News Israel's Possible Attack on Iran: An Objective Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter DoggerDan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Israel
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the potential for Israel to attack Iran, with many expressing skepticism about Israel's willingness to engage directly. Concerns are raised about the geopolitical implications, particularly regarding support from moderate Muslim countries, which feel threatened by Iran but hesitate to openly back Israel. The conversation also touches on the impact of a potential attack on Palestinian statehood and the complexities of U.S. involvement, especially with troop withdrawals from Iraq. Analysts warn that an attack could lead to significant regional instability and economic repercussions, particularly concerning oil supply routes. Overall, the sentiment suggests that while tensions are high, direct military action may not be imminent.
  • #61
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia
The rules and ethics emanating from Zoroaster's teachings were strictly followed by the Achaemenids who introduced and adopted policies based on human rights, equality and banning of slavery.[citation needed] Zoroastrianism spread unimposed during the time of the Achaemenids and through contacts with the exiled Jewish people in Babylon freed by Cyrus, Zoroastrian concepts further propagated and influenced the Abrahamic religions. The Golden Age of Athens marked by Aristotle, Plato and Socrates also came about during the Achaemenid period while their contacts with Persia and the Near East abounded. The peace, tranquility, security and prosperity that were afforded to the people of the Near East and Southeast Europe proved to be a rare historical occurrence, an unparalleled period where commerce prospered and the standard of living for all people of the region improved.[65]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Bobbywhy said:
OOPS! Sorry, I truncated the website erroneously. Please try:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...y-obama-should-take-out-irans-nuclear-program

eh, i got my doubts. the IAEA report is based on old news supplied by the USG. nothing is new but the sudden desire to hit them right now.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...rt-Why-it-may-not-be-a-game-changer-after-all
The report is based on more than 1,000 pages of information shared with the agency by US intelligence in 2005, one year after they were apparently spirited out of Iran on a laptop computer. But deep skepticism about the credibility of the documents remains – Iran has long insisted they are forgeries by hostile intelligence agencies – despite a concerted attempt by the IAEA to verify the data and dispel such doubt.

"It's very thin, I thought there would be a lot more there," says Robert Kelley, an American nuclear engineer and former IAEA inspector who was among the first to review the original data in 2005. "It's certainly old news; it's really quite stunning how little new information is in there."

and there's more if you're bored.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/iaea-...nfused-nanodiamond-production-with-nukes.html
 
  • #63
559793_460s_v1.jpg
 
  • #64
Edit: I removed this because, although it was a response to someone else's post, I don't think it was on-topic. (I'm trying hard to stay on-topic).
 
  • #65
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bunker-buster-bomb-20111117,0,3582708.story"
Packed with more than 5,300 pounds of explosives and more than 20 feet long, the giant bunker-busting bombs were tested at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the site of the first atomic bomb test during World War II.

Earlier this month, Brig. Gen. Scott Vander Hamm, who oversees the B-2 fleet at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, told Air Force Magazine that there is "no other weapon that can get after those hard and deeply buried targets" like the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. It "is specifically designed to go after very dense targets … where enemies are putting things that the president of the United States wants to hold at risk."

"Our past test experience has shown that 2,000-pound penetrators carrying 500 pounds of high explosive are relatively ineffective against tunnels, even when skipped directly into the tunnel entrance," the report said. "Instead, several thousand pounds of high explosives coupled to the tunnel are needed to blow down blast doors and propagate a lethal air blast throughout a typical tunnel complex."

By 2009, with concerns about Iran's and North Korea's missile capabilities reaching new highs, the Pentagon said there was an "urgent operational need" to speed up the weapon development process.
That's a 10X greater punch than the previous models.

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Rhody, I wonder if the Iraelis have something similar? They don't have a B-52, but they have C-130 cargo planes. Dropped from high enough altitude, it won't matter what drops it. GPS-guidance and the proper configuration will ensure it hits and destroys its target.

Back on topic, the fact that Iran has said many times it will wipe Israel off the map as soon as it achieves the means to do so would be incentive enough (for me, at least) for a first strike. Then again, perhaps I'm being too simple-minded by not allowing myself to be wiped off the map, first, "just to be sure they weren't bluffing."

There are some things where it's ok to bluff. Poker is one of them. Nuclear war is not.
 
  • #67
the US and Israel have been threatening to bomb Iran for what, 10 or 20 years now? it's a bit sick when you think about it. somehow Iran is the bad guy when they haven't invaded anyone in ages.

in any case, I'm surprised no one caught the news of the Mossad/MEK strike in Iran already.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...onfirms-mossad-sabotage-behind-missile-blast/
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...-at-least-15-dead-many-wounded-some-severely/

but the bigger story, imo, is this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-military-chief-potential-conflicts-near-russian-borders-may-grow-into-nuclear-war/2011/11/17/gIQAWQTJUN_story.html?wprss=rss_world

russia isn't mentioning iran specifically here, but i think it's too obvious to not be implied.


and, i can't remember the source, but we've been supplying israel with bunker-busting fuel/air bombs for some time now...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
Proton Soup said:
the US and Israel have been threatening to bomb Iran for what, 10 or 20 years now? it's a bit sick when you think about it.
That's over the mark and requires a source.

somehow Iran is the bad guy when they haven't invaded anyone in ages.
Are you aware that Iran is partly responsible for thehttp://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iran/ptrsniran53003opn.pdf", that Iran has had agents in Iraq introducing IED's for use against US and Iraqi forces, that Iran sponsors Lebanese based Hezbollah financially and with arms enabling its frequent attacks on Israel and Lebanese opposition, that Iran planned to execute the Saudi ambassador to the US? If so then the above statement is deliberately misleading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
mheslep said:
Are you aware that Iran is partly responsible for thehttp://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iran/ptrsniran53003opn.pdf", that Iran has had agents in Iraq introducing IED's for use against US and Iraqi forces, that Iran sponsors Lebanese based Hezbollah financially and with arms enabling its frequent attacks on Israel and Lebanese opposition, that Iran planned to execute the Saudi ambassador to the US? If so then the above statement is deliberately misleading.

what, and you think we're not ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #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.
 
  • #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

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
 
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". :rolleyes:

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" , 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/

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

Similar threads

News Biden: New Israel would be 'ill-advised' to attack Iran
  • · Replies 132 ·
5
Replies
132
Views
14K
News Will Israel back us if we attack Iran?
  • · Replies 126 ·
5
Replies
126
Views
13K
  • Poll Poll
News Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
16K
News What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?
  • · Replies 531 ·
18
Replies
531
Views
70K
News Off-topic discussion from Why talk about 1967 borders?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Iran calls for Israel's destruction
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
7K
News Is the US and its allies planning to launch a nuclear war against Iran?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News What Are the Strategic Goals and Tactics in the Gaza War?
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
12K
News Is the US Preparing for War with Iran?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
9K
News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
40K