Will Israel attack Iran???

kirving · 07-08-2009 5:01pm

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 · 07-08-2009 5:05pm

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 · 07-08-2009 5:11pm

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

Manic Moran · 07-08-2009 6:27pm

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 · 07-08-2009 8:45pm

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 · 08-08-2009 4:08am

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 · 08-08-2009 11:55am

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 · 08-08-2009 3:59pm

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 · 08-08-2009 6:45pm

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 · 08-08-2009 8:29pm

No, it hasn't.

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

NTM

halkar · 08-08-2009 9:19pm

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 · 08-08-2009 9:27pm

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 · 11-08-2009 6:55pm

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 · 11-08-2009 10:09pm

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 · 17-08-2009 9:40pm

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 · 17-08-2009 9:56pm

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 · 18-08-2009 2:19am

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 · 18-08-2009 8:13am

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 · 18-08-2009 12:09pm

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 · 18-08-2009 12:21pm

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

Dorsanty · 04-10-2009 11:00pm

With America being a huge supporter of Israel i.e. 'You need 20 new fighter jets, here's the money to buy them. Pay us back when you get around to it' do people not believe Israel needs sign off from the U.S. before creating an incident which would essentially have the potential to kick off a multi-nation war? Smaller actions have created bigger conflicts in the past.

To me the middle east is definitely simmering away, at some point it will boil over. Something has to give soon.

dlofnep · 04-10-2009 11:20pm

They might wait for a nod of approval from the US, but that doesn't mean that they would not do it anyway. Look at what happened with the settlements.

Manic Moran · 05-10-2009 9:27am

Dorsanty wrote: »

With America being a huge supporter of Israel i.e. 'You need 20 new fighter jets, here's the money to buy them. Pay us back when you get around to it' do people not believe Israel needs sign off from the U.S. before creating an incident which would essentially have the potential to kick off a multi-nation war? Smaller actions have created bigger conflicts in the past.

It's I think an issue of perceived need. As long as it is in the interests of the US to continue supporting Israel, they will do so regardless of what may have transpired in the past. The USS Liberty incident being a case in point.

NTM

Son Of A Vidic · 14-10-2009 12:59am

Well if Iran is going to be attacked it will be by Israel attack of course and with the blessing of the U.S. I think they will stay clear of Lebanon because Hezbollah gave them a serious lesson in 2006. Them boys aren't like the gob****es in Hamas who are impotent against the Israeli army.
Surgical stealth precision strikes will be the MO - God help us is what I think. Who will bomb Israeli WMD sites?, they have a lethal aresnel
at their disposal and yet the world cannot question, examine or sanction Israel for this trangression of international treaties. Of course their big brother the U.S. protects them. But Obama 'yes you can' exam them, but no you won't of course. The man who promises Hope is nothing but a bull**** artist, they're wasn't much hope for the palestinian civilians in Gaza when Israel was dropping White Phosphorus on them. ''Operation Cast Lead'' left 1600 hundred dead in Gaza for 16 Israeli dead. Now that's a kill ratio even the Nazi's would have been proud off, how ironic is that.

imported_guy · 14-10-2009 9:09am

dlofnep wrote: »

They might wait for a nod of approval from the US, but that doesn't mean that they would not do it anyway. Look at what happened with the settlements.

well, america doesnt really give a toss about the settlements, they appear to, but they actully dont, alot of jews voted for obama, and he needs their support and the support from AIPAC in 2012, if israel wants to attack iran, no one will stop them, but arent really in a position to do it right now

Black Swan · 21-10-2009 6:47pm

Agamemnon wrote: »

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

This would not be the first time they launched a preventative strike against a potential nuclear arms foe:

On June 7, 1981, Israeli fighter jets destroyed the Iraqi Osirak (Tammuz-1) reactor.

kowloon · 21-10-2009 7:55pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

but since there's more chance of Ireland winning the World Cup than Israel decomissining its nuclear arms,

First you tell us our space programme is doomed to failure and now we won't be winning the world cup! Such pessimism from one I thought so wise. You wait until Fianna Fail reform and get the economy back on track, they'll have us in space and in the World Cup final before you know it. MARK MY WORDS!

Rondolfus · 21-10-2009 8:08pm

Israel would have very little difficulty achieving its military goals in Iran. In fact, they would have already attacked sites had it not been for USA calling for restraint. Diplomatically and logistically it is important for them to have America on side when they act. I firmly believe they will attack (with the backing of USA) within the next 3-5 years. You'd have to be blind not to see that foundations are already being laid for an overthrow of the Iranian regime. The recent demonstrations, suicide bombings etc are all supported both morally and economically by the USA and Europe.

Israel would level targets in Iran. It would not engage in ground warfare. The USA would then back a coup that would see the Iranian regimes opponents seizing power. There will be no invasion like Iraq. No country in the world has the capabilities to sustain an occupation in Iran. The USA is still struggling badly with IRAQ!!

Severe airstrikes, followed by American suported coup. Thats what I predict.

I just jope Israel won't be so trigger happy as to use a nuke! ( They were actually pushing for the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, but USA refused)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

Manic Moran · 21-10-2009 8:56pm

The USA is still struggling badly with IRAQ!!

It is?

Most of the troops seem to be sitting in bases twiddling their thumbs. A few go out and about if they're in the countryside, and a few are helping the Iraqi forces. The rest are there 'just in case.'

A few units have either had their deployments cancelled or redirected to Afghanistan. Iraq is in the endgame right now.

NTM

Rondolfus · 21-10-2009 10:00pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is?

Most of the troops seem to be sitting in bases twiddling their thumbs. A few go out and about if they're in the countryside, and a few are helping the Iraqi forces. The rest are there 'just in case.'

A few units have either had their deployments cancelled or redirected to Afghanistan. Iraq is in the endgame right now.

NTM

I agree totally. Most of the soldiers are sitting in their bases. That doesn't mean they have succeeded in anything. Unless your judging a war by a basic body count which of course would be ridiculous. The hearts and minds of the people of Iraq have been lost. American movement in the country is largely centred around the Green zone, Iraqi resistance are still ever present, suicide bombings have increased in frequency. Hardly sounds like a success to me.

The only thing the Iraq war has succeeded in was making a few infleuntial people richer and swicthing the balance of power to a group of corrupt and violent pro-American Iraqis(who have failed to stabilise the country) . Iraq is lightyears away from recovering stability. My point was that if the most powerful country in the World (usa) failed to successfully occupy a nation of a mere 20 million people who were already crippled by harsh sanctions, and had basically no weapons, how could anyone expect success in Iran a fairly powerful military power of around 70 million people?? Remeber the Iraq war has lasted longer than World War 2 and what do we have to show for it?? A mobile phone video of an evil old man getting hanged by a younger group of blood thirsty power hungry fiends.

I understand that you have served in the American army and I also understand that the American army does good work in places like Afghanistan, however, you're fighting a losing battle if you think you can persuade me that the USA was successful in Iraq when it is quite clear the opposite is true. How can you be successful in a war ( that everyone agrees) was fought on the basis of lies??

Also this unnecessary war not only destroyed a nation, but also drained much needed military and economic resources from the true fight in Afghanistan. Another war in which America is struggling.

Will Israel attack Iran???

Comments