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
  • #71
I guess the long-term strategic relevance is Iran becoming a nuclear-arms supplier to the rest of the world.

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

Heck, I don't even know whether I should be that paranoid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Two new options that are now “On the table” (to use diplomatic language) regarding Iran’s nuclear program:

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

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

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

http://www.wtkr.com/news/military/la-fi-bunker-buster-bomb-20111117,0,7519435.story [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
Proton Soup said:
what, and you think we're not ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran
I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.
 
  • #74
  • #75
Man, look at the map: Syria, Iraq, Iran, then Afghanistan. If the US/Israel or even Europe starts a war there, you might end up fighting more than a million soldiers.

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

(Then again, guess it's a question of scale since the US has 1.4M troops...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
mheslep said:
I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.

i took your request as silly.
 
  • #77
MarcoD said:
Man, look at the map: Syria, Iraq, Iran, then Afghanistan. If the US/Israel or even Europe starts a war there, you might end up fighting more than a million soldiers.

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

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

If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree. This would also require an assumption that Iraqi forces would join the caliphate. I doubt there would be a reason to chase the standing armies of the aforementioned countries through mountain passes or extract them from civilian hideouts - would there? The challenge would more likely be terrorism.
 
  • #78
WhoWee said:
If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree.

Nah, I just underestimated the size of the US army. :smile: Had to look it up, the US can win that war. It won't be like a stroll through a forest, though, and there'll be post-war problems since the US might need permanent bases in Iran indefinitely since 40% of the world's oil goes past Iran.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
Proton Soup said:
i took your request as silly.
Yes I get it. Iran has admittedly tense, even antagonistic relations with much of the western world and other middle eastern countries, and given this state of affairs one could say historically among nations that some day might lead to military action; no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran. Certainly one can find pundits with a website that call for it. Certainly the US and others have accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of continuing a nuclear weapons program. But you fill free to twist this to say the US, i.e. the US government in public, has been "threatening to bomb Iran" for decades. Then you go on to pretend Iranian innocence with "somehow Iran is the bad guy" counter to the historical record. When called on this statement you redirect to US actions. Yes I get it.
 
  • #80
mheslep said:
no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran.

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

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

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

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

I also note that you have now dropped the demand for support for "Israeli threats".
 
  • #81
apeiron said:
But the second statement seems flat wrong and should be withdrawn.

What, this statement?
Your Imagination said:
...the Pentagon is no more serious about invading Iran than it is about invading Antarctica.
But I did not make that statement; you like to pretend I did. Is that fun?

I mention Pentagon plans because there are no doubt plenty of Chompskyite blog sites stating awareness of Pentagon military plans for military action against Iran, which no doubt is the case, though the existence of such plans without more context and knowledge of their immediacy means little or nothing. I suspect such is the stuff that leads to claims made here in PF as fact about the US threatening to bomb Iran, which was read "somewhere".
 
  • #82
mheslep said:
I suspect such is the stuff that leads to claims made here in PF as fact about the US threatening to bomb Iran, which was read "somewhere".

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

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

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

So where do folks get the crazy idea that Iran has ever been threatened? Geez, I just don't know.
 
  • #83
MarcoD said:
Nah, I just underestimated the size of the US army. :smile: Had to look it up, the US can win that war. It won't be like a stroll through a forest, though, and there'll be post-war problems since the US might need permanent bases in Iran indefinitely since 40% of the world's oil goes past Iran.

There is another alternative - make a deal with Russia, China and the EU to share the Persian oil 4 ways and pay a very small royalty for the crude.:wink:
 
  • #84
mheslep said:
Yes I get it. Iran has admittedly tense, even antagonistic relations with much of the western world and other middle eastern countries, and given this state of affairs one could say historically among nations that some day might lead to military action; no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran. Certainly one can find pundits with a website that call for it. Certainly the US and others have accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of continuing a nuclear weapons program. But you fill free to twist this to say the US, i.e. the US government in public, has been "threatening to bomb Iran" for decades. Then you go on to pretend Iranian innocence with "somehow Iran is the bad guy" counter to the historical record. When called on this statement you redirect to US actions. Yes I get it.

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

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

M&W list 111 references in the above chapter.

if you're so inclined, i'd also like to hear your opinion on why we should attack Iran. and your opinion on what i posted earlier from Gen Wesley Clark, whether you think there is any correlation to the nations he lists vs those already attacked, and how the remainder correlates to the current situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
Ehud Barak: Iranian nuclear program not really about Israel

http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/ehud_barak_iranian_nuclear_program_not_really_about_israel_20111118/ [Broken]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11995 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
LaurieAG said:
I wonder how many Israeli airforce pilots are still locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties.

uhh? did you just make that up? :confused:

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

and although some have objected to "targeted killings" of individual terrorists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military#The_pilots.27_letter), there's no reason to believe that any of them would conscientiously refuse to take part in a conventional attack on nuclear weapons facilities! :rolleyes:
LaurieAG said:
Ha, I was watching a TV series the other day called 'Civilisations' and apparently around 500bc the Persians liberated Babylon and freed the exiled Jews.

this is fairly well-known …

it's described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (in the Bible), and eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity :smile:
Majd100 said:
Also Israel is not a REAL democratic state; it is a country which was established based on the Zionism as “a national country for the Jews around the world".

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

in what sense is that not democratic? :confused:
If you are not a Zionist, then you can not be a member in their Kennesite "Parliament"
Majd100 said:
… I have to admit that several of those Kennasite members are anti-Zionism

make up your mind! :rolleyes:
 
  • #87
WhoWee said:
If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree. This would also require an assumption that Iraqi forces would join the caliphate. I doubt there would be a reason to chase the standing armies of the aforementioned countries through mountain passes or extract them from civilian hideouts - would there? The challenge would more likely be terrorism.

We wouldn't be fighting troops. We would be fighting armed civilians just as we are now in Iraq and Afghanistan. And fighting against an armed invader of your country is not terrorism. Were the American irregulars who fought the Hessians in the Revolutionary War terrorists?
 
  • #88
tiny-tim said:
uhh? did you just make that up? :confused:

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

This is from the wiki link you posted tiny-tim, its from the 27 pilots' letter.
We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians.
They weren't locked up they were forced out.
In response, the Chief of Staff announced that the pilots would be grounded and will no longer be allowed to train cadets in the country's flight school
 
Last edited:
  • #89
LaurieAG said:
I wonder how many Israeli airforce pilots are still locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties.
tiny-tim said:
uhh? did you just make that up? :confused:
LaurieAG said:
They weren't locked up they were forced out.

so you did make it up! :redface:

(oh, and of course they weren't forced out, they were transferred to non-combat roles)
 
  • #90
Proton Soup said:
...
if you're so inclined, i'd also like to hear your opinion on why we should attack Iran.
From earlier:
mheslep said:
...
...
I add last that I don't see, on balance, today, that a military attack on Iran to stop it from getting a weapon would be wise, effective, or warranted, but I don't come to that conclusion from pretending nothing bad can happen should Iran acquire a weapon, as Ron Paul suggests.
 
  • #91
thanks, mheslep
 
  • #92
Israel or US attack on iran would mean a catastrophe for Israel. Iran's missiles can easily reach israel and Iran has advanced military power . It's not like a war between Israel and Hamas . Israel will be very stpid to do an action like that.
 
  • #93
Thread locked due to unacceptably low quality. Shoulda just let it die.
 
<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
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