Iran and Israel at War

Assuming this is true:

Quote:

---

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.
Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-ex-spy.html


...And assuming that Israel does indeed act accordingly due to the forthcoming U.S. elections and probability of an Obama victory, how will this play out?

My prediction:


Israel initiates first strike, targeting Iranian airbases, SAM sites, and known nuclear sites.

Iran responds immediately with surface-to-surface missle fire into Israel.


Then it gets tricky.

Scenario (a): Iran is forced to concede its loss faced with the possibility of U.S. intervention on both its eastern and western borders. While Iran would love to spearhead a regional ground war and cut off oil supplies, it can't because of the the very real threat of a sustained and undefendable air campaign from the U.S. Russia complains loudly. China complains loudly. The conflict ends before the Presidential election and Barak Obama is elected due in part to his anti-military action rhetoric. The U.S. and Israel retain a damaged reputation, but the U.S,. reputation improves immediately following Barak Obama's election.


Scenario (b): Iran not only engages in surface to surface missle bombardment of Israel, but also cuts off oil supplies to the west. No ground offensive from any nation. The cost of oil skyrockets to over $200 a barrel, causing gas to reach $7 a gallon. Inflation explodes internationally, and national economies buckle. A global recession begins. Barak Obama is elected, with the American public blaming Bush for the economy and continued war.


Scenario (c): Iran attempts to coordinate a ground war. Jordan abstains. Egypt abstains. Elements of Hizballah are heavily involved as are Iranian regulars. Hamas leads another uprising. Syria provides supportto Iran, but no troops. Iranian military elements are quickly destroyed by a joint U.S. Israeli counter offensive. Iran, Venezuela, and perhaps a few other OPEC nations cease oil exportation. Oil reaches well over $200, perhaps $300. The United States begins bombing inside Iran. Economic conditions reach a crisis in the United States as inflation causes $10 a gallon gas and skyrockets the price of food and other essentials. Anger is directed at IRAN, and McCain is elected President because of American confidence in his war experience.



What are your thoughts?

:book:

I think you're giving Iran too much unanimity in actions. Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him. Mr. A seems to be losing his grip in Tehran, the support of his Parliament, and the support of the people. Just take that into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Assuming this is true:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-ex-spy.html


...And assuming that Israel does indeed act accordingly due to the forthcoming U.S. elections and probability of an Obama victory, how will this play out?

My prediction:


Israel initiates first strike, targeting Iranian airbases, SAM sites, and known nuclear sites.

Iran responds immediately with surface-to-surface missle fire into Israel.


Then it gets tricky.

Scenario (a): Iran is forced to concede its loss faced with the possibility of U.S. intervention on both its eastern and western borders. While Iran would love to spearhead a regional ground war and cut off oil supplies, it can't because of the the very real threat of a sustained and undefendable air campaign from the U.S. Russia complains loudly. China complains loudly. The conflict ends before the Presidential election and Barak Obama is elected due in part to his anti-military action rhetoric. The U.S. and Israel retain a damaged reputation, but the U.S,. reputation improves immediately following Barak Obama's election.


Scenario (b): Iran not only engages in surface to surface missle bombardment of Israel, but also cuts off oil supplies to the west. No ground offensive from any nation. The cost of oil skyrockets to over $200 a barrel, causing gas to reach $7 a gallon. Inflation explodes internationally, and national economies buckle. A global recession begins. Barak Obama is elected, with the American public blaming Bush for the economy and continued war.


Scenario (c): Iran attempts to coordinate a ground war. Jordan abstains. Egypt abstains. Elements of Hizballah are heavily involved as are Iranian regulars. Hamas leads another uprising. Syria provides supportto Iran, but no troops. Iranian military elements are quickly destroyed by a joint U.S. Israeli counter offensive. Iran, Venezuela, and perhaps a few other OPEC nations cease oil exportation. Oil reaches well over $200, perhaps $300. The United States begins bombing inside Iran. Economic conditions reach a crisis in the United States as inflation causes $10 a gallon gas and skyrockets the price of food and other essentials. Anger is directed at IRAN, and McCain is elected President because of American confidence in his war experience.



What are your thoughts?

:book:

---

not going to happen

Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him

Not sure if you mean the population is behind Mr A or the nukes, im pretty sure most Iranians want nuclear weapons.... can't blame them myself...

Iran already has major gassoline shortages and they can't refine the oil theirselves, tanks don't run on prayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

not going to happen

---

Wow. Impressive and well-articulated argument. You are truly a scholar and I have been enlightened by your contribution.

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Wow. Impressive and well-articulated argument. You are truly a scholar and I have been enlightened by your contribution.

:clown:

---

Well, this thread deserves such a response.

Edit:

I'll humor you.

Israel's air force doesn't have the ability to do what you just said. Now they could use missiles strikes, but I'm betting that's going to be less effective than an air strike. The Iranians will see these missiles and will fireback. Both sides will suffer massive causalities probably in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Israel will not start a war that will cost millions of lives of their own citizens. Not only that, but Iran will throw everything they have at Israel suicide bomber wise.

a) will never happen

Iran will retaliate if attacked

b) seems plausible, but you forgot the suicide bombers

c) won't ever happen- Iran knows they will get crushed

Just because some ex nut is talking about blowing up Iran's nuclear program, does not mean all out war. It's fairly easy to see.

Israel hits Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran throws a fit. Done.

A single hit works in everyone's best interest. Israel is happy, America is happy, and Mr. A's power is firmly re-established.

Iran won't cut their oil, as they need the cash just as much as we need the energy. There certainly won't be any prolonged war.

It's not currently possible for Israel to conduct such a first strike, but if it were, I suspect PJ is near the truth. Iran would not react except through her proxies.

However, before basing any discussion on the ex-Mossad agent's wind-up (hasn't America tired yet of being scared into foolishness by nutters with agendas?) let's ask ourselves a question:

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

:wall:

Using a person not in a government agency, but still with gravitas is a way of sabre rattling with plausible deniability.

I imagine (maybe I'm wrong) that Iran has a decent amount of AA missiles probably from Russia or China. So using F-16 / F-15 attacks would be very expensive in resources and manpower. saturating air defences with planes works - as long as you accept high attrition rates.

Firing missiles from Israel would be cheaper in many ways but probably less accurate.

Surely Iran has as far as possible planned for the eventuality that the plants must be able to withstand several air to ground missile strikes?

A ground war is non-sensical as it plays to Israel's strengths: tanks would be picked off at range by missiles, planes and drones. The unsupported troops then have to withstand cluster bombs, enemy tanks and troops. This even ignores the logistics of having the supply train mauled every inch it goes forward.

Iran IMO has two options and they are rather "boom or bust"

Do practically nothing, but increase funding to Iraq / Afghanistan forces (bleed America / allies) and utilise suicide bombers and rockets (hurt Israel).

Germ / chemical weapon attack - missiles laden with VX / sarin etc etc in a attempt to break Israel's back before it can react.

In the second instance there is a slight chance that others such as Syria might also launch a missile attack as well...

The first is the 99% option, the second is the "fingers crossed the nukes leave more of us intact than the nerve gas leaves the intact".

China will sell arms to whoever has cash / oil for them. Russia will sell for cash.
America give so much aid to Israel it can not make a difference in the first scenario, and in the second there's little to do ecept send in the cleanup crews.

~:smoking:

Oh, a further option: Link

Smash the nukes then fight a war.

Israel might need to destroy the missiles with planes before destroying the threat in case the missiles are launched as soon as planes invade their airspace.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I think you're giving Iran too much unanimity in actions. Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him. Mr. A seems to be losing his grip in Tehran, the support of his Parliament, and the support of the people. Just take that into account.

---

Perhaps. Problem with that is, that Iran still is a theocratic dictatorship - the last word isn't that of 'democratically' elected representatives, but autocratic clerics.

How about instead of targeting the nukes, A-S Mr A and the Supreme Leader instead?

If we look at history, it's clear to see that the countries that most support an attack on Iran in the name of maintaining international peace are the same people who are starting most of the wars and doing most of the killing.

Forgive me for playing Ahmadinejad's advocate (why can't people spell his name?), but if we look at the US and Israel, for example, we see that both countries, nuclear powers, have recently attacked other countries, dropped tens of thousands of tons of bombs on heavilly populated areas, killed countless thousands of civilians, and yet maintain, with great anger and vehemence, that they are the protectors of peace while Iran is naught but pure evil. If I may I ask; in the last ten-years, how many wars has Iran begun? How many countries have had their civilian areas subject to mass bombing raids by the Iranian Air Force? How many thousands of civilians has Iran killed?

I'm no great fan of Iran's leadership or form of government, but then again I'm no great fan of anyone's leadership or form of government. I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, but then again I'm no great fan of anyone having nuclear weapons. And assuming Iran gets The Bomb, why is it assumed they will instantly use it when using it will surely bring about their total destruction? Whether we like them or not, Iran, poop agitators and human rights violators that they are, have behaved with more restraint and, dare I say, civility than some of the people accusing them.

The nuclear club contains countries with horrendous and even psychotic international and human rights records, yet none of them were attacked when they got The Bomb or even lots of The Bombs. Why is Iran so special?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

---

Yes, I'm sure they do love their children, as much as we love ours. It's not the average person that's to worry about, it's these insane fools currently in power, i.e. Bush, Ahmadinejad, Putin, etc.

When I reference Mr. A's support, it's in a general sense. He has moderately size support, but it's not a majority. So if Mr. A does act in some undue fashion, and some might just say no and begin a coup.

I would also tender the idea that Israel (or US) might insert Special Forces and take the Iranian Nuke stuff before they could weaponize it. Get the doctors, etc. It's more feasible than the previous attempt on the U.S. Embassy. The US bases are closer, so they get more air cover, less ground to cover, and more gear can be taken. Israel could strike the Syrian nuclear site because they knew Syrian didn't have the guts for war. With Iran, they have the guts, but it's just how their triggered which is going to be the difference.

Also, Beirut, I just don't want to spend time looking up the name, then pasting it in appropriate spots.
To try and answer your question, it's more that Iran seems set upon throwing Israel into the wastebasket. To those who've held the bomb (and some who've actually used it), it's about preventing new members from coming in (what's the use of power if everyone has it?), the possibility of also stopping a genocidal madman, icing on the cake.

It's also that Iran has contacts with Hezbollah, and might smuggle such a weapon into Hezbollahs hands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

---

Unlike most other countries, Iran has a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups, supplying them with money, weapons and training. Hezbollah has direct ties to the Iranian government, and is responsible for some outrageous stuff. We don't have any reason to believe nuclear weapons would not be passed from Iran to Hezbollah, or another proxy group.

Keeping Iran away from the nukie-nukies would be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I would also tender the idea that Israel (or US) might insert Special Forces and take the Iranian Nuke stuff before they could weaponize it. Get the doctors, etc. It's more feasible than the previous attempt on the U.S. Embassy.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I'm sorry, I had to indulge my inner Tribesman. My bad. :wink:

(You do realise the "Iranian Nuke stuff" doesn't fit into a carrier bag, don't you?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

The nuclear club contains countries with horrendous and even psychotic international and human rights records, yet none of them were attacked when they got The Bomb or even lots of The Bombs. Why is Iran so special?

---

The US has never liked admitting others into the nuclear club. Not Britain, not France, not Israel. Britain and France were big-name allies whom the American public would never in a million years agree to attack. The USSR and China were too big to bully. Israel, India and Pakistan took the world by surprise with their revelations (or hints of, in Israel's case). North Korea and Iran, in normal circumstances, would be small enough for the US to push around if they didn't have nukes, so steps are taken to ensure they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Unlike most other countries, Iran has a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups, supplying them with money, weapons and training. Hezbollah has direct ties to the Iranian government, and is responsible for some outrageous stuff. We don't have any reason to believe nuclear weapons would not be passed from Iran to Hezbollah, or another proxy group.

---

We don't have any reason to believe that they would be. In fact, all the evidence is that whilst Iran certainly supports terrorist groups, they have no interest in arming them with anything other than conventional weaponry.

Iran already has access to fairly serious biological and chemical weaponry. Why hasn't a suicide bomber detonated a nerve gas bomb in Tel Aviv? Same reason that Pakistan's nutcases haven't been given a "suitcase" nuke to rearrange Delhi. Because the Iranian regime is not suicidal.

They are a regional player utilising proxies to fight for their political ends - just as the United States does (another of the few countries with a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups). They have no interest in a one-way ticket to oblivion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Keeping Iran away from the nukie-nukies would be a good thing.

---

I don't disagree, but the best way to do that would be through removing them from Israel and Pakistan - and France, the UK and North Korea. Since that's an unlikely scenario, the Iranians will get their strategic balance one way or another, sooner or later.

Eventually, the USA will get the clue that her enemies in the region are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq and Iran. The former are where the Islamicist looneys are produced and succoured. Indeed, just as happened in the aftermath of 9-11, Iran - which has its own terrorist problem, by the way - could develop into a really strong partner out there. Especially if we shut up and let Ahmadinejad face an election next year where he has to run on his domestic record.

After much thought and weighing all the various considrations of this question as put I really cannot see the possibilty of any answer apart from bollox

Quote:

---

Unlike most other countries,

---

Well bugger me Lemur , when your government doesn't support arm and train frigging terrorists perhaps you can shout the odds about Iran doing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Unlike most other countries, Iran has a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups, supplying them with money, weapons and training. Hezbollah has direct ties to the Iranian government, and is responsible for some outrageous stuff. We don't have any reason to believe nuclear weapons would not be passed from Iran to Hezbollah, or another proxy group.

---

While I do not doubt there is some validity in your statement, I do not believe you can just state it without at the same time admitting that the U S of A does the same thing: Support terror organizations, rebels to destabilize "hostile" governments, groups to cause a ruckus in other countries.

Those rebels that are then caught, possibly tortured and then killed are then quoted as Human Rights Violations and harsh treatments of citizens rather than what it actually is: Treason. Punishable by death in the states as well last I heard.

Except of course if you say "why do you hate freedom" or "if the USA supports them, they are no longer a terrorist organization".

In fact, when news first broke of those Anbar councils, the MSM was reporting about it as the US (Military) with blessing from the government supporting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. But as they seemed to become useful enough, the way they were portrayed changed too. Now they are called "freedom fighters" and "anti insurgents" or "Support groups".

Needless to say, that is similar to what happened back in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well bugger me Lemur , when your government doesn't support arm and train frigging terrorists perhaps you can shout the odds about Iran doing it

---

Since when did hypocrisy become a cardinal sin? I don't deny that we have funded and trained violent groups in our time. However, Iran's proxies have been exceptionally violent and unrestrained. Furthermore, I am insulted, gravely insulted that you would say "bollox" to me without using at least ten smileys.

Banquo, you make excellent points. I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be. The regional history of fighting Israel whether it made a lick of practical sense or not doesn't encourage. "It's not whether you win or lose, all that matters is fight the Jews" leads to some depressing lines of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Because the Iranian regime is not suicidal.

---

Or maybe they are evil nor insane, but I still think having nukes there is a bad idea.

If they are neither evil, nor suicidal nor insane, then why do you still think it to be a bad idea when so many other nations have them?
Just a gut feeling?

Quote:

---

but I still think having nukes there is a bad idea.
Today 17:32

---

That may well be , but kim il elvis has just shown that having nukes means you can act the maggot and get away with it

Quote:

---

I don't deny that we have funded and trained violent groups in our time. However, Iran's proxies have been exceptionally violent and unrestrained.

---

Bollox , have your ten:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:so now what part of exceptionally violent death squads is it that isn't as bad as them middle eastern feckwits . Do they slaughter with a smile or something , do they say have a nice day perhaps?

Here's an article that was just published regarding US government funding of terrorists with Iran and kidnappings of Iranians within Iran to "interrogate" them in Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reuters

U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran
Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:34am BST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.

The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centres around a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees.

"The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money."

Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal.

Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million (200 million pounds), was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said.

These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article.

But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the article said, citing current and former officials.

Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said.

Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda.

The article said U.S. support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene.

None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment.

The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses.

---

Bolded for emphasis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

If they are neither evil, nor suicidal nor insane, then why do you still think it to be a bad idea when so many other nations have them?
Just a gut feeling?

---

Well it's kinda unstable there isn't it.

@Tribes, but King Jung is more or less a fixed idea, in the middle east someone is always trying to overthrow someone. I expect Kim Jung to act rationaly but all that's going on in the sand, less sure.

Its unstable because of outsiders trying to make it unstable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[...] now what part of exceptionally violent death squads is it that isn't as bad as them middle eastern ********. Do they slaughter with a smile or something , do they say have a nice day perhaps?

---

Tribsey, I'm unclear here -- do you believe the U.S.A. to be the moral equivalent of the worst regimes in the world (and history) or to be worse than them all? Are we part of the continuum of evil, or are we an exemplar?