Will Israel attack Iran???

b12mearse

What do you guys think?

Manic Moran

If they think they need to, I'm sure they will.

NTM

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

If they think they need to, I'm sure they will.

NTM

Just to expand this a little further.

Do you think Israel still has the belly for a wider conflict, ie a simultanious attack on Syria & Iran?.

They'd probably have to anniliate Hezbollah's infrastructor inside Lebanon too, so lets include Lebanon on their northern border.

.

Agamemnon

I think they might attack Iranian nuclear facilities but they wouldn't go any further than that.

Ping Chow Chi

Payton Purring Poultry wrote: »

Just to expand this a little further.

Do you think Israel still has the belly for a wider conflict, ie a simultanious attack on Syria & Iran?.

They'd probably have to anniliate Hezbollah's infrastructor inside Lebanon too, so lets include Lebanon on their northern border.

.

I think it would probably be a limited stike on some targets in Iran and probably a prolonged war by proxy with Hezbollah with Lebanon being the big loser.

oncevotedff

b12mearse wrote: »

What do you guys think?

Iran appears to be heading towards being a nuclear power. Israel cannot afford that scenario so it is likely that at some stage they will attack Iran.

NeilMcEoigheann

if they do, I full on hope that the Islamic world comes down on them so hard.
its disgusting what they are doing.

irlande_euroluv

If they attack Iran, they'll get a good kicking like they did in Lebanon in '06.

marco murphy

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

if they do, I full on hope that the Islamic world comes down on them so hard.
its disgusting what they are doing.

Why the Islamic world and not the US or whatever. The world should unite like they did against South Africa. We should be talking about the 100+ UN resolutions ignored by Israel

irlande_euroluv wrote: »

If they attack Iran, they'll get a good kicking like they did in Lebanon in '06.

:pac:

dlofnep

If they do, I hope Iran slaps the utter shíte out of them.

is_that_so

Politically it would be an absolute nightmare for all and I have no doubt the US are keeping a close watch. As others have commented Lebanon is of more concern. What will also influence the politics is how Ahmadinejad deals with the current political problems in Iran.

I can't see the justification for an attack as it will cause the Middle East to explode and put Israel under threat from pretty much everywhere. That said I have no doubt the scenario is being talked about a lot and if this piece in today's Times is to believed it is a possibility however remote.

Three years after Israel fought a bloody war in Lebanon against Hezbollah, there are fears that hostilities could erupt again — this time with the militant group better armed than ever.

According to Israeli, United Nations and Hezbollah officials, the Shia Muslim militia is stronger than it was in 2006 when it took on the Israeli army in a war that killed 1,191 Lebanese and 43 Israeli civilians.

Hezbollah has up to 40,000 rockets and is training its forces to use ground-to-ground missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv, and anti-aircraft missiles that could challenge Israel’s dominance of the skies over Lebanon.

... Israeli planners have no doubt that, should they make the fateful decision to attack Iran, they will provoke massive retaliation on an unprecedented scale ...

Link

marco murphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Politically it would be an absolute nightmare for all and I have no doubt the US are keeping a close watch. As others have commented Lebanon is of more concern. What will also influence the politics is how Ahmadinejad deals with the current political problems in Iran.

I can't see the justification for an attack as it will cause the Middle East to explode and put Israel under threat from pretty much everywhere. That said I have no doubt the scenario is being talked about a lot and if this piece in today's Times is to believed it is a possibility however remote.



Link

Thanks for the article.

The problems in Iran will blow over I reckon. The media and instigators in the "west" are trying to stir the pot.

daveydave25

they will attack at some stage through america. israel can wipe them out and the world if it wants. they have over a 150 nuclear warheads as it is. israel is a major theat to international security.

NeilMcEoigheann

Perestroika wrote: »

Why the Islamic world and not the US or whatever. The world should unite like they did against South Africa. We should be talking about the 100+ UN resolutions ignored by Israel

because america are supporting them selling them weapons and so on.

marco murphy

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

because america are supporting them selling them weapons and so on.

You're right, but one day those inside should rectify that

Mahatma coat

Should Iran attack Israel???

if its perfectly justifiable for Israel to attack Iran in the eyes of a lot of posters here why would naked agression from Iran be any different??

Should we tolerate agressive and uncomprimising Rouge Nuclear states, its got to be the same rule for all, so if Israel is 'allowed' to have Nuclear weapons why cant Iran??

Manic Moran

Just because Farmer Joe has a shotgun license doesn't mean that the Gardai have to grant one to the bloke on the other side of the road.

NTM

marco murphy

But, but, Iran doesn't have Nuclear weapons.

darno

the iran people are ok,,,but irans president is pure evil he wants do destroy
israel so his messiah can come his name is machdi

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just because Farmer Joe has a shotgun license doesn't mean that the Gardai have to grant one to the bloke on the other side of the road.

NTM

What is this supposed to mean?

Manic Moran

It addresses the concept of "If they've got one, why can't I?"

NTM

Tipsy Mac

I think Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is the only sure way of bringing a long term peace of kinds between the 2 countries. I would see Israel as being too powerful within the region at the moment with its US supplied hardware and so it can bully other countries without worry of response.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

It addresses the concept of "If they've got one, why can't I?"

NTM

No it doesn't, unless you are suggesting Israel shows an element of responsibility with their weapons - Which they do not.

Manic Moran

I see. You your argument is that if one questionable state has the things, any other questionable state should also have them?

I'm not convinced that is entirely conducive to long-term stability.

NTM

teddy_303

I don't think it would do Israel any harm to be shown an equal and opposite deterrent to the one which they offer so freely... I hope Israel burns...

Their use of Phosphorous bombs and cluster bombs against civilians, children and the elderly is as disgusting as it is illegal.

Agamemnon

I think Ahmadinejad is half-hoping for some small-scale Israeli attack against Iran - it would help him unite the country after the unrest over the election.

arybvtcw0eolkf

irlande_euroluv wrote: »

If they attack Iran, they'll get a good kicking like they did in Lebanon in '06.

At best Israel got a bloody nose in '06 and nothing else.

To me that war only proved that Israel's blockade of The Gaza is very neccesary, why?.. Because the tunnels used to such good effect by Hezbollah around Bint Jabail were built right under the nose of the Irish battlion & later Ghana Batt - to an extent that Israel must also take some of the blaim for that as they wouldn't allow UNIFIL operate with an agressive mandate - they seen the error of their ways with the agreed mandate under which UNIFIL II operates under.

Israel is not allowing that to happen again - its hard to stop it completely, but the blockade goes a long way in doing so.

Then the Gaza conflict sent a very, very strong message to Israel's neighbours 'The price for attacking us has just risen to a price you can't afford anymore', and even the Gaza conflict was pretty limited too, more a bitch slap to Hamas than a proper balls out war.

As was said earlier in the thread, if Israel needs to hit Iran it will. And history has shown us that if Israel feels its time to knock the enemy at its doors back to the stone age its got the belly, and the tools to do so.

.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

I see. You your argument is that if one questionable state has the things, any other questionable state should also have them?

No, I'm of the belief that neither should have nuclear weapons. But if Israel has them, then it gives them an awfully unbalanced weight at the bargaining table, something that they do not deserve. Israel should be fully decommissioned, by force if required.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not convinced that is entirely conducive to long-term stability.

NTM

And building illegal settlements, and disregarding basic human rights is? There will never be long-term stability because Israel continues to defy international law.

Manic Moran

So in a nutshell your argument boils down to 'two wrongs make a right.'

NTM

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

So in a nutshell your argument boils down to 'two wrongs make a right.'

NTM

What? I've absolutely no idea how you extracted that from what I just said.

I said, I believe that Israel should be decommissioned of all it's illegal nuclear weapons.

Manic Moran

You are correct, I apologize.

I made an assumption based on the theory that the disarming of Israel is somewhere on the level of likelihood as Ireland entering the Space Race.

NTM

kirving

I'm not that up on the situation, but Israel can't go attacking UN bases, and also expect them help stop tunnels being built. What Israel having been doing for years, and in particular the last offensive against Gaza is disgraceful.

I know that America needs/wants to keep an outpost in the middle east, but hopefully the Obama administration takes a different view to that of George Bush.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are correct, I apologize.

I made an assumption based on the theory that the disarming of Israel is somewhere on the level of likelihood as Ireland entering the Space Race.

NTM

Wrong, I had quite clearly stated prior to your post that I didn't want either nation to have a nuclear arsenal, and that Israel should be decommissioned. Where you got two wrongs make a right from - is beyond me.

thecornerboy

Israel only attacks schoolchildren and indigents these days. It won't attack Iran.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

Wrong, I had quite clearly stated prior to your post that I didn't want either nation to have a nuclear arsenal, and that Israel should be decommissioned. Where you got two wrongs make a right from - is beyond me.

I am but a simple soldier and tend to focus on practical issues. Entertaining fantasies simply didn't enter my mind. I now acknowledge your theoretical preference, and may even agree with it, but since there's more chance of Ireland winning the World Cup than Israel decomissining its nuclear arms, we return to the two main arguments of 'Iran should have them to counter Israel' such as put forward by tipsy or teddy or 'Iran should not have them because it can make the world situation worse', which is one which I happen to hold. If there is a third option, I'm willing to hear it.

NTM

dlofnep

Well - You have to asked yourself the question - Does Israel intend on using it's nuclear weapons on Iran? If you answered yes - Do you believe that Iran has an equal right to defend itself, using the same weaponary?

Manic Moran

There is the argument that a weapon unused is a useless weapon.

I don't believe that Israel intends to use them on Iran. I do think they are willing to use them on anyone they believe is such a threat to their existance that their conventional forces can't handle, which in practical terms means in case there's a re-run of Yom Kippur. Which would be the Syrians/Egyptians, mainly. As long as Iran is nuke-free, there is no threat to Israel from Iran greater than terrorism support, and thus no need for Israel to nuke Iran.

NTM

dresden8

How would China react to it's "ally" (for want of a better word) being attacked by America's ally?

Iraq would explode.

What will an attack do to the price of oil? Can Iran close the straits of Hormuz? How many supertankers can the world affort to lose, I remember reading that there's not that many of them?

A spike in the price of oil or gas will fnck Ireland and many other fragile economies totally.

Interesting times.

Manic Moran

dresden8 wrote: »

Can Iran close the straits of Hormuz?

Been tried before, the Tanker War. Except it wasn't just the Iranians trying to sink tankers, it was both the Iranians and Iraqis having a crack at the things. 239 tankers were hit, 55 sunk or total losses. That's not counting the 152 container and bulk cargo ships hit (Of which about 50 were sunk or total losses). It took three years before the international community said 'enough of this' and sent their navies in, and another year before enough was enough. The Iranian Navy was basically removed from play by the US Navy in a day.

However, short term, yes. Mines and submarines. Long term (i.e anything over a fortnight), no, not if the rest of the world has any interest in keeping the lanes open.

NTM

thecornerboy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Been tried before, the Tanker War. Except it wasn't just the Iranians trying to sink tankers, it was both the Iranians and Iraqis having a crack at the things. 239 tankers were hit, 55 sunk or total losses. That's not counting the 152 container and bulk cargo ships hit (Of which about 50 were sunk or total losses). It took three years before the international community said 'enough of this' and sent their navies in, and another year before enough was enough. The Iranian Navy was basically removed from play by the US Navy in a day.

However, short term, yes. Mines and submarines. Long term (i.e anything over a fortnight), no, not if the rest of the world has any interest in keeping the lanes open.

NTM

Time hasn't stood still since then.

Manic Moran

No, it hasn't.

But Iran's military hasn't advanced a hell of a lot either.

NTM

halkar

Just look at the ME map and figure out how on earth can Israel attack Iran? No one will open their air space for Israel unless they can use the US bases or carriers in ME. It will not happen. It is just typical bull$hit tactics of Israel. No treat to Iran either, they will do what they want to do whatever the consequences.

If $hit happens and Israel stupid enough for such an action I doupt Iran will answer back with stones like Palestinians do. Iran's influence in Palestine and Lebanon as well as alliance with Syria can not be ruled out either.

Israel will shut up and sit back to enjoy the nuclearization of ME and will no longer be any treat in the region with its hidden stock pile that they are keeping for the armageddon.

Manic Moran

Just look at the ME map and figure out how on earth can Israel attack Iran?

I don't recall the Israeli Air Force asking permission to go through anyone's airspace before they visited Iraq, Tunisia or Uganda. They flew right over the King of Jordan's yacht (unintentionally) on the way to Osirak. He was, by all accounts, most displeased. The PLO in Tunisia and Idi Amin's crowd in Entebbe were similarly somewhat surprised by the courtesy call by the Israeli military. Apparently they thought they could read maps and that the maps said they were safe.

NTM

mega man

Perestroika wrote: »

Thanks for the article.

The problems in Iran will blow over I reckon. The media and instigators in the "west" are trying to stir the pot.

I' no sure if thats entirely true. Keep up to date with the jeurusalem post. every day they talk about attacking iran.

imported_guy

Payton Purring Poultry wrote: »

They'd probably have to anniliate Hezbollah's infrastructor inside Lebanon too, so lets include Lebanon on their northern border.

they wont attack iran for this reason, IDF pretty much got butt raped in 2006 by hezbollah, and lets face it hezbollah are twice as strong now, and lets not forget, mir houssain mossavi (the guy who lost iranian elections) is one of the founders of hezbollah.

it would have been possible in the bush era, but i just think obama is more interested in chilling out than cracking heads

technically speaking if israel were to attack iran would have support of

-sirya
-libya
-north korea
-china
-russia
-maybe pakistan
-maybe KSA/UAE (doubtful)

and this will just be asking for trouble because right now countries like north korea/russia (and to a lesser extent china) are blatantly looking for trouble and wouldnt mind throwing a few upper cuts in


its actully far more likely that iran will do premptive strikes on israel, they do have the capability and full support of north korea (probably all they need) besides

number of troops

IRAN 1,295,000 (545,000 active)

vs

ISRAEL 629,150 (176,500 active)

iran's total army is more than twice the size

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

israel's going to be out numbered nearly 5 to 1 (active troops) LOL, and iran actully has a proper army, they are pretty well equiped (ok maybe not the same level as israel but not far behind either), so they arent your average gung-ho lets go taliban, their revolutionary guards are some of the best trained troops in the world

dresden8

imported_guy wrote: »

number of troops

IRAN 1,295,000 (545,000 active)

vs

ISRAEL 629,150 (176,500 active)

iran's total army is more than twice the size

That's what the combined Israeli and US air forces would call a target rich environment.

Do you really believe the Iranian army could cross Iraq, Jordan, Syria or wherever intact?

imported_guy

dresden8 wrote: »

That's what the combined Israeli and US air forces would call a target rich environment.

Do you really believe the Iranian army could cross Iraq, Jordan, Syria or wherever intact?

they can use american aircraft carriers etc in the gulf, and america is alot more likely to attack iran than israel anyway, it was a hypothetical answer, IF it happens.

marco murphy

imported_guy wrote: »

they can use american aircraft carriers etc in the gulf, and america is alot more likely to attack iran than israel anyway, it was a hypothetical answer, IF it happens.

I think Israeli rhetoric is more militant than American, not to mention America being bogged down already.

OS119

Perestroika wrote: »

I think Israeli rhetoric is more militant than American, not to mention America being bogged down already.

while i'd agree that Israeli rhetoric is somewhat 'warmer' than US policy, US airpower - the instrument it would use to degrade an Iranian nuclear program - is not bogged down. Land forces yes, but they would have no interest in using them against Iran so its availability or otherwise is fairly irrelevant.

toiletduck

imported_guy wrote: »

number of troops

IRAN 1,295,000 (545,000 active)

vs

ISRAEL 629,150 (176,500 active)

iran's total army is more than twice the size

I think the first Gulf War proved that this means absolutely nothing. Iraq had the fourth(I think) biggest army, battle hardened to boot, at the time.

the_syco

dresden8 wrote: »

Do you really believe the Iranian army could cross Iraq, Jordan, Syria or wherever intact?

If the Iranian army popped into Iraq, it'd be seen by some people as Iran trying to reinforce terrorists in Iraq... which may open up Iran as a "possible target" by the Americans. And then Isreal would be really helpful