How Israel might strike at Iran
 

I'm not convinced they will attack Iran without a great deal of support from the US....but they certainly have the means if they do decide to strike:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643

Good to see they mentioned the subs. Very possible they would be used to attack Bushehr and some of the coastal air bases like at Bandar'e Abbas.

Israel has quality superiority, no doubt, but I have very very strong doubts that it has the strength by numbers to run a war against Iran all by itself and destroy their program.

What they did in the past in singular strikes against an Iraqi and a Syrian reactor, is meaningless. A singular, limited strike with few forces does not compare, in no way, to a lasting military operation against a distant country the size of Iran and with such a rich target saturation that needs to be dealt with. Simply not enough planes and pilots. and what they did in one single mission 4 yeasrs ago and 20 years ago - what has that to do with how they can adress a totally different situation today? Do we judge the military power of Greece today by the battle of the Spartans against the Persians?

I also have very very strong doubts about their conventional bombs being capable to crack the vital targets that it is all about. Dealing with Iran'S CCCI and air defence is just an instrumental necessity to reach the real goal, the components of the Iranian nuclear program. A bomb, no matter the size and drop altitude, just cannot defeat the laws of physics. If the Iranians succeeded in hiding such installations deep enoigh in the ground and under thick enoigh layers of rocks, you just cannot reach them anymore, no matter the bomb you use.

Another possibility....the instant an Iranian nuclear warhead is tested, counter that with a nuclear tactical strike? :hmmm:

Looking at past history I'm finding it hard to believe Israel will sit idly by, especially as Iran has vowed to destroy her.

Now, I really doubt Israel will go nuclear unless directly attacked or threatened with imminent strike itself. Doing that will cost them a lot of support elsewhere, especially from the US, something they can't afford especially since any strike is likely to escalate the situation.

According to a Danish newspaper it's over

Following has been translated via Google translate

here are the original article (in danish)
http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/art...ns-atomprogram

Should we believe that?


Markus

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant....once the Iranians are known to have a nuclear capability definitively, Israel will no longer have a choice other than to act and I honestly believe the US may be prepared to accept a 'tactical/surgical' nuclear strike.

It would certainly send a stark message to any other wannabes in the area.

Not that I want to see any of the above happen but what are the alternatives/choices?

Almost everyone have his or her opinion on this issue

Some are hoping for a peacefull solution
(I'm one of them)
Others are more into military solution

What those that's for this military solution can't see, is that a few bombs wan't stop the program, it would be a setback for Iran. It may postpone it's program for a few years.

The only way to stop it absolutly is either by overthrowing the government or by some kind of invasion.

Markus

That means another half trillion dollar war - when the US is just 1 trillion away from its debt ceiling.
If the US pulls an 'Iraq' on Iran, it is likely going to break America financially.
The American people are going to pay for these wars eventually, either though the suffering of an eventual default - or austerity of unimaginable proportions.
America should not try fix any more international problems, until she has fixed her own problems.
The way things are going the entire western world is just going to become one big Greece.

I like this straightforward selfish position...without all the mumbo jumbo crap.:salute:
....even though i don't necessarily agree.

Would be nice if it actually worked both ways.

Europeans should - but probbaly would not - carry a substantial share of the burden. The region is of more interest to them now, then to the US. To what degree Israeli bases could host european air power, I do not know. But I wonder if they would even like to do that. So the flights would need to be assembled from Italy, Greece maybe, Turkey I do not trust. that makes it very long combat flights, with plenty of mid-air-refuiling. Distance from the centre of Sicily to the approximate geographic centre of Iran is around 2300 miles. That is roughly the ferry range of the Eurofighter or the Tornado in no-weapons-configuration and with external tanks. So, combat missions flown from Europe appear to be rather unlikely. And would german, italian, French fighters and bombers be stationed on airfields of "allies" in the Golf region? German bombers lifting off from Kuwait or Quatar for combat missions - I believe it when I see it , and not one second earlier.

Jim repeats my old argument on selected use of nukes. That does not mean that him or me like to use nukes. It's just that I say, and him probbaly as well, that if you are serious about destroying the program's key facilities, then you have probably no alternative. Assuming different I consider as being naive about the chances for a conventional success since almost several years now.

Thze only alternative would be also wvery unpleasant. Destroying such locations from within. Maybe special tropps could be brought in via air drop, and in high numbers. But you would need to "desinfect" the target area from resisting soldiers first, since you cannot send such forces via air drops in those high numbers that they would be able to fight down massive ground resioetnce on their own and in short time. You can imagine what that would mean: use of extremely unfriendly ordnance that the world press would not like to see being used as well: chemicals, maybe biologicals. You also would need to find a way to get them troops out again, over that huge distances we talk about, in huge numbers. So, in theory this might appear in possible, in practice I consider it to be somethin that no serious military planning is spend on. Maybe we would see special trops in the coastal areas of the Gulf, that is possible. But not more of any ground activity.

I say do not care for any messing around with Iran'S conventional defemnc enetwork in order to drop some conventio0nal bombs here and there. Drops the needed ammount of megatons on those subterranean or in-mountain facilities that must be destroyed - the smallest ammount of nukes as possible, as much as is needed to guarantee the destruction. If the mountain radiates afterwardsa and makes access impossible, the better it is. The strike shouold ba carried out my nukes from Britain, the US and France, but about Israel I am not sure. If they do it, it could send a message of strength to any other of the hostile surroundign them with an appetite for hnukes. On the other hand using nukes first would delete any - in theory imaginable - hesitation by a future nuclear terrorist. It is a gamble on the future. And that is true for France, Britain and the US as well. that's why I am quite certain that nobody in the West will dare it. me, I do not believe in negotiations with an agbressor being started from my side from a position of self-limitation and weakness. I would do it. You want to stop an agressor - you need to be determined, not wavering, you need to be strong, not weak. Ah, and yes - I rate Iran as an aggressor. What's worse, as a nuclear agressor.

the alternative is to accept nukes in Iran, an uncalculatable risk of iran proliferating nuke devices to terrorists to strike in Irans place, and a nuclear arms race between Iran, Israel, turkey, Egypt, saudi arabia, and maybe Syria joining later. An arms race in a highly unstable region with plenty of irrationality, centuries-old open bills and religious hysteria around, ethnic hate and ethinic diversity, and unpredictability coming from theocratic backgrounds. that is such a high risk that I rule out for myself to ever accept it. Consider it to be years where every day is a Cuba crisis - with far less rational minds in control that back then in principle did not really desire a nuclear exchange. In the ME, you should not be sure of the latter. The Iranian program must be destroyed and prevented, forever. Not delayed, not negotiated, not made arrangements with and treaties about - destroyed.

the latest CIA assessements that there indeed i sno plan to buiold a bomb since yars, I do not beleive one second. the CIa got burnt over the mobile Bio-Labs in Iraq, and Obama probbaly has sent them also to discourage support for the Israelis. this came in on the same day I think when even the IAEA admitted that Iran has enough uran now for four warheads. grab the uran and hide it 200 m deep inside a mountain, and the race is over. we cannot allow that. Plans not to build a bomb - if the CIA would be right - could be changed any day. I am not willing to take that gamble.

the most unlikely scneario however is the regime to be overthrown and the program being hande dover, like the Libyans did some years ago. Even amongst those being agai8nst the m,ullahs and Ahmadinejadh, support for the bomb is fundamental and very strong. it scondiered to be an issue of national pride. A follow up regime will not give up the program, and at the last elections even those names that the West - in total ignorrance - labelled as "reformers" announced publicly and in interviews that they would continue the developement of the nuclear program.

The West made amny, so very many false assessments about the "Arab spring" last year and the nature of the oppositions and what governments would form up. Will the West this time please learn from its many many mistakes?

Probably not.

I expect (sadly) that you are right Jim, and in some instances, nuclear bunker busters may be the only way to actually reach parts of the program.
I'm not inclined to believe Stratfors hacked emails, if Israel just used Commandos then either Irans nuclear program is a small shed outside of Tehran, or they just destroyed a small part of it.

I wonder how much damage 50 SOF men and a dozen Mk-54 SADM like weapons could do (detonated inside the Iranian bunkers of course).

Iran is a country prone to earthquakes... :hmmm:

The Izzy / heeb (don't get mad, I call muslims muzzies at times) will use all of thier allies powers to get their way, even if they do not deserve it.

Sorry, I am not anti-semetic, just sick of these warmongers getting precidence over starving Amercans.

I am sick of them using the holocaust as an excuse for the western worlds help in thier crusades. (against Palistine)

You guys hold Jerusalem, you won ok? Stop trying to kill Americans to keep it, ok?

We should tell them to go screw themselves, and let the brits support, what they started, rather than America...

Why are we on the hook for this? This was not our idea?

You all hate us as world police, until we defend you personally...

Edit: This is your mess too Europe, moreso than ours.

I may be wrong, butI've got a feeling they will attack them with custard pies and those lapel flowers that squirt water.

This would be preferable, and everyone could then go down the pub afterwards and sort out their differences.