Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Israel attack on Iran "unavoidable"


Recommended Posts

Israeli planes destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. A similar Israeli sortie over Syria last September razed what the U.S. administration said was a nascent nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility.

It seems to me that Israel is taking the "walk softly and carry a big stick" approach to this issue as compared to Iran whose president has repeatedly threatened Israel's existance. On Friday Minister Shaul Mofaz made these comments:

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective"

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable"

It's interesting to note that Ahmadinejad apparently has fired off a complaint to the UN over these remarks, the same UN he ignores with regard to his nuclear ambitions.

Something is going to have to be done about Ahmadinejad's nuclear envy. All those who keep shrieking about the US striking Iran before Bush's term is up might be in for a big surprise. Any strike would most likely come from Israel, but the question raised in the link is, can Israel effectively take out so many targets (Iran presently has several) which are so far away. Iraq and Syria's strikes were child's play compared to this.

The ramifications to such a strike could be quite unpleasant, however. Iran could declare war on Israel with several Arab neighbors joining in. You know missiles would start raining down in Israel with Israel responding with more air strikes, but would it lead to an actual invasion on Israeli soil? Would the US jump in with Israel on this one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...The ramifications to such a strike could be quite unpleasant, however. Iran could declare war on Israel with several Arab neighbors joining in. You know missiles would start raining down in Israel with Israel responding with more air strikes, but would it lead to an actual invasion on Israeli soil? Would the US jump in with Israel on this one?

History has already answered this question. Did Iraq or Syria "invade" Israel? Did "Arab" neighbors join in?

The interesting part is that Israel has already set a precedent for doing this, in effect defacto enforcement with a wink and a nod.

The US already does far more than people realize....and we'll just keep it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Israeli planes destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. A similar Israeli sortie over Syria last September razed what the U.S. administration said was a nascent nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility.

It seems to me that Israel is taking the "walk softly and carry a big stick" approach to this issue as compared to Iran whose president has repeatedly threatened Israel's existance.

Well, at least the Israeli transport minister is...

JERUSALEM, June 8 (Reuters) - Israeli defence officials and political pundits rounded on Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz on Sunday after he threatened an attack on Iran, accusing him of exploiting regional war jitters to advance personal ambitions. ...

"Turning one of the most strategic security issues into a political game, using it for the internal purposes of a would-be campaign in Kadima, is something that must not be done," Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai told Israel Radio.

The state-owned broadcaster quoted another senior defence official as saying Mofaz's interview "did not reflect policy" and "risked making it even harder for Israel to persuade more countries to step up their sanctions against Iran".

Spokesmen for Mofaz, an Iranian-born, ex-defence minister whom Olmert shunted to the transport portfolio in a 2006 cabinet reshuffle, could not be reached for comment.

Israeli's Round on Mofaz's "Political" Iran threat

Mofaz was caught talking out of his arse.

Edited by Peter F
Link to post
Share on other sites
Israeli planes destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. A similar Israeli sortie over Syria last September razed what the U.S. administration said was a nascent nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility.

It seems to me that Israel is taking the "walk softly and carry a big stick" approach to this issue as compared to Iran whose president has repeatedly threatened Israel's existance. On Friday Minister Shaul Mofaz made these comments:

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective"

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable"

It's interesting to note that Ahmadinejad apparently has fired off a complaint to the UN over these remarks, the same UN he ignores with regard to his nuclear ambitions.

Something is going to have to be done about Ahmadinejad's nuclear envy. All those who keep shrieking about the US striking Iran before Bush's term is up might be in for a big surprise. Any strike would most likely come from Israel, but the question raised in the link is, can Israel effectively take out so many targets (Iran presently has several) which are so far away. Iraq and Syria's strikes were child's play compared to this.

Tricky but not nearly as hard as Entebbe. Don't underestimate the IAF. It's really is one of, if not the best, in the world in terms of pilots. Ninty-five percent of Arab pilots are literally jokes next to them...flaming, crashing jokes. The last large fighter vs fighter engagement vs Syria underscored this. Eighty dead Syrian MiGs vs ZERO IAF.

The ramifications to such a strike could be quite unpleasant, however. Iran could declare war on Israel with several Arab neighbors joining in. You know missiles would start raining down in Israel with Israel responding with more air strikes, but would it lead to an actual invasion on Israeli soil? Would the US jump in with Israel on this one?

Any attempts by Arab main force armies to take on Israel will end up in a Yom Kippur situation before they know it. The Arabs are keenly aware of this at heart...and treat ground combat w/ Israel accordingly. It's far better to let Hezbollah and Hamas conduct continuous partisan warfare from behind civilian cover. No real way for Israel to strike back without looking like the bad guy. Out in the open, though...different story. During Yom Kippur, the Egyptians and Syrians hid under their blanket of SAMs like frightened children, unable to move without their support.

BC-2004: History has already answered this question. Did Iraq or Syria "invade" Israel? Did "Arab" neighbors join in?

The interesting part is that Israel has already set a precedent for doing this, in effect defacto enforcement with a wink and a nod.

The US already does far more than people realize....and we'll just keep it that way.

I find that many people (perhaps not sharkman...seems to know a thing 'er two) may have forgotten the details re: the Arab Israeli Wars. The common misconception I find is that the Israelis had massive military strength vs small, third rate Arab forces. You can have a devil of a time showing that the opposite was actually the truth. As I like to point out, the tank that saved the day during the Yom Kippur War wasn't some high tech modern machine. It was the trusty M4/50 (Super) Sherman from WW2. Just driven by some rather competent fellows. They were bought surplus and brought up to snuff in Israel. Wise move, it seems.

---------------------------------------------

Once you get them running, you stay right on top of them, and that way a small force can defeat a large one every time...

---General Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson CSA

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites

What threats from Arab armies?

Egypt isn't going to war with Israel any time soon - they have far too much to lose (US$ and US armaments).

Syria is in no position to launch an invasion into the Golan hieghts and on to Haifa.

Lebanon is not now, nor have they ever been, capable of launching long range offensive operations at the best of times and certainly not now or anytime soon.

Jordan is not threatening anyone nor would they attack Israel without Egyptian involvment.

Iranian armies will have to cross through Iraq to get to Israel.

So I'm curious about who these 'Arab' armies are that people are worried about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What threats from Arab armies?

Egypt isn't going to war with Israel any time soon - they have far too much to lose (US$ and US armaments).

Syria is in no position to launch an invasion into the Golan hieghts and on to Haifa.

Lebanon is not now, nor have they ever been, capable of launching long range offensive operations at the best of times and certainly not now or anytime soon.

Jordan is not threatening anyone nor would they attack Israel without Egyptian involvment.

Iranian armies will have to cross through Iraq to get to Israel.

So I'm curious about who these 'Arab' armies are that people are worried about?

I agree that there isn't a real threat on the ground for the moment. Other than Hamas and Hezbollah which like the Viet-Cong would be pretty much impossible to really deal with without killing a lot of civilians.

If/when the US/UK et al pull out of Iraq and NATO out of Afghanistan...all bets are off in my books. I wouldn't give Iraq or Afghanistan 2 minutes after the last soldier left before they become Islamic theocracies. Then Israel will have some real trouble on the ground...Iran has a BIG army. Just my prediction.

---------------------------------------------------------

A powerful Iran is the best friend of the neighboring states and the best guarantor of regional security...

---Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
....As I like to point out, the tank that saved the day during the Yom Kippur War wasn't some high tech modern machine. It was the trusty M4/50 (Super) Sherman from WW2. Just driven by some rather competent fellows. They were bought surplus and brought up to snuff in Israel. Wise move, it seems.

Indeed....I think Israel should consider picking up the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) upon decommissioning next year and join the tailhook club ! That would solve the extended mission refueling problem! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed....I think Israel should consider picking up the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) upon decommissioning next year and join the tailhook club ! That would solve the extended mission refueling problem! :lol:

:lol::lol:

That's for sure. I think they'd also need a few AEGIS cruisers to stop crazed Rerpuplican Guards in cigarette boats. Sad to see the old Kitty Hawk go...there's some history. Is it really going up for sale?

---------------------------------------------------------

After a battle is over, people talk a lot about how decisions were methodically reached, but actually there's always a hell of a lot of groping around.

---Admiral Jack Fletcher

Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol::lol:

That's for sure. I think they'd also need a few AEGIS cruisers to stop crazed Rerpuplican Guards in cigarette boats. Sad to see the old Kitty Hawk go...there's some history. Is it really going up for sale?

No, it's not for sale, but the US has routinely presented decom hulls to other nations. This would be a first for a carrier of course, and very provocative for the region. But it sure would be fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not for sale, but the US has routinely presented decom hulls to other nations. This would be a first for a carrier of course, and very provocative for the region. But it sure would be fun!

Well at least it isn't going to become a floating casino or part of some other attraction (see Minsk World). I guess the Chinese figured out that jump carriers are of limited military use.

:lol:

--------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the buggers mean it.

---Governor Sir Rex Hunt, Falklands Islands

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well at least it isn't going to become a floating casino or part of some other attraction (see Minsk World). I guess the Chinese figured out that jump carriers are of limited military use.

:lol:

Hard to say...the People's Liberation Army Navy is still dinking around with ex-Varyag....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag

Need to scrounge up some aircraft too. Then some support ships....then some AA defense....damn! This superpower business is getting to be expensive!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...the Varyag. Sort of like a '71 Duster without an engine or interior.

:lol:

Canada found out first hand how expensive big navies were to maintain properly. We even had two fairly large aircraft carriers. Gasp...lol.

Here's trivia...if you know BC-2004...hold off for a bit: What was the name of Canada's first aircraft carrier?

--------------------------------------

Eternal Father, strong to save,

Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,

Who biddest the mighty ocean deep

Its own appointed limits keep;

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,

For those in peril on the sea...

--- Will­iam Whit­ing & John B. Dykes

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed....I think Israel should consider picking up the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) upon decommissioning next year and join the tailhook club ! That would solve the extended mission refueling problem! :lol:

I really don't think that would be a good idea. First of all, you would either have to base it at Eilat where it would be really vulnable (it is a few miles from both Egypt and Saudi Arabia and has to pass through a channel between the two) or in the west where you would require Egypts permission to squeeze it through the cannel.

In addition, if I were Iran, and I were hit by an attack by a carrier, I would through EVERYTHING at that carrier.

Even the US did not send its carriers through the straights of Hormuz (SP) without making sure Iran was not going to do anything.

Finally, those carriers are supe expensive. Where do you make the cuts ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tricky but not nearly as hard as Entebbe. Don't underestimate the IAF. It's really is one of, if not the best, in the world in terms of pilots. Ninty-five percent of Arab pilots are literally jokes next to them...flaming, crashing jokes. The last lar

It would be ALOT harderthan Entebbe (is that spelled correct?). Entebbe was a single target and they had the element of suprise, and they had a very poorly armed opponent.

In this case, they have multiple targets and Iran is well prepared for them. They have spent a lot of that oil money on modern air defenses.

Iran has learned from the bombing of Iraq in the 80's. All their nuclear stuff is scattered or burried.

Edited by peter_puck
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't think that would be a good idea. First of all, you would either have to base it at Eilat where it would be really vulnable (it is a few miles from both Egypt and Saudi Arabia and has to pass through a channel between the two) or in the west where you would require Egypts permission to squeeze it through the cannel.

What's wrong with using the Arabian Sea? The USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) is not afraid of blue water.

In addition, if I were Iran, and I were hit by an attack by a carrier, I would through EVERYTHING at that carrier.

OK...but I'm thinking that would be barn door after horse is gone.

Even the US did not send its carriers through the straights of Hormuz (SP) without making sure Iran was not going to do anything.

I don't think you understand. These are warships.

Finally, those carriers are supe expensive. Where do you make the cuts ?

How much is de-nuking Iran worth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess it depends on your point of view. If someone came up to me tommorrow and told me that my stinking rotten infidel corpse would be rotting by my mailbox by the end of the week, I would take that as a threat.

Where did he say this? The use of imagination to support ones opinion(s) is thankfully not an accepted method of analysis...

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with using the Arabian Sea? The USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) is not afraid of blue water.

It would need a home port. If you are in the Arabian sea, that would have to be Eilat, which like I said is vulnerable. According to the US Navy, its carriers have little or no defense against newer anti-ship rockets. Imagine having your most important military asset floating down a narrow channel were some nut with a rocket could sink it. Look what happened to that ship of Lebanon

OK...but I'm thinking that would be barn door after horse is gone.

Not really. Like I said, most of Iran's good stuff is underground. It would take more than one carrier strike to take it out for good. It would only take one member of the Iranian military to fly his plane into the Kitty Hawk to sink or disable it.

I don't think you understand. These are warships.

This is what I would be worried about (I could not find a better copy, but someone posted it in a forum

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothre...;postid=7287568

How much is de-nuking Iran worth?

A carrier would not do it.

Israel has almost no navy (they have little need for one). They would have to develop naval expertise (they would have no clue about carrier warfare. They would need to modify or buy aircraft to fly on it. They would need to buy support ships.

It would be a country of about 8 million people supporting a super carrier.

China is approaching a billion people and does not have an operating aircraft carrier.

The billions it would cost for the Kitty Hawk would probably be better spent on drone aircraft and missile defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would need a home port. If you are in the Arabian sea, that would have to be Eilat, which like I said is vulnerable. According to the US Navy, its carriers have little or no defense against newer anti-ship rockets. Imagine having your most important military asset floating down a narrow channel were some nut with a rocket could sink it. Look what happened to that ship of Lebanon

Difficult to sink a super carrier with a "rocket"....damage yes. The American Navy does operate in this area.

Not really. Like I said, most of Iran's good stuff is underground. It would take more than one carrier strike to take it out for good. It would only take one member of the Iranian military to fly his plane into the Kitty Hawk to sink or disable it.

A risk worth taking...do you think the Americans would run from such a threat? The defenses are layered.

A carrier would not do it.

OK...I guess the Americans are wasting their money.

Israel has almost no navy (they have little need for one). They would have to develop naval expertise (they would have no clue about carrier warfare. They would need to modify or buy aircraft to fly on it. They would need to buy support ships.

The Israelis do have a navy, though it is small. It includes SSG's (Dolphin Class) for a survivable deterrent.

It would be a country of about 8 million people supporting a super carrier.

See DOP's reference to not one, but two former "carriers" for small population Canada.

China is approaching a billion people and does not have an operating aircraft carrier.

That's because the USA will not give them one. However, they did buy an unfinished Soviet hull on eBay (at auction). Why do they want a carrier if it is so easily sunk?

The billions it would cost for the Kitty Hawk would probably be better spent on drone aircraft and missile defense.

Perhaps, but the decom hull wouldn't cost much as a FMS transfer. Many navies around the world operate with former US kit.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
A risk worth taking...do you think the Americans would run from such a threat? The defenses are layered.

OK...

From what I have read, the Iranian nuclear program is in bunkers and spread out. It has extensive air defences. The Americans might be able to take it out (or slow it down a fair bit), but I doubt Israel would. They would be dropping bomb after bomb onto the desert not knowing what they hit. All the time having to content with modern air defenses and a return trip over Syria.

I guess the Americans are wasting their money.

They probably have too many. They do have reasons for having them, however. Israel does not.

See DOP's reference to not one, but two former "carriers" for small population Canada.

They were small escort carriers and that was ancient history. At one point Canada had the third largest navy in the world.

That's because the USA will not give them one. However, they did buy an unfinished Soviet hull on eBay (at auction). Why do they want a carrier if it is so easily sunk?

I believe they were turning it into a floating casino at one point.

Perhaps, but the decom hull wouldn't cost much as a FMS transfer. Many navies around the world operate with former US kit.

These carriers have a huge operating cost. You need spare parts and all sorts of other things.

This is not all that usefull anyway. Israel cannot hope to bomb away Iran's nuclear program. It would be like Lebanon all over again. Israel would be fighting on Iran's terms. Israel would have to bomb forever (which it cannot afford) and loose airplane after airplane. Iran could play the victim while continuing to run its nuclear program.

If I were Israel, I would probably wait for the first excuse and start bombing Iran's oil industry (mostly with drone aircraft). No money to fuel their cars, much less buy stuff from North Korea. Don't stop until they agree to let in UN inspectors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...