Reply With QuoteThe above is best case scenario. Worst case scenario China gets involved as well and sends own forces to Iran and places Iran under nuclear umbrella.
Israel can succeed in initial attack. USA keeps the Gulf open with navy. GCC states might also provide air assistance preventing Iran control of Gulf. That is 3-4 air forces with interest and capability to keep Gulf open.
Wild cards are Irans missiles against Israel and their possibility of carrying chemical weapons. Also syrian response in this war.
I see Israel, US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain one side and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah on other.
The above is best case scenario. Worst case scenario China gets involved as well and sends own forces to Iran and places Iran under nuclear umbrella.
Israel is protected from long-ranged Iran's missiles by our own Arrow anti-ballistic missiles. Chemical weapons from Iran will only bring unconventional response.Originally Posted by themacedonian
Assad's regime may not live that long anyway.
A bit lame, since delays have only made the attack more complicated as Iran has continued to spread, hide and fortify it's program locations and the US and Israel are keenly aware of this. I think Israel is waiting for US to carry out the strike because a US action is much more preferable to a very uncertain scenario of an Israeli strike. I won't belabor the point, If Israel could carry it out "successfully", they would have done so already. I think we 're kind of saying the same thing here....in case we are not, we can agree to disagree.
Then you have no problem.
That's far from a full-proof protection. I doubt Iran will mess with chem weapons against Israel or anybody if they were attacked.
US action is obviously much more preferable. But it doesn't mean that Israel can't cause a delay and genuinely consider it as a success. Such delay would require additional actions in year or two after the original strike, but for Israel it is better than Iran's nuclear bomb.
Israel *can* successfully cause a delay, mourn the dead, and live with it until the next time. US can do much more than that, with less casualties.
Today on Fox news there was talk about possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Once Iran has the bomb it was said Saudi Arabia will ask Pakistan to station its own nukes in similar fashion as USA had them in Germany.
The big unknowns are possible Chinese involvement and even Russian involvement. China is dependent on Irans oil.
There is no full-proof protection, but Israel has to worry more about Hezbullah's huge arsenal of short-range unguided rockets, than about Iran's limited number of ballistic missiles with dubious CEP.
We do have a problem, actually. Short range rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, while having only ~4 batteries of Iron Dome.
Iran's ballistic missiles are fairly sophisticated and very numerous. You should really do more reading. Iran wasn't sitting idle with its ballistic missile arsenal when Israel was developing Arrow.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post5862271
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post5862300
Hezbollah too is armed with more than just short-range unguided rockets.
Pakistan is also under Chinese influence and with that move Saudi Arabia will change sides from US to China.
I don't think your argument contravenes mine and vice versa. You are getting me wrong, you think I'm saying categorically that Israel is unable to launch an attack (regardless of outcome) on Iran...but that's not my opinion. let me put it this way, If Israel (IDF) had US aerial capability, Iranian sites will be a pile of rubble regardless of what Obama thinks.
OK then
I'm also familiar with yours. But I think quite a few officials of important nations around the world are actually relieved behind scenes that Israel seems to have insufficient capacity to mount a successful attack on Iran alone, and thus requires close cooperation with foreign powers.
Posting Permissions
