Israel's Possible Attack on Iran: An Objective Analysis

[MarcoD]

I guess the long-term strategic relevance is Iran becoming a nuclear-arms supplier to the rest of the world.

If you're really paranoid, it isn't about Israel, but about -the Arab world doubles its population every generation- 600 million angry starving people with nukes in thirty years.

Heck, I don't even know whether I should be that paranoid.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Two new options that are now “On the table” (to use diplomatic language) regarding Iran’s nuclear program:

1. New bomb that is much faster and has a vastly greater range than our remotely piloted drones. With pinpoint accuracy this new weapon seems ideal for modern offensive warfare at standoff distances. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/army-test-in-hawaii-launches-weapon-capable-of-traveling-5-times-the-speed-of-sound/2011/11/17/gIQA77vJWN_story.html

2. Last week the US Air Force took delivery of America's heaviest non-nuclear bomb on order from Boeing. At 30,000 pounds (13,607kg) the "Massive Ordnance Penetrator" is nearly five US tonnes (4535kg) bigger than the heaviest in its arsenal and designed to destroy targets deep underground. It is so heavy that either a B2 or B52 would be needed to deliver it. See:

http://www.wtkr.com/news/military/la-fi-bunker-buster-bomb-20111117,0,7519435.story

 

[mheslep]

what, and you think we're not ?

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

I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.

 

[apeiron]

I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_relations#Israel_threatening_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–United_States_relations#.22Axis_of_evil.22_speech

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

 

[MarcoD]

Man, look at the map: Syria, Iraq, Iran, then Afghanistan. If the US/Israel or even Europe starts a war there, you might end up fighting more than a million soldiers.

I don't like Iran having nukes, but I am not sure one can do a lot about it at the moment. And the worst thing is that this would be a war the western world cannot afford to lose.

(Then again, guess it's a question of scale since the US has 1.4M troops...)

 

[Proton Soup]

I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.

i took your request as silly.

 

[WhoWee]

Man, look at the map: Syria, Iraq, Iran, then Afghanistan. If the US/Israel or even Europe starts a war there, you might end up fighting more than a million soldiers.

I don't like Iran having nukes, but I am not sure one can do a lot about it at the moment. And the worst thing is that this would be a war the western world cannot afford to lose.

(Then again, guess it's a question of scale since the US has 1.4M troops...)

If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree. This would also require an assumption that Iraqi forces would join the caliphate. I doubt there would be a reason to chase the standing armies of the aforementioned countries through mountain passes or extract them from civilian hideouts - would there? The challenge would more likely be terrorism.

 

[MarcoD]

If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree.

Nah, I just underestimated the size of the US army. Had to look it up, the US can win that war. It won't be like a stroll through a forest, though, and there'll be post-war problems since the US might need permanent bases in Iran indefinitely since 40% of the world's oil goes past Iran.

 

[mheslep]

i took your request as silly.

Yes I get it. Iran has admittedly tense, even antagonistic relations with much of the western world and other middle eastern countries, and given this state of affairs one could say historically among nations that some day might lead to military action; no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran. Certainly one can find pundits with a website that call for it. Certainly the US and others have accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of continuing a nuclear weapons program. But you fill free to twist this to say the US, i.e. the US government in public, has been "threatening to bomb Iran" for decades. Then you go on to pretend Iranian innocence with "somehow Iran is the bad guy" counter to the historical record. When called on this statement you redirect to US actions. Yes I get it.

 

[apeiron]

no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran.

It is plausible that the Pentagon prepares for every scenario. But here you seem to basing your case on the claim that the Pentagon is treating Iran and, say, Antarctica with equal seriousness of intent. And you would agree that is in fact quite untrue?

Given two statements - the US has signalled clear intent to bomb Iran with only a little more pushing, and the US has signalled no more aggression towards Iran than it has to, say, Antarctica - well, I know which one sounds like intentional misdirection to me.

The first statement is arguably too strong (it we were inside the administration the past decade, perhaps the element of bluff is much larger, or opinions are divided as might be expected between hawks and doves).

But the second statement seems flat wrong and should be withdrawn. I follow the politics of Antarctica pretty closely, and while there is a real game going on down there, the US have already done all the invading they need to for the moment. IMO, before WhoWee asks.

I also note that you have now dropped the demand for support for "Israeli threats".

 

[mheslep]

But the second statement seems flat wrong and should be withdrawn.

What, this statement?

...the Pentagon is no more serious about invading Iran than it is about invading Antarctica.

But I did not make that statement; you like to pretend I did. Is that fun?

I mention Pentagon plans because there are no doubt plenty of Chompskyite blog sites stating awareness of Pentagon military plans for military action against Iran, which no doubt is the case, though the existence of such plans without more context and knowledge of their immediacy means little or nothing. I suspect such is the stuff that leads to claims made here in PF as fact about the US threatening to bomb Iran, which was read "somewhere".

 

[apeiron]

I suspect such is the stuff that leads to claims made here in PF as fact about the US threatening to bomb Iran, which was read "somewhere".

Yeah right. It must all be that, as you "suspect".

Can't possibly be anything to do with past events like Bush's axis of terror speech - http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/print/20020129-11.html - where Iran was one of the three nations that got named as being ones the US would not tolerate developing weapons of mass destruction?

And whoops, what happened in Iraq subsequently shouldn't be misconstrued by anyone who had been labelled as being also in the pre-emptive firing line?

So where do folks get the crazy idea that Iran has ever been threatened? Geez, I just don't know.

 

[WhoWee]

Nah, I just underestimated the size of the US army. Had to look it up, the US can win that war. It won't be like a stroll through a forest, though, and there'll be post-war problems since the US might need permanent bases in Iran indefinitely since 40% of the world's oil goes past Iran.

There is another alternative - make a deal with Russia, China and the EU to share the Persian oil 4 ways and pay a very small royalty for the crude.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes I get it. Iran has admittedly tense, even antagonistic relations with much of the western world and other middle eastern countries, and given this state of affairs one could say historically among nations that some day might lead to military action; no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran. Certainly one can find pundits with a website that call for it. Certainly the US and others have accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of continuing a nuclear weapons program. But you fill free to twist this to say the US, i.e. the US government in public, has been "threatening to bomb Iran" for decades. Then you go on to pretend Iranian innocence with "somehow Iran is the bad guy" counter to the historical record. When called on this statement you redirect to US actions. Yes I get it.

ok, i guess if your watching the news isn't enough, or anything I've posted, or others have posted, is convincing to you that we've been moving toward this confrontation for a long time now, then i will give you more.

see Mearsheimer and Walt, http://www.abebooks.com/9780374531508/Israel-Lobby-U.S-Foreign-Policy-0374531501/plp" , Ch. 10 - Iran in the Crosshairs, pg. 280-305.

M&W list 111 references in the above chapter.

if you're so inclined, i'd also like to hear your opinion on why we should attack Iran. and your opinion on what i posted earlier from Gen Wesley Clark, whether you think there is any correlation to the nations he lists vs those already attacked, and how the remainder correlates to the current situation.

 

[Proton Soup]

Ehud Barak: Iranian nuclear program not really about Israel

http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/ehud_barak_iranian_nuclear_program_not_really_about_israel_20111118/

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11995

 

[tiny-tim]

I wonder how many Israeli airforce pilots are still locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties.

uhh? did you just make that up?

no israeli pilots have ever been locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties

and although some have objected to "targeted killings" of individual terrorists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military#The_pilots.27_letter), there's no reason to believe that any of them would conscientiously refuse to take part in a conventional attack on nuclear weapons facilities!

Ha, I was watching a TV series the other day called 'Civilisations' and apparently around 500bc the Persians liberated Babylon and freed the exiled Jews.

this is fairly well-known …

it's described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (in the Bible), and eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

Also Israel is not a REAL democratic state; it is a country which was established based on the Zionism as “a national country for the Jews around the world".

israel (like the uk) has no constitution, but it is obviously a democratic state, with freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of sexual orientation, etc, and with full and equal voting rights for all its citizens (and many arab members of parliament)

in what sense is that not democratic?

If you are not a Zionist, then you can not be a member in their Kennesite "Parliament"

… I have to admit that several of those Kennasite members are anti-Zionism

make up your mind!

 

[klimatos]

If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree. This would also require an assumption that Iraqi forces would join the caliphate. I doubt there would be a reason to chase the standing armies of the aforementioned countries through mountain passes or extract them from civilian hideouts - would there? The challenge would more likely be terrorism.

We wouldn't be fighting troops. We would be fighting armed civilians just as we are now in Iraq and Afghanistan. And fighting against an armed invader of your country is not terrorism. Were the American irregulars who fought the Hessians in the Revolutionary War terrorists?

 

[LaurieAG]

uhh? did you just make that up?

no israeli pilots have ever been locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties

This is from the wiki link you posted tiny-tim, its from the 27 pilots' letter.

We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians.

They weren't locked up they were forced out.

In response, the Chief of Staff announced that the pilots would be grounded and will no longer be allowed to train cadets in the country's flight school

 

[tiny-tim]

I wonder how many Israeli airforce pilots are still locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties.

uhh? did you just make that up?

They weren't locked up they were forced out.

so you did make it up!

(oh, and of course they weren't forced out, they were transferred to non-combat roles)

 

[mheslep]

...
if you're so inclined, i'd also like to hear your opinion on why we should attack Iran.

From earlier:

...
...
I add last that I don't see, on balance, today, that a military attack on Iran to stop it from getting a weapon would be wise, effective, or warranted, but I don't come to that conclusion from pretending nothing bad can happen should Iran acquire a weapon, as Ron Paul suggests.

 

[Proton Soup]

thanks, mheslep

 

[scottbekerham]

Israel or US attack on iran would mean a catastrophe for Israel. Iran's missiles can easily reach israel and Iran has advanced military power . It's not like a war between Israel and Hamas . Israel will be very stpid to do an action like that.

 

[russ_watters]

Thread locked due to unacceptably low quality. Shoulda just let it die.