Speculation: what happens if Israel strikes Iran?

[Hurin_Rules]

Just wondering what you all thought of the military and political consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran. The Israelis have been making some signs lately that this is a possibility: one official said Israel would not tolerate Iran having nuclear weapons, and Israel launched airstrikes against Iraq in the 80s (was it 1982?) for the same purpose.

Personally, I think that Israel could seriously damage or destroy a number of Iranian installations. A ground offensive is out of the question, unless the US wants to participate. But the Israelis might find that they take some heavy casualties-- the Iranians have just purchased new air defense systems from Russia, though I'm not sure when they'll be up and running. Moreover, Iran's Shahab III missiles have enough range to strike Israel and US bases in the region, and that could have disastrous consequences for the Israelis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11071782/

[Reenk Roink]

Oh man, the fires are rekindled...

[LeftEyeNine]

If there will be a war around here, no one should expect the consequences to be only between the two. I guess that USA -on behalf of Israel's demands- would request Turkish bases that would be repelled instantly under such circumstances.

I don't want a war here. It will not only be a 1-on-1 war - may trigger severe conflicts, me thinks.

[Bar Kochba]

well if iran get nuculear missles whos to say they will stop at blowing up israel why not the whole world there leader i dont think is to meantly stable who knows what he will do

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I think America should do it's best to not chose sides...

EDIT: For the sake of our appearance to other nations. Strategically Isreal may be the ones the help here, but I really don't think that is an option.

[LeftEyeNine]

deathtoallhumans,

can you use full stops at the end of your sentences please? I'm not a native English speaker and it is generally impossible for me to understand you.

[IrishMike]

well if iran get nuculear missles whos to say they will stop at blowing up israel why not the whole world there leader i dont think is to meantly stable who knows what he will do

They would only get a few off. Any nuclear stike in aggression will more than likely provoke a massive strike. In a matter of minutes they would be glowing. They only real practicle use of nuclear weapons is in terrorism.

Anyways I doubt Iran has the nuclear capacity of the USA or Russia had back in the day to really erase the earth.

[BDC]

Plus Israel is small, any nuclear attack is going to have fallout all over Islamic lands. Hardly great propaganda. "Our mighty bomb has killed 15 million muslims with cancer slowly and horribly and obliterated one of our holy cities, Jerusalem".

[Strike For The South]

ugh I dont want to think about that. It will drag us in and that will anger me greatly. Not to mention it would spill over to other parts of the world. I say we talk

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tactically, the problem for Iran is their lack of an air force that can intercept an Israeli strike effectively. SAMs and AAA, no matter how well sited, are too easily countered. They may up the price Israel pays for such a strike, but they will not prevent it. There are compelling reasons why Israel, the USA, and the NATO powers place such emphasis on fighters as the primary defenseive tool. Nothing in Iran's arsenal can stop an Israeli strike.

Tactically, the problem for Israel is that the targets that would need to be neutralized are a) more numerous, b) more scattered, and c) buried in a goodly number of cases. There are serious questions as to whether Israel would have enough of the right types of ordinance to pull such a strike off. The Iranians are not stupid and did not replicate the vulnerabilities that allowed Iraq's effort to be squelched.

Since ground combat would involve traversing Iraq and Jordan, both of whom are not THAT friendly (I'll exclude the possibility of an amphib strike from Aqaba completely around the Arabian Peninsula and into the Hormuz as a little far fetched), any kind of significant ground raid in force is unlikely.

SFTS:

I understand your comment, but in the eyes of most [all?] of Israel's violent detractors in the Middle East, Israel already has dragged us in. Our economic support of Israel since the 70's has made us, in the eyes of many, equally culpable.

[rory_20_uk]

Thinking back to what happened in Iraq, Israel used Mossad to damage the installations enough to delay things for a few years. I would imagine that this would be their choice again - far less risky and if all goes well, no one keeds to know.

[A.Saturnus]

I don't want to sound hypocritical, but in a way that could from a European perspective be best. We could be outraged by Israel's unilateral and totally exagerated use of violence and silently be happy that Iran's nuclear programs have been stopped without us doing anything

[Adrian II]

There are serious questions as to whether Israel would have enough of the right types of ordinance to pull such a strike off. The Iranians are not stupid and did not replicate the vulnerabilities that allowed Iraq's effort to be squelched.

Exactly, since Osirak (1981) no regime in the Middle East will make the same mistake of concentrating its nuclear research in one above ground plant with a gleaming dome that is visible from miles away.

Few people know that the 1981 attack was a lucky shot, since Israel knew far too little about the Iraqi nuclear program to be sure that this one hit would truly set it back.

Fewer people know that Iraq had carried out a series of similar aerial attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities during the 1980s, notably on the Bushehr facility, which seems to have damaged the Iranian nuclear program considerably. These attacks drove Iran's nuclear program underground, literally; they caused Tehran to disperse its entire nuclear research and construction over a variety of hardened underground sites.

And I'll bet nobody knows the most saliant fact of this whole matter, which is that it was Tehran that attacked the Osirak plant first, on September 30, 1980. The attack had little success. Two US-supplied F-4 fighter aircraft damaged some auxiliary buildings at the site, but not the power reactor itself.

There have been 24 or 25 of such limited attacks meant to disrupt a regime's nuclear program, and generally speaking they were not succesful. The program delays were mostly negligable and and the few successes are not likely to be repeated in the future because regimes conceal and disperse their crucial assets.

[KukriKhan]

I don't want to sound hypocritical, but in a way that could from a European perspective be best. We could be outraged by Israel's unilateral and totally exagerated use of violence and silently be happy that Iran's nuclear programs have been stopped without us doing anything

'cognitive dissonance'
'plausible deniability'

The classics... they're all coming back LoL. Just please: not 'disco' again.

[bmolsson]

I don't think Israel will strike on Iran. Neither do I think that Israel ever would have a nuke against themselves, by a country or a terrorist group. Israel is to small and far to well protected to allow it to happen.
Terrorist nukes will hit US or another western nation.

Any attack on Iran would lead to a war with US on one side and several arabic nation on the other side. The only chance for US to fight a large scale war in middle east (including Iraq, Syria and Iran) would be to use nukes or terror bombings. This would immediately remove the global support for US, and lead to the loss of allies like Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Turkey would at the most invade Kurdistan, but most probably choose to stay out of it like the rest of Europe.

I don't think that we will see any strikes or additional invasions. The right way is to get Iraq stabile and use Iraq as the democratic platform to reform the whole region......

[solypsist]

i dont doubt a bombing by u.s. stealth planes is imminent.

[Papewaio]

In the form of weapon aid to Israel. I'm sure the USA would love to see how well their new supersonic stealth fighters perform. Neutral, but plenty of technical readouts before, during and after swapped between the two.

As for the world going against USA if USA wiped out Irans nuclear weapons program... well I think the world is more against the invasion of Iraq. So I don't see a war, and if one happens then you might find that Russia and China at worst condemn it at the UN. At best they may lend a hand to get more kudos.

As for the EU? I'm not sure. A lot of the leaders get brownie points with the electorate by being fashionably anti-American. On the other hand I'm sure they don't like to think that IFF Iran has nukes that the terrorists may attack closer to home.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That wasn't the original question. Pappy, though I suspect your political read is more or less on track.

The only nation with the capability to cripple the Iranian nuclear program is the U.S.A., as we are the only nation currently fielding the various weapons systems that would allow for deep penetration bombings and precision attacks on the divers installations involved.

The real practicality question for the U.S. is: do we have enough tactical intelligence to target all the necessary components of the Iranian program? Our doctrine is that if you see it you can hit it and if you hit it you can kill it -- but that first step is the tricky one.

My read on the politics is that virtually everyone would publicly condemn and deplore a U.S. strike on the Iranian nuclear program. I suspect more than a few would be privately toasting our success.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Anything with Iran equals regional screwed-age.

[Don Corleone]

There are two serious problems with anybody striking Iran, and one serious one with the chosen striker being Israel....

1) Nobody knows the exact extent of the Iranian weapons grade uranium enrichment. They may very well have several nuclear devices already weaponized.

2) Iran has sufficient mountainous territory that they have the capability to put their research facilities deep into impenetrable bunkers. An airstrike cannot destroy such a facility. A prolonged aerial bombardment might, but I seriously doubt the world will sit back and allow Israel to conduct sortie after sortie over the course of several days.

Finally, for cultural/religious reasons, it cannot be Israel that does it. Nothing would rekindle the fire of pan-Arabism (I'm not sure that term applies in the context of Iran, but you understand what I mean, the us against the world mentality they have) then a strike by Israel, specifically. I'm not certain the US involvement would be tolerated either. Perhaps Russia could pull it off, but I doubt it. It's a shame China and Iran don't have axes to grind, they'd have no questions about it, they'd knock 'em into the stone age if they wanted to. I'm still amazed they didn't smack India down when they got the bomb.

Anyway, to answer Hurin's original question... if Israel struck Iran, I honestly believe all hell would break loose in the Middle East.

[A.Saturnus]

Anyway, to answer Hurin's original question... if Israel struck Iran, I honestly believe all hell would break loose in the Middle East.

I doubt it. As much as all muslim states would be outraged, no one has the capabilities to attack Israel. Support for terrorism would increase, but outright military actions wouldn't happen. Especially with Israel's strongest supporter already having considerable more force than all of them combined in the area.

[Xiahou]

2) Iran has sufficient mountainous territory that they have the capability to put their research facilities deep into impenetrable bunkers. An airstrike cannot destroy such a facility. A prolonged aerial bombardment might, but I seriously doubt the world will sit back and allow Israel to conduct sortie after sortie over the course of several days.

Too bad the US stopped work on its nuclear bunker-busters then I guess? Maybe Isreal didnt.