft would be operating at their extreme range in the Westernmost Iran, and that will pose severe difficulties, especially with no logistics, no possibility of land troop movement, etc. A sea invasion is likewise unlikely, as Israel does not have such a clear superiority in naval forces to effectively operate. Not to mention further delays. Bases will be too far. Iran is mountainous too, and is as bad of a nightmare as Afghanistan, speaking from a terrain surveyor's point of view. Even if Israel and Iran were side by side, Israel would still face significant problems.

For one, during an all-out war more than half the Israelis are mobilised (or so it was during the major Arab wars). This will cripple the economy - Israel knows it cannot afford a prolonged war - and a limited economic blockade of Israel may be possible, though probably rather unlikely. Iran, as the defending side, should be able to escape any additional sanctions, theoretically. And so, a prolonged war it will be. The airforce will be quite inefficient, and same goes for tanks - urban or mountain warfare will put them at a severe disadvantage. This will not be the comparatively flat Syria, Lebanon or Sinai Israelis had before, where they reveled in their armoured doctrinal&qualitative superiority. And who knows what antics Hamas will play if given support from Iran, and the opportunity to strike Israel when most of the troops will be away? So Israel will have to leave behind significant garrison forces.

Israel knows it cannot have any chance of doing much with a ground force, so it may use its airforce to deliver strikes on nuclear facilities, despite the operational limits. The only problem is, this is no Syria or Iraq, where swift, surprise raids crippled the nuclear plants. Iranians are vigilant, they have their plants buried and shielded deep underground, under concrete, under mountains, with heavy SAM and other AA installations. To top it all off, their facilities are scattered far and wide, with 16 nuclear-related facilities and far more suspected (and/or possibly discovered, but unannounced by US/Israel). Air Strikes will not do it, even if they use those fancy atomic bunker-buster bombs (supposing Israel has them, which it probably does).

So to sum it up, Israel would not achieve much, militarily, as long as Iran is on the defensive.
The only good way to change the Iranian regime is as was done when the hated Shah was deposed; a revolution from within.

Which reminds me to remind the .Org audience once again that it was arguable the West who caused much of the mess in Iran by toppling the closest thing it had to a democracy in 1953, due to oil interests (UK) and fear of the USSR influence (US).

Aemilius Paulus

01-20-2010, 23:32

If Iran has no nuclear weapons: Israel.
If Iran has nuclear weapons: No one.
Why do you think the Israelis are so meshuggah that they have the chutzpah to throw atomics around? They will be more diplomatically shunned than Nazi Germany if they do that - provided they are the attackers, since I doubt Iran would strike first. And the fallout will surely anger many a nation (assuming they do not use a fusion warhead, which would be rather much cleaner than a regular fission weapon, especially if lead-tampered).

Tellos Athenaios

01-20-2010, 23:40

Neither can win; though Israel would likely end up for the worse: an outside attacker would only serve to give the Iranian regime a genuine foreign opponent and a distraction for internal troubles; whereas Israel would probably end up with a more active Hezbollah and Hamas. But the true loser would be the USA: once again Israel would force the USA hand for the worse.

Vladimir

01-21-2010, 00:03

TinCow

01-21-2010, 00:45

Why do you think the Israelis are so meshuggah that they have the chutzpah to throw atomics around? They will be more diplomatically shunned than Nazi Germany if they do that - provided they are the attackers, since I doubt Iran would strike first. And the fallout will surely anger many a nation (assuming they do not use a fusion warhead, which would be rather much cleaner than a regular fission weapon, especially if lead-tampered).

For me, it's a pure air power analysis. No, I do not believe Israel would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear Iran. I also agree that there is no chance whatsoever for either Israel or Iran to make serious land incursions against the other, due to their geographic separation. So, it's an air war discussion for me. Israel has a major advantage in air power and they've been pumping a lot of money into drone research. I don't think it would take Israel long to take down the Iranian air defense network, and from that point Israel would be able to bomb anything they wanted with relative impunity. Keep in mind that Israel is waiting on delivery of a large order of JSFs, which have stealth profiles. Unless this war is occurring within the next few years, those aircraft would essentially make the Iranian SAM system obsolete.

I guess that would then relate back to rvg's question about what defines victory, since there's only so much that can be done from the air. Within the limitations imposed by an air war, I'll mark that up as an Israeli victory.

miotas

01-21-2010, 00:54

Israel invading Iran is like when Japan invaded China. Iran invading Israel is like modern China invading Australia.

You mean the biggest problem Iran would face invading Israel is dehydration?

The Wizard

01-21-2010, 01:01

Hax

01-21-2010, 01:03

You mean the biggest problem Iran would face invading Israel is dehydration?

Don't forget camels.

Ahmadinejad wouldn't declare war on Israel. He's too intelligent for this. I'm not trolling here, I'm completely serious.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-21-2010, 01:05

How exactly would they fight each other in the first place? There's two countries in between the gamecocks...

Besides an air war (which the IAF would win, hands down), I can't envision any real combat happening. It's a pure case of two nationalisms arguing over who can :daisy: the furthest.

:yes:

Iran is already fighting Israel by proxy, but there is no way they would be able to stage a real invasion. Israel is primarily concerned with its own survival, and won't go out of its way to look for trouble.

gaelic cowboy

01-21-2010, 01:18

Israel is seriously constrained in its ability to stike Iran as demonstrated by the Gaza and Lebenon campaigns while they achieved eventually what they said it was very hard won and neither case was done at the same time.

Now imagine an Israeli strike on say the Qom facility next Hamas and Hizbollah would attack meaning Israel is in an air war and two mini ground campaigns.

The political situation would seriously get out of hand really quickly the first rocket to land on a hospital and the road to full scale invasion of Gaza and Lebanon is under way.

Since we know they cannot hit all the facilities with a high enough degree of confidence all thats achieved is a stronger Iranian regime and a loads more bodies in Gaza and Lebanon. Now we have an even more politically isolated Israel because Turkey would be bound to come under intense internal pressure to break relations along with Jordan and Egypt all three key gangplanks of Israeli security.

Air strikes are out of the question and are as bad as not striking the reality is we may have to live with a stronger more assertive Iran however I believe they would most likely overreach themselves strategically and drive Turkey, Jordan and Eygpt back into there informal relationship with Israel.

This would be more than a match for Iran who would eventually crumble under sanctions and the inherant instability of its young unemployed population.

KukriKhan

01-21-2010, 03:26

Enough of this. You need to declare the battlefield, conditions, cause for war, attacker and defender. Enough with this juvenile garbage. This isn't a cage match.

Israel invading Iran is like when Japan invaded China. Iran invading Israel is like modern China invading Australia.

Israel and Iran are already at war: proxy war. So far everyone looses.

Nevertheless, in a juvenile mood, I added a poll, with multiple choices possible, and public display of the voter's choices - just cuz I wanna know what backroomers think.

I think such a war would be short, brutal, and Israel.

CountArach

01-21-2010, 03:43

The arms industry.

Louis VI the Fat

01-21-2010, 04:03

My money's on 3-1.

Ice

01-21-2010, 04:37

Israel although I doubt they could completely conquer/destroy Iran.

spmetla

01-21-2010, 05:18

Someone else:
Saudi Arabia would benefit the most. The arab world would again fear Iran and seek the help of Saudi Arabia. The Israelis will once again be boogey men for Saudi domestic policy with the additional boost of heightened oil prices.

As for an actual war, Israel would be again dragged into Gaza and Lebanon and possibly Syria. Between Israel and Iran only costly yet indecisive missile and air strike exchanges could happen, assuming both sides violate Iraqi airspace. If Syria were to enter the war it would give Israel a conventional army that it soundly defeat and make for good bargaining in a peace deal(as close to peace as you can get in the region). Otherwise the winner would be determined by whether or not Israel would be able to severely weaken Hamas and Hezbollah or not, the recent Operation Cast Lead has showed that Israel has learned a lot from the 2006 war in Lebanon though it would not be able to eliminate either force. Also, if Israel were able to damage any Iranian nuclear facilities enough to significantly delay a nuclear Iran they'd be able to claim victory so long as they reduce the rocket threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.

On a side topic, I'd be curious to see how this would play out for internal politics in Iran. The current reformists would be hard pressed to oppose the current government without being deemed traitors or cowards. Though on the other hand, significant defeat in the air or the destruction of any Iranian nuclear facilities might weaken the government even more by demonstrating the fallacies of such a belligerent foreign policy.

rvg

01-21-2010, 05:46

A more interesting war would be between Bolivia and Uzbekistan.

Aemilius Paulus

01-21-2010, 06:26

For me, it's a pure air power analysis. No, I do not believe Israel would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear Iran. I also agree that there is no chance whatsoever for either Israel or Iran to make serious land incursions against the other, due to their geographic separation. So, it's an air war discussion for me. Israel has a major advantage in air power and they've been pumping a lot of money into drone research. I don't think it would take Israel long to take down the Iranian air defense network, and from that point Israel would be able to bomb anything they wanted with relative impunity. Keep in mind that Israel is waiting on delivery of a large order of JSFs, which have stealth profiles. Unless this war is occurring within the next few years, those aircraft would essentially make the Iranian SAM system obsolete.

I guess that would then relate back to rvg's question about what defines victory, since there's only so much that can be done from the air. Within the limitations imposed by an air war, I'll mark that up as an Israeli victory.

How exactly would they fight each other in the first place? There's two countries in between the gamecocks...

Besides an air war (which the IAF would win, hands down), I can't envision any real combat happening. It's a pure case of two nationalisms arguing over who can :daisy: the furthest.
You both make excellent points about the Israeli airpower, true. On paper, Israelis will win crushingly, but there are too many conditions here. For one, Israel will need to be on the offensive, which will be a devastating disadvantage in air combat, given how far Iran is (supposing America chooses to stay neutral in the fight). Most fighters and fighter-bombers will be faced with targets either out of range, or just barely within the maximum combat radius. Eight out of the nine IAF bases are in the middle or the south of Israel. That means the distance from them to Tehran, according to Google Earth is 1000-1100 miles or around 1,500-1,700 km. To put this in perspective, the backbone of the IAF, the F-16 has a maximum combat range of 340 mi, or 550 km given a medium-light 'payload' of 6,000 lb or 2,700 kg worth of bombs (not counting missiles AFAIK). I wonder how effective will the in-flight re-fuelling be...

To make it worse, Iran does not even necessarily need to win the air battle, or even hurt the Israelis too badly. The only point of an Israeli air strikes is to disable the nuclear facilities, but the chances of that happening are dishearteningly low - Iran learned from the bitter lessons of Iraq and Syria. Otherwise, Israel will be sending billion-dollar planes to fly... to attack.. to do what? Batter Iraq into submission? But how can fighter-bombers alone, with no joint land or naval action accomplish anything meaningful? Would that not require heavy bombers? Well, ballistic missiles can also do the job, but those are ungodly expensive, just as the cruise missiles are, and I have doubts about the Israeli stocks of them. Very inefficient method of warfare - trading multi-million dollar bombs for cheap buildings, not unless one is willing to sustain bankruptcy in order to win a few concessions from Iran in exchange for the end of the bombardment (such as hopefully nuclear disarmament - wonder how long that will last)...

Israel is certainly powerful, but it has very few options. Overwhelming majority of experts concede that knocking out nuclear facilities of Iran via air attack is unlikely, and with that in mind, what can Israel do? It will slowly lose its precious planes, especially the pilots, who will often have to catapult and parachute into hostile Iranian territory. Planes Israel can replace, although at obscene cost, but pilots? No real objectives will be accomplished, and people will not stand such a pointless war. All Iran has to do is hold out for season or so and it will win.

And just think of the worldwide public opinion - Israeli jets pounding Iranian civilians in an act of 'Zionist aggression' - you can imagine both the filthy and the rather-true propaganda anti-Semites and slightly less-radical but just as fervent anti-Israeli movements will churn out. The Iranian military will stow away as much equipment into their well-developed cave and bunker systems. Israelis will be reduced to mainly bombing factories and civilians. Or largely empty military bases/AA installations. Not to mention the drones are for highly-targeted strikes, and not at all for general bombardment.

During all this time, the US, under the liberal Obama administration, and still recovering from an excruciating recession will likely be in no mood to gift Israel with new toys to throw at Iran. These aren't the sixties any more.

Honestly, what other scenario can one envision? Aside from the one involving atomics that is... :skull:

Fragony

01-21-2010, 08:34

Israel is much easier to hold on to so Iran is more likely to conquer Israel, but they have to conquer it first. They can only attack from there air and they would have to fly over Iraq.

al Roumi

01-21-2010, 11:52

As Spmetla says, I don't think Israel would just end up at war with Iran. Syria would definitley pose a threat (or distraction) as would Hizbullah and I'm sure Hamas. What Lebanon showed more than anything else is how difficult it is for a western military (and society) to deal effectively with an irregular enemy, even for Israel. I'm sure the IDF learned a lot from 2006, but I doubt enough.

Frankly I think the Palestinians would end up losing again. Even if Hamas did nothing, Israel would have an excuse for a lock-down of Gaza and probably the West bank too.

Otherwise, it would be very much in Israel's interests to avoid a land war. If there is anything Iran has it's man-power, which Israel of course chronicaly lacks. It would end up being a horribly bloody mess, Israel no doubt hitting as hard as they could (as in cast lead) and Iran repeating their tactics of the Iran/Iraq war with mass martyrdom. I should imagine that Iran would respond in that way to any non-Shia invasion of the country (e.g by the US).

The Wizard

01-21-2010, 12:44

[...]

Israel is much easier to hold on to so Iran is more likely to conquer Israel, but they have to conquer it first. They can only attack from there air and they would have to fly over Iraq.

Saudi Arabia has given Israel access to its airspace in the event of a war with Iran. Refueling does the rest. And seeing as the Iranian air force consists of a couple of horribly aging F-14s missing all kinds of parts, and a couple of crappy domestic stuff, it won't be much of a contest. I doubt even the much vaunted Russian S-300 SAM that Iran seems to have access to would do much.

But as said, it's all a :daisy:ing contest. Neither Iran nor Israel could ever reach each other with meaningful forces, nor do they want to. Iran is just not a credible threat to Israel outside of its MRBMs, and if it developed a nuke. I'm more scared of Egypt and its 1000+ M1 tanks. Thanks, Uncle Sam.

rory_20_uk

01-21-2010, 12:53

Israel has what could charitably called masses of self belief and self determination, so if the war was in earnest would probably nuke Iran as else the numbers are against them.

Iran either then has the options of nukes (if they have them) or chemical / biological weapons.

I don't see either side going on a ground war. Israel has experienced that even a moderately equipped terrorist organisation can fight them to a standstill, and Iran would have no misconceptions that attacking Israel would merely cause vast numbers of deaths. Seeing as there's the massive logistical distance this makes the option for both sides a non-starter.

The "winners" are those countries around the mess that's left.

~:smoking:

TinCow

01-21-2010, 13:09

You both make excellent points about the Israeli airpower, true. On paper, Israelis will win crushingly, but there are too many conditions here. For one, Israel will need to be on the offensive, which will be a devastating disadvantage in air combat, given how far Iran is (supposing America chooses to stay neutral in the fight). Most fighters and fighter-bombers will be faced with targets either out of range, or just barely within the maximum combat radius.

The Israelis have a large number of mid-air refuelers. They can sustain air operations over all of Iran without too much difficulty once air superiority has been obtained. Keep in mind that Israel has been specifically preparing for a war with Iran for a long time. They have developed their weapons and supply systems with that war in mind.

But how can fighter-bombers alone, with no joint land or naval action accomplish anything meaningful? Would that not require heavy bombers? Well, ballistic missiles can also do the job, but those are ungodly expensive, just as the cruise missiles are, and I have doubts about the Israeli stocks of them. Very inefficient method of warfare - trading multi-million dollar bombs for cheap buildings, not unless one is willing to sustain bankruptcy in order to win a few concessions from Iran in exchange for the end of the bombardment (such as hopefully nuclear disarmament - wonder how long that will last)...

Well... there's a huge amount of vulnerable infrastructure that cannot be hidden and which would greatly hurt any nation if they are destroyed. Most significantly, these include power plants, bridges, airports, government buildings, water/sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities, oil refineries, ports, etc. There's a lot that air power cannot do, including forcing the surrender of the enemy, but lack of damage is not one of them. A concerted Israeli air offensive would likely result in most of the population of Iran being without power, water, fuel, and employment within a week or two. Food would likely start running out in the cities after a few weeks with a crippled transportation system.

Also keep in mind that navies are incredibly vulnerable to air power. Someone before noted (correctly) that a naval war would be a draw between both sides due to their standing forces. However, with even limited Israeli air superiority, the Iranian navy would simply cease to exist within a few days. That would theoretically allow an Israeli amphibious operation to put boots on the ground. After maybe a month of two of pounding from the air, that limited ground presence could be enough to cause the Iranian government to collapse.

And just think of the worldwide public opinion - Israeli jets pounding Iranian civilians in an act of 'Zionist aggression' - you can imagine both the filthy and the rather-true propaganda anti-Semites and slightly less-radical but just as fervent anti-Israeli movements will churn out. The Iranian military will stow away as much equipment into their well-developed cave and bunker systems. Israelis will be reduced to mainly bombing factories and civilians. Or largely empty military bases/AA installations. Not to mention the drones are for highly-targeted strikes, and not at all for general bombardment.

During all this time, the US, under the liberal Obama administration, and still recovering from an excruciating recession will likely be in no mood to gift Israel with new toys to throw at Iran. These aren't the sixties any more.

IMO, this is all beyond the scope of the question. My interpretation of the OP was a relatively straight up fight between the two, without foreign interference. If we're talking actual interaction with the rest of the world, we need to have a lot more information. How did the war start? Who attacked first? What other nations join in? Honestly, I cannot really imagine a full-scale Israeli-Iranian war that doesn't turn into something much larger for the region.

Prince Cobra

01-21-2010, 19:12

Stereotypical, I know. But my roommate is from the Muslim country, and I keep having arguments with him trying to understand that destroying the US is not that easy, and if you destroy Israel, you risk World War III.

But he still doesn't understand. And although I realise who would win a regional war Iran against Israel, it makes me wonder who would win in the case of a separate Israel-Iran war and Israel-Iran with foreign support for each side? Israel made Lebanon a blunder, and Iran has some good troops available in their back yard, so technically the balance should only go down to numbers and allies. And supplies too.

One more thing - since there's so many threats from each side, why the constant tattering? Diplomacy my backside, this tattering is going nowhere, and sooner or later (hopefully not), it will burst, the bubble.

Any thoughts?

Nobody would win, this is clear. Nuclear war can not be won. If Iran has no nuclear weapons, rockets may strike Israel and create much damage. Of course, Israel and company will strike back. It is even possible that an intervention will take place... Who knows? Who would win? Israel benefits nothing from such a war, Iran loses more than it can win... Even if Iran is defeated, Israel loses again because the whole region will get even more unstable and unpredictable... Of course, presuming that nobody stands behind Iran, which could be perhaps not the case.

To sum up, such a war (rocket war) cannot be really won...

In fact, such an assumption is... well... I really doubt Iran is that stupid to start a war against Israel. Talks and propaganda is one thing, deeds is something else. Iran is not Iraq to make the solo move to attack another country. And Israel is not Kuwait... No, I really doubt Iran will ever attack Israel... in a direct way. Die Realpolitik!

Thermal

01-21-2010, 19:20

I think it would never end, Iran is just large and has ragged terrain, I don't think you could ever root them all out of there home terrain. Isreal has the arms and the allies they need. Both sides are so relgious that neither would back down so 'peace' is out of the question. Out of the two I would have to say Iran though, the sheer mindedness, amount of soldiers and terror can can cause is a little more amplied than Isreal's I think.

Having said that, as Tincow says it depends who has the bombs, the nuclear bombs more so, but would probably blow most of the world up in the process, including themselves.

Aemilius Paulus

01-21-2010, 19:35

Israel benefits nothing from such a war, Iran loses more than it can win... Even if Iran is defeated, Israel loses again because the whole region will get even more unstable and unpredictable...
Mmm, wisest and most well-said words so far. Israel can pound Iran, but it has no clear objective, as the nuclear facilities are beyond their reach. Iran has very little to win, and much to lose. Very much depends on how effective the Iranian missiles are at penetrating the Israeli shield and if Iran will be sharp enough to drum up a high level of terrorist attacks in Israel. But with those Israeli walls and security checkpoints, it will not be as easy as it is in Iraq.

And the second point Stephen Asen made is likewise excellent. Total war, if Israel actually carries it out, will cripple Iran, possibly toppling the current regime, but then it will create hate and bitterness of frightening intensity. Probably something that would make Al-Qaeda grudge against US seem like a petty slight in comparison... Or would the hatred of Jews rally the populace, as they did when Iraq massacred Iranian soldiers by the thousands?

I think it would never end, Iran is just large and has ragged terrain, I don't think you could ever root them all out of there home terrain. Isreal has the arms and the allies they need. Both sides are so relgious that neither would back down so 'peace' is out of the question. Out of the two I would have to say Iran though, the sheer mindedness, amount of soldiers and terror can can cause is a little more amplied than Isreal's I think.

Having said that, as Tincow says it depends who has the bombs, the nuclear bombs more so, but would probably blow most of the world up in the process, including themselves.
Well, Israel does not have to completely defeat Iran. Just bloody it enough. The question is, bloody it enough for what? So they give up their nuclear programme? Israel cannot destroy it by itself, and relying on the word of Iran should make anyone queasy.

I am not sure if the 'religious' claim stands much either. Well, perhaps for Iran. Iranian hardcore-Muslims seem to be the nutty-religious-fanatics-type to me, while I regard Israel as the more sensible of the two.

Not to mention, Israel is more secular than religious anyway - the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews are but a smaller fraction of the population. Back in 1999, the Israel Democracy Institute and the Avi Chai foundation (private religious group) polled Israeli Jews and found out that only 65% of the population believes in the existence of 'a God'. Quite low, especially when contrasted with the 95% (I did not make that up) that you find in America. Another survey found 22% referring to themselves as 'non-religious (but traditional)' and an additional 44% confirmed they were 'secular'. Only 17% stated they were 'religious'.

Given this, I see little reason for the Israelis to tolerate insane gov't spending poured into the military, major cutbacks in all social spending, terrorist attacks, missile strikes, while pounding civilians in Iran with no specific objective, and as the aggressor (with the world opinion presumably leaning, on average, towards Iran, if rather slightly - big part due to the aggressor status of the Israel in this war, and due to the immense Iranian civilian casualties). It is only common sense to assume that the hunter will be less eager to run to his limits than the quarry - Israel can give up at any time, almost at their leisure. This war cannot last for long.

But given Iranian fanaticism, it may. That is, if the popular opinion does not backfire against the current regime, and demand a surrender from their own government to stop the misery - which will be difficult, as there will be a split between two factions, likely leading to a gridlock - and if it last long enough, Iran may survive. Thus, this war may be decided by propaganda, and not force. I also assume we are speaking in terms of a purely military victory/loss here, because Iran will almost always be the overall loser in such a scenario.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-21-2010, 21:23

.... Nuclear war can not be won....

With respect, this all-too-common catch phrase is incorrect. The use of nuclear weapons increases the cost of victory and of defeat, it does not magically generate some kind of "everyone loses" draw. The MAD concept was only valid in a context wherein each side could more or less immolate the other. Such a situation does not obtain here, nor elsewhere anymore.

Set aside your socio-emotional response to the subject and analyze it simply in terms of explosive power, lasting after-effects, etc. Assessed logically, it is simply another weapon with its own deployment parameters.

Let us suppose, for example, that Iran starts hammering British vessels in the Arabian Gulf and in the Straits. After some period of escalation, the UK government issues an ultimatum: stop all the attacks or we'll destroy Qom and 3-4 other key sites in Iran. Iran calls their bluff, announcing that any such attack will be countered by the detonation of an Iranian weapon in the Pool of London. Britain launches their ICBMs and smashes all of their targets, including significant elements of the armed forces, revolutionary guards, and the religious/government hierarchy. An Iranian rev guard detonates a weapon near London in retaliation. The decapitated Iranian government collapses, leading to a revolutionary overthrow. Britain has, at whatever horrific a price, won the war.

Please do not mis-construe this as advocacy for adopting a nuke-em-all strategy -- killing people in great bunches is a loathesome thing and not to be sought.

Aemilius Paulus

01-21-2010, 23:00

I doubt Stephen Asen was categorically denying any chance of a nuclear victory, SM. I thought he meant that a nuclear exchange inflicted such severe casualties that neither side would win a strategic victory. Tactical/diplomatic - perhaps. But strategically speaking, both countries will be devastated.

And Iran is not even an equal opponent yet. At the same time, the fact that the West uses - almost exclusively - the relatively clean fusion weapons. Meanwhile the nascent nuclear capabilities of Iran are likely to employ the more archaic fission bombs, which are, for all practical purposes, a dirty bomb due to the comparatively high amount of radiation they release - which is only exacerbated by the inefficiency of the designs of the newly-baked nuclear powers.

If this was not enough, a simple, non-fissionable dirty bomb would suffice as well. Simply adulterate a conventional, preferably sizeable bomb/warhead with radioactive material - and voila, you have what I call the poor man's nuke. While rather quite ineffective in killing people, especially in terms of immediacy, the weapon will nonetheless create unholy amounts of panic coupled with titanic spending for radiation clean-up and decontamination; also, the long-term effects of the fallout will be the perfect revenge for the Iranians.

And yes, this has been attempted twice already - once in Moscow, Russia and once in Grozny, Chechnya. Both times by Chechen militants/insurgents/terrorists/freedom-fighters. Of course, none of the incidents resulted in the detonation of the IED.

Furunculus

01-22-2010, 09:24

What kind of war?

You either have to cross Syria and Iraq, or Jordan and Iraq, or even Syria and Turkey to get to Iran, any of whom might be counted on to mount strenuous objections to either party rolling tanks across their lawns.

Which leaves air-strikes. a which point we concede that israel can pound iran whilst the same is not true vice versa.

does that count as israel winning?

Tellos Athenaios

01-22-2010, 20:42

You leave out war-by-proxy; and forget that Iran can call upon others to make life difficult for Israel.

Furunculus

01-22-2010, 21:18

You leave out war-by-proxy; and forget that Iran can call upon others to make life difficult for Israel.

war by proxy won't win iran anything, and israel will flatten iran if it comes to actual war.

Louis VI the Fat

01-22-2010, 21:38

Beskar

01-22-2010, 22:05

Because their women would scare the Iranian soldiers away and not just because they got guns either?

Subotan

01-22-2010, 22:06

Israel is the Sparta of the modern world. Tiny, angry and fanatically millitarised.

Furunculus

01-22-2010, 22:07

hey that's not nice, i happily frank all of them! :egypt:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-22-2010, 22:26

Israel is the Sparta of the modern world. Tiny, angry and fanatically millitarised.

Tiny, yes. Angry, define. Fanatically militarized, no. Militarized as much as they need to be, yes.

TinCow

01-22-2010, 22:41

Because their women would scare the Iranian soldiers away and not just because they got guns either?

Because every single Israeli over the age of 18 has military training. At any given time, Israel could theoretically mobilize 50% of their entire population for combat duty without much difficulty. Iran has a population of about 75 million and can mobilize about 1 million trained citizens. Israel has a population of about 7.5 million and can mobilize above 3 million trained citizens.

Israel takes is defense very, very seriously.

drone

01-22-2010, 23:42

Israel wins, hands down:

https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/6688/idfm.jpg

I can understand the Israeli girls with rifles, but why is the British girl on the right packing heat? :inquisitive:

Beskar

01-22-2010, 23:48

Prince Cobra

01-23-2010, 00:09

Because every single Israeli over the age of 18 has military training. At any given time, Israel could theoretically mobilize 50% of their entire population for combat duty without much difficulty. Iran has a population of about 75 million and can mobilize about 1 million trained citizens. Israel has a population of about 7.5 million and can mobilize above 3 million trained citizens.

Israel takes is defense very, very seriously.

Israel has also tiny but very populated area. Apart from the perfect mobilisation plans, the short distances make the mobilisation even easier.

I doubt Stephen Asen was categorically denying any chance of a nuclear victory, SM. I thought he meant that a nuclear exchange inflicted such severe casualties that neither side would win a strategic victory. Tactical/diplomatic - perhaps. But strategically speaking, both countries will be devastated.

Thanks. Aemilius. This was exactly what I meant. If we also add the effect such an useless conflict can have on the International Relations, situation may be even more disastrous.

Aemilius Paulus

01-23-2010, 00:22

Because every single Israeli over the age of 18 has military training. At any given time, Israel could theoretically mobilize 50% of their entire population for combat duty without much difficulty. Iran has a population of about 75 million and can mobilize about 1 million trained citizens. Israel has a population of about 7.5 million and can mobilize above 3 million trained citizens.

Israel takes is defense very, very seriously.
Yeah, well, you did sorta ignore my point about this fact. Namely that specifically because of this, and the small Israeli population, Israel cannot sustain a prolonged war. Even a war lasting three months will cripple Israeli economy to the point they will be more ready to surrender than the pounded Iran - after all, Israel will not have anything more significant to lose by conceding. Wars are won with money - an Israel has plenty of it - but it will be hard-pressed to renew its coffers once they are emptied...

...And emptied they will be, considering the expense of the munitions they will be plastering Iran with. Not to mention, Iran will get the better of the trade, due to the fact much of the Iranian targets will be significantly cheaper than the over-sophisticated ammunition Israel will lob at them.

Furunculus

01-23-2010, 01:59

IRAN. WILL............... no, listen to this, GET. POUNDED, seriously, no. i'm not kidding.

there is no question, there isn't a war to fight.

yes iran will throw some inneffective 1960's scud missiles their way, yes there will be an increaes in terrorist attacks, and yes it will be expensive. but israel doesn't have the manpower to invade iran and iran doesn't have the anything to do squat to anybody.

if a war is started the only signiificant result will be a lot of squashed tehrani buildings and a lot of dead irani politico/miltary figures. oh yeah, and most of irans nascent nuclear infrastructure will get smashed.

iran wins nothing, iran gains nothing. the iranian people suffer loads.

That. Is. The. Only. Result.

gaelic cowboy

01-23-2010, 02:05

Yeah but you cannot uninvent the bomb so dealing with Iran in that way wont work.

Furunculus

01-23-2010, 02:12

not in three years or so.............. maybe no.

are we talking about iran right now, back in 1973 or the years 2050 when the Arafat Power Rangers are fighting the good fight.

The conversation is already ridiculous, neither can invade the other, the most either can achieve is to strike the other. and yes israel has nukes, but that is a weapon of MAD, and i trust them not to use it except in MAD situations. anyone silly enough to disgaree isn't worth my time and attention to debate with. i have little patience with: teh evil joos style of 'debate'.

gaelic cowboy

01-23-2010, 02:27

I see this whole thing playing out diplomatically really Israel has too many essential parts of its security to lose by starting a war. Iran cannot win but it does not lose too much however Israel also cannot win fully but it can lose a very important piece of its strategic security, Turkey Egypt and Jordan are key pieces of Israeli strategy they must be kept on side not friends but at least not outright enemies this could not be maintained in an Iranian war situation.

Skullheadhq

01-23-2010, 14:28

I think that the one who uses a nuclear weapon first will lose, because of the reactions it will provoke in the rest of the world.

CountArach

01-23-2010, 14:36

I think that the one who uses a nuclear weapon first will lose, because of the reactions it will provoke in the rest of the world.
To be fair most countries would simply embargo the country, probably damaging them in the long-run rather than during the war. Though now that I think about it, I wonder how many countries would refuse to lend credit to either side if such a situation eventuated. That could be crippling in a protracted war, though a protracted war probably isn't all that likely in the event of a Nuclear attack.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-23-2010, 16:10

Israel wins, hands down:

https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/6688/idfm.jpg
Come on, baby, I'm Palestinian, I SWEAR! Rough me up! Come on over here and search me 'cause I'm carrying a huge package and am about to explode all over the place.

Kukri:

Can we still get Louis on a list for Liddy's old "stacked and packed" calendar? He's clearly in need....

The Wizard

01-23-2010, 17:07

Yeah, well, you did sorta ignore my point about this fact. Namely that specifically because of this, and the small Israeli population, Israel cannot sustain a prolonged war. Even a war lasting three months will cripple Israeli economy to the point they will be more ready to surrender than the pounded Iran - after all, Israel will not have anything more significant to lose by conceding. Wars are won with money - an Israel has plenty of it - but it will be hard-pressed to renew its coffers once they are emptied...

...And emptied they will be, considering the expense of the munitions they will be plastering Iran with. Not to mention, Iran will get the better of the trade, due to the fact much of the Iranian targets will be significantly cheaper than the over-sophisticated ammunition Israel will lob at them.

Israel's economy was more or less crippled until the '80s... they're willing to stand quite a bit.

Aemilius Paulus

01-23-2010, 19:15

Israel's economy was more or less crippled until the '80s... they're willing to stand quite a bit.
Yes, but if Israel was the attacker, then it would have little reason to continue the war, knowing it could quit any time - or so the civilians would think. Why should they grind Iran into dust, losing men and machinery to a war of attrition, while the nuclear facilities will stand unharmed?

To be fair most countries would simply embargo the country, probably damaging them in the long-run rather than during the war. Though now that I think about it, I wonder how many countries would refuse to lend credit to either side if such a situation eventuated. That could be crippling in a protracted war, though a protracted war probably isn't all that likely in the event of a Nuclear attack.
Heh, so you say, but let us not forget what happened during the Yom Kippur War :yes:. Israel back then blackmailed US into giving them support - threatening to launch their atomics if no aid came. Israel can try this again, although it is debatable if it would work in a situation where Israel is the aggressor. Still, who knows? If I was in the shoes of US, I would likely acquiesce to the blackmail as well, for my own good.

Justiciar

01-24-2010, 03:25

https://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5523/cockroachj.jpg

A Very Super Market

01-24-2010, 03:59

Sir, you misunderstand. This is not a matter of Israel, Iran, and cockroaches. Their addition would make this quite the unsporting affair.

Unless you mean to portray both parties as vermin. In which case, good show, carry on as you were.

Aemilius Paulus

01-24-2010, 04:45

https://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5523/cockroachj.jpg
Hmm, an often-quoted myth. For one, cockroaches are hardly resilient to radiation, by insect standards, but most importantly, household cockroaches - and rats, to a much smaller degree - are utterly dependent on humans. Once we are gone, they largely go down with us. We spread them, we sustain them, and they depend on us, just as the blood-sucking fleas would. Sure, warm, wet, tropical regions will continue to harbour the roaches, but otherwise, they will die off.

For more reading on what would happened to this planet if we all disappeared, I suggest The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. Fascinating book.

Cute Wolf

01-24-2010, 08:28

If Israel want to win.... they just need to backup the Pahlavi dynasty, and let the Persian themself kick out their dictactors.... oh yes... we really have some Iran refugees here... unlucky enough to be captured before they reach australia... and I was very sorry because most of them is sent back to Iran, just in the name of good relationships.... bah...

The Wizard

01-24-2010, 20:35

Heh, so you say, but let us not forget what happened during the Yom Kippur War :yes:. Israel back then blackmailed US into giving them support - threatening to launch their atomics if no aid came. Israel can try this again, although it is debatable if it would work in a situation where Israel is the aggressor. Still, who knows? If I was in the shoes of US, I would likely acquiesce to the blackmail as well, for my own good.

To be fair, the U.S. also strong-armed the Israelis into holding back from another preemptive attack like they'd done in '67, if memory serves, threatening to cut arms supplies.

Hax

01-24-2010, 20:38

If Israel want to win.... they just need to backup the Pahlavi dynasty, and let the Persian themself kick out their dictactors...

The Iranians don't want the Shah back. That would be trading in one dictator for another.

Aemilius Paulus

01-24-2010, 21:00

The Iranians don't want the Shah back. That would be trading in one dictator for another.
Yeah, especially due to the pervasive Islamic fundamentalists in Iran, who would suicide-bomb any government that did not consist of the clerics on the top. And those religious leaders along with the Ayatollah are immensely powerful, more so than the President. For instance, believe it or not, Ahmadinejad is actually a feminist by Persian/Arab/Muslim standards. He has pushed numerous reforms concerning women's freedoms, but almost always, in vain, as the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah, blocked his efforts.

Hax

01-25-2010, 01:41

That's correct, although quite a sizable portion of the Iranian clerics are also know slowly pushing for reforms..I think Twelver Shi'a Islam will develop quite interestingly in the coming decade(s).

Moros

01-25-2010, 01:59

The real question is: 'which one of them fields the most camels?'

The Wizard

01-26-2010, 15:08

This much is true

Vladimir

01-26-2010, 20:17

How about Israel vs. Syria? http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/archives/2006/07/israels_bekaa_d.html

Aemilius Paulus

01-26-2010, 20:28

How about Israel vs. Syria? http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/archives/2006/07/israels_bekaa_d.html
No fun, everyone knows Syria will lose in less than a week...

Vladimir

01-26-2010, 20:37

No fun, everyone knows Syria will lose in less than a week...

Yea. I guess there would have to be a Red Dawn type buildup by Iran first.

The Wizard

01-26-2010, 20:56

Syria would get blown right out of the water, and knows it. That's why it did not react very aggressively at all to the IAF's attack on the supposed nuclear plant construction site.

EDIT: Iran would be making a big mistake if it deployed an expeditionary force to Syria, so much closer to Israel. It would bring them near enough for Israel to close with them and beat them into the ground.

Aemilius Paulus

01-26-2010, 21:21

EDIT: Iran would be making a big mistake if it deployed an expeditionary force to Syria, so much closer to Israel. It would bring them near enough for Israel to close with them and beat them into the ground.
Yeah, Iran would never do it, this I can say with almost 100% certainty. Iran cannot win the war, it can only remain alive for a set period of time. If it is the aggressor, then all is lost even before the first shot is fired/first bomb dropped/first missile launched.

But, Iran will, likewise with almost 100% certainty, supply Syria. Especially if Syria and Iran have some sort of a treaty - which is somewhat acceptable (although still a hostile act), as Israel itself will be well-supplied by other nations, and it would be rather unwise for Israel to strike at Iran on such grounds.

The Wizard

02-03-2010, 17:48

Speaking of Syria (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1147285.html)...

Syrian President Bashar Assad said on Wednesday that Israel is not serious about its intentions to make peace with Damascus as evidenced by "its conduct which is leading the region to war."

The Syrian leader made those statements during a meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos in Damascus on Wednesday.

[...]

Earlier on Wednesday, Assad's foreign minister issued a strongly-worded warning to Israel that a future war between the two countries would be a "comprehensive" clash that would "come to your cities," CBS News reported.

Just days after Defense Minister Ehud Barak cautioned that the stalled peace process with Syria is liable to deteriorate into all-out war, Foreign Minister Walid Moallem lashed out at Jerusalem.

"Israel is indeed planting the seeds of war in the region, I would tell them stop playing the role of thugs in the Middle East," Moallem told reporters Tuesday in Damascus.

"One day you threaten Gaza, next day you threaten Lebanon, later Iran and now Syria," Moallem told a joint news conference with Moratinos.

"Don't test, you Israelis, the determination of Syria. You know that war this time would move to your cities. Come to your senses and choose the road of peace. This path is clear," Moallem warned.

"No doubt, if we assume that this war would erupt - and we should not exclude this possibility from an entity established on expansion - I would say it is going to be a comprehensive war, whether it starts in the south of Lebanon or from Syria," Moallem said.

That's some pretty threatening language right there... might be I misjudged Syria's caution. It'd still be immensely stupid, though, and Syria would suffer the same fate it's suffered five (or was it six?) times in the past fifty years, so it's probably just traditional Baathist chest-thumping and posturing... I hope.

Subotan

02-03-2010, 23:02

Just politics. Israel's leaders will just use it to fuel the underdog complex which consumes Israel, and it makes the Ba'thists look tough amongst Syrians.

spmetla

02-04-2010, 19:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_syria_3
JERUSALEM – Israel's foreign minister harshly warned Syria Thursday against drawing the Jewish state into another war, saying its troops would be trounced and its regime would collapse in a future conflict.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also advised Syria to abandon its dreams of recovering the Israeli-held Golan Heights in a speech that ratcheted up simmering political tensions between the two foes.

The exceptionally harsh words followed Syrian President Bashar Assad's accusation on Wednesday that Israel was the one avoiding peace, and his foreign minister earlier threat that Israel's cities would be attacked in a future conflict.

The Syrians "have crossed a red line that cannot be ignored," Lieberman said in a speech at a Tel Aviv-area university.

"Our message must be clear to Assad: 'In the next war, not only will you lose but you and your family will lose power,'" he added

Lieberman's bellicose language contrasted sharply with the statement Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued late Wednesday, saying the Jewish state seeks peace. It said Netanyahu "would be willing to go anywhere in the world, and doesn't rule out any assistance by a fair third party, to promote the political process in order to begin peace talks with Syria without any preconditions."

Syria demands the return of the Golan Heights — the strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war — as the price of any deal.

But Lieberman, echoing Netanyahu's position, said there would be no such thing.

"We must make Syria recognize that just as it relinquished its dream of a greater Syria that controls Lebanon ... it will have to relinquish its ultimate demand regarding the Golan Heights," Lieberman said.

There was no immediate comment from Syrian officials to Lieberman's remarks.

Several rounds of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel in 2008 ended without a breakthrough. Damascus has expressed interest in having Turkey resume its mediation role, but Israel and Turkey have clashed diplomatically since Israel's war in Gaza last winter, and Israeli officials have said they no longer consider Turkey to be an honest broker.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned earlier this week that absence of peacemaking with Syria could result in a regional war.

Nothing unexpected here but still interesting to see the threats go back and forth between Israel and Syria.

Jolt

02-05-2010, 00:32

Responding to the question itself. It's pretty obvious Iran would, while not win, probably have a superior position by the time of the armistice.

Not only would an hypothetical war mean that Israel, who is one third of the size of Portugal, would not invade Iran, but be restrained to air bomb campaigns, however, Iran could, with the war as cause, gigantically increase weaponry supply to Hezbollah and Hamas. This means that this shady and slowpoke business of arming both enemies of Israel would ramp up extremely.

That would have a consequence that both groups, now recieving more and better weapon each day that passes, would equally be spurred into action by attacking Israel. Rockets would once again start to fly with enourmous frequency into Israel, and the obvious Israeli retaliation would run up against much better equipped (and quite possibly Iranian advised) Hezbollah and Hamas, which would increase casualties tremendously. Campaigns on both ends would be bogged down once again, with the aditional air war with Iran. In the end, one month or two later, Israel would once again fail to destroy either Hamas or Hezbollah, and sign peace with Iran. Probably Iran would commit to not building any nuclear facilities, but in the end, both Hamas and Hezbollah: the main Israeli enemies would come out significantly strenghtened from the conflict.