how strong is Iran's military

pwd

I saw in the news that Iran are saying they think Israel is planning a military strke on them and if they are attacked their initial targets will be American.

How strong is Iran's military? Is it much stronger than Iraq's before they were invaded?

pwd

pwd wrote: »

I saw in the news that Iran are saying they think Israel is planning a military strke on them and if they are attacked their initial targets will be American.

How strong is Iran's military? Is it much stronger than Iraq's before they were invaded?

It would be fair to say that they are bigger and meaner then Iraq pre-2003. Remember, they ahve a much larger population! Though they're bigger, they still suffer from the major problem from their lack of force projection and air power. All they have are a few pimped up F-4's, old Tomcats and older model SU's and Migs. The major issue would be hte sheer amount of damage that all those Iranian arty pieces could do. Alot of ordanance booming down in one place would cause some mess.

Besides, not a week goes by when you don't hear about America's imminent attack on Iran. It's not going to happen anytime soon me thinks and hopes!

MacBuster

Deleted User wrote: »

It would be fair to say that they are bigger and meaner then Iraq pre-2003. Remember, they ahve a much larger population! Though they're bigger, they still suffer from the major problem from their lack of force projection and air power. All they have are a few pimped up F-4's, old Tomcats and older model SU's and Migs. The major issue would be hte sheer amount of damage that all those Iranian arty pieces could do. Alot of ordanance booming down in one place would cause some mess.

Besides, not a week goes by when you don't hear about America's imminent attack on Iran. It's not going to happen anytime soon me thinks and hopes!

Nothing that the Israeli Army could sort out in a few hours.

They are crap over zealous fanatics and a third world army....

concussion

I know feck all about the Israeli army and even less about Irans, but 36 million against 3 million aren't good odds!!!

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=23

Plus with a population of only 7.2 million there's a lot less Israeli's to kill :eek:

MacBuster

concussion wrote: »

I know feck all about the Israeli army and even less about Irans, but 36 million against 3 million aren't good odds!!!

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=23

Plus with a population of only 7.2 million there's a lot less Israeli's to kill :eek:

Size does'nt matter in this situation...

Sooner or later the Israelis will hit Iran never mind the yanks and if they do they will hopefully bomb those brutal morons back to the stone age.. And I think it could be nuclear at this stage

piby

According to Wikipedia Iran has '545,000 active personnel' but they have a low level of defence spending when compared to other nations in the Gulf.

Besides, not a week goes by when you don't hear about America's imminent attack on Iran. It's not going to happen anytime soon me thinks and hopes!

+1 With the Americans tied down in both Iraq and Afghanistan they simply don't have the manpower. Besides I very much doubt the US public would tolerate a third war unless provoked.

pwd wrote: »

I saw in the news that Iran are saying they think Israel is planning a military strke on them and if they are attacked their initial targets will be American.

Ahmadinejad and his goverment have been defiant as such but they're not that stupid. Google search and you'll find they're actually pursuing other means of antagonizing the US such as their buding alliance with Nicaragua. To tie into my above point I don't imagine that the US would be too keen for Israel to do anything either!

concussion

MacBuster wrote: »

Size does'nt matter in this situation..

With the huge difference in numbers, does Israel have the bombs and bullets to defeat that size of an army??

Methinks this is heading toward the Walter Mitty forum anyway!

MacBuster

concussion wrote: »

With the huge difference in numbers, does Israel have the bombs and bullets to defeat that size of an army??

Methinks this is heading toward the Walter Mitty forum anyway!

Obviously your not from a military background. The Israeli army is the most powerful in the region, it is well trained,well equipped and motivated.

Quality compared to quantity is the factor here...The Iranian army is a joke even their revoultionary guards and special forces.

Iran is a terrorist nation, Israeli forces are trained primarily in Urban Warfare,CRW and also comprehensively in Conventional warfare and they also have the samson option.

concussion

I'm not questioning the training or motivation of the Israeli's, I'd just don't think they have the manpower or munitions to sustain a conflict against such a numerically superior force.





Anyway, they'd have to go through Jordan or Syria and then Iraq to get there :rolleyes:

Hagar

Ssshhhh... petrol is dear enough already.

Fratton Fred

concussion wrote: »

With the huge difference in numbers, does Israel have the bombs and bullets to defeat that size of an army??

Methinks this is heading toward the Walter Mitty forum anyway!

Men with guns, no matter how fanatical, aren't going to be much use against the Israeli air force.

The problem would be if a few other middle east states ie syria fancy a go as well, then it could get very bloody indeed.

concussion

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Men with guns, no matter how fanatical, aren't going to be much use against the Israeli air force.

And how well will the Israeli air-force fare against Irans missile defences? Only last year a Russian AD commander stated that Irans air defences were powerful enough to repel US air-strikes.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The problem would be if a few other middle east states ie syria fancy a go as well, then it could get very bloody indeed.

If it happens, there's going to be some mess alright.

OS119

concussion wrote: »

And how well will the Israeli air-force fare against Irans missile defences? Only last year a Russian AD commander stated that Irans air defences were powerful enough to repel US air-strikes.

hmmm.... Russian AD officer says that Russian AD system flogged to Iranians (and potentially lots of others) will handle any threat....

no conflict of interest there my Lord, all perfectly above board.

i seem to recall Russian AD officers saying very similar things about Iraqi, Yugoslav et al AD systems shortly after they'd bought very expensive Russian AD systems and the Russians were looking to sell them to others who might find US aircraft in their airspace.

i also seem to recall them being about as effective as a horse trying to fight a forest fire with a screwdriver.

mass is only effective if it can be controlled and directed, modern airpower removes that control very quickly and the 'mass' soon finds that it is unable to engage the enemy but the enemy is able to, in the US lexicon, 'cut if off, and then kill it - at leisure'.

Conor108

From BBC News, Today

The US and Israel have condemned Iran after it test-fired a series of missiles, including one capable of reaching Israel.

Iran state media said the Shahab-3 had a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles) and was armed with a conventional warhead.

Iran has tested the missile before, but the latest launch comes amid rising tensions with the US and Israel over the country's nuclear programme.

Full Story

Israel did that military rehearsel a few weeks back too. They flew 100+ planes west towards Greece as far as uranium enrichment plants in Natanz are to the east. story link

twinytwo

MacBuster wrote: »

Nothing that the Israeli Army could sort out in a few hours.

They are crap over zealous fanatics and a third world army....

exactly.. besides this was going to happen eventually. they have been running guns etc into iraq for years.. i have full faith in the israeli air force. bomb them back to the stone age

rednik

A few years ago I would have thought an Israeli pre emptive strike on Iran would be a success but after the recent debacle in Lebanon I have my doubts. Once Israel decides to go the politicians will step to one side and allow the military to run the show. Like the Yanks they will take out Iranian military infrastructure and attack the nuclear plants first. If the Iranian AD is any good they will be lucky to take down a few planes. After all the threats Israel has received from Iran does anybody seriously believe they will allow Iran to be a nuclear power. Just remember Operation Babylon when they attacked Iraq and Saddam supposedly had an air force and AD then.

MacBuster

Three words concussion :

Six Day War ...

Iran are a pushover and I sincerely hope they get Nuked...

Steyr

Didnt Israel hit some Nuclear type facilities a few years back too? Got in and out without a scratch.

twinytwo

MacBuster wrote: »

Three words concussion :

Six Day War ...

Iran are a pushover and I sincerely hope they get Nuked...

matre you had better hope they dont cause if it comes to that then the world crosses a line at which point there is no going back.. once nukes get used once thats it. ( before some walt starts yapping on about ww2 .. that shopwed the world how bad they actually are )

MacBuster

Steyr wrote: »

Didnt Israel hit some Nuclear type facilities a few years back too? Got in and out without a scratch.

Yep the french supplied Iraqi Reactors

MacBuster

twinytwo wrote: »

matre you had better hope they dont cause if it comes to that then the world crosses a line at which point there is no going back.. once nukes get used once thats it. ( before some walt starts yapping on about ww2 .. that shopwed the world how bad they actually are )

Although your are right, Iran is not just a threat to the Middleast but to the rest of the world from Oil constraints to funding of international terrorism, it is about time they were took to task...

Manic Moran

The Iranian capabilities must be viewed in two categories: Offence and defence.

Offensively, it downright sucks. No two ways about it. Defensively, it's going to come down something akin to the Hezbollah strategy a couple of years ago. Conventional systems such as tanks and air defenses would get wiped out, it would come down to man-portable systems fired from prepared, well-hidden defensive positions, mainly out of urban areas. (With accompanying levels of collaterol damage)

NTM

concussion

Iran's air-defences are more advanced than Iraqi or Yugoslavian systems which were mainly 60's or 70's vintage missile systems. With a small amount of S 300's Iran now has a proper layered AD network to protect vital installations (ie the ones Israel will want to destroy) where long-range systems can engage attacking aircraft while shorter range Tor and Pantsyr units protect them from cruise missiles and ARM's.

Israel is not going to destroy Irans military, to do that would require a sustained air war to destroy AD and communications systems and allow for air-superiority for a ground war as happened during the 6 day war. You cannot destroy or take over a country with air power alone and Israel is 2 countries away - even if they got their military across Syria/Jordan and Iraq they would be attacking on a single front against an enemy with a 12 to 1 superiority. It won't happen.

What will probably happen is a repeat of the Osirak strike where selected sites will be targeted. If the Israeli's know where they are they'll probably be successful in destroying them as they have quite advanced ECM technology as shown by their strike on Syria last year. However, ECM is a game which quickly changes and the same tricks don't work 3 or 4 times which tips the balance back toward the missile defences.

Hagar

How long have the US/UK being trying to conquer Iraq?
What makes anyone think Iran would be any easier?
A quick few bombing raids, yeah, maybe, but finish the job?
Not nearly as easy or predictable.

Cato

Hagar wrote: »

How long have the US/UK being trying to conquer Iraq?
What makes anyone think Iran would be any easier?
A quick few bombing raids, yeah, maybe, but finish the job?
Not nearly as easy or predictable.

militarily they have, wars of ocupation never work though at least looking back in history i cannot think of any that worked..

Cato

concussion wrote: »

Iran's air-defences are more advanced than Iraqi or Yugoslavian systems which were mainly 60's or 70's vintage missile systems. With a small amount of S 300's Iran now has a proper layered AD network to protect vital installations (ie the ones Israel will want to destroy) where long-range systems can engage attacking aircraft while shorter range Tor and Pantsyr units protect them from cruise missiles and ARM's.

Israel is not going to destroy Irans military, to do that would require a sustained air war to destroy AD and communications systems and allow for air-superiority for a ground war as happened during the 6 day war. You cannot destroy or take over a country with air power alone and Israel is 2 countries away - even if they got their military across Syria/Jordan and Iraq they would be attacking on a single front against an enemy with a 12 to 1 superiority. It won't happen.

What will probably happen is a repeat of the Osirak strike where selected sites will be targeted. If the Israeli's know where they are they'll probably be successful in destroying them as they have quite advanced ECM technology as shown by their strike on Syria last year. However, ECM is a game which quickly changes and the same tricks don't work 3 or 4 times which tips the balance back toward the missile defences.

damn military campaigns these days are so complicated, compared to what im reading about WW2, dont understand all these missile defences ECMs and what have you.:eek:

Hagar

Cato wrote: »

militarily they have,

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Maybe on a very broad scale they can claim that but without doubt they haven't quelled all opposition. Everyday the body count rises, on both sides. It's not over yet, it may never be. Vietnam anyone?

Cato

Hagar wrote: »

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Maybe on a very broad scale they can claim that but without doubt they haven't quelled all opposition. Everyday the body count rises, on both sides. It's not over yet, it may never be. Vietnam anyone?

im just thinking in context of Sadams regime and his military power being defeated, in that sense it was a victory, ocupation is definatly not going to work to many paramilitary s terrorists and other dangerous groups running around with weapons vying for control.

(heh just realised spell checker doesent correct Sadam )

concussion

Cato wrote: »

damn military campaigns these days are so complicated, compared to what im reading about WW2, dont understand all these missile defences ECMs and what have you.:eek:

It's all a big complicated game with the balance constantly tipping from favouring the aircraft to favouring the defenders. Its easy to turn on a radar, acquire and destroy an aircraft, the skill is knowing when to illuminate, what assets to use and what you want the enemy to see. A radar may be able to track an aircraft from 50 miles for example but aircraft can detect these from 2 to 3 times this distance.

At the moment, with a properly layered AD system the balance is tipped toward with the defender as current aircraft technology is 20 years old at the moment. Stealth bombers the new F 22's bring the advantage back to aircraft but Israel does not have these aircraft. Earlier generation stealth technology, ie F 117 was overcome ten years ago as seen with the SA 3 over Yugoslavia. Israels ECM (jamming) is at the stage that they can reported jam radar without the radar knowing its been jammed but that can be overcome (by ECCM) if its used too many times.

Bottom line really - a couple of surprise strikes will more than likely get through, a sustained campaign would more than likely result in large losses. When the large radars are finally destroyed and the air-force turns to close air support the smaller mobile and man-portable systems would wreak havoc on low flying, close range targets.

MacBuster

It has been rumoured that Israeli forces has setup a covert airbase in Kurdish Iraq under the guise of a civilan airport for the purpose of refuelling.

They could not fly a straight sortie from Israel to hit Iran, hence flying below radar down the red sea and up via the straits or hormuz to Northern iraq where a possible refuel would be done and then direct attack on Iran and returning then via Turkey and on to Israel.

It is rumours but nothing solid.

the GALL

Cato wrote: »

militarily they have, wars of ocupation never work though at least looking back in history i cannot think of any that worked..

Germany WWII
Japan WWII
And I think the phrase is Americanization
Suprised you missed them

Cato

the GALL wrote: »

Germany WWII
Japan WWII
And I think the phrase is Americanization
Suprised you missed them

Im sorry i don't understand.

the_syco

Well, due to Iraq scud attacks against Isreal in the 90's, planning reg's is that everyone must have a bomb shelter. If Iran were to bomb Isreal with anything less than nuclear/bio/chemical, I'd say that little damage would be done to the infrastructure.

Russia has delivered an undetermined number of Tor-M1 systems (originally built for Greece) to the Islamic Republic of Iran amid protests from the United States. It is suspected that at least 29 such systems have been transferred along with service contracts with an approximate value of $700,000,000 USD

Probably a couple soviet era tanks, and less then 79 F-14 and another 100 or so MiG 29 aircraft. There are also some aircraft impounded from Iraq -- Russian-built Sukhoi Su-24s and 25s.

Azarakhsh, one of their home made fighter jets is more or less a modified US F-5E. They had 6 made in 2001, and I'd say they'd have 60 or so by now, but some of likened them to be nothing more than trainer jets.

=-=

That, with the long range missiles, makes Iran not someone to f**k with. Although they supplied Iraqis arms, don't forget that during the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq hit Iran with chemical weapons, so Iraq wouldn't have been in a big hurry to help Iraq when the US came, IMO. If Isreal attacked Iran, I'd say that Iran would attack Isreal, as unless they took out the US radar, the missile would've been detected before it hit the US. Isreal, on the other hand, doesn't have a large sea around them, so may not spot something until it's too late.

the GALL wrote: »

Germany WWII
Japan WWII
And I think the phrase is Americanization
Suprised you missed them

I don't think either Japan or Germany had hardcore religious nuts running the country. Patriotism can be bribed. Religion based on everlasting life, or some BS, is less easier to break.

Cuddlesworth

the_syco wrote: »

I don't think either Japan or Germany had hardcore religious nuts running the country. Patriotism can be bribed. Religion based on everlasting life, or some BS, is less easier to break.

Japan was quite nutty.

the GALL

I don't think either Japan or Germany had hardcore religious nuts running the country

Japan's leader was believed to be a liveing god
Germany's belief in Hitler(fanatical, no?) that he was doing the right thing and Hitler's belief in himself.

for Cato
After WWII when the Axis had fallen the Allies stayed for sixty+ years to ensure that they would not rise up again. That's two full generations that have grown up under American occupation. Try to get a copy of 'Fast Food Nation', there's a better explanation in it, I think it's by a guy called Eric Schlosser.

Cato

the GALL wrote: »

I don't think either Japan or Germany had hardcore religious nuts running the country

Japan's leader was believed to be a liveing god
Germany's belief in Hitler(fanatical, no?) that he was doing the right thing and Hitler's belief in himself.

for Cato
After WWII when the Axis had fallen the Allies stayed for sixty+ years to ensure that they would not rise up again. That's two full generations that have grown up under American occupation. Try to get a copy of 'Fast Food Nation', there's a better explanation in it, I think it's by a guy called Eric Schlosser.

ok cool your right, i meant along the lines of physical military occupation that is a against the will of the majority of the population or a large part, which i think will be the case in Iran...

Manic Moran

From Iran's much-publishised missile test last week.



Ignoring the fact that the second missile in has a faulty fuel feed as indicated by the exhaust plume showing too much red courtesy of an overfeed of IRFNA, note the shapes of the plumes of smoke...

Yes, this is why.



So one failure to launch, one questionable fuel feed, and no telling where the others landed.

NTM

Cato

are those the missiles everyones in a fuss over? look like scuds to me? which are inacurate and crude?

Manic Moran

They have about as much resemblance to a Scud as to a V2.

In theory, Shahab-3s are pretty nifty missiles with a fair few features such as terminal evasion maneuvers which make them a threat to be honoured. The Iranians have some intelligent people working for them. The problem is more an issue of quality control: They're not overly good at it.

NTM

IRISH RAIL

most of the problem is from Iranian propaganda
Israeli Intelligence recently said they dont have advanced shahab 3 missiles they have no capability of reaching Israel, and dont forget a few months back when the IAF succsefully attacked and dystroyed the joint syria/north korea nuclear facility in northern syria, with that gone it wasnt long before syria started to talk peace,

also the question of refuelling is answered by a dc10 refuelling plane just like Osirak in 1980

wasper

MacBuster wrote: »

Obviously your not from a military background. The Israeli army is the most powerful in the region, it is well trained,well equipped and motivated.
"The same army that made a balls of it against Hizbullah in 2006.

Iran is a terrorist nation, Israeli forces are trained primarily in Urban Warfare,CRW and also comprehensively in Conventional warfare and they also have the samson option.

" Easy tiger, your finger is on the button.

Manic Moran

The same army that made a balls of it against Hizbullah in 2006.

Be careful of drawing the wrong conclusions from that one. Yes, the Israelis re-learned some lessons that they forgot, but on the other hand (a ) they've re-learned them, and (b ) they probably won't restrain themselves as much next time. People get this impression that the Israelis were hurling HE and dropping bombs willy-nilly, but in Southern Lebanon it was almost exclusively reactionary. No local neighbours should be under any misconceptions that a military engagement against Israel would be anything but very costly.

NTM

wasper

Manic Moran wrote: »

Be careful of drawing the wrong conclusions from that one. Yes, the Israelis re-learned some lessons that they forgot, but on the other hand (a ) they've re-learned them, and (b ) they probably won't restrain themselves as much next time. People get this impression that the Israelis were hurling HE and dropping bombs willy-nilly, but in Southern Lebanon it was almost exclusively reactionary. No local neighbours should be under any misconceptions that a military engagement against Israel would be anything but very costly.

NTM

The Israelis destroyed almost all Lebanese infra structure. To say that they weren't bombing nilly willy is under statement of the century. They are not super humans nor super smart.

wasper

wasper wrote: »

The Israelis destroyed almost all Lebanese infra structure. To say that they weren't bombing nilly willy is under statement of the century. They are not super humans nor super smart.

Oh I disagree, any nation that has consistently defeated vastly numerically superior enemies are "super smart". Just look at the tactics and aggressiveness of the Israelis in 67 or 73 and you will begin to appreciate how able that state is when it comes to kicking their opponents asses.

wasper

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I disagree, any nation that has consistently defeated vastly numerically superior enemies are "super smart". Just look at the tactics and aggressiveness of the Israelis in 67 or 73 and you will begin to appreciate how able that state is when it comes to kicking their opponents asses.

Yes they are called the Israeli defence forces but armed with the most offensive & up to date state of the art weapons.

Manic Moran

wasper wrote: »

The Israelis destroyed almost all Lebanese infra structure. To say that they weren't bombing nilly willy is under statement of the century. They are not super humans nor super smart.

You have to distinguish between strategic/interdiction bombing and tactical support. Hezbullah's operations and victories during the fighting tended to be on the tactical level. In this, Israeli usage of fire support was reactionary. Israeli troops would advance somewhere, take fire, try to deal with the issue without fire support, then if that didn't work, call in that support, starting small and working larger. The town of Bint Jabil was an excellent example of this: A full infantry battalion got caught in a massive firefight for about eight hours, before finally they decided 'to hell with this,' pulled back, and just levelled two city blocks with artillery. I've seen the AARs, we've even had Israeli officers come over to Ft Knox and brief us. And of course, those two city blocks got subsequently photographed and sent around the world as proof that Israel was being indiscriminate. Legally speaking, there's no reason they couldn't have just responded immediately with the big guns instead of taking the softly approach, or even simply engaged 'targets of military value' before they got shot at in the first place. Had the Israelis taken this latter course, the military result would have been rather different, but so also would the political reactions in the international arena.

NTM

IRISH RAIL

thats why the second lebanon war was a disaster military because olmert and barak( a war hero who on his own the outcome might have been different) they put more tought into saving thier political carrer than winning the war and saving lives,
theres a few different reasons why that would not be a problem in Irans case.

First in 2006 hizbollah were firing rockets into Israel but it was not seen as a national threat to the survival of the state, it was more so a series of individual attacks responded by the usual air attacks at the launch sites.
Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map so the entire country is behind them ( thats from what Ive seen in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem when Im there in 2006 there was a lot of anti war people wanting to know why there sons were being killed but by and by the majority supports the army NOT the politians who get slated for anything and everything.

this Iran attack would be like the one on Syria where its in complete secrecy and the planes are back on the ground in Israel before and thats even if Iran tells people its been hit the government have a lot to lose from such a strike if the site is wiped out and they dont respond then there seen as weak on the other hand if they try to all they have are mig 29s that would be suicide for them to try and attack Israel most likely event would be they blame america helped Israel and attack americans in Iraq another bad move given the consequences and reprisals.

unless amejinidad is a complete idiot all he can do is sit and take it and hope he isnt strung up by his own at the end of the day.

Dinter

So basically Israel could use planned strikes to flatten areas in Iran with little or no opposition?

Still though that’s not actually beating Iran. I’d say it would be doubtful they could as Iran’s neighbours are hardly going to give them access to pass through and that refusal is hardly a casus belli for fighting their way through.

In all fairness world opinion of Israel’s military capabilities post Lebanon incursion are anything but rock solid. They have certainly lost their up till then, well-deserved sheen of invincibility and this will probably lead to them having to take a more conciliatory role whether they’re aware of that at the moment or not.

It is true that the IDF are numerous, well trained and well equipped but there is no way on Earth that they could fight and subdue Iran. There are too many variables and the only way they could go charging around the Gulf would be a full mobilisation, which would leave their homeland pretty much undefended against the inevitable intifada.

If anything the Six Day War showed not so much that the IDF is an unbeatable fighting machine but that their adversaries really aren’t.

Still do any of us think that Israel will have the option of a pre-emptive strike this time to destroy air power on the ground or has early warning radar etc has moved on too much for that?

IRISH RAIL

You hit the nail on the head there its Hezbollah thats the problem, Iran could be taken care of with the air force while the Mossad have a lot of sucsess blowing up arms shipments in theran and all along the way to Lebanon its the rocket attacks that would entail along the northern border, Israel would have to absorb them or go back in , the un are watching them build up there arsnel and doing nothing as usual.
we will have to wait and see........

marco murphy

MacBuster wrote: »

Obviously your not from a military background. The Israeli army is the most powerful in the region, it is well trained,well equipped and motivated.

Quality compared to quantity is the factor here...The Iranian army is a joke even their revoultionary guards and special forces.

Iran is a terrorist nation, Israeli forces are trained primarily in Urban Warfare,CRW and also comprehensively in Conventional warfare and they also have the samson option.

Well I'm not sure what Military background you are from, but it has to be one that is fairly wreckless.

marco murphy

MacBuster wrote: »

25 years in the army PAL..also from your extreme posts of islamic fanaticism your views or comments are not welcome here so go back to the islam or politics forum and spout your anti-semtic pro terrorist views there.

Very democratic, a reflection of your usual reasoning. What comments of mine are of an Islamist, anti-semetic or pro-terrorist? Show me.

So basically Israel could use planned strikes to flatten areas in Iran with little or no opposition?

Still though that’s not actually beating Iran. I’d say it would be doubtful they could as Iran’s neighbours are hardly going to give them access to pass through and that refusal is hardly a casus belli for fighting their way through.

True, it won't be an overnight thing.

It is true that the IDF are numerous, well trained and well equipped but there is no way on Earth that they could fight and subdue Iran. There are too many variables and the only way they could go charging around the Gulf would be a full mobilisation, which would leave their homeland pretty much undefended against the inevitable intifada.

I'm pretty sure America wouldn't let that happen.
The important thing to note is, Israel won't beat them by air strikes, full mobilisation is exactly whats needed, and I don't think they'd even be able to cover the country.