Will Israel attack Iran in 2012?

[schlaufuchs]

Which is why I think they will want to do the bombing mission while we're still in Iraq. We can help out, and provide a safe haven for downed pilots.

Yeah...definitely would not want the country dragged into another Middle Eastern war. Hopefully Obama et. al would not be stupid enough to "help out" in this Israeli sortie.

 

[Verbose]

Originally Posted by Winner View Post

Originally Posted by civver_764 View Post
Israel starting a clear war of aggression is defending itself?

Of course he is defending the Israeli right to protect its existence. All sane people do...

Precisely.

Which is of course also why Iran is developping nukes. Deterrence. Same reason Israel did.

 

[amadeus]

Yeah...definitely would not want the country dragged into another Middle Eastern war. Hopefully Obama et. al would not be stupid enough to "help out" in this Israeli sortie.

You just wait! Especially if it comes closer to election time and Obama needs to look "tough" on terrorism/WMDs/democracy/whatever.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

You're forgetting that Israel is kitted out with the best equipment the US and EU can supply. Its airforce would be only marginally behind that of a west European country. The Arab states, on the other hand, are using last generation equipment; can't source equipment and raw materials due to sanctions; and, as owing to the cold war, they became dependent on imports of equipment, have little developed infrastructure for developing, producing and maintaining in field condition a large supply of complex tactical armaments.

With the exception of Saudia Arabia, every Arab state suffers this problem. It comes from having backed the losing side in the cold war which, after 1990, ceased to exist and continue greasing the palms of its dependents with cash, equipment and materials.

It's striking that despite the Iranian 'threat' it only recently produced a rocket capable of hitting Israel: The Israelis were using this technology in the 1970s. If they attack Iran, there will be little contest.

Iran seems to have a better air force than most Arab nations and they only have to defend their own territory, from somewhat better, but still conventional aircrafts. The sites are probably well defended and the Israelis, from what I can see, only recently developed missiles capable of reaching these sites. Attack missions by conventional jets into Iranian territory seems most likely and think it's reasonable to expect losses in such missions.

 

[Winner]

Which is of course also why Iran is developping nukes. Deterrence. Same reason Israel did.

Not really. Iran is pursing... let's call it 'offensive deterrence'. Like "we want to do mischief all over the Middle East to show those bloody Arabs and Jews that we Persians and Shias are better then them, but those damn Westerners won't let us. So we'll get nukes to scare them off, and then the real fun will start".

Israeli nukes are just the ultimate insurance that if the worst comes to pass, the aggressors will pay the highest price.

Yeah...definitely would not want the country dragged into another Middle Eastern war. Hopefully Obama et. al would not be stupid enough to "help out" in this Israeli sortie.

Plausible deniability. If Israel carries out the attacks with a tacit US approval that will be impossible to prove, what could Iran do about that? Nothing. And if it retaliates against Western interests in the Persian Gulf, then it will be perceived as Iranian aggression and it will be much easier to gather public support (even in the Muslim world, at least the Arab-Sunni part of it) for repelling it. That's a win-win situation for the West.

 

[innonimatu]

How convenient the US is getting out of Iraq now, so that nothing stands inthe Israeli airforce's way. As for Iraqis actually managing to shoot down an Israeli aircraft, yeah right

They'd all crash on their own, just from wear and tear, before they could do any relevant damage to Iran.
You're missing the point: any war against Iran will have, must have, the goal of destroying Iran: its infrastructure, its government, its institutions, and a sizable number of its people. Crippling the country for many decades to come. That is what is in the war plans considered viable. Anything less be absorbed and shrugged off, and would only create an enemy determined to get some payback and able to do it. This is no quick raid that's being planned, it's a full scale total war against a very large country. Even if the planners intend to, as much as possible, resort to the bombing to achieve it.

And it's a bloody crime, obviously. The kind of war for which the oh-so-virtuous "west" hanged people at Nuremberg. But it can be sold to the public, I have no doubt.

Israel does not have the ability to attack Iran on its own, and every player in that game knows it. Only by involving the US can they succeed at it.

 

[NickyJ]

Which is of course also why Iran is developping nukes. Deterrence. Same reason Israel did.

Not really. Iran is pursing... let's call it 'offensive deterrence'. Like "we want to do mischief all over the Middle East to show those bloody Arabs and Jews that we Persians and Shias are better then them, but those damn Westerners won't let us. So we'll get nukes to scare them off, and then the real fun will start".

Israeli nukes are just the ultimate insurance that if the worst comes to pass, the aggressors will pay the highest price.

Yeah...definitely would not want the country dragged into another Middle Eastern war. Hopefully Obama et. al would not be stupid enough to "help out" in this Israeli sortie.

Plausible deniability. If Israel carries out the attacks with a tacit US approval that will be impossible to prove, what could Iran do about that? Nothing. And if it retaliates against Western interests in the Persian Gulf, then it will be perceived as Iranian aggression and it will be much easier to gather public support (even in the Muslim world, at least the Arab-Sunni part of it) for repelling it. That's a win-win situation for the West.

Again, precisely.

You're missing the point: any war against Iran will have, must have, the goal of destroying Iran: its infrastructure, its government, its institutions, and a sizable number of its people. Crippling the country for many decades to come. That is what is in the war plans considered viable. Anything less be absorbed and shrugged off, and would only create an enemy determined to get some payback and able to do it. This is no quick raid that's being planned, it's a full scale total war against a very large country. Even if the planners intend to, as much as possible, resort to the bombing to achieve it.

Syria and Iraq. 'Nuff said.

 

[Winner]

You're missing the point: any war against Iran will have, must have, the goal of destroying Iran: its infrastructure, its government, its institutions, and a sizable number of its people.

Nonsense. No wait, I mean utter and complete nonsense.

The goal is to prevent it from building a nuclear arsenal. That goal is achievable through strikes against facilities involved in the nuclear programme. No uranium reprocessing/enrichment facilities, no nuclear weapons. What Iran does after it gets struck is its choice.

Israel does not have the ability to attack Iran on its own, and every player in that game knows it. Only by involving the US can they succeed at it.

It has, and the way things are going it will probably soon prove it.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Meh, Israel isn't going to strike Iran. I'm of the opinion the comment was just to get the world moving on the sanctions, thinking they're on a clock.

Because, I mean, why the hell would you announce a mission that requires the utmost stealth so openly to your enemy? Doesn't make any sense.

 

[jtb1127]

I'm hoping Israel gives Iran some explosive Christmas presents.

 

[Thedrin]

innonimatu:
You're missing the point: any war against Iran will have, must have, the goal of destroying Iran: its infrastructure, its government, its institutions, and a sizable number of its people. Crippling the country for many decades to come. That is what is in the war plans considered viable. Anything less be absorbed and shrugged off, and would only create an enemy determined to get some payback and able to do it. This is no quick raid that's being planned, it's a full scale total war against a very large country. Even if the planners intend to, as much as possible, resort to the bombing to achieve it.

Syria and Iraq. 'Nuff said.

While I recognise that you have said 'nuff, it seems that I'm sufficiently ignorant on middle eastern history that I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate further.

 

[jtb1127]

While I recognise that you have said 'nuff, it seems that I'm sufficiently ignorant on middle eastern history that I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate further.

I believe he is referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

 

[innonimatu]

Nonsense. No wait, I mean utter and complete nonsense.

The goal is to prevent it from building a nuclear arsenal. That goal is achievable through strikes against facilities involved in the nuclear programme. No uranium reprocessing/enrichment facilities, no nuclear weapons. What Iran does after it gets struck is its choice.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Destroying several facilities widely spread and well protected within Iran requires far more air assets that Israel possesses. Iran's facilities are outside the normal operating range of the israeli aircraft (which means messy refuellings, less carrying capacity for bombs, no advantage of surprise, etc), they are defended, and there are a lot of them spread around.
It requires that the US bomb Iran committing several carrier groups plus a portion of its air force (operating from Saudi Arabia, likely) to it. And it will set in motion a chain of events more or less like this:

1) destroying Iran's aid defense with high-altitude bombing runs by stealth bombers, which will take weeks;
2) destroying Iran's air force;
3) bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, several of which are within city perimeters, killing thousands of iranian civilians as "collateral damage", never mind the likely release of nuclear materials within those cities - effectively the equivalent of hitting them with "dirty bombs".
4) for #2, destroying Iran's command and control military structures, which means also killing their staff.
5) because of #3 and #4, you have a whole country with an angry population and an angry leadership - you've just harmed everyone there - demanding action against the attackers. The only option left to the iranians under attack it to counter though land attacks and naval attacks, which they must now carry it out if at all possible; which means...
6) destroying Iran's land and naval military forces, "preemptively", so they can't counter-attack;
7) generally bombing the crap out of Iran's industry and civilian infrastructure, just for the sake of killing any possibility of the iranians rebuilding their country within the space of the next generation and seeking a (well justified, I will add) revenge for all of that.

 

[Hehehe]

There are a few things I would like to add to the discussion. First, the strait of Hormuz: a big chunk of worlds oil exports go trough that strait, and Iran is placed next to it. If attacked, Iran will lay mines to the strait, which will result in oil prices skyrocketing. This is the main reason why Iran has not been bombed yet.

Second, the kind of air-strike campaign is not easy to do. The attacker (USA/Israel) would need to identify and destroy all facilities that are enriching uranium, and all naval vessels that are about to lay mines in the strait of Hormuz. Israel probably could destroy many of the uranium enrichment facilities, but that would leave the strait of Hormuz open. The resulting fallout from such an attack would be very bad for Israel (with talks of a double recession, skyrocketing oil prices aren't going to go well with other countries). Israel is probably trying to pressure the US to strike Iran for them. The US would be in a much better position to conduct this kind of attack, but it is not clear even the US could stop Iran from laying mines in the strait. And even in the best case, if all the air strikes were successful, it would only delay Iran. By the way, didn't Russia sell Iran the S-300 surface to air missiles? I can't say exactly how good of a system that is but I wouldn't take it too lightly.

Furthermore, just in case some people think Iran is "crazy" or something, they are in fact not. Iranian policy is quite rational if you can understand it. For a long time, Iraq kept Iran in check. But now that Iraq is a mess and US is about to withdraw, Iran is in a position that is better than ever, and it would be more surprising if they didn't act on it. Some of Ahmadinejad's comments may be over the top, but he isn't the one who is actually leading Iran.

 

[druidravi]

Would a strike on nuclear enrichment centers or whatever it is , endanger the local population around the plants . Could it cause any radiation leakage? .

 

[Hehehe]

Would a strike on nuclear enrichment centers or whatever it is , endanger the local population around the plants . Could it cause any radiation leakage? .

That is actually a very good question. I must admit that I am no expert on this but an explosion could probably spread some enriched uranium in the vicinity of the enrichment facility. And while in theory it might be possible to conduct such an attack with only minimal casualties to civilians, in a war accidents will happen (accidents such as bombing the wrong target or collateral damage to adjacent buildings)

 

[classical_hero]

Which is of course also why Iran is developping nukes. Deterrence. Same reason Israel did.

That has never stopped nations attacking it, even when it had Nuclear weapons.

 

[Verbose]

Not really. Iran is pursing... let's call it 'offensive deterrence'. Like "we want to do mischief all over the Middle East to show those bloody Arabs and Jews that we Persians and Shias are better then them, but those damn Westerners won't let us. So we'll get nukes to scare them off, and then the real fun will start".

I'll refrain from commenting on your superhuman ability to channel the Mind of Iran here.

Obvioulsy you really think "offensive deterrence" just doesn't in any way shape or form apply the Israeli decision to go nuclear. In a situation where they will have a monopoly on it locally.

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning the Israelis understood perfectle well that it was an "offensive" move when they made it. That was why they did their damndest to keep it a secret as long as possible. Wise move.

 

[Verbose]

That has never stopped nations attacking it, even when it had Nuclear weapons.

No soverign state has attacked Israel in decades, and certainly not since it's nuclear cat was let out of the bag. Do tell what examples you might be thinking of?

The opposite is unfortunately not true. If anything, the potent Israeli nuclear threat is a safeguard allowing Israel more leeway in attacking its neighbours.

And the Iranian deterrence sought mainly due to the presence of a US threat, though it will target Israel in lieu of the US, should it come to that.

Not that the US will attempt to defuse the situation. Too much loss of face.

 

[Winner]

Meh, Israel isn't going to strike Iran. I'm of the opinion the comment was just to get the world moving on the sanctions, thinking they're on a clock.

Sanctions won't stop Iran from pursuing nuclear ambitions, I think that's crystal clear by now. And actually, hell will probably freeze over the day Israel puts its trust in the UN.

Because, I mean, why the hell would you announce a mission that requires the utmost stealth so openly to your enemy? Doesn't make any sense.

It makes a lot of sense. You keep the enemy constantly on edge by causing false alarms. By forcing the enemy to remain in the state of high readiness, you eventually degrade his ability to respond to real signs the attack is imminent. Arabs used something like this in 1973 to a great effect.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Destroying several facilities widely spread and well protected within Iran requires far more air assets that Israel possesses. Iran's facilities are outside the normal operating range of the israeli aircraft (which means messy refuellings, less carrying capacity for bombs, no advantage of surprise, etc), they are defended, and there are a lot of them spread around.

No. There aren't that many of the facilities which are really crucial, and a good hit on every one of them will make them inoperational for a long time. You know, working in an enrichment plant that's just been hit and then contaminated by lethal isotopes from the destroyed centrifuge cascades isn't really that easy as you imagine.

It will definitely be challenging, but it is not impossible. The farthest strike by IAF was in Tunisia, and the distances involved there are slightly bigger than in the strike against Iran.

It requires that the US bomb Iran committing several carrier groups plus a portion of its air force (operating from Saudi Arabia, likely) to it. And it will set in motion a chain of events more or less like this:

1) destroying Iran's aid defense with high-altitude bombing runs by stealth bombers, which will take weeks;

Unnecessary.

2) destroying Iran's air force;

Unnecessary.

3) bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, several of which are within city perimeters, killing thousands of iranian civilians as "collateral damage", never mind the likely release of nuclear materials within those cities - effectively the equivalent of hitting them with "dirty bombs".

So what? I am sorry a lot of Iranians will suffer as a result of their regime's utter disregard for their safety, but there's nothing we can do about it.

4) for #2, destroying Iran's command and control military structures, which means also killing their staff.

Unnecessary.

5) because of #3 and #4, you have a whole country with an angry population and an angry leadership - you've just harmed everyone there - demanding action against the attackers. The only option left to the iranians under attack it to counter though land attacks and naval attacks, which they must now carry it out if at all possible; which means...

GIGO principle demonstrated in practice.

6) destroying Iran's land and naval military forces, "preemptively", so they can't counter-attack;

Totally unnecessary.

7) generally bombing the crap out of Iran's industry and civilian infrastructure, just for the sake of killing any possibility of the iranians rebuilding their country within the space of the next generation and seeking a (well justified, I will add) revenge for all of that.

You've been watching too many WW2 documentaries lately, didn't you?

I'll refrain from commenting on your superhuman ability to channel the Mind of Iran here.

Obvioulsy you really think "offensive deterrence" just doesn't in any way shape or form apply the Israeli decision to go nuclear. In a situation where they will have a monopoly on it locally.

Israel's arsenal is not meant to give it impunity in pursuing regional dominance, I think that much is clear to anyone with any knowledge of this area. It's not even needed, since Israel's conventional deterrence is currently strong enough to keep Israel (relatively) safe.

The nuclear arsenal is there to make it clear to the would-be attackers that even if they somehow beat the IDF, they can't win.

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning the Israelis understood perfectle well that it was an "offensive" move when they made it. That was why they did their damndest to keep it a secret as long as possible. Wise move.

The reason they kept it secret was to keep the West from interfering and the others from being rushed into any aggressive action before the Israeli arsenal grew large enough to become a credible deterrent.