US/Iran thread

[Balta1701]

I really don't think that any of those countries could stop Israel from doing anything if Israel decided that it had to be done.

Except for Iraq, this is true. The question though is what happens after it is done.

[NorthSideSox72]

I really don't think that any of those countries could stop Israel from doing anything if Israel decided that it had to be done.

That is not true at all - all those countries have significant AA defense systems, and air forces. There is a HUGE difference between a quick 20 mile incursion into Syria and back out before a response can come, and a 1500 mile each way sortie like we are talking about here. I think you are seriously underestimating the abilities of these countries. These are not Iraq after the Gulf War wipeout.

 

The question is more about will than ability.

 

[southsider2k5]

That is not true at all - all those countries have significant AA defense systems, and air forces. There is a HUGE difference between a quick 20 mile incursion into Syria and back out before a response can come, and a 1500 mile each way sortie like we are talking about here. I think you are seriously underestimating the abilities of these countries. These are not Iraq after the Gulf War wipeout.

 

The question is more about will than ability.

 

If Israel wanted to fly a direct, one time, mission over its neighbors to bomb a facility in Iran, I really don't think anything short of a lucky shot would stop them.

[NorthSideSox72]

If Israel wanted to fly a direct, one time, mission over its neighbors to bomb a facility in Iran, I really don't think anything short of a lucky shot would stop them.

A direct, one-time mission with a small number of aircraft won't work. That would probably not even take out the nuke facility, and would certainly have no chance of taking out Iran's long range response capabilities, which they would then use. Even if just to take out the two nuke facilities, which are hardened and underground, the Israelis have three options: nukes, a larger and broader conventional attack and hope you get it all, or a combined ground and air assault. All three of those possibilities are problematic.

 

But, as I said earlier, I think Israel will probably strike, because they will feel they have to. So I am at a loss as to how they may go about this.

 

Now that I think of it, I believe they may take an entirely different approach on this. They may actually do it fully on the ground.

 

In any case, as I've been saying, the whole thing looks ugly no matter what. And if Israel does do an air strike, they will likely get shot up pretty good on the way there and back, and/or after the fact, by other countries.

 

[lostfan]

It would have to be a sustained, all-out assault over a pretty decent period of time.

[NorthSideSox72]

It would have to be a sustained, all-out assault over a pretty decent period of time.

That's one of the three I was getting at. And no way they could do that via the air without some of these countries getting in the way.

 

[bmags]

Congrats Israel on electing Netanyahu. Great move.

[Cknolls]

A direct, one-time mission with a small number of aircraft won't work. That would probably not even take out the nuke facility, and would certainly have no chance of taking out Iran's long range response capabilities, which they would then use. Even if just to take out the two nuke facilities, which are hardened and underground, the Israelis have three options: nukes, a larger and broader conventional attack and hope you get it all, or a combined ground and air assault. All three of those possibilities are problematic.

 

But, as I said earlier, I think Israel will probably strike, because they will feel they have to. So I am at a loss as to how they may go about this.

 

Now that I think of it, I believe they may take an entirely different approach on this. They may actually do it fully on the ground.

 

In any case, as I've been saying, the whole thing looks ugly no matter what. And if Israel does do an air strike, they will likely get shot up pretty good on the way there and back, and/or after the fact, by other countries.

 

 

 

But the U.S. could use these puppies:

 

 

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php...amp;pageId=8123

Edited September 29, 2009 by Cknolls

[NorthSideSox72]

But the U.S. could use these puppies:

 

 

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php...amp;pageId=8123

You know, I was going to throw this thought out there, related to your post...

 

Is it possible that the US taking out Iran's nuke facilities may actually be better for everyone involved, than letting Israel do it?

 

The US could do it more effectively and more easily in a shorter period of time, and not have to use nukes. The regional powers outside Iran don't have the capability to attack the US directly in response. Israel remains protected, and if they were attacked, could act in self-defense. The US has many ways to attack without using anyone else's airspace.

 

Now of course, I am not advocating this path. I am just saying, if Israel is about to do it anyway, and we can't stop them (or won't), then oddly enough, it might be a better tactic as a last resort to step in and do it ourselves.

 

I am hoping we don't get there - that economic sanctions and other pressures, coupled with internally-driven regime change in Iran, help Iran stay away from building nukes, so that none of this is necessary. But we'll see.

 

[bmags]

Gates doesn't seem to be on board with that.

[NorthSideSox72]

Gates doesn't seem to be on board with that.

With which?

 

[KipWellsFan]

I gotta believe the Saudis would look the other way i.e an Israeli attack on Iran. So too would Egypt and Jordan. I also gotta think that Syria would join the fray against Israel.

 

Saudi Arabia looking the other way? Iran will be looking for whatever excuse it has to meddle in Saudia Arabia. Lets not forget that Iran essentially would like to control Mecca, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. I hardly doubt any Arab countries would be able to sit idly by. Egypt might be one of the most hostile Arab countries to Iran but could they really afford to take such a moderate position with a bubbling Islamist insurgency, perhaps funded in part by Iran. How about shutting down the straight of Hormuz or activating it's proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas? You think the moderate Fatah could hold on in the West Bank after this? And maybe Iran might make it's control of Shiite Iraq a little bit more official... And speaking of Iraq what would al-Maliki do? Would Sunnis in Iraq become especially vulnerable? And I've got no idea if Iran has any kind of foreign operatives left around the western world? That would be pretty... And you think Iran treated the moderates in their country harshly during the recent election protests? I wonder how they'd be treated in an all out war scenario.

 

I believe that Iran would be able to unleash hell in the middle east...

 

The unintended consequences could be endless.

 

Again, I'm stealing from Robert Baer's book that's a must read if you're interested in this situation.