Iranian response to a limited airstrike against nuclear facilities and infrastructure

[PCShogun]

Yes, but a massive missile attack against Israel would only serve to justify a NATO attack. If Israel were to be involved in the initial strike against Iran, it could be spun as a self defense measure, but lets hope one of those missiles doesn't stray into Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Iraq while over flying their territory.

 

[My2Cents]

The best thing the Iranian can do is fired some missiles at Israel. And mobilized the population to be prepared for more air strike by the US. Another thing the Iranian can do is sent SF to Lebanon and Syria and Iraq. Bring in the Jerusalem units to action and hit the Israelis. Learn to hide your equipment against a heavy air attack. Its not to much it can do since it has outdated equipment.

No, unless there is a ground invasion the best move for Iran is to just to accept it and not strike back. That lets them play the victim role for maximum global sympathy. Then publically use the attack as an excuse to ‘start’ a nuclear deterrent program. That way they can claim that it is all the US/Israel’s fault.

Why else would the US be spending so much effort to discourage an Israeli strike?

 

[spikehades]

It is prudent to hit the enemy where they are weak. Israel is militarily strong but economically vulnerable. A massive missile attack with cluster munitions on economic and population centers, would set back the Israeli economy massively. As the Israeli economy is already suffering with the global downturn and has already been experiencing civil strife - a successful attack on the Israeli economy could create a severe backlash from the Israeli population and possibly bring down the Netanyahu government.
Now that would be a victory of sorts.

 

[PCShogun]

OK, so you have damaged the Israel economy and killed, maybe, a few hundred civilians. Now what? Your country is still in taters and now the entire western Christian, Catholic, Jewish, and possibly, Islamic world hates you (hard to avoid that Dome on the Rock and all those Palestinians). Retaliatory attacks will now continue against Iran which now has a destroyed infrastructure, oil industry, economy, military, and tens of thousands dead. How is THAT a victory?

I guess I thought that the U.S. was the enemy here, not some sliver of a country without enough military power to take on Iran.

 

[spikehades]

OK, so you have damaged the Israel economy and killed, maybe, a few hundred civilians. Now what? Your country is still in taters and now the entire western Christian, Catholic, Jewish, and possibly, Islamic world hates you (hard to avoid that Dome on the Rock and all those Palestinians). Retaliatory attacks will now continue against Iran which now has a destroyed infrastructure, oil industry, economy, military, and tens of thousands dead. How is THAT a victory?

I guess I thought that the U.S. was the enemy here, not some sliver of a country without enough military power to take on Iran.

Let's be clear. Its obvious that it is Israel is the dominant factor that pushing for military action against Iran. As long as Iran withstands the first strike, and does not retaliate against the U.S or NATO directly, Iran stands a good chance of avoiding a large scale intervention by the U.S.
Israel has limited capability of attacking Iran in a stand off manner so, after the initial Israeli/U.S attack on Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran only concentrates on Israel it would mean any Israeli victory would be a pyrrhic one - without it turning into full scale war. After all, Israel and Iran do not share a border and most of Israel's Jerichos are nuclear tipped and their conventional MRBM arsenal is an unknown quantity and I would assume to be relatively small. Also, Iran is a huge country, therefore a conventional missile counter strike would be of limited strategic value. This if added to a high attrition rate of Israel's strike fighters from the initial attack on Iran would make an Israeli escalation unfeasible.

 

[2007yellow430]

Slightly off topic but there is substantial reference to US policy in the middle east. I suggest quicksand as required reading. Written by an academy academic. Very insightful. Wawro, Geoffrey is the authors name.

 

[STURM]

As long as Iran withstands the first strike, and does not retaliate against the U.S or NATO directly, Iran stands a good chance of avoiding a large scale intervention by the U.S.

Of course Iran will 'withstand' an Israeli strike. Due to the distance involved and other considerations, the Israeli's are unlikely to mount more than a handful of strikes and there is a limit to the amount of damage these strikes can cause. Iran in turn will have no choice but retaliate by strikes on Israel itself and the only way it can do so will be by launching missiles at Israel. Which in turn will in all probability, bring the Americans into the conflict. So whether or not Iran directly attacks U.S. forces in the region, as long as it attacks Israeli territory, the chances of the Americans not being directly involved are very slim.

The best thing the Iranian can do is fired some missiles at Israel.

The only chance the Iranians will have to directly threaten Israel will be by ground based missiles, which will probably not hit what they were aimed at but will be of symbolic value. The Iranians off course will be hoping that their missiles land on somewhere like an airfield or a military building rather than a settlement or an apartment block. Another way will be getting Hezbollah to stir up trouble along the border with Israel. Apart from the limit to the damage that this can cause, it might actually play into Israeli hands. After failing to destroy Hezbollah in 2006 and pushing it into an areas where it could no longer attack Israel, a Hezbollah attack in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran might be the perfect pretext for the Israeli's to go into Lebanon again and accomplish what the failed to do in 2006. No doubt the Israeli's have factored this into their planning. The Iranian's however might not be so keen on the Hezbollah option as another Israel/Hezbollah war will increase the pressure on Assad, who is Iran's only Arab ally.

 

[My2Cents]

Of course Iran will 'withstand' an Israeli strike. Due to the distance involved and other considerations, the Israeli's are unlikely to mount more than a handful of strikes and there is a limit to the amount of damage these strikes can cause. Iran in turn will have no choice but retaliate by strikes on Israel itself and the only way it can do so will be by launching missiles at Israel. Which in turn will in all probability, bring the Americans into the conflict. So whether or not Iran directly attacks U.S. forces in the region, as long as it attacks Israeli territory, the chances of the Americans not being directly involved are very slim.

The only chance the Iranians will have to directly threaten Israel will be by ground based missiles, which will probably not hit what they were aimed at but will be of symbolic value. The Iranians off course will be hoping that their missiles land on somewhere like an airfield or a military building rather than a settlement or an apartment block. Another way will be getting Hezbollah to stir up trouble along the border with Israel. Apart from the limit to the damage that this can cause, it might actually play into Israeli hands. After failing to destroy Hezbollah in 2006 and pushing it into an areas where it could no longer attack Israel, a Hezbollah attack in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran might be the perfect pretext for the Israeli's to go into Lebanon again and accomplish what the failed to do in 2006. No doubt the Israeli's have factored this into their planning. The Iranian's however might not be so keen on the Hezbollah option as another Israel/Hezbollah war will increase the pressure on Assad, who is Iran's only Arab ally.

Israel has a working ABM system, so some will not get through. But it looks like most of the Shahab series of missiles will reach, so there are going to be too many to stop them all.

US intervention is unlikely in event of an Iranian missile strike against Israel after an Israeli only attack of Iran, primarily because the Iranian response will probably be a single large salvo of missiles from Iran and will be over before the US can do anything. Besides, the original SCUD hunt did not work very well, so why should a new one fair any better?

Your analysis of an attack from Hezbollah leaves out an important factor, Hezbollah is now officially part of the government of Lebanon. Therefore any large scale attack by Hezbollah on Israel can be interpreted as a declaration of war by the government of Lebanon, leaving the whole country open to retaliation. One possible effect would be that, in the event of a Hezbollah attack against Israel, an immediate civil war would breakout between Hezbollah and other factions in the Lebanon in alliance with Israel (In return for the Israel not attacking infrastructure in the rest of Lebanon, as they did in 1982). This would almost certainly result in the destruction of Hezbollah as an independent military force, something that the Lebanese government has been keen to achieve for a long time, and probably as a political force as well. It is undoubtedly with these factors in mind that Hezbollah declared a couple months ago that an attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities would not trigger an automatic attack on Israel.

 

[My2Cents]

I don't mean to be insulting either by why do people constantly assume that whenever someone mentions Israeli hegemony or the U.S./Israel relationship, that the person who mentioned it is a believer of the 'Great Jewish Conspiracy' ? Anybody who believes in the so called 'Great Jewish Conspiracy' is just as misinformed and detached from reality as those who believe that Iran wants nukes solely to wipe out Israel [never mind that in doing so Iran would cease to exist and so would Israel's neighbours in Palestine and Lebanon] and that the reason Iran is 'uncooperative' with Uncle Sam is because it wants to 'control' the region and impose its ideals on the Arabs!

When I mentioned Israeli hegemony, what I meant is Israel's military superiority, the political and diplomatic backing it receives from the U.S which enables Israel to do things that no other country would be able to do and get away with and U.S. policy towards the Middle East which driven by a policy of ensuring the security of Israel and maintaining its military edge. I was not referring to any pro-Israel groups in the U.S., implying that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is determined by Israel or implying that the U.S. and Israel have a 'grand master plan' to 'control' the region. Nor, in case you might ask next, am I questioning the need for Israel to ensure its security.

So no, as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't a poor choice of words on my part nor was it speculation.

Hegemony - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. preponderant influence or authority over others : domination <battled for hegemony in Asia>
2. the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group

Somehow I cannot see either of those definitions applying to Israel’s relationship to any Persian Gulf state. The West Bank and Gaza Strip for sure, but nowhere else.

 

[2007yellow430]

A major problem in dealing with this sort of question is: we don't know their mind set. You would have thought that the people in Afghanistan wouldn't have resisted the advanced weaponry we have. They did and they were effective. If indeed Iran is attached, they have promised swift retribution, without stating what it will be, but their comment is that it will be a surprise.

There is no telling what they will do, if and when push comes to shove, and more importantly, what will their allies do. Probably not direct intervention, but the Russians and the Chinese are pretty technologically advanced and a transfer of some of that technology could be very detrimental to either us or the Israelis. I don't see Israel doing anything without implicit USA approval, and i don't see that coming any time soon, because of the ramifications. We will try to starve them out with sanctions, but if they can trade with India and China that isn't going to happen. This is going to go on for a long time. A very long time.

 

[STURM]

US intervention is unlikely in event of an Iranian missile strike against Israel after an Israeli only attack of Iran, primarily because the Iranian response will probably be a single large salvo of missiles from Iran and will be over before the US can do anything.

For political reasons, the U.S. will have no choice to strike if Israel is hit by Iranian missiles. Whether its a single salvo or dozens of missiles and irrespective of whether they actually hit anything of political or military value, the U.S. will have no choice but to act due to its close relationship with Israel - not doing would contrary to American policy, would be political suicide for a President in an election year and would send the wrong signal to the Sunni Gulf Sate Arabs, all of whom depend on Uncle Sam for their protection.The Israelis are fully aware of this and their whole strategy is based on the knowledge that what their air force may be unable to accomplish, will be done by the USAF and the USN.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L033M6wqNCI&feature=related"]Pat Buchanan: 300 nukes in Israel yet Iran a threat? - YouTube[/nomedia]

Your analysis of an attack from Hezbollah leaves out an important factor, Hezbollah is now officially part of the government of Lebanon. Therefore any large scale attack by Hezbollah on Israel can be interpreted as a declaration of war by the government of Lebanon, leaving the whole country open to retaliation.

Very true but what difference does it make? In 1982, none of the many non-state actors that fought against Israel were part of the Lebanese government yet Israel still laid waste to parts of Beirut and other parts of the country was 'open to retaliation'. Israel can indeed do what you mentioned and claim that a Hezbollah attack is a declaration of war by Lebanon by virtue of Hezbollah being part of a Lebanese coalition government but whether this will make any difference remains to be seen.

One possible effect would be that, in the event of a Hezbollah attack against Israel, an immediate civil war would breakout between Hezbollah and other factions in the Lebanon in alliance with Israel (In return for the Israel not attacking infrastructure in the rest of Lebanon, as they did in 1982). This would almost certainly result in the destruction of Hezbollah as an independent military force, something that the Lebanese government has been keen to achieve for a long time, and probably as a political force as well.

Talks of Hezbollah's demise or its 'destruction' have been circulating for years and with the volatile nature of Lebanese politics, anything is possible. And indeed the U.S. and Israel have long been hoping this will happen, that the Lebanese people or 'stable' and 'strong government' will do way with Hezbollah. But due to the simple fact that it enjoys strong grass roots support from parts of the population this has yet to happen. Also bear in mind, that though large parts of the population might not support Hezbollah, they might not be so keen on its demise and might rally to its side if a war breaks out again and Lebanon was targeted - irrespective of whether Hezbollah fired the first shots. Also, IMO the chances of any Lebanese faction having an 'alliance' with Israel that would see Israeli not targeting Lebanon, in return for these factions going after Hezbollah is extremely slim at present due to a number of factors that have to do with the political situation in Lebanon.

It is undoubtedly with these factors in mind that Hezbollah declared a couple months ago that an attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities would not trigger an automatic attack on Israel.

As with all sides in the Middle East, whether state or non-state actors, what they say and what they do are 2 very different things. Hezbollah's statement may have been made for internal Lebanese reasons, who knows? As for me, I'll believe it when it happens but I doubt very much that the statement was made due to the realisation by Hezbollah's leaders that another war could result in its destruction due to a civil war with other Lebanese factions.

 

[assymmetric]

O.k., here is what I would try. Surprise submarine attack on both U.S. carriers, obviously. It is possible. America has other planes, such as f-22 in the area, but not many. Taking out the carriers is the most important thing. Obviously you then lose the element of surprise and the U.S. sends more carriers and starts hammering your facilities with SSN launched tomahawks, immediately. Nothing you can do about that, but there is only so much damage that can be done with Tomahawks on the opening days of the war. Your next move must be to cripple the world economy by shutting off the straight. If gas prices go through the roof, like $10 a gallon, there could be political instability in the United States because the economy would certainly begin to crumble. I think economies are much more intertwined compared to world war II and this should be exploited since Iran's military can not win over a longer period of time.

There could be demands by all countries to go to the negotiating tables instead of push the world economy into the toilet. Best case, you take out a couple of carriers, the U.S. responds with tomahawk bombardment of Iran, and then negotiations begin. That would be a sort of victory to be able to attack the U.S. and live to tell about it.

Worst case, the U.S. and its allies end up carpet bombing the whole country like it did to Japan, take over the oil sector, and install a U.S. friendly leader for a regime change. Most likely scenario. $10 a gallon gas would be the best and only strategy against the U.S.

 

[surpreme]

Of course Iran will 'withstand' an Israeli strike. Due to the distance involved and other considerations, the Israeli's are unlikely to mount more than a handful of strikes and there is a limit to the amount of damage these strikes can cause. Iran in turn will have no choice but retaliate by strikes on Israel itself and the only way it can do so will be by launching missiles at Israel. Which in turn will in all probability, bring the Americans into the conflict. So whether or not Iran directly attacks U.S. forces in the region, as long as it attacks Israeli territory, the chances of the Americans not being directly involved are very slim.



The only chance the Iranians will have to directly threaten Israel will be by ground based missiles, which will probably not hit what they were aimed at but will be of symbolic value. The Iranians off course will be hoping that their missiles land on somewhere like an airfield or a military building rather than a settlement or an apartment block. Another way will be getting Hezbollah to stir up trouble along the border with Israel. Apart from the limit to the damage that this can cause, it might actually play into Israeli hands. After failing to destroy Hezbollah in 2006 and pushing it into an areas where it could no longer attack Israel, a Hezbollah attack in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran might be the perfect pretext for the Israeli's to go into Lebanon again and accomplish what the failed to do in 2006. No doubt the Israeli's have factored this into their planning. The Iranian's however might not be so keen on the Hezbollah option as another Israel/Hezbollah war will increase the pressure on Assad, who is Iran's only Arab ally.

If Israelis hit Hezbollah (Party of God) this time it will be different not only that Israelis will have alot of bodybags going back to Israeli this force is not to be taken lightly after listen to soldiers stories of how the Hezbollah fight that was 2006 it 2012 now. There training has increased they also gain lots of experience from that fight and they not afraid to face them toe to toe they are very discipine and have high morale after the last fight. The Israelis did not take one town and that is usually for Israelis not to do that. Hezbollah is the only top unit that give Israelis a fight. So the Iranian know this and has the Hezbollah ready to go into action. I must said I never sent a force fight Israelis toe to toe like that. That was just the start of what to come in the future.

 

[just4me]

It is prudent to hit the enemy where they are weak. Israel is militarily strong but economically vulnerable. A massive missile attack with cluster munitions on economic and population centers, would set back the Israeli economy massively. As the Israeli economy is already suffering with the global downturn and has already been experiencing civil strife - a successful attack on the Israeli economy could create a severe backlash from the Israeli population and possibly bring down the Netanyahu government.
Now that would be a victory of sorts.

Economic centres in Israel are strong parts of Israel's strategic interest , most of them are equally highly protected. It'll become realy unfortunate to Iran if it adopts this kind of strategy it's inescapable that Iran more dependent on oil export can easily be brought to its knees as Israel hits back on its oil facilities damaging them permanently and absolutely crippling Iranian economy. I think a monocultural economy like Iran which is heavily dependent on oil is quite too vulnerable.

 

[assymmetric]

Economic centres in Israel are strong parts of Israel's strategic interest , most of them are equally highly protected. It'll become realy unfortunate to Iran if it adopts this kind of strategy it's inescapable that Iran more dependent on oil export can easily be brought to its knees as Israel hits back on its oil facilities damaging them permanently and absolutely crippling Iranian economy. I think a monocultural economy like Iran which is heavily dependent on oil is quite too vulnerable.

It seems that this would be the best way to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Forget about an attack on the buried nuclear enrichment site. Instead, take out all their oil producing/supply infrastructure and cut off all their funds. This is the best way to bring Iran to its knees. Drawback would be that China and Russia would not be very happy as they have an interest in this.

 

[just4me]

It seems that this would be the best way to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Forget about an attack on the buried nuclear enrichment site. Instead, take out all their oil producing/supply infrastructure and cut off all their funds. This is the best way to bring Iran to its knees. Drawback would be that China and Russia would not be very happy as they have an interest in this.

Israel could only adopt such a strategy should Iran retaliate an Israeli air strike by hitting Israel's economic centres as you suggested earlier.

 

[STURM]

If Israelis hit Hezbollah (Party of God) this time it will be different not only that Israelis will have alot of bodybags going back to Israeli this force is not to be taken lightly after listen to soldiers stories of how the Hezbollah fight that was 2006 it 2012 now.

You are just speculating - who knows for sure what the result will be? BOTH sides will have drawn lessons from the conflict, have analysed where they went wrong and will try to do it better the next time around.

This article has detailed if on the mistakes both sides made.

Military History Online - Second Lebanon War

Israel could only adopt such a strategy should Iran retaliate an Israeli air strike by hitting Israel's economic centres as you suggested earlier.

As has been pointed out, Iran's only option at causing significant damage on Israeli territory will be by using missiles. And though these missiles have probably improved in that they have a lower CEP compared to previous misiles, they still might not hit what they were aimed at. The Israeli's also have an ABM capability with the Green Pine radar and Jericho. There is also the possibility that Iran might run out of missiles if the conflict is a protracted one.

 

[surpreme]

You are just speculating - who knows for sure what the result will be? BOTH sides will have drawn lessons from the conflict, have analysed where they went wrong and will try to do it better the next time around.

This article has detailed if on the mistakes both sides made.

Military History Online - Second Lebanon War



As has been pointed out, Iran's only option at causing significant damage on Israeli territory will be by using missiles. And though these missiles have probably improved in that they have a lower CEP compared to previous misiles, they still might not hit what they were aimed at. The Israeli's also have an ABM capability with the Green Pine radar and Jericho. There is also the possibility that Iran might run out of missiles if the conflict is a protracted one.

Like that article (STURM) was well written. The author pointed out some good points that I didn't realize the fact that they still believe in killing themselves. Overall they have lots of courage but as real military force that could have been more mobile. I don't see that being possible since they don't have any anti-aircraft ability. The threat from the air has alot to do with why they chose to stand and fight. Fighting an enemy without air cover or air defense is very hard to do. With that being said they fought hard with no support such as air defense and heavy weapons (artillery). The facts are that Party of God has become more stronger than the 1980's as a irregular army. They only had anti-tank and small-arm fire to work with did pretty well. Having serve in US Army that's all we know is to call air and artillery support after seeing the result of the strike and burn up bodies and equipment air power make big different.

 

[surpreme]

It seems that this would be the best way to keep Iran from getting the bomb. Forget about an attack on the buried nuclear enrichment site. Instead, take out all their oil producing/supply infrastructure and cut off all their funds. This is the best way to bring Iran to its knees. Drawback would be that China and Russia would not be very happy as they have an interest in this.

I read one time that US military planner had that in mind to take over the oil fields. That was in 2003 when I read that. The plan was to cross the border from Kuwait and take over the oil field by ground forces.

 

[STURM]

I read one time that US military planner had that in mind to take over the oil fields.

That may have been Cold War plans for pre-Revolution Iran due to fears that the Soviets would invade from Azerbaijan, cross the Zagros mountains and head for the oilfields.