# Will Israel Attack Iran?

• News

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?

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.

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:
Why attack Iran?

chiro
I don't know if they actually will, but they have been looking for excuses to do so.

chiro
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.

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.

Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?

Did you have something specific in mind?

skippy1729
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

Israeli PM orders investigation into Iran leak:

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

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.

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?

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?

skippy1729
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

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:
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?

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.

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?

apeiron
Gold Member
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. 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. " skippy1729 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. Bobbywhy Gold Member 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. CAC1001 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. CAC1001 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...

Given the tremendous downside, and nebulous upside, I predict no attack on Iran.