Will Israel attack Iran???

Dorsanty

With America being a huge supporter of Israel i.e. 'You need 20 new fighter jets, here's the money to buy them. Pay us back when you get around to it' do people not believe Israel needs sign off from the U.S. before creating an incident which would essentially have the potential to kick off a multi-nation war? Smaller actions have created bigger conflicts in the past.

To me the middle east is definitely simmering away, at some point it will boil over. Something has to give soon.

dlofnep

They might wait for a nod of approval from the US, but that doesn't mean that they would not do it anyway. Look at what happened with the settlements.

Manic Moran

Dorsanty wrote: »

With America being a huge supporter of Israel i.e. 'You need 20 new fighter jets, here's the money to buy them. Pay us back when you get around to it' do people not believe Israel needs sign off from the U.S. before creating an incident which would essentially have the potential to kick off a multi-nation war? Smaller actions have created bigger conflicts in the past.

It's I think an issue of perceived need. As long as it is in the interests of the US to continue supporting Israel, they will do so regardless of what may have transpired in the past. The USS Liberty incident being a case in point.

NTM

Son Of A Vidic

Well if Iran is going to be attacked it will be by Israel attack of course and with the blessing of the U.S. I think they will stay clear of Lebanon because Hezbollah gave them a serious lesson in 2006. Them boys aren't like the gob****es in Hamas who are impotent against the Israeli army.
Surgical stealth precision strikes will be the MO - God help us is what I think. Who will bomb Israeli WMD sites?, they have a lethal aresnel
at their disposal and yet the world cannot question, examine or sanction Israel for this trangression of international treaties. Of course their big brother the U.S. protects them. But Obama 'yes you can' exam them, but no you won't of course. The man who promises Hope is nothing but a bull**** artist, they're wasn't much hope for the palestinian civilians in Gaza when Israel was dropping White Phosphorus on them. ''Operation Cast Lead'' left 1600 hundred dead in Gaza for 16 Israeli dead. Now that's a kill ratio even the Nazi's would have been proud off, how ironic is that.

imported_guy

dlofnep wrote: »

They might wait for a nod of approval from the US, but that doesn't mean that they would not do it anyway. Look at what happened with the settlements.

well, america doesnt really give a toss about the settlements, they appear to, but they actully dont, alot of jews voted for obama, and he needs their support and the support from AIPAC in 2012, if israel wants to attack iran, no one will stop them, but arent really in a position to do it right now

Black Swan

Agamemnon wrote: »

I think they might attack Iranian nuclear facilities but they wouldn't go any further than that.

This would not be the first time they launched a preventative strike against a potential nuclear arms foe:

On June 7, 1981, Israeli fighter jets destroyed the Iraqi Osirak (Tammuz-1) reactor.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

but since there's more chance of Ireland winning the World Cup than Israel decomissining its nuclear arms,

First you tell us our space programme is doomed to failure and now we won't be winning the world cup! Such pessimism from one I thought so wise. You wait until Fianna Fail reform and get the economy back on track, they'll have us in space and in the World Cup final before you know it. MARK MY WORDS!

Rondolfus

Israel would have very little difficulty achieving its military goals in Iran. In fact, they would have already attacked sites had it not been for USA calling for restraint. Diplomatically and logistically it is important for them to have America on side when they act. I firmly believe they will attack (with the backing of USA) within the next 3-5 years. You'd have to be blind not to see that foundations are already being laid for an overthrow of the Iranian regime. The recent demonstrations, suicide bombings etc are all supported both morally and economically by the USA and Europe.

Israel would level targets in Iran. It would not engage in ground warfare. The USA would then back a coup that would see the Iranian regimes opponents seizing power. There will be no invasion like Iraq. No country in the world has the capabilities to sustain an occupation in Iran. The USA is still struggling badly with IRAQ!!

Severe airstrikes, followed by American suported coup. Thats what I predict.

I just jope Israel won't be so trigger happy as to use a nuke! ( They were actually pushing for the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, but USA refused)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece

Manic Moran

The USA is still struggling badly with IRAQ!!

It is?

Most of the troops seem to be sitting in bases twiddling their thumbs. A few go out and about if they're in the countryside, and a few are helping the Iraqi forces. The rest are there 'just in case.'

A few units have either had their deployments cancelled or redirected to Afghanistan. Iraq is in the endgame right now.

NTM

Rondolfus

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is?

Most of the troops seem to be sitting in bases twiddling their thumbs. A few go out and about if they're in the countryside, and a few are helping the Iraqi forces. The rest are there 'just in case.'

A few units have either had their deployments cancelled or redirected to Afghanistan. Iraq is in the endgame right now.

NTM

I agree totally. Most of the soldiers are sitting in their bases. That doesn't mean they have succeeded in anything. Unless your judging a war by a basic body count which of course would be ridiculous. The hearts and minds of the people of Iraq have been lost. American movement in the country is largely centred around the Green zone, Iraqi resistance are still ever present, suicide bombings have increased in frequency. Hardly sounds like a success to me.

The only thing the Iraq war has succeeded in was making a few infleuntial people richer and swicthing the balance of power to a group of corrupt and violent pro-American Iraqis(who have failed to stabilise the country) . Iraq is lightyears away from recovering stability. My point was that if the most powerful country in the World (usa) failed to successfully occupy a nation of a mere 20 million people who were already crippled by harsh sanctions, and had basically no weapons, how could anyone expect success in Iran a fairly powerful military power of around 70 million people?? Remeber the Iraq war has lasted longer than World War 2 and what do we have to show for it?? A mobile phone video of an evil old man getting hanged by a younger group of blood thirsty power hungry fiends.

I understand that you have served in the American army and I also understand that the American army does good work in places like Afghanistan, however, you're fighting a losing battle if you think you can persuade me that the USA was successful in Iraq when it is quite clear the opposite is true. How can you be successful in a war ( that everyone agrees) was fought on the basis of lies??

Also this unnecessary war not only destroyed a nation, but also drained much needed military and economic resources from the true fight in Afghanistan. Another war in which America is struggling.

Black Swan

Rondolfus wrote: »

Israel would level targets in Iran. It would not engage in ground warfare. The USA would then back a coup that would see the Iranian regimes opponents seizing power.

This would not be the first time that the US backed a coup in Iran?

"...the CIA backed Operation Ajax and allowed Kermit Roosevelt to ally himself with figures as diverse as the Shah, General Zahedi, Ayatollah Kashani, and local gang-leader Shaban Jafari in order to overthrow (democratically elected) Mossadegh... August 1953... Operation Ajax may be worth telling and retelling for those who wonder why the people of the region in general, and Iranians in particular, remain distrustful of the United States... (and the) connection between the overthrow of Mossadegh and the contemporary terrorist acts directed at the United States."

Source: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml

Manic Moran

Rondolfus wrote: »

I agree totally. Most of the soldiers are sitting in their bases. That doesn't mean they have succeeded in anything.

If they were so busy that they were unable to just sit on their bases, then that would be evidence that they had not succeeded in anything. Although their general idleness is not evidence of success either, it is certainly not a bad sign, and is a required component of success.

The hearts and minds of the people of Iraq have been lost.

To a large extent, the US were not fighting for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. They were fighting to get the Iraqi authorities to a point where the people of Iraq can look to them as opposed to anyone else, including the Americans. As has been pointed out on various threads on the politics forum, the Coalition presence is unpopular. The Coalition presence is unpopular with the Coalition as well, frankly. Success in Iraq has little to do with the popularity of a third party like the US and everything to do with the confidence of the Iraqi people in Iraq.

American movement in the country is largely centred around the Green zone

It is? You must be getting your information from other places than I do.

Iraqi resistance are still ever present, suicide bombings have increased in frequency.

Not unexpected. The slight spike in violence after the general withdrawl of the Coalition from routine ops in urban areas was long known to be going to happen. It is a necessary component of the course to proper Iraqi governance.

Iraq is lightyears away from recovering stability.

It really isn't that bad, you know. The infrastructure, both economic and security has recovered greatly, which are fundemental blocks without which stability would be impossible, and which until relatively recently were not sufficiently present.

To put it in perspective, the number of killed in Iraq spiked to about the worst of the year so far in August 2009, about 450. (Iraqi authorities say 456), a quarter of which were killed in a single incident. That's 0.015 deaths per thousand people.
In Northern Ireland in 1972, deaths per thousand people in a month as a result of the Troubles was 0.026. The July 09 rate for Iraq was 0.01 per thousand.* Hell, that's better than Los Angeles' 0.014, and nowhere near Washington DC's murder rate of 0.038.

Now, I'm not saying that Northern Ireland was a utopia in 1972, but it was certainly nowhere near being a failed State, and people were being killed at almost twice the current rate in Iraq, yet the country still seems to be have generally done OK.

and had basically no weapons,

Mate, the country was awash with weapons. Kindof hard to have a proper insurgency without them.

how could anyone expect success in Iran a fairly powerful military power of around 70 million people??

Who said anything about trying to occupy the place?

How can you be successful in a war ( that everyone agrees) was fought on the basis of lies??

Depends on what the goal is, really.

Another war in which America is struggling.

True. Though I would argue a large part of that is America's fault, not that of the Afghan insurgents.

NTM

*Figures from:
http://epic-usa.org/2009/09/06/deaths-in-iraq-take-jump-in-august-2009 "Deaths in Iraq take jump in August 2009"
For August, take 456, divide by 31.2million (Wiki estimate of population), x 1000.
For July, do the same with the number of 275 from the above website.
Irish figures from Wiki's page on "The Troubles", divide the 1972 figure of 479 by 12 to get a monthly average, then divide again by 1.5m, multiply by 1000.

Rondolfus

Manic Moran wrote: »

They were fighting to get the Iraqi authorities to a point where the people of Iraq can look to them as opposed to anyone else, including the Americans.

I don't think so. They were fighting because their Government lead them into a conflict under false pretences. When the initial lies of the Government ( and they were lies) were uncovered, it was necessary to create a new reason to fight, i.e. to free the Iraqi people from "brutal dictator.” The downfall of Saddam was just a result of American action, it wasn't the primary motivation. Afterall there are plenty of brutal dictators that America has got into bed with over the years.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Success in Iraq has little to do with the popularity of a third party like the US and everything to do with the confidence of the Iraqi people in Iraq.

I'm happy a solider like you thinks like this, but I know politicians don't. If they did they would never have imposed severe sanctions and introduced the farcical oil for food program. Both directly responsible for the deaths of over half a million Iraqi Children alone! A figure not even disputed by the American Government. In fact Madeline Albright said"was worth it." Even our own Dennis Halliday described this as genocide. My point is American policy in Iraq was never motivated by a feeling of shared humanity. It was always financially motivated.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is? You must be getting your information from other places than I do.

Granted I have never been in Iraq myself, although, I have worked in the Middle East. However a friend of mine (Journalist from Hebron) has been to Iraq and informed me that American movement is drastically hampered outside the Green zone. I have also read and studied a number of accounts of the situation on the ground. One source is " The Forever War" by Dexter Filkins, in which he states...

forever war wrote:

And beyond the Green Zone there is another conversation, he writes, the Iraqi conversation, the one that really matters: “a parallel reality, which sometimes unfolded right next to the Americans, even right in front of them. And we almost never saw it.”

Recalling Iraq before civil war engulfs it, he writes of the lies Americans told themselvesThey believed them because it was convenient — and because not to believe them was too horrifying to think about.”

Manic Moran wrote:

It really isn't that bad, you know. The infrastructure, both economic and security has recovered greatly, which are fundemental blocks without which stability would be impossible, and which until relatively recently were not sufficiently present.

The infrastructure and security was still a lot better before it was destroyed by the invasion. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a US Sergeant serving in Iraq. He told me about all the good work America was doing in Iraq. I asked for examples. He said, " Well we oversaw the rebuilding of a school." I asked why the school needed to be rebuilt. He said ," We had to destroy it because rebels were hiding in it."

Manic Moran wrote:

To put it in perspective, the number of killed in Iraq spiked to about the worst of the year so far in August 2009, about 450. (Iraqi authorities say 456), a quarter of which were killed in a single incident. That's 0.015 deaths per thousand people.

Manic Moran wrote:

In Northern Ireland in 1972, deaths per thousand people in a month as a result of the Troubles was 0.026. The July 09 rate for Iraq was 0.01 per thousand.* Hell, that's better than Los Angeles' 0.014, and nowhere near Washington DC's murder rate of 0.038.

This is not an accurate reflection of the devastation. It doesn't account for deaths indirectly related to the violence. For example, I already mentioned the sanctions prior to the invasion, which indirectly led to the deaths of around 1 million people (500,000 of which were children.) Also deaths through starvation, and the horrible diseases that have resulted from the use of depleted uranium and WP. Just google Fallujah and depleted uranium and see the poor children that are suffering from a war that started before they were even born. You can't simplify suffering by using cold statistics.

Manic Moran wrote:

Mate, the country was awash with weapons. Kindof hard to have a proper insurgency without them.

It was always David versus Goliath. Lets face it the weapons available to the Iraqi's might as well have been stones and sling shots compared to the hi tech weaponry of the US. You can easily carry out an insurgency using primitive weapons, however, you can't take on an Army head on, which is why the US basically walked into Baghdad.

Jaafa

I think the bottom line is that neither Isreal nor the US would risk a ground war with Iran. Such a war could last years as the Iranian army is fairly modern and is quite large.The only military conflict with Iran would be precision airstrikes and possibly small elite units being deployed in search and destroy missions. In this case Iran could do little due to it having few modern anti-air weapons and an ageing air force. In any case I dont see any major conflict with Iran in the near future. Not for at least another 5 years

FunnyStuff

irlande_euroluv wrote: »

If they attack Iran, they'll get a good kicking like they did in Lebanon in '06.

I dont think so, fighting a guerilla war is very different to conventional warfare, as can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israeli Defense Forces has proven itself to be very good at what it does in conventional terms. That said, i think any attack on Iran would be precision airstrikes. And then they know that Iran would retaliate, so any strike on Iran would need to be so effective that the Iranians would have to think twice about a retaliation.

Mr. SS

FunnyStuff wrote: »

and the Israeli Defense Forces has proven itself to be very good at what it does in conventional terms.

i agree, and i hope Israel raise Iran's nuclear infrastructure to the ground. they did it in Iraq and Syria and there wasn't a blip out of them there's no reason why they can't do it again.

who what when

Hi, i have to admit im not too well up on middle east politics, would someone care to educate me.

This is my simplistic take on things.

Israel is a country founded in the 50's which is essentially the spiritual home of the jews. This annoyed the Palestinians because it was their land and they didnt want to give it away? An issue which to this day hasnt been adequatly resolved.

Now for some unknown reason everyone hates the jews. Is this because they are Gods supposedly chosen people and every other religion is jealous? This hatred is particularly strong in the middle east where basically everyone wants to annihilate Israel.

Now Israel is obviously opposed to their own annihilation and have been involved in numerous wars down through the years. Usually they are the winners of these conflicts.

Essentially they are the kid in the playground who is being bullied but time after time end up beating up the bullies despite being much smaller in size!
Is this correct? What am i missing?

Ping Chow Chi

who what when wrote: »

Now for some unknown reason everyone hates the jews. Is this because they are Gods supposedly chosen people and every other religion is jealous? This hatred is particularly strong in the middle east where basically everyone wants to annihilate Israel.

I dont think that 'everyone hates the jews' and I would imagine that every religion believes that *they* are the chosen people (isnt that the whole point of religion after all?) so I doubt jealousy has a factor in any of this.

Though Israel is the only jewish state, dislike of the state of Israel does not equate to hatred of jews.

As for will Israel attack Iran, I would say yes it will, and it probably will even if Iran submits to everything that the UN requests of it.

Mr. SS

who what when wrote: »

Hi, i have to admit im not too well up on middle east politics, would someone care to educate me.

This is my simplistic take on things.

Israel is a country founded in the 50's which is essentially the spiritual home of the jews. This annoyed the Palestinians because it was their land and they didnt want to give it away? An issue which to this day hasnt been adequatly resolved.

Now for some unknown reason everyone hates the jews. Is this because they are Gods supposedly chosen people and every other religion is jealous? This hatred is particularly strong in the middle east where basically everyone wants to annihilate Israel.

Now Israel is obviously opposed to their own annihilation and have been involved in numerous wars down through the years. Usually they are the winners of these conflicts.

Essentially they are the kid in the playground who is being bullied but time after time end up beating up the bullies despite being much smaller in size!
Is this correct? What am i missing?

I had a dog and his name was BINGO!!!!

meditraitor

Isreal havent got the Balls to tackle Iran!!!!

The are one of the school bully/catholic priest abusing type nations, they will pick on the weak but believe me Iran are not weak and they know it!
Even the biggest bully/terrorist nation of them all (the grand ol USA) would think twice about tackling them now..

Mr. SS

meditraitor wrote: »

Isreal havent got the Balls to tackle Iran!!!!

The are one of the school bully/catholic priest abusing type nations, they will pick on the weak but believe me Iran are not weak and they know it!
Even the biggest bully/terrorist nation of them all (the grand ol USA) would think twice about tackling them now..

Mark my words they will. and you'll think back to mr ss (which are my initials by the way!) who said this and you doubted him! taking on the arab world all at once is some achievment, they've done it before and will do it again if pushed.

Iran says they will wipe Israel off the map, you thing israel will just lie down and take it? they will strike first, as they always have when it comes to their security

meditraitor

Mr. SS wrote: »

Mark my words they will. and you'll think back to mr ss (which are my initials by the way!) who said this and you doubted him! taking on the arab world all at once is some achievment, they've done it before and will do it again if pushed.

Iran says they will wipe Israel off the map, you thing israel will just lie down and take it? they will strike first, as they always have when it comes to their security

Isreal is a coward nation and unless it gets 100% backing from the US it will not dare touch Iran.

Iran would give them a good fight and they dont like fair fights, they prefer to hem in a population and pound from a distance, preferably woman and children

The US has already made too many enemies in that region, do you really think they will attack a country that borders Afghanistan and Iraq, even Bush wouldnt have done a thing like that.

As for Iran saying they wanted to wipe Isreal of the map you really should look at other threads for a more(non gyius) valid explanation of what was really said by achmeniwhatsisname...

Mr. SS

meditraitor wrote: »

Isreal is a coward nation and unless it gets 100% backing from the US it will not dare touch Iran.

Iran would give them a good fight and they dont like fair fights, they prefer to hem in a population and pound from a distance, preferably woman and children

The US has already made too many enemies in that region, do you really think they will attack a country that borders Afghanistan and Iraq, even Bush wouldnt have done a thing like that.

As for Iran saying they wanted to wipe Isreal of the map you really should look at other threads for a more(non gyius) valid explanation of what was really said by achmeniwhatsisname...

wow! you've got some serious tunnel vision there buddy. I know its hard when Ireland is overwhealmingly pro-palestinian to get any kind of credible news but jeez, you should at least try calm down those crazy wide sweeping statements!

am i wrong or did they go into the sinai without even telling america??? Israel will attack her enemies regardless of what america thinks and I hope she does, she's the only sliver of civilisation in that whole region...

Manic Moran

meditraitor wrote: »

Isreal is a coward nation and unless it gets 100% backing from the US it will not dare touch Iran.

Bearing in mind that Israel has gone as far as to bomb a US naval vessel if it considers it in its own interests, plus plenty of other operations carried out without telling the US, that's a risky assessment.

Iran would give them a good fight and they dont like fair fights, they prefer to hem in a population and pound from a distance, preferably woman and children

Israel would very much like a 'fair fight'. Their equipment and ethos is well suited for it.

The US has already made too many enemies in that region, do you really think they will attack a country that borders Afghanistan and Iraq, even Bush wouldnt have done a thing like that.

False logic. If Iran needs attacking, it needs attacking. If not, not. The US is not likely to fail to do something because it's 'difficult', the question is one of perceived need. Iran is unlikely to invade Iraq or Afghanistan in response to an attack from a third country. Iranian support of the insurgencies already exists to a fair extent, so there's not much new there in terms of possibility either.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Bearing in mind that Israel has gone as far as to bomb a US naval vessel if it considers it in its own interests, plus plenty of other operations carried out without telling the US, that's a risky assessment.

Israel has always said that the attack on the USS Liberty was a mistake, it's not like you to claim that Israel are lying

Manic Moran

I'll fully admit that I have a much higher threshold than most people on Boards before making such a claim, but I have never said that the Israelis will always be truthful.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

Was only meant to be a bit light hearted banter

From what I have read about the incident, it does appear to me to be a real mistake from Israel, but thats just my best guess.

meditraitor

Manic Moran wrote: »

False logic. If Iran needs attacking, it needs attacking. If not, not. The US is not likely to fail to do something because it's 'difficult', the question is one of perceived need. Iran is unlikely to invade Iraq or Afghanistan in response to an attack from a third country. Iranian support of the insurgencies already exists to a fair extent, so there's not much new there in terms of possibility either.

NTM

I may not always agree with your posts or the point of view you post them from but I respect them which is why I dont understand how you could think that. You are much more knowledgable in military matter than myself but do you really think america(even with the help of isreal) can open up a fighting region by attacking Iran
Think about it,
Iraq
430,000 km of area

Afganistan
640,000 km of area

At the moment they are seperated by Iran and no matter what the media say the link between these countries is Iran and they do not allow free movement between these volitile regions

Now add Iran
1,650,000 km of area


Thats would make the war zone

2,720,000 km area.....


Only a mad man would try to fight a war against the hostile population in an area that size.

Obama aint mad

Agamemnon

meditraitor wrote: »

I may not always agree with your posts or the point of view you post them from but I respect them which is why I dont understand how you could think that. You are much more knowledgable in military matter than myself but do you really think america(even with the help of isreal) can open up a fighting region by attacking Iran
Think about it,
Iraq
430,000 km of area

Afganistan
640,000 km of area

At the moment they are seperated by Iran and no matter what the media say the link between these countries is Iran and they do not allow free movement between these volitile regions

Now add Iran
1,650,000 km of area


Thats would make the ware zone

2,720,000 km area.....


Only a mad man would try to fight a war against the hostile population in an area that size.

Obama aint mad

What on earth makes you think anyone is talking about invading Iran? If the Israelis or Americans do attack, it'll be airstrikes on the nuclear facilities, not an invasion.

meditraitor

Agamemnon wrote: »

What on earth makes you think anyone is talking about invading Iran? If the Israelis or Americans do attack, it'll be airstrikes on the nuclear facilities, not an invasion.

What on earth makes you think Iran will sit back and let the Isrealis and America use air strikes without retaliation.

The reason the Isrealis and America have not attacked is because they fear exactly that.....

Iran has never invaded another country and has never have dreams of empire, the country itself is far from prefect and the human rights issues really need addressing but they are far from the worst and are moving in the right direction......

The only reason the Colonialists want to attack Iran is for its mineral wealth and only a fool would think otherwise

And on another note, do you think China will allow the US or Isreal to attack Iran?

Agamemnon

meditraitor wrote: »

What on earth makes you think Iran will sit back and let the Isrealis and America use air strikes without retaliation.

The reason the Isrealis and America have not attacked is because they fear exactly that.....

Iran has never invaded another country and has never have dreams of empire, the country itself is far from prefect and the human rights issues really need addressing but they are far from the worst and are moving in the right direction......

The only reason the Colonialists want to attack Iran is for its mineral wealth and only a fool would think otherwise

And on another note, do you think China will allow the US or Isreal to attack Iran?

The Iranians could retaliate by trying to mine the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf but they would face large air and naval opposition (and not just from the Americans - most of the US's traditional military allies would not want to face the hike in oil prices mining/sinking tankers would cause). Iran could also stir up further trouble in Iraq, possibly leading to a lengthened/increased US presence in Iraq. Both of those tactics can be dealt with without an invasion of Iran. Do you seriously believe Obama wants another Iraq-style conflict on his hands? He knows full well it wouldn't be worth it. As you said yourself, he ain't mad.

What will the Chinese do? They may not support sanctions but they won't start a conflict with the US over Iran.

meditraitor

Agamemnon wrote: »

What will the Chinese do? They may not support sanctions but they won't start a conflict with the US over Iran.

The thing is China dont have to physically get into a scrap with the US, they already hold the keys to the safe.... without direct and indirect investment by China the US would be in an awful economic mess.

The relationship between Iran and China is based solely on access to Irans vast oil field and this makes them a very good friends when you look at the increase in china's energy needs over the past few years and especially over the coming years.

Can china afford to let 8% of the worlds oil reserves out of their grasp because Isreal wants protection from a percieved enemy

For the cradle of capitalism this would be worse than a war.

Agamemnon

meditraitor wrote: »

The thing is China dont have to physically get into a scrap with the US, they already hold the keys to the safe.... without direct and indirect investment by China the US would be in an awful economic mess.

The relationship between Iran and China is based solely on access to Irans vast oil field and this makes them a very good friends when you look at the increase in china's energy needs over the past few years and especially over the coming years.

Can china afford to let 8% of the worlds oil reserves out of their grasp because Isreal wants protection from a percieved enemy

For the cradle of capitalism this would be worse than a war.

But the point I'm making is that the US won't invade Iran, so the Chinese don't have to worry about letting "8% of the worlds oil reserves out of their grasp". Once it all blows over, the Chinese will still be getting gas and oil from Iran (and sending refined petroleum back).

The fact that China is America's largest creditor won't have much to do with it. The Chinese could sink the US economy but most of the world's economies would go down with it. This would have a severe effect on the export-dependent Chinese economy. The Chinese would come out of this on top, but at great cost to themselves. The recent Chinese stimulus program has worked very well but the current global economic crisis is small beans compared to what would happen if the US economy collapsed. Forcing this to happen is the economic equivalent of the nuclear option for China and they won't invoke it over a few airstrikes on Iran.

meditraitor

Agamemnon wrote: »

But the point I'm making is that the US won't invade Iran, so the Chinese don't have to worry about letting "8% of the worlds oil reserves out of their grasp". Once it all blows over, the Chinese will still be getting gas and oil from Iran (and sending refined petroleum back).

The fact that China is America's largest creditor won't have much to do with it. The Chinese could sink the US economy but most of the world's economies would go down with it. This would have a severe effect on the export-dependent Chinese economy. The Chinese would come out of this on top, but at great cost to themselves. The recent Chinese stimulus program has worked very well but the current global economic crisis is small beans compared to what would happen if the US economy collapsed. Forcing this to happen is the economic equivalent of the nuclear option for China and they won't invoke it over a few airstrikes on Iran.

An impass that can only deter either the US or Isreal from attacking Iran, this together with the fact Iran would not lie down and take any crap of either of these countries is reason enough to conclude that an attack will not happen (hopefully)

I really dont want to see a region covering 2.5 million kilometers become a battle ground, the lives being lost in Iraq and Afganistan right now are bad enough but that would be catastrophic.

imported_guy

if a country wants nuclear wepons, it will get nuclear wepons, sanctions/embargos etc do fk all, when india wanted nukes no one stopped them, sure there were sanctions etc, but thats about it, everyone forgot about it after a while, same with pakistan, sure america got pissed off, put forward alot of sanctions, but look at them now, no one really cares that there are no sanctions against pakistan anymore, so the sanctions against iran wont do anything, and when iran has nuclear wepons, it will be that scene from "this is madness, nrly this is sparta", having a nuclear wepon is just like having any other wepon imagine this senario

me = skinny 5'10 guy (iran)
you = rhino arnold schwarz/ronnie coleman/jay cutler built, 6'8 250 pounds of muscle (israel)

sure if i fight you empty handed you would use me to mop the floor

imagine senario 2

me = 5'10, skinny with a gun (iran)
you = jay cutler/ronnie coleman (maybe you have a concealed wepon we dont know for sure, cant assume it to be true, if i have a gun i WILL use it, but you might not), (israel)

i would probably be using your quad muscles to clean your brains off the wall

Manic Moran

meditraitor wrote: »

Thats would make the war zone
2,720,000 km area.....
Only a mad man would try to fight a war against the hostile population in an area that size.
Obama aint mad

Why would anyone be fighting a war against the population of Iran?

Seriously, what's Iran going to do in response to a strike or raid against its facilities? Invade Afghanistan and Iraq? That'll go down well in the Arab world. Especially if the strikes came from Israel or a Carrier group or some such. We're not talking about American or Israeli tanks driving in the Iranian countryside trying to control the place, here.

NTM

imported_guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why would anyone be fighting a war against the population of Iran?

Seriously, what's Iran going to do in response to a strike or raid against its facilities? Invade Afghanistan and Iraq? That'll go down well in the Arab world. Especially if the strikes came from Israel or a Carrier group or some such. We're not talking about American or Israeli tanks driving in the Iranian countryside trying to control the place, here.

NTM

are you actully that naive to believe iran doesnt have sophisticated anti aircraft/anti missile defense systems? OR they might already even have nukes, the nuclear programme is aeons old. also point to note if america/israel attacks iran they wont be fighting bunch of dumb extreemists in turbans, they will be fighting smart extreemists in uniform, and what happened in 2006 vs hezbollah just showed how weak israel is, they had a hard time against hezbollah, what makes you think they can fight iranians?

meditraitor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why would anyone be fighting a war against the population of Iran?
Seriously, what's Iran going to do in response to a strike or raid against its facilities? Invade Afghanistan and Iraq? That'll go down well in the Arab world. Especially if the strikes came from Israel or a Carrier group or some such. We're not talking about American or Israeli tanks driving in the Iranian countryside trying to control the place, here.

NTM

But thats what would have to happen if they fully open the borders to Iraqi, afgani and pakistani insurgents, train them, arm them and send them on their way.
That is the least they would do after any air offensive against them,

How could Isreal and the US combat this, any chance of peace in Iraq, afganistan or the leb for that matter would disappear up in smoke.

It would also galvanise the militants within Iran and ruin any chance of reform. People might think Iran is a militant Islamic nation now but try 25 years ago when Khomeni had his greasy paws on the place....

The point Im trying to make (and badly by the looks of it) is that any strike whether it is surgical (haha) or just blunt force trauma against the state of Iran would result in all out war.

Isreal and the US know they cannot win this one so the possibilities of any strike against Iran is miniscule

Agamemnon

meditraitor wrote: »

I really dont want to see a region covering 2.5 million kilometers become a battle ground, the lives being lost in Iraq and Afganistan right now are bad enough but that would be catastrophic.

Me neither, but chill, it won't happen.

who what when

A lot of people here seem to think that America/Israel will never attack Iran. So let me ask you this;
Why are america in such a hurry to leave afganistan and iraq?

The americans are know they cant attack Iran whilst occupying other mid-eastern countries so theyre bulling to pull out so they can get their hands on iran. And obviously it wouldnt be a ground invasion, just airstrikes.

imported_guy

who what when wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to think that America/Israel will never attack Iran. So let me ask you this;
Why are america in such a hurry to leave afganistan and iraq?

The americans are know they cant attack Iran whilst occupying other mid-eastern countries so theyre bulling to pull out so they can get their hands on iran. And obviously it wouldnt be a ground invasion, just airstrikes.

they are sending an additional 30k troops to afghanistan, i see no rush, they want to target practice on live targets some more.

Manic Moran

imported_guy wrote: »

are you actully that naive to believe iran doesnt have sophisticated anti aircraft/anti missile defense systems?

Not at all. Well, at least, somewhat sophisticated. Their current inventory is actually pretty old, they've got a bunch on order, not yet delivered. Plus I seem to recall that their one and only AWACS aircraft crashed last year. Are you naive enough to believe that even when upgraded, the Iranian air defence network is going to be good enough to deal with two of the most cutting-edge air forces in the world? USAF and USN is set to be capable of dealing with Russian and Chinese air defence, I doubt Iran's to that level.

OR they might already even have nukes, the nuclear programme is aeons old. also point to note if america/israel attacks iran they wont be fighting bunch of dumb extreemists in turbans, they will be fighting smart extreemists in uniform, and what happened in 2006 vs hezbollah just showed how weak israel is, they had a hard time against hezbollah, what makes you think they can fight iranians?

Easy. A fair fight is much easier for a Western military to deal with, it's what they're geared for. There's a reason it took the US military a single division just two weeks to defeat the Iraqi military, while it took several divisions six years to get the country to fairly settle down again afterwards. If an Iranian F-14A wants to go up and meet an Israeli F-15I in mano-a-mano combat, I'm sure the Israelis will be more than happy to oblige.

But thats what would have to happen if they fully open the borders to Iraqi, afgani and pakistani insurgents, train them, arm them and send them on their way.
That is the least they would do after any air offensive against them,

They are apparently already doing this to an extent anyway (Particularly vs Israel), so it's not something which is that much an escalation. But even if they did decide to increase their level of support (and become a little more overt as a result) again, who will they send them against? Iraq? The vast majority of security in Iraq is now done by Iraqis. You'll have external meddling in internal Iraqi problems, that probably won't sit well with the Arab League. Afghanistan is even worse, as that operation has broader international support. Iran would not be doing itself any favours in that direction either.

NTM

imported_guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not at all. Well, at least, somewhat sophisticated. Their current inventory is actually pretty old, they've got a bunch on order, not yet delivered. Plus I seem to recall that their one and only AWACS aircraft crashed last year. Are you naive enough to believe that even when upgraded, the Iranian air defence network is going to be good enough to deal with two of the most cutting-edge air forces in the world? USAF and USN is set to be capable of dealing with Russian and Chinese air defence, I doubt Iran's to that level.



Easy. A fair fight is much easier for a Western military to deal with, it's what they're geared for. There's a reason it took the US military a single division just two weeks to defeat the Iraqi military, while it took several divisions six years to get the country to fairly settle down again afterwards. If an Iranian F-14A wants to go up and meet an Israeli F-15I in mano-a-mano combat, I'm sure the Israelis will be more than happy to oblige.



They are apparently already doing this to an extent anyway (Particularly vs Israel), so it's not something which is that much an escalation. But even if they did decide to increase their level of support (and become a little more overt as a result) again, who will they send them against? Iraq? The vast majority of security in Iraq is now done by Iraqis. You'll have external meddling in internal Iraqi problems, that probably won't sit well with the Arab League. Afghanistan is even worse, as that operation has broader international support. Iran would not be doing itself any favours in that direction either.

NTM

total number of troops iran = 12,285,000

total number of troops israel = 629,150

total number of troops USA = 3,385,400

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

persians dont care if "this is sparta" they will steam roll any ground offensive

Manic Moran

Since when does a number of troops have anything to do with it?

Conflicts such as the Six-Day-War, the Falklands, or even the invasions of Iraq and Kuwait should be plenty of indication that raw numbers are simply a factor in how much ammunition you need to bring. Quality over quantity.

And God knows where you're getting the 12m from for Iran, unless you're counting the Baji force which hardly counts as a modern combat entity.

However, it's all a bit of a red herring since nobody is talking about a ground war with Iran.

NTM

Buffy the bitch

Mr. SS wrote: »

wow! you've got some serious tunnel vision there buddy. I know its hard when Ireland is overwhealmingly pro-palestinian to get any kind of credible news but jeez, you should at least try calm down those crazy wide sweeping statements!

am i wrong or did they go into the sinai without even telling america??? Israel will attack her enemies regardless of what america thinks and I hope she does, she's the only sliver of civilisation in that whole region...

Seems to me from your posts your just against Islam to be honest.

Manic you said yourself more than likely Israel would have to attack Iran, Syria and Hezbollah but they couldn't even beat Hezbollah never mind trying to beat the three of them.

Israel won't attack Iran and the reason is simple. They can only beat people like the Palestinians who hardly have weapons.

Manic Moran

Manic you said yourself more than likely Israel would have to attack Iran, Syria and Hezbollah but they couldn't even beat Hezbollah never mind trying to beat the three of them.

I did?

I seem to recall that Israel already attacked Syria in late 2007. Not a peep out of the Syrians in response, and they share a border.

Israel won't attack Iran and the reason is simple. They can only beat people like the Palestinians who hardly have weapons.

Don't let your mild dislike of the Israeli policies blind you to the fact that Israel is one of the best-equipped militaries on the planet, designed around a conventional war with multiple Arab states (Not as if there's not precedent for that) and not that badly trained at it either.

But again I repeat, it's a bit of a red herring, since all we're talking about is a strike or raid, which (As far as we know) the Israelis have a 100% success rate in in the past.

NTM

fuelinjection

The idea of Israel as a 1st world superpower is a joke. Ok we all know that they have "secret" nuclear weapons.

First let me say that Israel exists now, so other countries need to accept that and respect Israel as a country.

Second their Zionists have acted like the twisted Germans that killed them in their many thousands.

The solution is with middle-ground (non-american) Jews that can live with their neighbours. The nasty fact is that handheld battleground nukes will exist and the current bigotry will result in endless war, or the end of an easily killed Jewish polulation. Take a leaf from the New Testament and don't take your enemies eye for an eye.

Manic Moran

fuelinjection wrote: »

The idea of Israel as a 1st world superpower is a joke.

I don't think anyone is claiming 'superpower' status for Israel. It lacks the economic clout to begin with. It has limited political clout. Militarily, it is not designed to be a world power, it's only designed to be able to deal with the threats in the region. For example, it has very little (read: "No") power projection capability beyond the air force. Inasfar as what the Israeli military is designed to do, it is very good at it. If you want to compare it to the US, UK or France, then, no, it's a little lacking.

NTM

fuelinjection

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think anyone is claiming 'superpower' status for Israel. It lacks the economic clout to begin with. It has limited political clout. Militarily, it is not designed to be a world power, it's only designed to be able to deal with the threats in the region. For example, it has very little (read: "No") power projection capability beyond the air force. Inasfar as what the Israeli military is designed to do, it is very good at it. If you want to compare it to the US, UK or France, then, no, it's a little lacking.

NTM

But will you admit that Israel has Nuclear weapons ?
A lot of people will not for some reason, and being nuclear means that you attract a different type of "terrorist".

imported_guy

this pretty much sums up israeli mentality for me