That could turn exactly in to what you don't want, a protracted air/ground war. Look at a map... notice something? Iran borders Afghanistan and Iraq- not to mention the US allies in Azerbaijan and the fmr. Soviet Republics. Iran could retaliate against US forces in Afganistan which would be bad since they are equipped for COIN and don't have their Anti-Armor and Anti-Aircraft weapons deployed. Same for Iraq. Or they could go for the aforementioned Azerbaijan and deny its oil supplies to the west. Some of the Iranian forums I've lurked on have shown some are eager to go after Azerbaijan seeing it as a weak target compared to the GCC nations. I foresee Azerbaijan being a possible Kuwait in a new Gulf War.

Strikes against targets in the Med via Syria are possible as is mining the Red Sea to name a couple other possibilities.

It's a viable strategy, but would most likely just result in Iran becoming more determined to get operational nukes and use them and since there is no real care in the Iranian government or chain of command over civilian casualties (in fact the more civilians die the better because they can herald them as victims of the barbaric west [which'll only whip up a fervor from those who view the US as the 'bully boy' of the world]) and most, if not all their nuclear weapons equipment is scattered around the country in underground facilities because they know that the only option the US has short of a full blown invasion is aerial strikes and so they put the precious stuff out of the way of US aerial weaponry.

Good points but pinpoint strikes can wreak an enormous price in the process and destroy their oil producing capability.

I should imagine any arms build up on border areas would be heavily reduced in their potential effectiveness prior to full blown mobilisation.

All of this is hypothetical of course but the alternative would mean a possible withdrawal from the whole region by the US and a 'cart blanche' opportunity for Iran to pi$$ on the region.

I somehow doubt the US will allow that.

Agreed....but I simply can't imagine the US, even under Obama allowing Iran to take the pi$$ out of them in front of the world.

You never know, they might allow the Israelis to do the 'deed' for them :hmmm:

Even the Israelis would have trouble hitting Irans nuclear ability enough to destroy it completely.

Grab yourself a Newcastle and have a read of these:

http://pds15.egloos.com/pds/200904/2..._israelius.pdf

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...strikeiran.pdf

Two excellent links....cheers :up:

There are so many options/cross permutations to consider having read those.

I'll still wager the US/Israeli partnership will prevail :DL

I am tired of watching US Kids dying for the state of Israel. We need to get the hell out of the Middle East and let Israel fight their own damn wars.

Bottom line,if Israel can't survive without the USA then they don't deserve to be a country.

Oh I agree Jim, generally speaking the side with the bigger guns prevails, but only if they use those bigger guns and don't tie them up in red tape which is the current fashion in the conducting of wars. Furthermore, Iran will not suffer the war weariness to the extend that the US will because it has a tighter control on its population and can stomp out protests and do away with dissidents whilst broadcasting pictures of mangled Iranians and destroyed 'Baby milk factories' which will a) strengthen the resolve of the waverers and b) wind up on CNN and the BBC and turn western opinion against the course of action being undertaken by the US and Israel.
Israel is a separate entity, it will suffer from a small amount of war weariness but nowhere near the size of the US because it has been under siege since its creation and chances are that during the battle the odd Scud will be winging its way across the Tel Aviv giving the Israeli Patriot batteries some target practice. Israel knows that if Iran goes nuclear that it is target numbero uno, so that puts a resolve behind its people and reduces the magnitude of war weariness.
Obama would win and lose from taking bilateral action with Israel against Iran. He would gain support to some extent from the Republican side of politics, 'Huh, he has a backbone after all' although there will still be many whose scales do not balance out still and who will still dislike him, however he will alienate many of his current supporters, and those undermine his own power-base. I think it's pretty obvious that he's going to be a one term president unless the Republicans field a real howler in 2012 (here's a hint...do NOT field Palin, field Scott Brown he seems quite popular) so he has two options, he can either play it safe and walk the middle road or he can try and carve himself a little legacy by standing up to Iran and taking the tough road...but given that he already has a book signing and after dinner speech circuit lined up for being the first non-white American president, I'd say that he'll want to take the safe road to 2012.

Good response :up:

I don't think Obama can win on this either way he chooses to go.

What is most telling for me is the fact he has already made future contingency plans similar to what Tony B had.

I'm simply wondering about two points:

1....Will he find it within his gift to aid Israel short of committing ground troops ie. airborne and missile attacks?

2....If he fails to act should Israel be attacked, how large is the jewish vote/lobby in the US?

No he cant but question is does he realize that or just waiting HOPING for the best.

Well judging by my own personal experiences in life....if you stick your head in the sand like an ostrich does and simply 'hope for the best'....someone or something usually comes along and kicks you in the ar$e.

The jewish vote is less than 3% but its concentrated in several key states which given the electoral system increases its impact for its size. On record the vote has always gone massively to the Democrats apart from when there was a 3 way split in Hardings election victory as about 40% of the jewish vote went to the jailed social democrat candidate that year.
As for the lobby, don't you mean the Isreal lobby?

Oh yeah Israeli Lobby -the evil Israeli that shape American politics.
Or evil Americans that back up Israeli polices?

One thing is sure its not a "make love not war" organization and thats how it should be as for now.

I'd be less worried about the Jewish vote/lobby and more about the Republican one. Since Israel is a bastion of the western world in the middle east and the middle east is the primary location of insurgent based activities (or at least that is how it is often perceived in the public eye) to fail to act to assist an ally in the Middle East...heck, the only ally in the Middle East (I don't really count Saudi Arabia because they're friends with anyone who has money) then he will be slaughtered by every Republican and probably quite a few centralist Democrats.
I'd say that Obama is waiting for Iran to make the first move, so that he can act with bipartisan support but Dinnerjacket knows that too, so it's a case of provoking each other to try and get the other guy to act first so that you can play the victim card. Eventually though someone will call someones bluff and things will get interesting. Israel is also a wild card, they could decide to act unilaterally which would put Obama in a no-win scenario, if he sides with Israel fully then he'll catch it from the Democrats who will accuse him of assisting the 'renegade Israel' but if he doesn't support Israel then he will further anger the Republicans AND further distance the US from Israel which, as witnessed by some views already stated in threads regarding Israel, is something that SOME people want but OTHERS don't. Basically, a unilateral Israeli action is the worse case scenario for Obama politically. There is a middle option though, and that's to neither condemn or condone Israeli actions but continue to ship arms and aid to Israel during the conflict, but it's hard to tell how successful this would be with the EU most likely condemning Israel and calling for a ceasefire, backed by Russia and China who will probably supply weapons to Iran.
If I were a betting man, and had I money to actually bet, I would put it against Obama conducting any first strikes, he just doesn't come across as the type of person who would do such a thing. If attacked then I expect he would retaliate to the best of his abilities, but he would not make the first move, because he knows that it would be political suicide.

Would you like some fish to go with that huge sack of chips on your shoulder?

The Israel lobby is really quite diverse, the jewish lobby is even more so.