Iran Invasion soon ?

[Beatmaster]

Bias or not, the writer has been covering the Middle East for than 3 decades and has immense knowledge on what he's talking about as well as numerous well placed contacts both on the ground and elsewhere. And if there is any form of bias it would be in sharp contrast and pale in comparison to the daily reporting we get from the mainstream press. Catherine Ashton and Kofi Annan may indeed fail but at least they are trying to avert a war, which is more than can be said of the right wing hawks who are hell bent on war.

Totally agree here.
CA and KA might be classed as lightweight diplomatic people.
On the other hand they both have a impressive track record where they on multiple occasions did achieve what heavy weight could not achieve.

And perhaps bringing in people like CA and KA is not that bad at all mainly because they are lightweight its not their status or rank that should class them as lightweight or heavyweight.
But its their words and actions that class them and in that regard they are more then potent to get the job done.

 

[LGB]

The notion that the essay on Agence Global by Patrick Seale isn't biased is absurd. The Nation self describes itself as "the flagship of the left" and the content of the essay is delusional.

Seale describes Israel's strikes as "pitiless and provocative" while Palestinian responses are merely said to be "struck back". Later he talks out of every side of his mouth by stating Iran has a right to enrich uranium, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and that Israel faces no threat from a nuclear Iran other than losing it's monopoly on power and facing a balance of force in the Middle East.

On Syria he states the chances of peace there are being opposed by war hawks when in reality the conflict is entirely drive by the Syrian regime. The idea that Kofi Annan is going to talk both sides into negotiations because there is no "military solution" is just so much rubbish. Here's an interview by a journalist who lived in Syria by someone else who's lived in the Middle East and does actually understand the region:

An American in the Den of Assad | World Affairs Journal

 

[STURM]

The notion that the essay on Agence Global by Patrick Seale isn't biased is absurd.

Well, I would say that that's a matter of opinion as to whether its biased and delusional or not. Almost anyone who has a serious interest in the Arab world is aware that Patrick Seale is an authority on Syria.

and that Israel faces no threat from a nuclear Iran other than losing it's monopoly on power and facing a balance of force in the Middle East.

Then please kindly provide us with your view of how a nuclear armed Iran is a threat and why it would want to threaten Israel with nukes. And why it would seem so absurd that Israel would want to ensure its monopoly.

 

[Beatmaster]

The notion that the essay on Agence Global by Patrick Seale isn't biased is absurd. The Nation self describes itself as "the flagship of the left" and the content of the essay is delusional.

Seale describes Israel's strikes as "pitiless and provocative" while Palestinian responses are merely said to be "struck back". Later he talks out of every side of his mouth by stating Iran has a right to enrich uranium, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and that Israel faces no threat from a nuclear Iran other than losing it's monopoly on power and facing a balance of force in the Middle East.

On Syria he states the chances of peace there are being opposed by war hawks when in reality the conflict is entirely drive by the Syrian regime. The idea that Kofi Annan is going to talk both sides into negotiations because there is no "military solution" is just so much rubbish. Here's an interview by a journalist who lived in Syria by someone else who's lived in the Middle East and does actually understand the region:

An American in the Den of Assad | World Affairs Journal

Great piece.
However i maintain my previous point and stand by it.
At this rate either way its going to create a bigger mess.
And its foolish to say that this is all to blame on Iran however they do have a big part to play here thats true, but this same can be said about Israel and the US.
And all these war talks and double standards and double booked agenda's are not going to help either infact that will lead to war.

 

[LGB]

I don't see any need to provide my view on Iran being a threat to Israel when all one need to do is read and listen to what they actually say. The leaders of Iran seem to seriously believe in their religious views and seem to believe that WWIII will help the Mahdi or Twelve Imam to appear. They deny the holocaust and constantly talk about the destruction of Israel. Now maybe it's easy to deny they believe these things or will act upon them but throughout history nut jobs do actually do what they clearly state they are going to do to ahead of time.

Very few people took Bin Laden seriously when he declared war on the US. Hitler spelled out his plans in a book and wasn't taken seriously in the West. Iran currently funds groups who's stated intent is the destruction of Israel. They are an active threat to Israel now. Even if one believe there is no chance whatsoever of them using nuclear weapons against Israel directly, which assumes they are rational actors within Western terms, Iran gaining nuclear weapons is certainly far more free to fund terror activities and is far less deterred by threats of military action.

This isn't a theoretical exercise regarding classical balance of power geopolitics but rather real results of a fundamentalist police state gaining nuclear weapons and the fall out. The resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East is probably even more dangerous longer term.



Then please kindly provide us with your view of how a nuclear armed Iran is a threat and why it would want to threaten Israel with nukes. And why it would seem so absurd that Israel would want to ensure its monopoly.[/QUOTE]

 

[Beatmaster]

I don't see any need to provide my view on Iran being a threat to Israel when all one need to do is read and listen to what they actually say. The leaders of Iran seem to seriously believe in their religious views and seem to believe that WWIII will help the Mahdi or Twelve Imam to appear. They deny the holocaust and constantly talk about the destruction of Israel. Now maybe it's easy to deny they believe these things or will act upon them but throughout history nut jobs do actually do what they clearly state they are going to do to ahead of time.

Very few people took Bin Laden seriously when he declared war on the US. Hitler spelled out his plans in a book and wasn't taken seriously in the West. Iran currently funds groups who's stated intent is the destruction of Israel. They are an active threat to Israel now. Even if one believe there is no chance whatsoever of them using nuclear weapons against Israel directly, which assumes they are rational actors within Western terms, Iran gaining nuclear weapons is certainly far more free to fund terror activities and is far less deterred by threats of military action.

This isn't a theoretical exercise regarding classical balance of power geopolitics but rather real results of a fundamentalist police state gaining nuclear weapons and the fall out. The resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East is probably even more dangerous longer term.



Then please kindly provide us with your view of how a nuclear armed Iran is a threat and why it would want to threaten Israel with nukes. And why it would seem so absurd that Israel would want to ensure its monopoly.

Its true that the regime has said very painful and stupid things and for that they can be regarded as a danger and i totally understand that Israel will not accept this.
However saying things does not mean you actually plan to do it.

Here is the thing: The people of Iran do not want war, infact they want to get rid of their regime as a new regime will bring better relations and might get the embargoes lifted, keep in mind the regime itself will feel the international pressure to some degree however its the people on the street who pay the prize.

The mullahs on the other hand have been preaching destruction and have been preaching a lot of crap, IF they order Iran to strike first then everything the ever tried to achieve with their bs talks will vanish just the way how they will vanish.

However if Iran gets attacked first then the whole nation will rise up, and this will give the mullahs the absolute power they need.

You have to understand that Iran is now divided between a large group who wants to get rid of the regime, another group who would like the regime to be even more aggressive and another group of people who have mixed feelings but mainly want Iran to be more open to the outside.
IF Iran would be attacked then that does not matter anymore all those many groups with their own reasons will unite behind the mullahs: And the mullahs on their turn will say: See we told you this is going to happen.

Also worth mentioning the Mullahs are not exactly on one line with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at this point both cancel eachother out.
The internal stability problems within Iran are actually helping Israel to a large degree.
Because the pressure from outside is a factor, but the pressure from the inside directed to those who really matter is devastating to both the Mullahs and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who both struggle for power.
If Iran is being hit first then all those groups as i said unite...and thats something you do not want because then any intervention will take a very long time not to mention how costly it would be for Israel and the west.
Infact its save to say that Iraq and Afghanistan did cost the US more then 3+ Trillion Dollar (According to official sources) But predictions about the cost of a war against Iran would at least equal the cost or even go beyond that.
And here is the thing: Israel cannot afford that, US can afford if they really wanted, but they will end up as a second Greece as after the war they will have some bills to pay.

Anyway none said that Iran should not be taken seriously...personally i would watch them as a hawk watches a mouse thats not the issue here.
One can say that Israel shoudl be watched as well witht he same hawk eyes.
But fact remains all the do at this point is BARK.

Both Israel and Iran should sort their stuff out one way or another and both have some legit claims that should be reviewed and negotiated.
Both have to realize that NONE of either party will walk away with the all their demands fulfilled they both will have to give in to get to a point where they both can avoid a conflict.

As others and myself said both nations are taking the wrong road and both nations are stubborn and both nations are foolish to think that 100% of all demands and 100% of all goals will be achieved, even if this leads to war Israel will NOT get Iran to stop its program by force.
Even the US will have a very hard time to even seriously delay the program if Iran serious wants it to complete.
If Iran goes deep underground, then it may take years before the program can be found, on top of that the commitment from the US during a hypothetical invasion would be MASSIVE the numbers needed to effective overthrow the regime and to seriously search and destroy the program and its assets will make Iraq and Afghanistan combined look like a training mission.

Keep in mind Iran is 2.5 (even more maybe 3.5 times) bigger then AF and IQ combined, it has multiple times the population (Little over 66 million)
Do the math....

Also Iran has seen what in Syria happened with their plant, and they did see what happened to saddam's plant.
I might assume that Iran has taken some notes one this.
They are well aware about Israels capabilities and Irans biggest ally are their mountains as nothing in Israels arsenal can hit those targets, without going there by ground.

So the program itself is a huge factor, but it can be solved peacefully ....avoiding the war itself because it will lead to war if Israel attacks is the big issue here..and then none of what you said matters anymore...

 

[LGB]

Ahmadinejad is actually a moderate compared to the ruling leadership. The problem with the notion of the people rising up and getting rid of the regime, and certainly the vast majority of Iranians want an end to the Islamic state, is that the regime just crushed the last set of demonstrations that many in the West believed was the end of the regime.

They run a very well organized theocratic police state with multiple levels of support. The regime does have a minority backing them but this minority is empowered throughout the state through the IRGC, Basij, and other organizations. It's not at all clear the people can overthrow this regime unless they get support from some organization like the military which is unlikely.

Frankly it's widely assumed if Iran is attacked that everyone will back the regime. While I'd argue it's a matter of debate and more importantly it doesn't matter. The people of Iran are in no position to get rid of their rulers and any short term support for them doesn't change anything. It would be shocking if big majorities come out and vote for regime approved candidates running in what passes for "elections" in Iran.

It's a matter of debate that Iran's nuclear program can be "solved" peacefully. I'd argue it can't and that the regime is willing to bear any sacrifice to develop nuclear weapons and has shown no willingness whatsoever to back off from this goal. Moreover, it's worth pointing out that Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah and as a national aspiration it's not going away. The issue is this regime gaining nuclear weapons not Iran per se. Iran and Israel had close relations from 1948 to 1979. A non Islamic Iran will likely develop nuclear weapons eventually. The question we face is whether this regime should be allowed to do so.

The ability of Israel to degrade their program is an open question. The US, on the other hand, could undertake an air campaign to very seriously degrade their program. As part of such a campaign Iran would also see the regime directly attacked. Iran would also lose most of it's air and naval forces.

At the end of the day one has to weigh the consequences of striking Iran against those of a nuclear armed Iran. They will be empowered to increase support for terror groups with a far lesser chance of meaningful response. The resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East will of course be a far more dangerous long term issue.

 

[Beatmaster]

Ahmadinejad is actually a moderate compared to the ruling leadership. The problem with the notion of the people rising up and getting rid of the regime, and certainly the vast majority of Iranians want an end to the Islamic state, is that the regime just crushed the last set of demonstrations that many in the West believed was the end of the regime.

They run a very well organized theocratic police state with multiple levels of support. The regime does have a minority backing them but this minority is empowered throughout the state through the IRGC, Basij, and other organizations. It's not at all clear the people can overthrow this regime unless they get support from some organization like the military which is unlikely.

Frankly it's widely assumed if Iran is attacked that everyone will back the regime. While I'd argue it's a matter of debate and more importantly it doesn't matter. The people of Iran are in no position to get rid of their rulers and any short term support for them doesn't change anything. It would be shocking if big majorities come out and vote for regime approved candidates running in what passes for "elections" in Iran.

It's a matter of debate that Iran's nuclear program can be "solved" peacefully. I'd argue it can't and that the regime is willing to bear any sacrifice to develop nuclear weapons and has shown no willingness whatsoever to back off from this goal. Moreover, it's worth pointing out that Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah and as a national aspiration it's not going away. The issue is this regime gaining nuclear weapons not Iran per se. Iran and Israel had close relations from 1948 to 1979. A non Islamic Iran will likely develop nuclear weapons eventually. The question we face is whether this regime should be allowed to do so.

The ability of Israel to degrade their program is an open question. The US, on the other hand, could undertake an air campaign to very seriously degrade their program. As part of such a campaign Iran would also see the regime directly attacked. Iran would also lose most of it's air and naval forces.

At the end of the day one has to weigh the consequences of striking Iran against those of a nuclear armed Iran. They will be empowered to increase support for terror groups with a far lesser chance of meaningful response. The resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East will of course be a far more dangerous long term issue.

I do not agree with you but alright i see your point.
Well in regards to the Iran air force and naval units its common knowledge that they are crappy at best.
Israel will be able to have air superiority almost instantly when it enters Iran airspace.

In regards to the rest of your post, i have to say that there are multiple sides to the situation.
Your point of view is pure based upon western view, however you forget that Iran has some legit reasons to while Israel does have nothing at this point.
Israel accuses Iran of a crime they did NOT do yet. (And it remains to be seen if they ever will).
While Israel itself has been at war with its direct region for decades on end and this is what drives Iran against Israel.
Keep in mind they have very deep links with those nations which go back thousands of years.
Now i am not going to argue here if Israel was right all those decades of war, and i am not going to argue about what Iran did wrong in the past, as both screwed up several times.
Yes those mullahs said they would wipe Israel from the map..and thats serious talk which they should not have done ok? let me be clear about that.
But practically speaking they did not do anything YET from what they are being accused for.
Or lets say not enough to justify Israels reason to attack them IF this program continues.
Israel does not have the legal international reason to demand anything, Israel is not a NPT member and other then vocal treats Iran did not pose any danger to Israel, Unless provoked.
This is the whole issue, there is NO proof, that Iran has NOT enriched uranium beyond the threshold (which is 22% if i am not mistaken) without that FINAL proof Israel does have nothing.

True Iran should honor the IAEA agreement by having the inspectors look at their program, but then again that actually the only hard fact which they can be held accountable for in terms of legal claims.
Yes they said they would destroy Israel but the odds to that are NIHIL as the moment a nuke tipped rocket is being fired their own capital will glow for the next 50 years as has been said by former president J. Chirac of France.

So lets cut the crap here , you need a damn good reason to attack Iran and Israel does have virtually nothing.
Keep in mind several of the key installations of the program are build literally in a very dense populated city and those installations are active, so bombing them will make the direct region glow to some degree.

Anyway long story short i personally start to NOT care anymore as the basic principal is crystal clear to me: Both nations can avoid a war, and both have equal responsibility here and both have equal right here.
If both start using their brains and finally start talking then this would for both be a major achievement as BOTH are KEY to the direct stability in the region and failing to do so will be VERY costly for either side.

Or do you really think that even with the rock solid defenses Israel has that it can dodge 200 long range missiles? Not to mention their massive scud and other types stockpile....
Because regardless if the US is going to bomb Iran to the stone age day after day....IF Israel hits first then Iran can hit any target within 3000 miles and its pretty save to say that a good number of missiles will be aimed at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem
Basically said it will pretty much destroy Israels economy, infrastructure, civil structure and it will kill loads of Israeli civilians and this has been confirmed by multiple sources and Israeli officials.

So to speak as i said, Iran can take a pounding, while if you tickle Israel its all over....
So frankly speaking it does not matter who is right its in their own interest to start talking.

 

[PCShogun]

I agree with your statement that without proof, we are all getting nowhere. IF Iran has not enriched Uranium beyond the 20% threshold needed for a research reactor, then there is no foul in my opinion. IF Iran is not enriching huge quantities of 20% uranium then there is also no foul. The problem is, how do you prove it when Iran refuses to give full access to their programs. Also, if Iran says it will only enrich to 3.5% if given its needed HEU, how do you prove THAT? 20% is just a few weeks work away from 3.5%. Its the entire enrichment program that is causing the worry, not the level to which Iran has currently gone.

A nuclear armed Iran will be like a nuclear armed North Korea. Everyone is nervous about it. Everyone applies sanctions against it. It gives Iran no real power as they have lied to the world and become a pariah nation, meaning no one will deal with them. Once Iran launched a nuclear missile or used a bomb, it would be all over for them. Like a criminal who starts killing his hostage, his negotiation value has just evaporated and he will be taken out at any cost to prevent further deaths.

Iran has one advantage over North Korea though and that is the oil.

World oil production is so close to world demand that the world cannot allow that oil to sit unused in the ground, someone is eventually going to buy it. However, there is nothing saying Iran cannot simply be made to sit on its billion bags of rials because no one will sell anything to them for them to spend them on.

According to Iran, their oil sales are currently up, not down. I believe this is due to countries getting their last purchases in before the embargo hits in full force. That will be the telling part of this incident. So long as Iran doesn't fire at anyone first, they have the moral high ground. Any attempts to disrupt the flow of oil in the Gulf by Iran, however, will set off the dogs and Iran will be in a serious hurt locker immediately thereafter. Sure, it will be expensive to the West. Sure, many people will die, mostly Iranian civilians. Sure, Iran will continue to launch reprisal attacks where it can but will likely only disrupt oil flows for a short time (few weeks). Eventually, the west will get used to the higher oil prices, the Saudi princes will make even more money on their oil and buy more BMW's and Mercedes cars, and the Middle class of the United states will loss another million or two members as they slide closer to poverty. Meanwhile, Iran will have to decide if it wants to rebuild its nuclear program or try to reconcile with the west to get the sanctions lifted so it can again sell its oil and rebuild its damaged infrastructure. The Iranian people may be supportive of their government now, but I doubt they have the fanaticism of the North Koreans to endure years of food shortages and no cell phone coverage.

Again, just my opinions.

 

[My2Cents]

Well in regards to the Iran air force and naval units its common knowledge that they are crappy at best.
Israel will be able to have air superiority almost instantly when it enters Iran airspace.

Don’t see how that is possible except in a ‘Grand Conspiracy’ scenario. Even if the US supplies aerial refueling and Saudi Arabia gives them permission to use their airspace, the Israeli Air Force would be at the end of their logistics tether and going after multiple dispersed targets. Only the F-15 fighters and F-15E strike fighters have the range to do the job, so you are looking at a maximum about 80 aircraft total. They cannot carry both enough missiles to create air superiority AND the bombs to do the job.

Israel’s plans will have to rely on stealth, deception, and I suspect more than a bit of chicanery. If they have to fight their way to the targets there is still a chance of success, but it will be a one way suicide mission.

 

[rip]

Don’t see how that is possible except in a ‘Grand Conspiracy’ scenario. Even if the US supplies aerial refueling and Saudi Arabia gives them permission to use their airspace, the Israeli Air Force would be at the end of their logistics tether and going after multiple dispersed targets. Only the F-15 fighters and F-15E strike fighters have the range to do the job, so you are looking at a maximum about 80 aircraft total. They cannot carry both enough missiles to create air superiority AND the bombs to do the job.

Israel’s plans will have to rely on stealth, deception, and I suspect more than a bit of chicanery. If they have to fight their way to the targets there is still a chance of success, but it will be a one way suicide mission.

I completely agree with you on the practicality of Israel conducting air operations against Iran on its own using its current assets and bases. It is just not possible to conduct a sustained air campaign so far from their bases even if all the intervening countries looked the other way and pretended they were not being flown over.

But there is one small possibility that may not be as far fetches as it first sounds to consider. If just one of the micro states in of around the gulf were to let the Israelis use its territory, just a few weeks, the Israelis could wreak havoc on Iran beyond anything they have ever seen. Iran is not prepared for that possibility.

I want you to remember that all of these micro states have much more to fear from Iran than they do from Israel and though I am sure it wouldn’t be popular with their people, they are not democracies after all and Iran is trying to undermine all of their collective governments and replace them with revolutionary ones for the greater glory of Islam (their version at least). Of course the entire Arab world would publicly condign them but wouldn’t most of the very same government that publicly condemn in fact secretly assist and help?

The question for all of these states, both big and small, is who do they fear more temporary public outrage or Iran with an atomic bomb? There is great myth in the west of Arab and Muslim solidarity (though the Iranians’ are Persians not Arabs) as stated in their proverb.

“Me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin ageist the world”

But they know in their hearts that the greatest threat to them comes not from the West and not from Israel but from other Muslims.

I am not saying that it will happen. I am only saying that it can’t be completely discounted.

 

[PCShogun]

Its a long flight but if Israeli jets refueled both entering and leaving Iraq, there is no reason the strike cannot enter with full bomb loads and / or missiles. I would not be surprised if the U.S. participated in this refueling effort.

Still, unlike Iraq and Syria, the Iranian sites are hardened. Disregarding air defenses, Israel will be hard pressed to hit multiple targets with only 20 or so F-15's, though they could augment with F-16s with refueling being done over the gulf (and uncomfortably close to Iran). Again, this would require significant assistance from the U.S. and no one would be able to claim, "We didn't see them fly over"

I just don't see one of the UAE countries letting Israeli planes land on their bases. While much of the Arab world has worked with Israel "behind the scenes" allowing overflights when it served their interests, I don't see how they could explain away several squadrons all flaunting the Star of David on their tales sitting on their bases in full view of their Muslim citizens. However, stranger things have happened.

 

[STURM]

I don't see any need to provide my view on Iran being a threat to Israel when all one need to do is read and listen to what they actually say. The leaders of Iran seem to seriously believe in their religious views and seem to believe that WWIII will help the Mahdi or Twelve Imam to appear. They deny the holocaust and constantly talk about the destruction of Israel. Now maybe it's easy to deny they believe these things or will act upon them but throughout history nut jobs do actually do what they clearly state they are going to do to ahead of time.

You're just repeating what the Western mainstream media and right wing pro-war hawks have been feeding us all these years. No offense but I can pick up the New York Times or watch a State Department briefing on CNN for that. And the stuff about the Mahdi or Twelve Imam and WW3, lets try to stick to reality shall we......? We keep hearing about how Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, threaten the interests of the free world, bully its Arab neighbours, etc, but we are not told the whole narrative, not only as to why Iran would want to engage in suicidal acts that would result in its destruction, why in the very first place it would want to do so but also why it has been put in a position where it might want a bomb.

The Iranian leader is a crackpot but the isn't the only leader who peddles nonsense for internal consumption. I still remember the leader of a certain country who convinced his country of the need to invade another country due to WMDs that didn't exist anymore, and see how well that turned out... Nobody to date has yet to has yet to offer a plausible reason why Iran, if unprovoked, would want use a nuke on Israel because the real reason Iran would want a bomb is because it deeply fears a Western attempt at regime change - and after seeing what happened to Saddam, who can blame them?. When it comes to the Middle East, why do we persist viewing almost everything from the narrow leans of the West and Israel whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that other countries also have legitimate concerns and interests, maybe because its convenient or because it provides some justification? And the real reason Israel is so against Iran getting a bomb is not because it fears for its survival but because it fully realises that if it loses its nuclear monopoly it will have to have a rethink as to how it conducts itself with its neighbours and that it might not be able to do as it pleases anymore and get away with it.

They are an active threat to Israel now. Even if one believe there is no chance whatsoever of them using nuclear weapons against Israel directly, which assumes they are rational actors within Western terms, Iran gaining nuclear weapons is certainly far more free to fund terror activities and is far less deterred by threats of military action.

Active threat to Israel? Israel has the strongest most competent military in the region, it has nukes and enjoys the unconditional support of the world's sole superpower and it is threatened? One would get the impression that it is Iran that is illegally holding on to land that doesn't belong to it, that is Iran which has launched dozens of strikes and 'incursions' over the years on its neighbours and it is the Iranian military that has a presence in dozens of countries in the region.

Even if one believe there is no chance whatsoever of them using nuclear weapons against Israel directly, which assumes they are rational actors within Western terms, Iran gaining nuclear weapons is certainly far more free to fund terror activities and is far less deterred by threats of military action.

What 'terror activities' are you referring to? Whether or not it has nukes or not, Iran can and will continue to support Hezbollah. And I would also like to add that there are Iranian Sunni dissindent groups that have also engaged in 'terror activities' that have received aid from foreign countries.

The resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East is probably even more dangerous longer term.

A 'nuclear arms race' between whom? What countries? They countries that might want nukes can't possibly afford them and the countries that can, have no reason to acquire them because they are under the security umbrella of Uncle Sam and getting nukes would be counterproductive. Also, in light of all the revelations concerning the activities of AQ Khan, North Korea and Iran, the West is on its guard, is keeping a very close watch on North Korea, Pakistan and Iran and it would be almost impossible for countries like Saudi Arabia, which enjoys good relations with the U.S., to be able to start a similar programme without it being noticed. And there is also the question of whether Iran would share any 'goodies' with Saudi.

Maybe if common sense were to prevail and if countries would engage in realpolitik instead of beating their war drums, an agreement could be reached with Iran, which would benefit all parties concerned and the region could be spared another devastating war. The Iranians have made it perfectly clear that if their interests are taken into account and if certain guarantees are met, they are more than willing to make a deal which would benefit everyone. Yet it would seem that certain countries and groups are hell bent on war and are desperate for any reason to justify it. Take note that the U.S. and Iran have cooperated in the past when it suited them. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iran agreed to close a blind eye if any Coalition aircraft momentarily stayed in its airspace for SAR flights. Prior to 9/11. Iran held talks with the U.S., in 3rd countries, on how to limit the influence of the Taliban. Why can't both sides cooperate now, especially given that both have common interests?

Moreover, it's worth pointing out that Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah and as a national aspiration it's not going away.

It certainly did go away because the mullahs deemed it to be un-Islamic. But when things started to go bad in the war with Iraq and when Saddam used chemicals, the Iranian leadership at the urging of the military leadership, reluctantly revived it. And it has been reported that after the war with Iraq ended, the Iranian leadership decided to do way with it again until they received reports that the Iraqis had a very active programme underway.

The issue is this regime gaining nuclear weapons not Iran per se. Iran and Israel had close relations from 1948 to 1979. A non Islamic Iran will likely develop nuclear weapons eventually. The question we face is whether this regime should be allowed to do so.

So would Israel have no problems if a 'democratic', not too 'islamic' Iran at some point in the future got a bomb? I think not.

The question we face is whether this regime should be allowed to do so.

Then why did 'we' allow Israel, Pakistan and India to get away with it [reports also indicate that though North Korea does not have any nuclear missiles it probably has a handful of devices]? Was it because it suited 'us' then or because these countries are not 'islamic' and don't have a neighbour call Israel? And who exactly is 'we' - the western alliance, the UN or the 'free' word?

Don’t see how that is possible except in a ‘Grand Conspiracy’ scenario. Even if the US supplies aerial refueling and Saudi Arabia gives them permission to use their airspace, the Israeli Air Force would be at the end of their logistics tether and going after multiple dispersed targets. Only the F-15 fighters and F-15E strike fighters have the range to do the job, so you are looking at a maximum about 80 aircraft total. They cannot carry both enough missiles to create air superiority AND the bombs to do the job

Which bring me back to me to questions I posed earlier in this thread - how many strikes would be needed by Israel to achieve its aims and how practical would it be if there was a need to launch additional strikes? And what would be the next step if despite several strikes, there is still indication that the Iranian nuclear infrastructure was functioning and the Iranian leadership still had not abandoned its aims? Or is Israel and the West hoping that several devastating strikes in hand with existing economic sanctions, will result in Iran seeing the error of its ways and capitulating to Western demands? A very plausible theory is that the Israelis are fully aware that one strike will not be sufficient to do the job but are banking on the fact that a single strike will result in Iranian missiles flying at Israel, which will in turn result in U.S. air power coming into play, with much more devastating results.

 

[rip]

You're just repeating what the Western mainstream media and right wing pro-war hawks have been feeding us all these years. No offense but I can pick up the New York Times or watch a State Department briefing on CNN for that. And the stuff about the Mahdi or Twelve Imam and WW3, lets try to stick to reality shall we......? We keep hearing about how Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, threaten the interests of the free world, bully its Arab neighbours, etc, but we are not told the whole narrative, not only as to why Iran would want to engage in suicidal acts that would result in its destruction, why in the very first place it would want to do so but also why it has been put in a position where it might want a bomb.

The Iranian leader is a crackpot but the isn't the only leader who peddles nonsense for internal consumption. I still remember the leader of a certain country who convinced his country of the need to invade another country due to WMDs that didn't exist anymore, and see how well that turned out... Nobody to date has yet to has yet to offer a plausible reason why Iran, if unprovoked, would want use a nuke on Israel because the real reason Iran would want a bomb is because it deeply fears a Western attempt at regime change - and after seeing what happened to Saddam, who can blame them?. When it comes to the Middle East, why do we persist viewing almost everything from the narrow leans of the West and Israel whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that other countries also have legitimate concerns and interests, maybe because its convenient or because it provides some justification? And the real reason Israel is so against Iran getting a bomb is not because it fears for its survival but because it fully realises that if it loses its nuclear monopoly it will have to have a rethink as to how it conducts itself with its neighbours and that it might not be able to do as it pleases anymore and get away with it.



Active threat to Israel? Israel has the strongest most competent military in the region, it has nukes and enjoys the unconditional support of the world's sole superpower and it is threatened? One would get the impression that it is Iran that is illegally holding on to land that doesn't belong to it, that is Iran which has launched dozens of strikes and 'incursions' over the years on its neighbours and it is the Iranian military that has a presence in dozens of countries in the region.



What 'terror activities' are you referring to? Whether or not it has nukes or not, Iran can and will continue to support Hezbollah. And I would also like to add that there are Iranian Sunni dissindent groups that have also engaged in 'terror activities' that have received aid from foreign countries.



A 'nuclear arms race' between whom? What countries? They countries that might want nukes can't possibly afford them and the countries that can, have no reason to acquire them because they are under the security umbrella of Uncle Sam and getting nukes would be counterproductive. Also, in light of all the revelations concerning the activities of AQ Khan, North Korea and Iran, the West is on its guard, is keeping a very close watch on North Korea, Pakistan and Iran and it would be almost impossible for countries like Saudi Arabia, which enjoys good relations with the U.S., to be able to start a similar programme without it being noticed. And there is also the question of whether Iran would share any 'goodies' with Saudi.

Maybe if common sense were to prevail and if countries would engage in realpolitik instead of beating their war drums, an agreement could be reached with Iran, which would benefit all parties concerned and the region could be spared another devastating war. The Iranians have made it perfectly clear that if their interests are taken into account and if certain guarantees are met, they are more than willing to make a deal which would benefit everyone. Yet it would seem that certain countries and groups are hell bent on war and are desperate for any reason to justify it. Take note that the U.S. and Iran have cooperated in the past when it suited them. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iran agreed to close a blind eye if any Coalition aircraft momentarily stayed in its airspace for SAR flights. Prior to 9/11. Iran held talks with the U.S., in 3rd countries, on how to limit the influence of the Taliban. Why can't both sides cooperate now, especially given that both have common interests?



It certainly did go away because the mullahs deemed it to be un-Islamic. But when things started to go bad in the war with Iraq and when Saddam used chemicals, the Iranian leadership at the urging of the military leadership, reluctantly revived it. And it has been reported that after the war with Iraq ended, the Iranian leadership decided to do way with it again until they received reports that the Iraqis had a very active programme underway.



So would Israel have no problems if a 'democratic', not too 'islamic' Iran at some point in the future got a bomb? I think not.



Which bring me back to me to questions I posed earlier in this thread - how many strikes would be needed by Israel to achieve its aims and how practical would it be if there was a need to launch additional strikes? And what would be the next step if despite several strikes, there is still indication that the Iranian nuclear infrastructure was functioning and the Iranian leadership still had not abandoned its aims? Or is Israel and the West hoping that several devastating strikes in hand with existing economic sanctions, will result in Iran seeing the error of its ways and capitulating to Western demands? A very plausible theory is that the Israelis are fully aware that one strike will not be sufficient to do the job but are banking on the fact that a single strike will result in Iranian missiles flying at Israel, which will in turn result in U.S. air power coming into play, with much more devastating results.

I am not an expert on this subject but just a serious of air strikes might cause them some harm but wouldn’t get the job done. The Iranians are duplicating all of their nuclear facilities and they have no single point of failure strategy. They are splitting their efforts among municipal facilities and we do not know where all of them are or what part of the puzzle each of the parts are working on.

Yet us face the facts. There is no quick and dirty solution. If the military rout is the one taken it would have to sustained for at a few least weeks if not for months and it would require some hit and run ground work at the least if for nothing to verify the resuilts.

 

[STURM]

I am not an expert on this subject but just a serious of air strikes might cause them some harm but wouldn’t get the job done. The Iranians are duplicating all of their nuclear facilities and they have no single point of failure strategy. They are splitting their efforts among municipal facilities and we do not know where all of them are or what part of the puzzle each of the parts are working on.

I'm no expert either and you mentioned several very valid points. I would expect the U.S. and Israel to already have a good picture, from satellite imagery, UAVs, defectors and moles, of what to strike and what not to. The question is whether air strikes alone will be sufficient to do the job and whether they actually hit the right targets and kill the right people, as it would be very embarrassing, problematic and somewhat awkward if the Iranians were still at it after a few very devastating strikes. It also remains to be seen if the IN's Dolphins are indeed fitted with land attack missiles as has been reported, not that this would male much of a difference.

Whilst most of us have the impression that an Israeli action from the air will be limited to a single or at most a few strikes, due to problems in range and overflights, if the U.S. were to be drawn in the conflict - and it certainly would if Israel were hit by missiles or tankers were targeted in the Straits of Hormuz - then we could well be seeing a number of U.S. strikes carried out over a period. And after a pause to inspect the damage caused, to gauge the regional political implications and give the Iranians a way out, strikes could resume again.

 

[the concerned]

Don't the israeli submarines deploy cruise missiles this would give them a very potent first strike tool like disabling iranian runways . Can someone tell me as most of iranian aircraft are of US origin do they use the same fuel as modern israeli aircraft, if so what would stop special forces storming a base long enough to steal the fuel i know this seems impossible but remember in war its the near impossible missions that have a maximum effect so i wouldn't count it out

 

[My2Cents]

Can someone tell me as most of iranian aircraft are of US origin do they use the same fuel as modern israeli aircraft, if so what would stop special forces storming a base long enough to steal the fuel i know this seems impossible but remember in war its the near impossible missions that have a maximum effect so i wouldn't count it out

The fuel is the same, or close enough if the Iranians are using substandard JP-8 (a couple tank loads probably won’t damage the engine enough to force you to abort).

But with 80 or so aircraft to refuel you are talking an hour or more on the ground at a major base with probably 1000+ personnel, plus outside reinforcements. That is going to need at least a battalion sized assault force, plus another 100+ personnel to handle the refueling itself, all brought in using helicopters. Sounds more like a brigade of airmobile troops than special forces, or a MEU which the Israelis don’t have. They are also going to need a secure base area within a couple 100 miles to launch it from.

Seizing an airfield is the kind of thing that is either part of a much larger ground operation, or for very small ones like the Entebbe raid.

 

[My2Cents]

I should have said:

But with 80 or so aircraft to refuel you are talking an hour or more on the ground after securing a major base with probably 1000+ personnel, plus outside reinforcements.

Your forces to take the base will probably have to arrive at least several hours before the aircraft.

They will also need to establish and defend a perimeter sufficient to keep the runway and refueling areas beyond at least 120mm mortar range or barrage rockets, say 10km in radius.

 

[STURM]

Can someone tell me as most of iranian aircraft are of US origin do they use the same fuel as modern israeli aircraft, if so what would stop special forces storming a base long enough to steal the fuel i know this seems impossible but remember in war its the near impossible missions that have a maximum effect so i wouldn't count it out

It simply would not be practical as too many things could go wrong. Operation Eagle Claw would look like child's play compared to this.

The point many of us overlook is though Obama appears to be very reluctant to get involved with strikes on Iran - and wisely so after the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan - he would have no choice but to order U.S. strikes on Iran if the Iranians were to hit Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike. The Israelis know this and have factored this in when analysing the amount of damage they can cause.

A very informative video.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYWKmQa_OJQ"]Living with a Nuclear Iran | Robert Kaplan - YouTube[/nomedia]


Mostly on the Indian Ocean but there are brief, interesting remarks on Iran.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLBhvt45ZA"]Author Robert Kaplan discusses new book and the rise of the Indian Ocean - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[the concerned]

We need to get Irag and Afghanistan out of our heads we do not need to do nation building in Iran we just need to make sure their military doesn't have the capability to cause a threat to others .Yes Israel has nuclear weapons but they have never threatened to use them,Iran made the statement about Israel so they have to realise that under the current adminstration the rest of the world is ''not'' just going to sit there and wait and see if they have the ability to carry out that threat.Can someone answer me under the bush administration did the US change its policy on using nuclear weapons from defence to attack because the only realistic way of taking out Irans complex's is with a trident missile. i also wonder if it would be possible to bring israel under the Nato banner would that be enough to deter Iran from any agression without actually going to war.