Israel's Possible Attack on Iran: An Objective Analysis

  • News
  • Thread starter DoggerDan
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Israel
I say that? Is that word allowed in the same paragraph as Iranian President? Anyway, you need a rational player on the other side. And we don't have one. We have people who think they have a mission and their god will protect them.In summary, the article discusses the possibility of Israel attacking Iran and the potential consequences of such an act. It also mentions the role of other nations, such as the US and moderate Muslim countries, in this situation. Some experts believe that an attack on Iran could have far-reaching effects and could potentially lead to a larger conflict in the Middle East. However, there are also concerns about the current Iranian government and their beliefs, which could potentially make them a dangerous threat to Israel
  • #1
DoggerDan
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-sending-signals-iranian-attack-195607515.html

I hope not. In the meantime, the article is exceptionally thorough and objective. Rare for the media these days.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance. Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?
 
  • #3
well, the timeline has been a bit off, and like many government projects you get budget overruns. but we do seem to be proceeding more or less according to the plan that Gen. Wesley Clark told us about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

of course, we just knocked over Libya, and now the US ambassador to Syria has fled.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/1...ia-after-credible-threats-against-his-safety/


i don't think israel really wants to attack iran directly, they'd much rather we do it. but, with US troops leaving iraq, we wouldn't be there to shoo israel back. plus, we'd still be just a short hop away in bahrain to provide backup.

it pains me greatly, but it seems obvious there is a huge push to keep knocking over governments in the mideast. and i just can't read what obama might do. the coming election, OWS, his falling out with banking industry contributors... on the one hand it seems like he's jinking to the anti-war side at the moment, but once there is a republican nominee and an actual campaign begins, it could get pulled either way. if it happened before the election, then probably just after the iraq withdrawal/redeployment. and also if before the election, maybe not a total negative for obama since there will be a reluctance to switch horses midstream.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Why attack Iran?
 
  • #5
I don't know if they actually will, but they have been looking for excuses to do so.
 
  • #6
Proton Soup said:
i don't think israel really wants to attack iran directly, they'd much rather we do it. but, with US troops leaving iraq, we wouldn't be there to shoo israel back. plus, we'd still be just a short hop away in bahrain to provide backup.

If they can get someone else to do it (I'm talking about the people that setup these wars), they will. Wave something under someone's nose (be it money, oil, more power etc) and get someone else to do it. Then get rid of them altogether when it is all over.

It's like getting a junkie to kill someone by promising them heroin and then when it is all over they rot in jail because a) they have no credibility and b) they are expendable.

These people who have been doing this kind of thing have been doing this for a long time and they have become good at what they do, make no mistake about it.
 
  • #7
Greg Bernhardt said:
It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance.


This is why they don't make such appeals to Israel and the west publically.


Greg Bernhardt said:
Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?


Did you have something specific in mind?
 
  • #8
UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Middle-East-tensions-rise.html#ixzz1cftNEypw

Maybe a multi-national plan is in the works. The president loves all that multi-national stuff. About two days after the Republican National Convention seems like a good time. If all goes well, re-election is almost assured. Too late in the year for a viable far-left third party. Are the uber-lefties going to stay home and let a Republican president appoint replacements for Ginsberg and Scalia? The Chinese won't like it but what are they going to do? They need us to buy their slave labor plastic crap as much as we need them to borrow our dollars back; its kinda like re-cycling, very green, don't you know? Putin is very macho but I don't think he is ready to go to war.

Skippy
 
  • #10
skippy1729 said:
Probably of interest to readers of this thread:

Israeli PM orders investigation into Iran leak:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leak

can add another ex-Mossad chief to the pile.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4143909,00.html

Former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy warned against an Israeli strike on Iran, saying that the results of a confrontation could be devastating for the Mideast.

"The State of Israel cannot be destroyed," he told Ynet on Friday. "An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years."

The former head of the Israeli secret service said Thursday during an army boarding school reunion that while Iran should be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, its capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel."

and he goes on to peg internal religious fundamentalism as a bigger threat than iran.
 
  • #12
Greg Bernhardt said:
It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance. Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?

Wouldn't it be interesting if Israel was to win over the Iranian people - convince them they should take their country back to avoid war?
 
  • #13
I have no doubt. Remember the present "elected government" of Iran has a number of 12ers amongst them, including their president. FWIW, they believe in helping bring about the Muslim equivalent of judgment day. They really think it is their duty. What better way than tossing nukes at Israel?
 
  • #14
ThinkToday said:
I have no doubt. Remember the present "elected government" of Iran has a number of 12ers amongst them, including their president. FWIW, they believe in helping bring about the Muslim equivalent of judgment day. They really think it is their duty. What better way than tossing nukes at Israel?

I agree. With enemies like these I look at the Cold War with nostalgia. For Mutually Assured Destruction to work you need a rational enemy.

Skippy
 
  • #16
Since we already have a mutual defense treaty with Israel, all it would take to put a stop to all of this nonsense is for the United States to announce that a nuclear attack on Israel would be viewed by the US as an attack on us.

Should that occur, the capital of Tehran, the holy city of Qoms, and one unnamed city (list of fifteen "possibles" provided) would be obliterated.

I doubt if Iran would launch an attack. Iranian leaders may sound irrational, but this is a deliberate ploy. I have lived there, and I have confidence in the people's ultimate good sense of their own best interests.

They have their religious nut cases, but so do we. God forbid that any of ours get into positions of power!
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Greg Bernhardt said:
It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance.

Out of interest, where did you get the "most feel threatened by Iran" from?
Also, when you say "to support Israel is a tough political stance", do you mean for the "moderate" countries, or for Iranians? And do you mean it's tough becasue it's difficult to defend Israel's policies?, or do you mean it's tough to defend Israel because of the hostility expressed towards Israel?

WhoWee said:
Wouldn't it be interesting if Israel was to win over the Iranian people - convince them they should take their country back to avoid war?

Isn't Israel pushing for war? Both through it's seemingly endless posturing (as with Iraq), and through it's policies? It'd be interesting if the majority of the world won over Israel. I think the response from the world community in the UNESCO bid was a demonstration of current attitudes.
 
  • #18
nobahar said:
Isn't Israel pushing for war? Both through it's seemingly endless posturing (as with Iraq), and through it's policies? It'd be interesting if the majority of the world won over Israel. I think the response from the world community in the UNESCO bid was a demonstration of current attitudes.

If Israel was "pushing for war" as you say, wouldn't they already be bombing?
 
  • #19
skippy1729 said:
These comments by Obama and Sarkozy must make Israel feel that they are really on their own (if they haven't already figured it out):

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html

Skippy

Yes, that was hilarious! But what's at stake, not so much.

Yet another warning from defence analysts how Iranians might hit back at the world in a way that really hurts...

Under a worst-case scenario 30-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the analysis finds that the U.S. would lose nearly $75 billion in GDP.

Then how it would happen...

“You could wake up tomorrow morning and hear that the Iranians sense an attack on their nuclear power plants,” General James T. Conway, USMC (Ret) said. “And so they preemptively take steps to shut off the flow of oil in the Gulf. The U.S. would likely view this as a threat to our economy, and we would take action. And there we are, drawn into it.”

http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...il-use-30-reduce-grave-national-security-risk

Or this 2008 paper stressing that laying the mines is pretty low tech and hard to combat...

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf

Above all, the scenario described here points to the critical importance of
early detection of any Iranian mine laying in the Persian Gulf and especially
the need to keep close tabs on Iranian submarine activity. Such surveillance depends
not only on U.S. activities in the region but also on those of Iran’s gulf
neighbors. If the United States wishes to continue to act as the guarantor of
free passage in the strait, it needs to make these monitoring activities a clear
part of a broader effort to discourage Iranian attempts at harassment or closure.
It also may wish to convey to Iran that, precisely because of the potential
length and complexity of the operations outlined in this article, a campaign to
clear the Persian Gulf of Iranian mines could quickly become a war to clear the
Iranian harbors and coast of most remnants of the country’s military.
 
  • #20
In response to the IAEA Report - this report from India seeks to summarize the world view.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iran-israei-war-iranian-nuclear-programme-iaea/1/159248.html

"Many experts believe that Iran's aim is not to challenge the world by building nuclear weapons. Avner Cohen, the historian of Israel's own covert nuclear weapons programme, believes that Iran's aim is not to make nuclear weapons, but develop the capability that can be quickly scaled up to make one. In that way, it can stay within the boundaries of the NPT. But, says Cohen, "An Iran under attack would probably become more determined and purposeful in its nuclear ambitions. "
 
  • #21
klimatos said:
I doubt if Iran would launch an attack. Iranian leaders may sound irrational, but this is a deliberate ploy. I have lived there, and I have confidence in the people's ultimate good sense of their own best interests.

They have their religious nut cases, but so do we. God forbid that any of ours get into positions of power!

Most Iranian people do not want a nuclear war but they are trapped in a 21st century version of Nazi Germany.
 
  • #22
IMO Israel will not attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

Israel would suffer a massive counterattack with huge casualties and it might initiate attacks from other neighbors.

Even though Iran’s president has called for “wiping the ‘Zionist entity’ off the map” (he won’t even say the country’s name) Israel exaggerates the threat of attack by Iran.

Everyday Israel pleads with the world community to stop the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons, hoping some coalition will forcibly remove the threat of an Iranian atomic weapon.

But Iran would not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because it would invite the complete destruction of their own country.

During the cold war between Russia and the USA this was the deterrent of “Mutually Assured Destruction”.

The pariah Iranian government does not represent the Iranian people.

Just maybe the people could be enticed from the outside to revolt.

Throw the crazy mullahs out and then Iran could rejoin the world community.

I know many Iranians from living and working there for more than three years.

IMO they would much prefer peace and harmony over confrontation and violence.
 
  • #23
nobahar said:
Isn't Israel pushing for war? Both through it's seemingly endless posturing (as with Iraq), and through it's policies? It'd be interesting if the majority of the world won over Israel. I think the response from the world community in the UNESCO bid was a demonstration of current attitudes.

Israel isn't interested in starting any war. It's a liberal democracy and liberal democracies tend not to be warlike. If they are, it's if they have something like France with the French Foreign Legion which they can ship over where if the soldiers get slaughtered, no one at home really cares, and if the aggression is taking place far away from the home country. Even with the United States, if invading Iraq required a much larger military force where the whole country was involved, the public never would have approved of it, and it was very divisive even with the military essentially being at war as opposed to the country and the government believing it was necessary for national security. Liberal democracies like Israel that are tiny and surrounded by nations that hate them are not going to do anything like that.
 
  • #24
Israel I do not think has the military capacity to attack Iran. It's not like Iraq with the Osirak reactor back in 1981, which required just a few well-placed bombs and was just one lone reactor, with Iran, you're talking over one-hundred sites that are very hardened that would need to be precisely hit in order to cripple Iran's progress. Attacking Iran to knock out its nuke program would thus require a sustained bombing campaign. And the only country in the world with the weapons that could penetrate those bunkers, with the aircraft that could carry them, and with the fuel tankers to fuel those aircraft in the air, and so forth, is the United States.

In addition to lacking the resources, Israel would also have to violate Syrian, Jordanian, Turkish, or Iraqi airspace, and likely none of those would give permission. They could request permission from Saudi Arabia, but that's a huge long shot, and even then, that's a looong flight to make, of which they lack the fuel tankers needed.

There's then the problem of all the CRAP that will happen if such an attack was to take place. Oil prices would likely jump up a lot ($5/gallon gasoline or more), Iran could sabotage oil infrastructure in other countries to mess up the supply even more, they could do some nasty things via terrorists, etc...
 
  • #25
Given the tremendous downside, and nebulous upside, I predict no attack on Iran.
 
  • #26
Iran warns that they will destroy Israel if the second attack them!

I do not know why most of you ignore the second part of this warning?? If any country would like to attack USA, they will receive similar warning? is not it?

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". If you are not a Zionist, then you can not be a member in their Kennesite "Parliament". Israel is a Jews state and not for all their citizens “non Jews, around 20%". Their national anthem and other rules based on the idea of establishing a State for Jews ONLY which against the basic concepts of democracy and liberals. Iran has election but being “Islamic State” make it not real democracy; it is the same for Israel as a Zionist State.

Now Tunisia and Turkey are the only democratic States in ME and North Africa. I wish to see Syria and Egypt on the same track soon.
 
  • #27
Majd100 said:
If you are not a Zionist, then you can not be a member in their Kennesite "Parliament".
Another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Jimmy Snyder said:
Another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset" [Broken]

The majority of those Arabs are Zionists; even some of them such as Ayoob Kara are classified as extremists Zionist. I have to admit that several of those Kennasite members are anti-Zionism but they can not declare that, otherwise they will be in trouble.

Anyway, this is not our major discussion here, and I prefer to open new topic about the democracy of Israel to avoid kidnapping this topic about Iran and Israel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
WhoWee said:
If Israel was "pushing for war" as you say, wouldn't they already be bombing?

They are waiting the American to do the job as they did with Iraq, so they can spare their lives and money.

Israel is very strong country but strategically weak. They can not fight for long wars and they need continuous support from USA and Europe to win the short wars.
 
  • #30
skippy1729 said:
Most Iranian people do not want a nuclear war but they are trapped in a 21st century version of Nazi Germany.

I do not see any similarities. Iran is not occupying other nation as Israel doing and they have fixed international borders. While Israel is the only country without clear international borders because they are working to colonise most of the Near East countries to create the "greater Israel". It is the only country with nukes in ME and they were willing to use them:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/did-israel-ever-consider-using-nuclear-weapons-1.317592
 
  • #31
Greg Bernhardt said:
It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance. Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?

If Israel accepts to withdraw from the Palestinian territories and to declare peace with the Palestinian, then their State will be recognised by the Arab world, and they should not feel lonely and isolated. Iran -the same as Saddam did- is using the occupied Palestine as excuse to get a huge support in the region.

The Israeli can live in peace if they accept to take one of the following decisions:

- Withdraw from the Palestinian territories and let the refugees to return back.

- Create one democratic united country for the Israeli and Palestinian.
 
  • #32
Majd100 said:
If Israel accepts to withdraw from the Palestinian territories and to declare peace with the Palestinian, then their State will be recognised by the Arab world, and they should not feel lonely and isolated. Iran -the same as Saddam did- is using the occupied Palestine as excuse to get a huge support in the region.

The Israeli can live in peace if they accept to take one of the following decisions:

- Withdraw from the Palestinian territories and let the refugees to return back.

- Create one democratic united country for the Israeli and Palestinian.

From your name I gather you're muslim, but whose demands are these? The UN's? Palestinian? The Middle East? Yours?

No offense, I hardly sympathise with any of the two factions. Just asking for clarification.
 
  • #33
MarcoD said:
From your name I gather you're muslim, but whose demands are these? The UN's? Palestinian? The Middle East? Yours?

No offense, I hardly sympathise with any of the two factions. Just asking for clarification.

These demands of mine, and there are some Israeli and Palestinian support them. The UN's, the Palestinian and The Middle East agree with the first demand.

I am a Palestinian from West Bank (my town is 25 km east of Tel Aviv) who spent most of my life under occupation and need to see my country free and to have a decent life as any human in this world. As a Palestinian, I could be Christian, Muslim, Jews, agnostic or atheist; these ideologies are personal and should be separated from politics. I do not believe in wars and all my wishes to end the barbaric occupation peacefully.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Majd100 said:
- Create one democratic united country for the Israeli and Palestinian.

Oh so give back ALL land to Palestine but they can live there! You should give them a call see what they think.
 
  • #35
The next time Ron Paul he goes off on his isolationist bent saying, more or less, "the Soviets had thousands of nuclear weapons and we didn't attack them", somebody needs to ask him the topic question. Follow that question with, are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, perhaps Turkey and Algeria, likely to follow a nuclear Iran with weapons of their own? Would not the already stressed Nuclear Proliferation Treaty fall to pieces under such a scenario, pressuring all developing countries to pursue nuclear weapons (i.e. Brazil, Venezuela)?
 
<h2>1. What is the likelihood of Israel launching an attack on Iran?</h2><p>The likelihood of Israel launching an attack on Iran is uncertain and difficult to predict. While tensions between the two countries have been high for many years, there have been multiple instances where it seemed like an attack was imminent but did not occur. Ultimately, the decision to launch an attack would depend on a variety of factors, including political, military, and economic considerations.</p><h2>2. What would be Israel's motivation for attacking Iran?</h2><p>Israel's motivation for attacking Iran could stem from a variety of reasons. Some believe that Israel sees Iran as a threat to its security and existence due to Iran's support for militant groups and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Others argue that Israel may be seeking to prevent Iran from gaining too much influence in the region. Ultimately, the exact motivation for an attack would depend on the specific circumstances and perspectives of Israeli leaders.</p><h2>3. How would an attack on Iran impact the rest of the world?</h2><p>An attack on Iran by Israel would have significant consequences for not only the two countries involved but also the rest of the world. It could potentially escalate into a larger conflict involving other countries and disrupt global oil markets, leading to economic repercussions. Additionally, it could further destabilize the already volatile region and potentially lead to an increase in terrorist activities.</p><h2>4. What are the potential consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran?</h2><p>The potential consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran are numerous and complex. It could potentially lead to a full-scale war between the two countries, causing significant loss of life and destruction. It could also lead to retaliatory attacks by Iran on Israel and its allies, further escalating the conflict. Additionally, it could strain relationships between Israel and other countries, particularly those in the Middle East.</p><h2>5. Is there a possibility of a peaceful resolution to the tensions between Israel and Iran?</h2><p>While the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the tensions between Israel and Iran cannot be ruled out, it seems unlikely in the near future. Both countries have deeply entrenched beliefs and interests that make it difficult to find common ground. However, diplomatic efforts and negotiations could potentially lead to a de-escalation of tensions and a peaceful resolution in the long run.</p>

1. What is the likelihood of Israel launching an attack on Iran?

The likelihood of Israel launching an attack on Iran is uncertain and difficult to predict. While tensions between the two countries have been high for many years, there have been multiple instances where it seemed like an attack was imminent but did not occur. Ultimately, the decision to launch an attack would depend on a variety of factors, including political, military, and economic considerations.

2. What would be Israel's motivation for attacking Iran?

Israel's motivation for attacking Iran could stem from a variety of reasons. Some believe that Israel sees Iran as a threat to its security and existence due to Iran's support for militant groups and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Others argue that Israel may be seeking to prevent Iran from gaining too much influence in the region. Ultimately, the exact motivation for an attack would depend on the specific circumstances and perspectives of Israeli leaders.

3. How would an attack on Iran impact the rest of the world?

An attack on Iran by Israel would have significant consequences for not only the two countries involved but also the rest of the world. It could potentially escalate into a larger conflict involving other countries and disrupt global oil markets, leading to economic repercussions. Additionally, it could further destabilize the already volatile region and potentially lead to an increase in terrorist activities.

4. What are the potential consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran?

The potential consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran are numerous and complex. It could potentially lead to a full-scale war between the two countries, causing significant loss of life and destruction. It could also lead to retaliatory attacks by Iran on Israel and its allies, further escalating the conflict. Additionally, it could strain relationships between Israel and other countries, particularly those in the Middle East.

5. Is there a possibility of a peaceful resolution to the tensions between Israel and Iran?

While the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the tensions between Israel and Iran cannot be ruled out, it seems unlikely in the near future. Both countries have deeply entrenched beliefs and interests that make it difficult to find common ground. However, diplomatic efforts and negotiations could potentially lead to a de-escalation of tensions and a peaceful resolution in the long run.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
4
Replies
127
Views
15K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
132
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
126
Views
11K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
124
Views
14K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
16
Replies
531
Views
64K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
73
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
Back
Top