Israel threat to attack Iran is not a bluff, deputy FM says

[Vettec]

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has said that Israel is not bluffing in its threats to take military action against Iran's contentious nuclear program, in remarks broadcast Friday on Sky News.

"The one who's bluffing is Iran, which is trying to play with cards they don't have," Ayalon told the British station. "All the bravado that we see and the testing and the very dangerous and harsh rhetoric is hiding a lot of weaknesses."

The minister's remarks came just a week after the international community proposed a draft nuclear deal that would have seen much of Iran's uranium shipped abroad for enrichment. Iran has demanded changes to the draft but has not yet given its final response.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif
Ayalon called Iran's tactics in dealing with international power a method of stalling. "If Iranian behavior and conduct continues as they have exhibited so far, it is obvious that their intentions are only to buy time and procrastinate," he said.

Also on Friday, the Guardian reported that the United Nations nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting the Islamic Republic's scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design.

The newspaper, citing what it describes as "previously unpublished documentation" from an International Atomic Energy Agency compiled dossier, said Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of a "two-point implosion" device.


Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126394.html

[Ambassador]

Old news, really.

We know Israel will eventually go at it at least once.

[Rugal09]

By claiming it is not a bluff, it is actually a bluff. Iran knows this but will up the ante with its own bluff followed by more Israeli bluffs. It's like playing chicken.

The more you talk about war/conflict/fight, the less likely it will happen.
A real conflict starts out as a complete surprise.

[GiladS]

By claiming it is not a bluff, it is actually a bluff. Iran knows this but will up the ante with its own bluff followed by more Israeli bluffs. It's like playing chicken.

The more you talk about war/conflict/fight, the less likely it will happen.
A real conflict starts out as a complete surprise.

I agree.

Israel won't go at it alone.

[Ambassador]

Yeah, probably the Saudis will come with you.

[JBH22]

should not they wait for the f-35

[Ambassador]

Israel is probably worried that that will give Iran enough time to set up nuclear missiles in very heavily fortified bunkers or something.

[GiladS]

Yeah, probably the Saudis will come with you.

And pigs will fly...

[GiladS]

should not they wait for the f-35

By the time the F-35 enters service the Iranian nuclear program will have passed the point of no return.

And even with the F-35 I doubt Israel could carry out a successful attack.

Only the Americans have the resources to achieve this.

[Ambassador]

Problem with the U.S. military is that it's very reluctant to open up a third front against Iran in the near future.

The U.S. 5th Fleet's headquarters in Bahrain is especially vulnerable against Iran's airspace saturation tactics using cheap missiles; no matter how crude they are it's going to break the base's defense through the sheer weight and volume of fire. It can severely compromise the U.S. Navy's operational capacity in the Persian Gulf.

Their other option is a strike from Diego Garcia which is a several hours of flight away from Iran. By far this is the most preferable.

All the tactical and strategic difficulties in mounting a successful attack against Iran for the current U.S. military notwithstanding, the Democratic president's personal ego will get in the way also.

[Rugal09]

I have a question, does the Israeli Airforce have permission to fly over Iraqi air space at the moment?

Also, although far fetched, is it possible that in the event of an Israeli-Iran conflict, Saudi Arabia may open its airspace given its fear of Iranian influence?

[Ambassador]

Brzezinski suggests that the U.S. block IAF's access to Iraqi airspace.

Saudi Arabian route will be best considering Turkey's recent hostile diplomatic stance against Israel.

[Bamba]

They threatened Hamas before Cast Lead as well.

[deathil93]

I have a question, does the Israeli Airforce have permission to fly over Iraqi air space at the moment?

Also, although far fetched, is it possible that in the event of an Israeli-Iran conflict, Saudi Arabia may open its airspace given its fear of Iranian influence?
No, but we didn't had premision back when we bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor either...
Messing with the USAF/USN is way riskier than when we messed with the Syrian airforce in 2008 and the Jordanian airforce in the 80s, as the Americans can track anything that moves and have planes or helicopters in the sky almost all the time over Iraq, unless we decide to strike when the yanks will pull out of Iraq, than we'll have a better chance at making it over Iraq.

As I recall there was an article that said that the Saudis agreed to let Israeli jet fighters to pass through its airspace in case they are going to bomb Iran. Don't know how trust worthy it can be...

I doubt that we'll go at it alone, Iran is the main supplier of funds and arms to almost all the terrorist orginazations in the world, I doubt that they would let Iran fall.

[Universal_Soldier]

Problem with the U.S. military is that it's very reluctant to open up a third front against Iran in the near future.

The U.S. 5th Fleet's headquarters in Bahrain is especially vulnerable against Iran's airspace saturation tactics using cheap missiles; no matter how crude they are it's going to break the base's defense through the sheer weight and volume of fire. It can severely compromise the U.S. Navy's operational capacity in the Persian Gulf.

Their other option is a strike from Diego Garcia which is a several hours of flight away from Iran. By far this is the most preferable.

All the tactical and strategic difficulties in mounting a successful attack against Iran for the current U.S. military notwithstanding, the Democratic president's personal ego will get in the way also.

Brother, that will be a mistake, cos if that happens it will be raining tomahawks in Iran and I mean it literally. They can only exact minimal damage on US bases but and will get a surgical dismantling of Iranian military installations in return. (Iranian missile accuracy is shabby and the few that are on target will be attacked in the air)

[Ambassador]

Yeah, but we all already agreed that Iran is suicidal?

There are many important things that Anthony Cordesman underscored about Iran's asymmetric warfighting capability.

Fighting Iran in the Persian Gulf water is very risky. Iran knows the water well and it knows how to exploit its smaller military force.

Diego Garcia is completely out of Iran's reach, so completely safe, but it's also very expensive to facilitate a staging ground there.

[GB_FXST]

By claiming it is not a bluff, it is actually a bluff. Iran knows this but will up the ante with its own bluff followed by more Israeli bluffs. It's like playing chicken.

The more you talk about war/conflict/fight, the less likely it will happen.
A real conflict starts out as a complete surprise.

A bluff? Maybe, maybe not.

Historically, Israel has reacted very harshly when it perceives an existential threat.

BTW, no one was surprised when the Six Day War erupted. A lot of talk and bluster preceded it. The only surprises were Israel’s effective tactics and the collapse of the Egyptian army.

[Rugal09]

A bluff? Maybe, maybe not.

Historically, Israel has reacted very harshly when it perceives an existential threat.

BTW, no one was surprised when the Six Day War erupted. A lot of talk and bluster preceded it. The only surprises were Israel’s effective tactics and the collapse of the Egyptian army.

Let's talk tactics then. If Israel does launch a strike, they will obviously hit high value targets such as Iran's nuclear installations.

a) Is it possible for Israeli airforce to go through Iran's airdefense and attack important installations which could be buried deep in the ground?

b) Will an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastrcture severely retard its nuclear ambitions?

c) Will an attack on Iran's nuclear installations provide a further impetus for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons or conventional long range balllistic missiles?

d) Could Iran harass Israel by ordering Hezbollah to launch missile strikes?

e) Is it possible for Iranian jets to attack targets within Israel?

[Arnie100]

Not another Israel's going to attack Iran thread again...:cantbeli:

[Clear_blues]

Not another Israel's going to attack Iran thread again...:cantbeli:
duh, life on this thread is not complete with the mandatory Israel VS Iran, China VS Everyone, Russia VS Georgia threads.

[Walker-69]

a) Is it possible for Israeli airforce to go through Iran's airdefense and attack important installations which could be buried deep in the ground?

b) Will an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastrcture severely retard its nuclear ambitions?

c) Will an attack on Iran's nuclear installations provide a further impetus for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons or conventional long range balllistic missiles?

d) Could Iran harass Israel by ordering Hezbollah to launch missile strikes?

e) Is it possible for Iranian jets to attack targets within Israel?

Let me try and have a go at some of these...

a) Yes. The Israelis have shown that they could penetrate Syria's air defenses, that means that they could do the same to Iran.

b) Yes if they strike hard enough

c) Yes... unless Iran is dealt a very severe blow

d) Oh yes. I think we can assume this to be a certainty.

e) No, Iranian jets can not reach Israel. IAF is more technically advanced than the Iranian air force. Iranian retaliation would come in the form of missile attacks.

Israel can not finish the job alone. What the Iranians have promised to do is to close the straits of Hormuz and thus drag the US into the war. Obama would have to deal with this whether he wants it or not.

We are talking big war here.

[Walker-69]

This is free analysis from STRATFOR. Look at the end to see what they think is Obama's role, in case war comes:

Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time

November 2, 2009

By George Friedman

Making sense of U.S. President Barack Obama's strategy at this moment is difficult. Not only is it a work in progress, but the pending decisions he has to make -- on Iran, Afghanistan and Russia -- tend to obscure underlying strategy. It is easy to confuse inaction with a lack of strategy. Of course, there may well be a lack of strategic thinking, but that does not mean there is a lack of strategy.

Strategy, as we have argued, is less a matter of choice than a matter of reality imposing itself on presidents. Former U.S. President George W. Bush, for example, rarely had a chance to make strategy. He was caught in a whirlwind after only nine months in office and spent the rest of his presidency responding to events, making choices from a menu of very bad options. Similarly, Obama came into office with a preset menu of limited choices. He seems to be fighting to create new choices, not liking what is on the menu. He may succeed. But it is important to understand the overwhelming forces that shape his choices and to understand the degree to which whatever he chooses is embedded in U.S. grand strategy, a strategy imposed by geopolitical reality.

Empires and Grand Strategy

American grand strategy, as we have argued, is essentially that of the British Empire, save at a global rather than a regional level. The British sought to protect their national security by encouraging Continental powers to engage in land-based conflict, thereby reducing resources available for building a navy. That guaranteed that Britain's core interest, the security of the homeland and sea-lane control, remained intact. Achieving this made the United Kingdom an economic power in the 19th century by sparing it the destruction of war and allowing it to control the patterns of international maritime trade.

On occasion, when the balance of power in Europe tilted toward one side or another, Britain intervened on the Continent with political influence where possible, direct aid when necessary or -- when all else failed -- the smallest possible direct military intervention. The United Kingdom's preferred strategy consisted of imposing a blockade -- e.g., economic sanctions -- allowing it to cause pain without incurring costs.

At the same time that it pursued this European policy, London was building a global empire. Here again, the British employed a balance-of-power strategy. In looking at the history of India or Africa during the 19th century, there is a consistent pattern of the United Kingdom forming alliances with factions, whether religious or ethnic groups, to create opportunities for domination. In the end, this was not substantially different from ancient Rome's grand strategy. Rome also ruled indirectly through much of its empire, controlling Mediterranean sea-lanes, but allying with local forces to govern; observing Roman strategy in Egypt is quite instructive in this regard.

Empires are not created by someone deciding one day to build one, or more precisely, lasting empires are not. They emerge over time through a series of decisions having nothing to do with empire building, and frequently at the hands of people far more concerned with domestic issues than foreign policy. Paradoxically, leaders who consciously set out to build empires usually fail. Hitler is a prime example. His failure was that rather than ally with forces in the Soviet Union, he wished to govern directly, something that flowed from his ambitions for direct rule. Particularly at the beginning, the Roman and British empires were far less ambitious and far less conscious of where they were headed. They were primarily taking care of domestic affairs. They became involved in foreign policy as needed, following a strategy of controlling the seas while maintaining substantial ground forces able to prevail anywhere -- but not everywhere at once -- and a powerful alliance system based on supporting the ambitions of local powers against other local powers.

On the whole, the United States has no interest in empire, and indeed is averse to imperial adventures. Those who might have had explicit inclinations in this direction are mostly out of government, crushed by experience in Iraq. Iraq came in two parts. In the first part, from 2003 to 2007, the U.S. vision was one of direct rule relying on American sea-lane control and overwhelming Iraq with well-supplied American troops.

The results were unsatisfactory. The United States found itself arrayed against all Iraqi factions and wound up in a multipart war in which its forces were merely one faction arrayed against others. The Petraeus strategy to escape this trap was less an innovation in counterinsurgency than a classic British-Roman approach. Rather than attempting direct control of Iraq, Petraeus sought to manipulate the internal balance of power, aligning with Sunni forces against Shiite forces, i.e., allying with the weaker party at that moment against the stronger. The strategy did not yield the outcome that some Bush strategists dreamed of, but it might (with an emphasis on might) yield a useful outcome: a precariously balanced Iraq dependent on the United States to preserve its internal balance of power and national sovereignty against Iran.

Many Americans, perhaps even most, regret the U.S. intervention in Iraq. And there are many, again perhaps most, who view broader U.S. entanglement in the world as harmful to American interests. Similar views were expressed by Roman republicans and English nationalists who felt that protecting the homeland by controlling the sea was the best policy, while letting the rest of the world go its own way. But the Romans and the British lost that option when they achieved the key to their own national security: enough power to protect the homeland. Outsiders inevitably came to see that power as offensive, even though originally its possessors intended it as defensive. Indeed, intent aside, the capability for offensive power was there. So frequently, Rome and Britain threatened the interests of foreign powers simply by being there. Inevitably, both Rome and Britain became the targets of Hannibals and Napoleons, and they were both drawn into the world regardless of their original desires. In short, enough power to be secure is enough power to threaten others. Therefore, that perfect moment of national security always turns offensive, as the power to protect the homeland threatens the security of other countries.

A Question of Size

There are Obama supporters and opponents who also dream of the perfect balance: security for the United States achieved by not interfering in the affairs of others. They see foreign entanglements not as providing homeland security, but as generating threats to it. They do not understand that what they want, American prosperity without international risks, is by definition impossible. The U.S. economy is roughly 25 percent of the world's economy. The American military controls the seas, not all at the same time, but anywhere it wishes at any given time. The United States also controls outer space. It is impossible for the United States not to intrude on the affairs of most countries in the world simply by virtue of its daily operations. The United States is an elephant that affects the world simply by being in the same room with it. The only way to not be an elephant is to shrink in size, and whether the United States would ever want this aside, decreasing power is harder to do than it might appear -- and much more painful.

Obama's challenge is managing U.S. power without decreasing its size and without imposing undue costs on it. This sounds like an attractive idea, but it ultimately won't work: The United States cannot be what it is without attracting hostile attention. For some of Obama's supporters, it is American behavior that generates hostility. Actually, it is America's presence -- its very size -- that intrudes on the world and generates hostility.

On the domestic front, the isolationist-internationalist divide in the United States has always been specious. Isolationists before World War II simply wanted to let the European balance of power manage itself. They wanted to buy time, but had no problem with intervening in China against Japan. The internationalists simply wanted to move from the first to the second stage, arguing that the first stage had failed. There was thus no argument in principle between them; there was simply a debate over how much time to give the process to see if it worked out. Both sides had the same strategy, but simply a different read of the moment. In retrospect, Franklin Roosevelt was right, but only because France collapsed in the face of the Nazi onslaught in a matter of weeks. That aside, the isolationist argument was quite rational.

Like that of Britain or Rome, U.S. grand strategy is driven by the sheer size of the national enterprise, a size achieved less through planning than by geography and history. Having arrived where it has, the United States has three layers to its strategy.

First, the United States must maintain the balance of power in various regions in the world. It does this by supporting a range of powers, usually the weaker against the stronger. Ideally, this balance of power maintains itself without American effort and yields relative stability. But stability is secondary to keeping local powers focused on each other rather than on the United States: Stability is a rhetorical device, not a goal. The real U.S. interest lies in weakening and undermining emergent powers so they don't ultimately rise to challenge American power. This is a strategy of nipping things in the bud.

Second, where emergent powers cannot be maintained through the regional balance of power, the United States has an interest in sharing the burden of containing it with other major powers. The United States will seek to use such coalitions either to intimidate the emerging power via economic power or, in extremis, via military power.

Third, where it is impossible to build a coalition to coerce emerging powers, the United States must decide either to live with the emerging power, forge an alliance with it, or attack it unilaterally.

Obama, as with any president, will first pursue the first layer of the strategy, using as little American power as possible and waiting as long as possible to see whether this works. The key here lies in not taking premature action that could prove more dangerous or costly than necessary. If that fails, his strategy is to create a coalition of powers to share the cost and risk. And only when that fails -- which is a function of time and politics -- will Obama turn to the third layer, which can range from simply living with the emerging power and making a suitable deal or crushing it militarily.

When al Qaeda attacked what it saw as the leading Christian power on Sept. 11, Bush found himself thrown into the third stage very rapidly. The second phase was illusory; sympathy aside, the quantity of military force allies could and would bring to bear was minimal. Even active allies like Britain and Australia couldn't bring decisive force to bear. Bush was forced into unilateralism not so much by the lack of will among allies as by their lack of power. His choice lay in creating chaos in the Islamic world and then forming alliances out of the debris, or trying to impose a direct solution through military force. He began with the second and shifted to the first.

Obama's Choices

Obama has more room to maneuver than Bush had. In the case of Iran, no regional solution is possible. Israel can only barely reach into the region, and while its air force might suffice to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and air attacks might be sufficient to destroy them, Israel could not deal with the Iranian response of mining the Strait of Hormuz and/or destabilizing Iraq. The United States must absorb these blows.

Therefore, Obama has tried to build an anti-Iranian coalition to intimidate Tehran. Given the Russian and Chinese positions, this seems to have failed, and Iran has not been intimidated. That leaves Obama with two possible paths. One is the path followed by Nixon in China: ally with Iran against Russian influence, accepting it as a nuclear power and dealing with it through a combination of political alignment and deterrence. The second option is dealing with Iran militarily.

His choice thus lies between entente or war. He is bluffing war in hopes of getting what he wants, in the meantime hoping that internal events in Iran may evolve in a way suitable to U.S. interests or that Russian economic hardship evolves into increased Russian dependence on the United States such that Washington can extract Russian concessions on Iran. Given the state of Iran's nuclear development, which is still not near a weapon, Obama is using time to try to head off the third stage.

In Afghanistan, where Obama is already in the third stage and where he is being urged to go deeper in, he is searching for a way to return to the first stage, wherein an indigenous coalition emerges that neutralizes Afghanistan through its own internal dynamic. Hence, Washington is negotiating with the Taliban, trying to strengthen various factions in Afghanistan and not quite committing to more force. Winter is coming in Afghanistan, and that is the quiet time in that conflict. Obama is clearly buying time.

In that sense, Obama's foreign policy is neither as alien as his critics would argue nor as original as his supporters argue. He is adhering to the basic logic of American grand strategy, minimizing risks over time while seeking ways to impose low-cost solutions. It differs from Bush's policies primarily in that Bush had events forced on him and spent his presidency trying to regain the initiative.

The interesting point from where we sit is not only how deeply embedded Obama is in U.S. grand strategy, but how deeply drawn he is into the unintended imperial enterprise that has dominated American foreign policy since the 1930s -- an enterprise neither welcomed nor acknowledged by most Americans. Empires aren't planned, at least not successful empires, as Hitler and Napoleon learned to their regret. Empires happen as the result of the sheer reality of power. The elephant in the room cannot stop being an elephant, nor can the smaller animals ignore him. No matter how courteous the elephant, it is his power -- his capabilities -- not his intentions that matter.

Obama is now the elephant in the room. He has bought as much time as possible to make decisions, and he is being as amiable as possible to try to build as large a coalition as possible. But the coalition has neither the power nor appetite for the risks involved, so Obama will have to decide whether to live with Iran, form an alliance with Iran or go to war with Iran. In Afghanistan, he must decide whether he can recreate the balance of power by staying longer and whether this will be more effective by sending more troops, or whether it is time to begin withdrawal. In both cases, he can use the art of the bluff to shape the behavior of others, maybe.

He came into the presidency promising to be more amiable than Bush, something not difficult given the circumstances. He is now trying to convert amiability into a coalition, a much harder thing to do. In the end, he will have to make hard decisions. In American foreign policy, however, the ideal strategy is always to buy time so as to let the bribes, bluffs and threats do their work. Obama himself probably doesn't know what he will do; that will depend on circumstances. Letting events flow until they can no longer be tolerated is the essence of American grand strategy, a path Obama is following faithfully.

It should always be remembered that this long-standing American policy has frequently culminated in war, as with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Bush. It was Clinton's watchful waiting to see how things played out, after all, that allowed al Qaeda the time to build and strike. But this is not a criticism of Clinton -- U.S. strategy is to trade time for risk. Over time, the risk might lead to war anyway, but then again, it might not. If war does come, American power is still decisive, if not in creating peace, then certainly in wreaking havoc upon rising powers. And that is the foundation of empire.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

[Nano]

Alright no bluff then I await the bombing runs in 9..8..7..6..5..4..3..2..1....
Where them bombs Israel come on give us them crowd pleasers. O no wait Iran wants those you have them and don't want to share? Sharing is caring Israel let Iran have some nuke toys of its own. It is always more fun when your friend has something to play with too.:hug:

[Mastermind]

Bluff...Israel has far too much to lose by an Iranian strike, too little to gain and far too much sense to do it.

A weak pudding puddle, that has already shown indecision on even small problems presently occupies US leadership...and would likely panic...so not predictable as to Us response.

Iran would then have the trump card of Islamic indignation...And would thus solidify Islamic responses toward a presently fairly stable Israeli front (as compared to how bad it could be).

Israel would be inundated with western grief based on fears of a highly destabilized ME. Knows heavy pressure would instantly be applied to redress and probably make some sort of restitution to the insulted Iran. Almost certainly all Israeli military aid would be stopped.

Russia and china would both use the event to the detriment of Israeli world wide interests. Russia benefiting from the trippling of world oil prices...China suffering to the same. China would do all possible to re-stabilize in favor of primary oil supplier Iran.

The risks are just too great for achieving a very limited potential benefit to Israel and a pretty predictable negative outcome for Israel.

Nope...just not gonna happen.

Best for Israel to sit and wait for Iran to become nuclear armed and then let the west isolate Iran...the west will be forced to deal with a nuclear armed Iran...right now, they are burying their heads in the sand for fear of pissing off Islam ...if anyone has not noticed, Islam radicalism is what controls world affairs...not organized state Islam. The one thing the west fears most is a highly mobilized and motivated Islamic culture on the make for causing grief in western nations. This low level 1% radicalized Islam is almost impossible to handle...just imagine a 20%...or even a 30%....the chaos to global economy would be utterly devastating....and that is highly likely in the wake of an Israeli attack on Iran.

[TheOpposition]

Old news, really.

We know Israel will eventually go at it at least once.

Yup can almost set my watch to it. thing is they will get one hell of a surprise when they have to finish the job alone. There is a reason why none else is.

[RoyB]

Yup can almost set my watch to it. thing is they will get one hell of a surprise when they have to finish the job alone. There is a reason why none else is.
What makes you think Israel will go at it alone? or it will be kept in the dark before and after it?
Israel will not go at it alone, never.
Nor do I think that Israel has the ability to strike alone, and finish the job alone (and this comes from an Israeli).

[GiladS]

what makes you think israel will go at it alone? Or it will be kept in the dark before and after it?
Israel will not go at it alone, never.
Nor do i think that israel has the ability to strike alone, and finish the job alone (and this comes from an israeli).

x2

...........

[GB_FXST]

Let's talk tactics then. If Israel does launch a strike, they will obviously hit high value targets such as Iran's nuclear installations.

a) Is it possible for Israeli airforce to go through Iran's airdefense and attack important installations which could be buried deep in the ground?

b) Will an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastrcture severely retard its nuclear ambitions?

c) Will an attack on Iran's nuclear installations provide a further impetus for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons or conventional long range balllistic missiles?

d) Could Iran harass Israel by ordering Hezbollah to launch missile strikes?

e) Is it possible for Iranian jets to attack targets within Israel?

Of all your questions, B is the only one that really matters. Unfortunately, it is unanswerable in the public domain.

But, if we assume 1) that the answer to B is yes, and 2) the Israeli leadership believes that an Iranian bomb will be used in a first strike scenario, then Israel will likely attack.

The Burning Platform concept (from Gaming Theory) is instructive as a pre-emptive strike is an alternative to an otherwise certain death.

[Ambassador]

In my book, letter A mattered too.

Iran made a good case study for some of us military geeks in the clerical department. Iran has got an 'ok' air defense. Not very top, but it's ok. If Korea were to attack it today we'd be losing a few KF-16. (it was a case study, alright)

Israel would have defeated Iran's air defense and air force easily if they were right next to each other.

The distance will pose the biggest challenge.

We factored in EW and aerial tankers too.

[dracon49]

If our leadership really considers Iran as an existental threat(and doest say it for political reasons) then we need to use everything in our arsenal to prevent it including nukes(and i know it will never happen that will use nukes for a first strike)

[Mastermind]

What makes you think Israel will go at it alone? or it will be kept in the dark before and after it?
Israel will not go at it alone, never.
Nor do I think that Israel has the ability to strike alone, and finish the job alone (and this comes from an Israeli).
Realistically, what other viable force would be helping Israel attack Iran?

If the US (the only potential but highly unlikely ally) were to help, then what would be the use of having Israel tag along? Any US assistance will be instantly known by the Islamic world...and thus nullify the "assisted Israeli" cover. Thus it makes no sense that US would "assist"...why not just do it...US would get the full blame anyway.

No. Israel can not do it alone and if it is to be done, Israel must do it alone...so, the argument is self extinguishing.

One thing is a certainty...US will not do it, will not sanction it, will not support it....not now, not in the foreseeable future.

[RoyB]

Realistically, what other viable force would be helping Israel attack Iran?
None.

If the US (the only potential but highly unlikely ally)
The US is actually the most likely ally to help of all, although so far it seems unlikely that it will.

If the US were to help, then what would be the use of having Israel tag along? Any US assistance will be instantly known by the Islamic world...and thus nullify the "assisted Israeli" cover. Thus it makes no sense that US would "assist"...why not just do it...
If a decision to strike Iran will be made, be sure that Israel will take part in it too.

US would get the full blame anyway.
When did the US get the full blame?

One thing is a certainty...US will not do it, will not sanction it, will not support it....not now, not in the foreseeable future.
I disagree, but it is a long shot.

It might come down to the fact that we will have to live with a nuclear Iran.

[Estopped]

Israel won't attack Iran. If they could they would have done so already. They simply don't have the capability to carry out a successful attack that has any meaningful impact on Irans nuclear programme.

All they would achive is guaranteeing that Iran gets nuclear weapons.

[Mastermind]

None.

The US is actually the most likely ally to help of all, although so far it seems unlikely that it will.

If a decision to strike Iran will be made, be sure that Israel will take part in it too.

When did the US get the full blame?

I disagree, but it is a long shot.

It might come down to the fact that we will have to live with a nuclear Iran.

I never said they HAD received full blame...I said they WOULD if any attack on Iran happened.

[medo]

The word bluff is dangerous here. We could know, that Israel didn't bluff only, when Israel actually attack Iran, but until then, this could be bluff.

[RoyB]

Despite the similarities this is not Poker.. no one bluffs on this matters.

[Mastermind]

Despite the similarities this is not Poker.. no one bluffs on this matters.
I have got to disagree with this statement...It is very much like poker and states bluff all the time on matter this critical. The danger is failing in the "bluff" and getting "called".

This is how the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved...Kruschev blinked and did not call Kennedy's bluff because the US was holding a very strong hand. USR ultimately backed down after failing to "Raise" in the face of the so-called US bluff...would the US have launched missiles or fired on Soviet ships headed for Cuba? No one will ever know. In my opinion, Kennedy was bluffing. If the Soviet ships had continued to sail toward Cuba in the face of the blockade...I honestly think the US would have backed down.

In the Israel vs Iran confrontation, Israel has far too much to lose and is playing from a very weak deck...and, I believe Israel knows what hand the Iranians have. So, their bluff is weak and so is Iran's. In this case, both sides play small (hold back challenging the big pot) and walk away waiting for the next hand to be dealt...in a few years, the situation will have changed...here is how;

Iran will probably become a member of the nuclear club. Israel will see the leanings of the near future in the way of the US Presidential campaign...most probably watching Luny-Tune getting his poll numbers stomped. Expecting a new US president that is more sympathetic to Israeli interests and probably much less inclined to "sleep with the Iranian whore", the new "deal" will be much stronger for Israel. Iran will quickly grow quieter, hinting at conciliation...US situation in Afghanistan will likely be much more acidic with Obama fading and leaving a very critical military mess...US will be facing a necessary and dramatic buildup in the ME much closer to Iran....and (hopefully-probably) a much more stable Iraq...and with the progressive Arabian influence becoming much less tolerant of a crazy nuclear Muslim fundamentalist power across the waters screwing their billionaire real estate developments.

So, the hand coming up is far more likely to favor Israel, much more likely to be detrimental to Iran....

Playing this hand soft, in favor of getting a much stronger one in the next deal is Israels best move.

So...you see...it is a bluff, saving for time, eventually folding a weak hand with a small pot, and waiting for a better deal in the next round...exactly like poker.

[hidayatnw]

The word bluff is dangerous here. We could know, that Israel didn't bluff only, when Israel actually attack Iran, but until then, this could be bluff.

yes, you are correct, until now, it is still bluff...

[Walker-69]

Mastermind, it is an interesting discussion and I actually have much respect for your experience and insight. However, I disagree with you in this matter. The Israelis have said that they shall not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and they now said that they are not bluffing. I take them at their word, and I believe that a major war will result. There's a lot of factors in play that we could discuss, but some of those issues are so complicated that this forum is not a good place to discuss them. Things like the Holocaust, religion etc, this forum is not for that talk.

But ultimately, time will show what happens. We are just talking and chatting and what we say here will not affect the outcome of things.

[GB_FXST]

I have got to disagree with this statement...It is very much like poker and states bluff all the time on matter this critical. The danger is failing in the "bluff" and getting "called".

This is how the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved...Kruschev blinked and did not call Kennedy's bluff because the US was holding a very strong hand. USR ultimately backed down after failing to "Raise" in the face of the so-called US bluff...would the US have launched missiles or fired on Soviet ships headed for Cuba? No one will ever know. In my opinion, Kennedy was bluffing. If the Soviet ships had continued to sail toward Cuba in the face of the blockade...I honestly think the US would have backed down.

In the Israel vs Iran confrontation, Israel has far too much to lose and is playing from a very weak deck...and, I believe Israel knows what hand the Iranians have. So, their bluff is weak and so is Iran's. In this case, both sides play small (hold back challenging the big pot) and walk away waiting for the next hand to be dealt...in a few years, the situation will have changed...here is how;

Iran will probably become a member of the nuclear club. Israel will see the leanings of the near future in the way of the US Presidential campaign...most probably watching Luny-Tune getting his poll numbers stomped. Expecting a new US president that is more sympathetic to Israeli interests and probably much less inclined to "sleep with the Iranian whore", the new "deal" will be much stronger for Israel. Iran will quickly grow quieter, hinting at conciliation...US situation in Afghanistan will likely be much more acidic with Obama fading and leaving a very critical military mess...US will be facing a necessary and dramatic buildup in the ME much closer to Iran....and (hopefully-probably) a much more stable Iraq...and with the progressive Arabian influence becoming much less tolerant of a crazy nuclear Muslim fundamentalist power across the waters screwing their billionaire real estate developments.

So, the hand coming up is far more likely to favor Israel, much more likely to be detrimental to Iran....

Playing this hand soft, in favor of getting a much stronger one in the next deal is Israels best move.

So...you see...it is a bluff, saving for time, eventually folding a weak hand with a small pot, and waiting for a better deal in the next round...exactly like poker.

Good analysis. However it is predicated on one major assumption: Iran is a rational actor that will adopt a policy of MAD, and will not launch a first strike. AFAIK, Israel has not accepted that assumption.

There are some other troubling assumptions:

- Obama - Obama may win in 2012;
- Peace in the North and Gaza - Cast Lead II, Lebanon III or Yom Kippur II could occur with unintended consequences.

[jokuvaan]

Some wars look initially big and end up small and vice versa. What makes people nervous over this matter is this unknown. Yes, Israel+West can win any Middle East war, but cost and length is totally unknown.

[dracon49]

I have got to disagree with this statement...It is very much like poker and states bluff all the time on matter this critical. The danger is failing in the "bluff" and getting "called".

This is how the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved...Kruschev blinked and did not call Kennedy's bluff because the US was holding a very strong hand. USR ultimately backed down after failing to "Raise" in the face of the so-called US bluff...would the US have launched missiles or fired on Soviet ships headed for Cuba? No one will ever know. In my opinion, Kennedy was bluffing. If the Soviet ships had continued to sail toward Cuba in the face of the blockade...I honestly think the US would have backed down.

In the Israel vs Iran confrontation, Israel has far too much to lose and is playing from a very weak deck...and, I believe Israel knows what hand the Iranians have. So, their bluff is weak and so is Iran's. In this case, both sides play small (hold back challenging the big pot) and walk away waiting for the next hand to be dealt...in a few years, the situation will have changed...here is how;

Iran will probably become a member of the nuclear club. Israel will see the leanings of the near future in the way of the US Presidential campaign...most probably watching Luny-Tune getting his poll numbers stomped. Expecting a new US president that is more sympathetic to Israeli interests and probably much less inclined to "sleep with the Iranian whore", the new "deal" will be much stronger for Israel. Iran will quickly grow quieter, hinting at conciliation...US situation in Afghanistan will likely be much more acidic with Obama fading and leaving a very critical military mess...US will be facing a necessary and dramatic buildup in the ME much closer to Iran....and (hopefully-probably) a much more stable Iraq...and with the progressive Arabian influence becoming much less tolerant of a crazy nuclear Muslim fundamentalist power across the waters screwing their billionaire real estate developments.

So, the hand coming up is far more likely to favor Israel, much more likely to be detrimental to Iran....

Playing this hand soft, in favor of getting a much stronger one in the next deal is Israels best move.

So...you see...it is a bluff, saving for time, eventually folding a weak hand with a small pot, and waiting for a better deal in the next round...exactly like poker.
What do you mean when you saying "better deal in the next round?...and yes, we know that if will attack them Hizbollah will respone also, but they will pay an heavy price if they will do it and in anyway i also dont think that in the near future will attack them.

[Fat Lazy American]

This is how the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved...Kruschev blinked and did not call Kennedy's bluff because the US was holding a very strong hand.

I think you're using a different definition of "bluff" than the rest of the world does.

[Mastermind]

Good analysis. However it is predicated on one major assumption: Iran is a rational actor that will adopt a policy of MAD, and will not launch a first strike. AFAIK, Israel has not accepted that assumption.

There are some other troubling assumptions:

- Obama - Obama may win in 2012;
- Peace in the North and Gaza - Cast Lead II, Lebanon III or Yom Kippur II could occur with unintended consequences.
Yes...however, the word "may" is a bit exaggerated on that assumption. His plunging approval ratings as people find out what a hollow mass he is, leads me to believe his next three years will probably not do much to impress voters in his favor. But, leave it up to the Republicans to screw the pooch on the next election...quite possible.

Peace in Gaza...hardly likely.

And, of course, "unintended consequences" always leaves room for doubt about any future.

I'm not pretending to have a crystal ball to the future...I'm just saying my opinion about how I see things. I just don't think Israel is capable of achieving a significant outcome to the Iranian problem with a unilateral pre-emptive bombing campaign of iran...it just makes no sense to me for the present.

[GB_FXST]

Yes...however, the word "may" is a bit exaggerated on that assumption. His plunging approval ratings as people find out what a hollow mass he is, leads me to believe his next three years will probably not do much to impress voters in his favor.

... snip ...



I hope you are right. :)





... snip ...

But, leave it up to the Republicans to screw the pooch on the next election...quite possible.

... snip ...



I fear that you are right. :|

[Zarak]

I have to say I agree with Mastermind here. Israel can't do it without the US and the US won't do it.

[Walker-69]

OK guys, let us look at it this way.

First of all, the threat of war is from Iran. In the end, war will come to Israel, even if Israel would want peace.

But look at the credentials of Netanyahu and Barak.

Benyamin Netanyahu was Sayeret Matkal. The two brothers of Netanyahu were Sayeret Matkal. One of the brothers was killed at Entebbe while leading the operation at Entebbe airport.

Ehud Barak is the most decorated soldier in the history of Israel. There was another man, equally decorated, he was a friend of Barak, and he died in the six day war.

These guys know what it is to kill and they know what it is to lose friends and family in battle. They are warriors. This is a war cabinet. Iran would bring the war to Israel, but these guys - they don't take shyte.

[Hollis]

I have to say I agree with Mastermind here. Israel can't do it without the US and the US won't do it.


It may seem like that. It is still a maybe/maybe not. We won't know till after it happens if it does.

[seraosha]

So how much help did Reagan give Israel when the Iraqi nuclear powerplant was hit?
Or Bush to Israel when that nuclear site in Syria was hit?

If (when) Israel hits Iran we will back up Israel. Our current Administration is playing it close to the chest in regards to supporting our only real allies in the ME, but they are.

[Mastermind]

So how much help did Reagan give Israel when the Iraqi nuclear powerplant was hit?
Or Bush to Israel when that nuclear site in Syria was hit?

If (when) Israel hits Iran we will back up Israel. Our current Administration is playing it close to the chest in regards to supporting our only real allies in the ME, but they are.
So, we expect Obama, who can not even begin to make up his mind on Afghanistan (really) troop requirements...calling in advsor after advisor, panel after panel...still can't get his courage up to do what must be done....this is the guy who Israel can count on for support in event they decide to attack Iran's nuke plants?

The waffling by the Obama admin has shaken our allies quite seriously. Obama looks very weak, in fact, so soft, the nick-name "Pudding President" is starting to stick. The enemy in Afghanistan is realizing this is greatly to their advantage...as are the enemies of Israel.

Obama is far worse than Jimmy Carter in terms of understanding the realities of military necessity. Israel is now in a very precarious situation because of it.

[seraosha]

Not our President, but our military assets that Iran will jack with as they try to get some payback on Israel. You don't really think that our forces in the Gulf, in and around Iraq, and the strait of Hormuz are just going to roll over?

Just because our president can't decide to **** or get off the pot?

Nah man, the US will be supporting Israel whether the Administration wants to or not...and there is still a large group of US policy makers that consider Iran a "get out of recession" option. The contingencies are in place so that the option to "defend ourselves all over Iran" are going to start in the event of retaliatory attack.

If Israel feels that their existance is threatened by a nuclear attack from Iran, which i would if I were they, I'd attack and start praying.
In that order.

[dracon49]

Why praying?...

[BlackWarder]

Why praying?...

by the time the planes will be back it will be time for "Mincha"..... p-)

Warder

[MPNFL]

this is beginning to sound like a terrible bar fight with two people yelling about how badly their going to hurt the other

[dracon49]

by the time the planes will be back it will be time for "Mincha"..... p-)

Warder
I really think it will be a good air combat training(to take out some of their F-14 f-5 f-4)the problem is that they have too much targets. If will be able to delay it for some years it will be ok also.

[GiladS]

I really think it will be a good air combat training(to take out some of their F-14 f-5 f-4)the problem is that they have too much targets. If will be able to delay it for some years it will be ok also.

Take it easy on the bragging, there's a very good chance we would lose pilots on such a mission.

It's not just that there are a lot of the targets but also that they are burried and I doubt we have the appropriate munitions or an appropriate platform to deliver them.

In other words... I can only see the Americans with their B2s and their GBU-57A/B take out the Iranian nuclear program.

[LuisWP]

I have to say I agree with Mastermind here. Israel can't do it without the US and the US won't do it.
The U.S. is fully controlled by the Zionist lobby:roll:

[Mastermind]

I am curious, all those folks here who are advocating the benefits of such a strike by Israel, even with little or no support from the USA, ...have you any ideas on what the repercussions of said strike might be?

Personally, I doubt a strike at the limits (even beyond the reasonable limits) of the IAF range will have a military result enough to deter the Iranian nuclear effort. Strategic bombing doctrine always relies on follow-up strikes, and lots of them. Iran learned a valuable lesson from the first anti-nuclear facility strike by the IAF against Iraq. They have thus dispersed their facilities and placed their more important infrastructure in hardened and highly secretive places, not likely to be harmed by a conventional strike...especially one of necessarily limited nature.

Honestly, there is not any likelihood of proper success of such a strike....so why would Israel, in any circumstance offer to do such a thing?

The only result of such a strike would be to heavily inflame nearly all Islamic dominated nations, unite the Islamic radicals, and force allied nations currently friendly to Israel, off the rails of Israeli friendship. Israel’s Islamic borders would becoming highly combustible.

Also, Iran would then go onto a war footing, giving it unlimited currency to impose harsh domestic rule, demand vast redirection of limited funding to war industries and accelerate the national desire to gain a nuclear bomb capability.....

Quite frankly, an IAF strike against Iran simply makes no sense what-so-ever.

If anyone has an alternate prediction, I would be delighted to hear it.

[GB_FXST]

The U.S. is fully controlled by the Zionist lobby:roll:

Care to expand on this thought?

[GB_FXST]

I am curious, all those folks here who are advocating the benefits of such a strike by Israel, even with little or no support from the USA, ...have you any ideas on what the repercussions of said strike might be?

Personally, I doubt a strike at the limits (even beyond the reasonable limits) of the IAF range will have a military result enough to deter the Iranian nuclear effort. Strategic bombing doctrine always relies on follow-up strikes, and lots of them. Iran learned a valuable lesson from the first anti-nuclear facility strike by the IAF against Iraq. They have thus dispersed their facilities and placed their more important infrastructure in hardened and highly secretive places, not likely to be harmed by a conventional strike...especially one of necessarily limited nature.

Honestly, there is not any likelihood of proper success of such a strike....so why would Israel, in any circumstance offer to do such a thing?

The only result of such a strike would be to heavily inflame nearly all Islamic dominated nations, unite the Islamic radicals, and force allied nations currently friendly to Israel, off the rails of Israeli friendship. Israel’s Islamic borders would becoming highly combustible.

Also, Iran would then go onto a war footing, giving it unlimited currency to impose harsh domestic rule, demand vast redirection of limited funding to war industries and accelerate the national desire to gain a nuclear bomb capability.....

Quite frankly, an IAF strike against Iran simply makes no sense what-so-ever.

If anyone has an alternate prediction, I would be delighted to hear it.

I suspect that any IAF strike will be planned to be sufficient. Otherwise, there will be no strike.

[Mastermind]

^^ Is there any credible thought that such a strike would accomplish the end result that Iran would completely discontinue any further work toward nuclear armament?

It only makes sense such a goal would be the end result of any Israeli strike.

To merely delay Iran's achievement of nuclear armament would certainly not be sufficient.

[Ambassador]

Some dude sometime ago said the U.S. would conquer Iran in 3 days, aka Iraq-esque takeover.

So in the end, there would be no problem.

[GB_FXST]

^^ Is there any credible thought that such a strike would accomplish the end result that Iran would completely discontinue any further work toward nuclear armament?

It only makes sense such a goal would be the end result of any Israeli strike.

To merely delay Iran's achievement of nuclear armament would certainly not be sufficient.

I do not think it has to be an all or nothing equation. A delay of say five years allow for the pursuit of other options, say regime change.

[Sootan]

I do not think it has to be an all or nothing equation. A delay of say five years allow for the pursuit of other options, say regime change.

A regime change after bombing Iran? What are you smoking man?

[Zarak]

Honestly, if it weren't a bluff, we wouldn't be talking about it now and either would Israeli politicians. It would've been done already. Israel wouldn't have so quickly given up whatever surprise there may have been by talking about it and giving Iran years to prepare.

If you look at Opera as a template for a real strike, what is happening now is the complete opposite.

[Robert.V]

How about they stop barking and start biting.

[Zarak]

How about they stop barking and start biting.

Maybe they're trying to wear everyone down. If I tell you every day I'm going to break your legs, then after six years I actually do it, you'd be surprised as ****. :p

Unless you took that six years to build up the defenses for your legs, like Iran.

[michailk]

Israel and the US must give a strong message to Iran and the whole world :

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYBODY!!!

[Robert.V]

Maybe they're trying to wear everyone down. If I tell you every day I'm going to break your legs, then after six years I actually do it, you'd be surprised as ****. :p

Unless you took that six years to build up the defenses for your legs, like Iran.

:)


Israel and the US must give a strong message to Iran and the whole world :

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYBODY!!!


You know you maybe on to something ! Finding it out where Ahmadinejad resides and sending a B2 over to drop a Christmas tree and a card would be a a one hell of a message. p-)

[Walker-69]

I am curious, all those folks here who are advocating the benefits of such a strike by Israel, even with little or no support from the USA, ...have you any ideas on what the repercussions of said strike might be?


I am not advocating a strike. It is my belief that a strike will happen. Regarding the repercussions, I have been stacking tuna and beans for quite a while. But of course I could be wrong.

[AIRASSAULT7]

if you think israel is bluffing your gonna get an airstrike on your house while your taking a shower
lol

[SiEMpre_Leal]

if you think israel is bluffing your gonna get an airstrike on your house while your taking a shower
lol

got bombed while being naked? hahaha..that would suck balls

[Zarak]

got bombed while being naked? hahaha..that would suck balls

I usually get bombed and THEN get naked. Tequila is a hell of a drink.

[Sootan]

:)




You know you maybe on to something ! Finding it out where Ahmadinejad resides and sending a B2 over to drop a Christmas tree and a card would be a a one hell of a message. p-)

What message? S-300 won't protect you, better get S-400/500/600?

[SiEMpre_Leal]

I usually get bombed and THEN get naked. Tequila is a hell of a drink.

roflroflrofl

[Annihilator9112]

They have been saying they would attack Iran for months now and still nothing happened. I think they will attack Iran in December or start of next year. If it doesn't happen they will not attack Iran at all then.

[F16]

Is it possible for Israeli air force to go through Iran's air defense and attack important installations which could be buried deep in the ground?

First, they are going to suppress iranian's AD network, after it's successfully disabled, they are going to fly in with GBU-28s - bunker buster munitions, they can destroy most hardened targets. The IAF will use a lot of them, one after another, digging the hole deeper and deeper, in this case whatever the amount of concrete you have above, it will get penetrated.
To prevent this from happening you don't need more concrete, you need working AD systems.

Will an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastrcture severely retard its nuclear ambitions?
It prevent Iran from future attemps to acquire nuclear technologies which can be used to make weapons, you need troops on the ground, infantry, that means full-scale occupation, with a new government with people very loyal to you in it.


Could Iran harass Israel by ordering Hezbollah to launch missile strikes?
Yes, that's why the IDF is preparing their ground forces with new tactics to deal with hzb fighters in case they enter the south Lebanon, it's almost certainly the hzb will launch attack.


Is it possible for Iranian jets to attack targets within Israel?
There's no way they can break through the Israeli AD system. Chances are zero.

[Walker-69]

If anyone has an alternate prediction, I would be delighted to hear it.

OK Mastermind, the issue is co complex that we can't possible get into all the detail on this forum. But like I said, I respect your opinion, and if I am wrong, then obviously we will all live to see it and I will be here to admit it too. Anyways, IF there is no pre-emption, I believe that the war will come to Israel and it won't be fought on Israel's terms any more. It might take a long time, but in the end Israel will be like f---ing Somalia where Iran-controlled factions fill fight against remnants of the Juice and Al Qaeda franchises and whoever else might want to join the bash. It might take decades, but look at the manpower of the enemies of Israel, what if they get the nuke, then S-300, plus they already have VX and other nasty sh*t.

PLUS every Arab nation will rush to get their own nuclear program. Do a google with any Arab country + "nuclear program", you will find out that there are a lot of nascent nuclear programs out there. The possibilities for some Al Qaeda fruitcake to obtain their personal nuke will increase tenfold.

PLUS the Iranians might share the technology with their friends. There's many other dictators that don't really need the nuke, but the Iranians might be ready to help them.

Well, take all this with a grain of salt. I am NOT an political analyst. I COULD BE wrong. I try to respect the opinions of others too.

I have the feeling that we will see the outcome this winter. If there is no strike, and if the Bushehr nuclear plant goes online - THEN I will stop believing in a pre-emptive strike. And I hope to be around here to admit that I was wrong.

If there is a pre-emptive strike... it will lead to one hell of a war as well.

EDIT: well, in a way, maybe I do "advocate a strike", unlike I previously claimed... even though my opinion does not matter. I am PRO-Israel, and I would not like to see evacuations of Juice out of Israel and an endless war. That's just based on my limited understanding.

[Mastermind]

Walker- I do not disagree that a strike should be made. I strongly advocate it. However, the opportunity to do anything substantial, even for the US, is past. Iran has found that the "civilized" world will tolerate just about anything so long as it does not involve actual war. The UN is presently, nothing but a "Love Islam" club. The US is now governed by Islamic leaning President, and a totally gutless congress. In fact, we may even consider our present congress to be a rather anti-US and Pro-anything but US organ. Our President is highly in the leanings of the communist direction...or heavy socialist, if that makes readers more comfortable...but, nothing toward Pro-western traditional views. This leaves Israel floating rather precariously without a life raft. Islamic nations with technology are now pressing toward their ultimate goal of total destruction of Israel. They are in a position now that if they play their cards correctly, they could make heavy gains in their play toward those goals. They basically have Israel surrounded. they have the west on the ropes financially and politically. There are no new "Ronald Reagans" on the horizon. Europe is struggling financially and, quite frankly, culturally...moving ever more in the pro-Islam direction.

The bush admin lost their one great chance to retard Iran's nuclear program....perhaps there never really was a chance...but, most certainly the best chance has gone by.

Now, the only thing left to Israel and the west (US particularly) is to wait and see....When Iran declares itself to be a nuclear armed nation, then the game will change dramatically...probably pro Israel. The actual threat will be far more poignant than the "some day" threat.

We probably agree, Israel has no capability to really destroy the Iranian nuclear program. We also probably agree, such a strike, in reality, would do nothing but worsen the present situation. We should agree, the US is absolutely not about to help deter Iran...in fact, it seems to be avoiding any further debate on the subject.

So...that leaves a future with a nuclear armed Iran, a nuclear armed Israel, a US that is ambivalent, a looming financial monster on Iran's borders (China) and a very active Islamic radical group (supported by Iran) aggressively encroaching Israel...that Radical Islamic group is the greatest threat to Israel’s future...how far will conventionally armed Iran go to support them if they begin to get out of hand? How far will a nuclear armed Iran go?

Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, I actually see it slipping into the favor of Israeli interests...Iran would be ashamed to not support their buddies who will be increasingly attacking Israel....yet, if Iran is in the nuclear club, the west will be even more in favor of controlling radical Islam. And, it may not be too far fetched to see Nuclear Iran helping quite a bit in that direction. Iran will not want to let herself get dragged into some idiotic Radical slugging match against a very pissed and nuclear armed Israel. I think Iran is too smart for that.

This is not to say Iran will cease acting the fool…but, it is to say, not so much, once armed with such weapons of mass destruction.

Basically, right now, Iran is no threat...and there are some pretty serious doubts about her sincerity to join the nuclear club...a whole new game will erupt on Iran's front porch when that happens...and they know it. Look how Pakistan has not fared so well with her new powers...in fact, it just made her a pretty damn serious target for nukes...something not particularly good. Once in the club, you can't go back. And, it also put Pakistan much further into the western camp than she ever thought she would be...Why? The west is pretty damn serious about keeping nukes out of the hands of radical Islamists...that was a game changer big time. When the radicals threatened the Paki government, look how intense they suddenly became in stopping that. And, look at the grandiose offers of financial and military aid the west has extended to Pakistan since she became so endowed. Would the same offers go to Iran as long as Iran is acting the fool? I doubt it.

No...the time is well past for a conventional strike to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions...the next time there are any such thoughts, it will not be with conventional arms...Iran is actually having to face into the nuclear abyss and I think Israel is hoping Iran sees reality in there. If not...well, only time will tell.

[dracon49]

If our leaders really consider Iran as an existential threat and dont say that because other reasons so then we need to use all the means to prevent it(including what foreigners say we have).

[Zarak]

So...that leaves a future with a nuclear armed Iran, a nuclear armed Israel, a US that is ambivalent, a looming financial monster on Iran's borders (China) and a very active Islamic radical group (supported by Iran) aggressively encroaching Israel...that Radical Islamic group is the greatest threat to Israel’s future...how far will conventionally armed Iran go to support them if they begin to get out of hand? How far will a nuclear armed Iran go?

Speaking of China, China's ever growing dependence on Middle East oil and seemingly inevitable growth into a super power may do a lot to contribute to peace in the middle east. As much as I hate to be at all dependent on the 'evil' Chinese, I think they will be an excellent partner for Israel and the United States in the middle east in the future - their interests are similar and Islamic nations may be more apt to listen to China than any Western nation.

[dracon49]

But as you said yourself they get oil from muslim countries like Iran(so they will not allow to impose more sanctions on Iran for example)

[Zarak]

But as you said yourself they get oil from muslim countries like Iran(so they will not allow to impose more sanctions on Iran for example)

Why would China allow a nation like Iran to destabilize the middle east, thereby wildly increasing oil prices, and negatively effecting the Chinese economy? Being an oil exporter doesn't give one a get-out-of-jail-free-card, even with a nation like China.

[dracon49]

They said themself they are opposed to more sanctions on Iran.

[Sootan]

If our leaders really consider Iran as an existential threat and dont say that because other reasons so then we need to use all the means to prevent it(including what foreigners say we have).

You can't prevent it. Delay it, maybe. But that would only make retaliation even more inevitable.

[Estopped]

Why would China allow a nation like Iran to destabilize the middle east, thereby wildly increasing oil prices, and negatively effecting the Chinese economy? Being an oil exporter doesn't give one a get-out-of-jail-free-card, even with a nation like China.

Because China doesn't see it that way. China doesn't see its middle-east relations through the prism of Israeli/American interests.