• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do you believe that Israel will preemptively attack Iran? If yes, when?

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
With all of the news about Iran's nuclear weapons program lately, coupled with Ahmadinejad's known hatred for Israel and the news that Russia is supplying Iran with anti-aircraft systems, it almost seems like a given that Israel will strike sooner rather than later. Do you believe they will attack first? If so, when do you think this will happen?
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
They have no chance of wiping out all traces of the programme, which would be the only outcome that justifies making the attack today. Therefore no attack will be made.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Is there a timeline? I say 33% chance by 2012, especially with a vagina running the US.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Israel should not be worried about the Russian supplied AA systems.

Israel will wait until the next to last moment before doing anything.
That will :
Allow the world to see what Iran's response to any pressures.
Allow Iran to increase the rhetoric
Allow Iran to possibly overplay their terror hand
Allow Israel to greatly determine where the targets are and the best way of handling them.

The first three bullet points reduce the hostility against Israel if they have to implement #4
Also, Israel will be able to show the evidence of what Iran is actually doing vs what they have stated.

Similar to what happened with Syria a couple of years back. Syria had no leg to stand on once they were exposed.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,705
49
91
they'll eat the first attack then blame the obama for political and military vacillation. understand and realize: your obama is in way over his head.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I do not think Israel will attack Iran without the express consent of the USA. And if the USA says yes, the USA might as well lead the attack, because the US will be blamed for it even if Israel is the only military in the fight.

Or we could look at it from another practical viewpoint. Because unless Israel is willing to use nukes, Iran is simply too big, too strong, and too far away for Israel to even dent. And as soon as Israel drops the first bomb on Iran, they earn an Iranian
retaliation which may be more than Israel can withstand. And after some long standing Israeli bullying of their weaker neighbors, there may be very few nations willing to help Israel repel a counterattack they earned.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I do not think Israel will attack Iran without the express consent of the USA. And if the USA says yes, the USA might as well lead the attack, because the US will be blamed for it even if Israel is the only military in the fight.

Or we could look at it from another practical viewpoint. Because unless Israel is willing to use nukes, Iran is simply too big, too strong, and too far away for Israel to even dent. And as soon as Israel drops the first bomb on Iran, they earn an Iranian
retaliation which may be more than Israel can withstand. And after some long standing Israeli bullying of their weaker neighbors, there may be very few nations willing to help Israel repel a counterattack they earned.
So what do you think will happen with the situation? Will Iran be allowed to possess functional nuclear weapons that can reach Israel and south-eastern Europe?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
There is no way the US would willingly allow Israel to attack Iran especially when we can barely afford the wars we are in right now.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
No, this has been building for so long and they've still done nothing. There could still be a smoking gun or something but otherwise I expect nothing to happen because it hasn't already.

I disagree that an Iranian retaliation is more than Israel can withstand, though. Retaliate with what, exactly?

If Israel goes ahead it will have tacit or explicit approval from the US (probably just tacit for pseudo-deniability) but I don't think the USA will partake directly. It would assist if Israel was attacked, though, it is the US' sister nation in the middle east, there is zero chance of it being beaten down without the US stepping in, zero chance.
So what do you think will happen with the situation? Will Iran be allowed to possess functional nuclear weapons that can reach Israel and south-eastern Europe?
That would be *MY* best guess. Iran will get its nukes. And not use them.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
No, this has been building for so long and they've still done nothing. There could still be a smoking gun or something but otherwise I expect nothing to happen because it hasn't already.

I disagree that an Iranian retaliation is more than Israel can withstand, though. Retaliate with what, exactly?

If Israel goes ahead it will have tacit or explicit approval from the US (probably just tacit for pseudo-deniability) but I don't think the USA will partake directly. It would assist if Israel was attacked, though, it is the US' sister nation in the middle east, there is zero chance of it being beaten down without the US stepping in, zero chance.
That would be *MY* best guess. Iran will get its nukes. And not use them.
With this:

 

filetitan

Senior member
Jul 9, 2005
693
0
0
No, this has been building for so long and they've still done nothing. There could still be a smoking gun or something but otherwise I expect nothing to happen because it hasn't already.

I disagree that an Iranian retaliation is more than Israel can withstand, though. Retaliate with what, exactly?

If Israel goes ahead it will have tacit or explicit approval from the US (probably just tacit for pseudo-deniability) but I don't think the USA will partake directly. It would assist if Israel was attacked, though, it is the US' sister nation in the middle east, there is zero chance of it being beaten down without the US stepping in, zero chance.
That would be *MY* best guess. Iran will get its nukes. And not use them.
^ sounds about right and yes the Russian Anti-aircraft system Iran is receiving is very effective.

"Reports of a possible Russian transfer of the S-300 to Iran are cloaked in uncertainty, with questions remaining as to which version is even being discussed.

The S-300PMU-2 is a highly advanced, extremely capable air defense system known in the West as the SA-20. It is a highly mobile system, capable of intercepting low-altitude cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and high-altitude bombers. It can engage targets from altitudes as low as about 9 meters up to about 27,400 meters, and from a range of about 4.8 km. out to some 150 km. "

Link:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237114863350&pagename=JPost&#37;2FJPArticle/ShowFull

F22 should be able to overcome this system but at a higher cost.


I fund another article stating that the S-300 system will most likely not be sold to Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1027415.html
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Is Iran getting the same AA system that was sold to Syria?

Iran can not strike Israel with anything but missiles and proxies.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,434
79
91
Please explain how the strike would be preemptive. Iran has been attacking Israel via proxy (Hamas) for years now.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
In reply to anyone who says or thinks, "I disagree that an Iranian retaliation is more than Israel can withstand, though. Retaliate with what, exactly?"

I can only say that I play chess and I think the range of Iranian options would be very wide. Even if I or anyone else cannot predict in advance what the Iranian response would be.

But anyone who is even half way decent at chess always thinks in terms of what is the meanest and nastiest thing my opponent can do to me if I make some given move. And I particularly like to play stupid players who invest everything into attack and nothing into defense. I usually beat off such an attack, then just swivel the pieces I have dedicated to defense and go on the offensive. And find my foolish opponent has left himself naked in terms of mounting any defense.

I note some have noted Hezbollah and Hamas are somewhat Iranian proxies, but Hezbollah is the only group that has acquired any the fruits of Iran's quite substantial home grown weapons programs. And that may have been an accident as Hezbollah
acquired weapons meant for Syria. But back in 2005, what Hezbollah got was enough to totally blunt an Israeli ground based offensive into Lebanon. And Israel was losing state of the arts tanks and spent 2 weeks trying to go 20 miles. Yet in 2008, Hamas, without any defensive Iranian weapons got totally raped.

I therefore suggest just one Iranian option would be to flood the zone with first class Iranian weapons, which would have disastrous consequences to Israel and quite possibly the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And that is just one option among many many many options Iran would have. Another Iranian option would be to shut down the Persian gulf to all surface based shipping. That alone would cause a huge increase in oil prices and cause an almost instant depression for any oil based economy in the world. And I have not even started to really think about all the other Iranian options that 80 million Iranians would feel as perfectly justified given a sneaky attack on the scale of Peal Harbor or 911.

Nor am I per say thinking in terms of how weak such an Israeli attack would be. Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria, is at the extreme range of Israeli air force. They would have to sacrifice all self defense capacity of their aircraft just to have the range. And overfly hostile countries that would not be amused. And then not be able to use conventional bombs to any effect in terms of damaging numerous deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities. And in a worst case scenario, Israel could send in its planes and have everyone of them shot down well short of any targets.

In saying all that, for me chess is a game, and a game I like to play with my friends. Its a piss poor way to live your life on a what is the meanest and nastiest thing I can do
basis. But when you go to war, it becomes the calculus. Iran may be able to start a war, but the long odds are Iran will finish it as Israel plays they bet their lives in an over reach.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The timing is dependent on factors which are not going to be exposed in your local newspaper - readiness state of forces, contingency planning, political maneuvering, intelligence estimates, etc.

Not being privy to the above info but tracking some of the exercises, deployments, lack of diplomatic results, etc. I would venture a strike will occur within six months and has a high likelihood of occurring within three months.

This study has been linked here before. It is still interesting and apropos.

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

Set of circumstances that could accelerate a strike on Iran&#8216;s Nuclear Facilities:
&#8226; By 2010 Iran could pose a serious threat to it&#8216;s neighbors and Israel. Enough of an inventory of Nuclear Weapons
that can serve as a deterrent against U.S. and Israeli strikes.
&#8226; A modern SAM air defense system, such as the Russian S-300PMU2 "Favorit", giving Iran an advanced Ballistic
Missile Defense (BMD) capability in addition to an advanced SAM Air Defense System.
&#8226; A maritime capability that can threaten commercial shipping and Naval Forces in the Gulf , and possibly interrupt the
flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz.
&#8226; Having in it&#8216;s possession highly accurate short, medium and long range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying WMD
&#8226; Train and Control a number of Counter Insurgency groups to Increase the threat of asymmetric attacks against
American interests and allies in the region and even beyond the region.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Please explain how the strike would be preemptive. Iran has been attacking Israel via proxy (Hamas) for years now.
Good point. But not just no - hell no - too much foreign air space - too well defended - too much political fallout.

Iran is at breaking point - not a good idea to unite them.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Good point. But not just no - hell no - too much foreign air space - too well defended - too much political fallout.

Iran is at breaking point - not a good idea to unite them.
If you don't want Iran to really break, and you want a permanent enemy, what better time to unite them and save the theocratic regime?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
If you don't want Iran to really break, and you want a permanent enemy, what better time to unite them and save the theocratic regime?
Revolutions by definition must come from the inside. Attack by a foreign party, especially a JEW, mortal and religious enemy, would unite country like no other against all comers around those in power.
 

DonaldC

Senior member
Nov 18, 2001
752
0
0
With all the current unrest in Iran I'd let them self-destruct. A little help from outside the country wouldn't be a bad idea though.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,660
3,138
126
Revolutions by definition must come from the inside. Attack by a foreign party, especially a JEW, mortal and religious enemy, would unite country like no other against all comers around those in power.
In the case of iran your statement holds no water!!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,660
3,138
126
In reply to anyone who says or thinks, "I disagree that an Iranian retaliation is more than Israel can withstand, though. Retaliate with what, exactly?"

I can only say that I play chess and I think the range of Iranian options would be very wide. Even if I or anyone else cannot predict in advance what the Iranian response would be.

But anyone who is even half way decent at chess always thinks in terms of what is the meanest and nastiest thing my opponent can do to me if I make some given move. And I particularly like to play stupid players who invest everything into attack and nothing into defense. I usually beat off such an attack, then just swivel the pieces I have dedicated to defense and go on the offensive. And find my foolish opponent has left himself naked in terms of mounting any defense. We are not talking chess here...this is real world not your make believe world.

I note some have noted Hezbollah and Hamas are somewhat Iranian proxies, but Hezbollah is the only group that has acquired any the fruits of Iran's quite substantial home grown weapons programs. And that may have been an accident as Hezbollah
acquired weapons meant for Syria. But back in 2005, what Hezbollah got was enough to totally blunt an Israeli ground based offensive into Lebanon. you are dillussional totally!! And Israel was losing state of the arts tanks and spent 2 weeks trying to go 20 miles. Yet in 2008, Hamas, without any defensive Iranian weapons got totally raped.

I therefore suggest just one Iranian option would be to flood the zone with first class Iranian weapons, which would have disastrous consequences to Israel and quite possibly the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. You are so sadly mistaken that i question whether you are off your meds....

And that is just one option among many many many options Iran would have. Another Iranian option would be to shut down the Persian gulf to all surface based shipping. That alone would cause a huge increase in oil prices and cause an almost instant depression for any oil based economy in the world. And I have not even started to really think about all the other Iranian options that 80 million Iranians would feel as perfectly justified given a sneaky attack on the scale of Peal Harbor or 911. as a people the Iranians are not unified and they are uncapable of any offensive options that would work!

Nor am I per say thinking in terms of how weak such an Israeli attack would be. again you are dillusional and sadly mistaken. Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria, is at the extreme range of Israeli air force. They would have to sacrifice all self defense capacity of their aircraft just to have the range. And overfly hostile countries that would not be amused. And then not be able to use conventional bombs to any effect in terms of damaging numerous deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities. And in a worst case scenario, Israel could send in its planes and have everyone of them shot down well short of any targets. sorry to wake you from yopur dillusional dreams, but it is well known in military circles that israel has thge capability and have done extensive modification of aircraft that can easily attack iran and evade being detected in Iranian airspace. Let balone carry out there mission succesfully with precision and accuracy and return back to Israel!
Here is an article that might interest you.....be reminded though no country gives away what exactly tyhey are capable of....also be reminded that israel is canstantly do recon and making sure they can and will return to base with minimum loss of life!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/17/20060717-105737-9603r/


In saying all that, for me chess is a game, and a game I like to play with my friends. Its a piss poor way to live your life on a what is the meanest and nastiest thing I can do
basis. But when you go to war, it becomes the calculus. Iran may be able to start a war, but the long odds are Iran will finish it as Israel plays they bet their lives in an over reach.
God I just Love it when you talk in your sleep while you are dreaming!!
Sleep tight!!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
There is a good deal of internal domestic Iranian strife regarding the rule of the Mullahs.

And as an independent observer, I would have to say the Mullah's are doing all the wrong things and will likely go the way of the Shah. The Mullahs have given it their best shot at repression but the protests are simply not going away.

But make no mistake, the issue that unites all Iranians is in gaining an ability to have a peace time nuclear energy generating capacity.

The issue of Iran developing nuclear weapons thereafter is an issue not yet confronted politically in Iran. And is an issue that Iran must confront at some time in the more distant future.

But it still boils down to two questions.

1. Does Israel, already with nuclear armed, have a paranoid right to say that Iran is for sure for sure going for nuclear weapons. And even if Israel asserts that censorship right, how far does it extend? Would the USA or Russia disband their nuclear programs just to make Israel feel less threatened?

2. Its somewhat absurd to pretend, especially given past Iranian history, that the the Iranian internal decision to go for nukes is not dependent on the Iranian perceived Western threat level. In short, if Iran no longer perceives the West threat level is pressing, why should they opt to develop nuclear weapons? But given the policies of Cheney and his ilk, can we blame Iran for being justly paranoid? Especially since Rumsfeld and Cheney were keys in engineering the Saddam Hussein attack on Iran in the 1980's.
 

ZzZGuy

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2006
1,855
0
0
Iran currently has two options if they want nukes.
-Short term, as in a year or two, they use up almost all their nuclear material to make one or two nukes and that's it. After the one (maybe two) failures of NK, I don't think they are ready to take that risk. There is also the fact they will be crippled by sanctions because (imo) neither Russia or China will support or defend them in any way.
-Long term. Over 10 or so years they build up a civilian nuclear power program that will yield greater quantities of nuclear material from the reactors, allowing for more nukes.

Israel estimated their Arrow ballistic missile defense system will be online by 2014. The sale of the Russian S-300 system is currently in question with Iran angry that there is no prospect of it being delivered atm.

This leaves Iran with three options.
1- Launch one or two nukes within 2 years on their long range missiles that may or may not work, or even hit their targets.
2- Launch a dozen or more missiles armed with nukes in 10 to 15 years which will likely be shot down over Jordan.
3- Slip a nuke or dirty bomb into one of the neighboring countries/territories (eg, gaza) and detonate it. I would lean towards a dirty bomb upwind from a major Israeli population center. All arabs that die as a result will be declared martyrs for a "just cause".


To truly cripple Iran as well as prevent them from obtaining nukes a few years later I think they will wait until Iran either tests a nuke or spies uncover a "smoking gun". Russian & Chinese support will be needed to stop all flow of resources into and out of Iran so they (Iran) are unable to rebuild their nuclear weapons program. Russian & China will want hard facts before they offer any sort of support (note, they have not voiced any support for a nuclear armed Iran and would likely be opposed to that).


The two conditions I believe Iran will not be attacked is if there is a total regime change or they accept the offer to exchange all their nuclear material for nuclear material that has been processed so it can never be used in a nuclear weapon. Negations on the last option are ongoing but it appears to be a stalling tactic.

(bolded part to get to the point of the OP)

-edit- I think there will be many spies offering information to Israel/USA/Russia as I doubt the majority of the Iranian population is prepared to accept the nuclear retaliation from Israel and/or/maybe USA should Iran attack any country with nuclear weapons. This is assuming Iranian government is going for nukes and appear ready to sacrifice Iran.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY