Will Israel pre-emptively strike Iran?

[Solus]

Even if Israel tries to attack Iran's nuclear facilities it can't possiblity destory all of them. At best Israel could slow Iran's delevopment of the bomb. But short of a full US invasion. Nothing is going to stop Iran from eventually aquiring the bomb.

This a reality Israel and the US will have to live with. MAD once again.

 

[steverino]

Saudi Arabia feels threatened by Iran. Your eneny's enemy is your friend, and I think a viable outcome is that the Saudi's green-light an Israeli invasion of Iran. Not sure how this would all shake out, but I am guessing that Israel and Saudi Arabia are currently having secret talks. No evidence but just speculating based on bits and pieces I hear on the news. Anyone know anything about this?

 

[Kerberos]

Anyone in US DoD chooses to turn a blind eye to an IAF strike mission over Iran, the US is openly inviting WW III to open up, with a massive political liability on the first move.

Don't be ridicilous, there's obviously going to be political fallout (and the other kind too) from an Isralie strike, but Russia, and China aren't going to start firing nuclear missiles. That would be insane.

 

[Cylinder]

I do not think the US would shoot down an Israeli aircraft in any circumstance. But what if a damaged IAF plane requested an emergency landing at a US Base in Iraq? Wouldn't you just love to be the commander on the spot for that call?

edited several times to clarify.

That''s why they make grey Krylon.

ETA: Bush only has seven days left to attack Iran.

 

[webfusion]

steverino mentions:

I am guessing that Israel and Saudi Arabia are currently having secret talks. No evidence but just speculating based on bits and pieces I hear on the news. Anyone know anything about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377552.stm
BBC

http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/saudi/?id=17564
Yediot Aharonot

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

From DEBKA military sources:

The Saudi Kingdom has deployed a major naval concentration in the Red Sea along Saudi Arabia’s west coast (to the south of Israel). The oil kingdom has placed its military and fleet at their highest level of preparedness against Al Qaeda-instigated terrorist attacks along this coast, particularly at the ports of Jeddah and Yanbu.

 

[Darth Rotor]

BREAKING NEWS:

• Iran has now placed its armed forces on very high alert. The orders encompass the joint naval units of the military and Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, while the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian army, navy and air force were placed on “yellow” alert, one level short of full war.
  
  On Sunday, Oct. 29, supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced Iran’s air force chief, Karim Qavami with Brig. Gen. Ahmad Miqani, on the recommendation of the Revolutionary Guards commander.

also:

Warnings have intensified in recent days of impending al Qaeda attacks on the oil fields, oil ports, oil tankers and oil fields of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian oil emirates.

"MALABAR 6" exercise in the Indian Ocean will conclude Nov 5th, and the US-led carrier group (USS Boxer carrier, the USS Bunker Hill guided missile battle cruiser, the guided missile destroyer USS Howard and the USS Benfold, as well as the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine Providence and the Canadian guided missile frigate HMCS Ottawa) will then join three other US air carriers with task forces parked opposite Iranian shores, including the USS Enterprise Strike Group, the USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group and the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group.

The Boxer is not a CV, it is an amhpibious assault ship. It cannot be considered a carrier, strike platform, the way the Ike can. Iwo Jima is also an amphibious assault ship. This article's "three other air carriers" is extremely misleading and imprecise.

From today's navy.mil. The Ike is in the Red Sea, with the Enterprise. (No, the captain's name is not Kirk.)


Carriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Red Sea
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Red Sea

Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Persian Gulf
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Persian Gulf
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Persian Gulf

Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - port visit, Mumbai, India
USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - port visit, Male, Maldives
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Persian Gulf
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Saipan (LHA 2) - Persian Gulf

There are NO CV's, aircraft carriers, in the Persian Gulf. That is significant.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Don't be ridicilous, there's obviously going to be political fallout (and the other kind too) from an Isralie strike, but Russia, and China aren't going to start firing nuclear missiles. That would be insane.

Hi

Politics is the father of war. WW III is not necessarily an exchange of nukes, though it is a possible scenario.

DR

 

[webfusion]

Aircraft Carrier --- carries aircraft.

USS BOXER:

Your point is taken, however, in differentiating between the capabilities of the Boxer and those of the Ike (which is much larger and maintains a full complement of fixed-wing aircraft, whereas the Boxer and Iwo Jima are designed for STOL/rotary).

Beyond all that, the Israelis certainly could whizz their jets right past all these floating military marvels, and take out the centrifuges at NATANZ.

Watch and see.

 

[Kerberos]

Hi

Politics is the father of war.

True, but not particuarly relevant.

WW III is not necessarily an exchange of nukes, though it is a possible scenario.

DR

Only for very low values of "possible". As for other possibilities I fail to see them. What could China, Russia or anybody else do in response to a strike on Iran? Lunch nukes? Unrealistic. Invade Western Europe? Russia doesn't have the conventional strength for it. Be uncooperative and make US policy more difficult in Asia, Caucasus and such? Yes, but that's hardly WW3.

 

[firecoins]

firecoins, are you basing your monosyllabic reply on the statements of well-briefed IDF officers, such as Maj.-Gens. (ret.) Eitan Ben-Eliahu, (former commander of the Israeli air force), IAF Maj.-Gen. (res.) Nechemia Dagan, and Yitzhak Ben-Israel (former head of the IDF's weapons-development program), who all have stated their understandings that the mission is indeed doable?.

I am basing my 1 word answer of yes on that if Israel feels Iran will fire nuclear weapons at them, they will find a way to act preemtively. I am not a military expert, I am basing this on Israel's past actions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Aircraft Carrier --- carries aircraft.

USS BOXER:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/USS_Boxer_LHD-4.jpg/300px-USS_Boxer_LHD-4.jpg[/qimg]

No. The dumbing down approach by any journalist is incorrect. All pills are not created equal, even though Motrin and Codeine are both pills that alleviate pain. All planes are not equal: tankers and fighters are different, and their arrival somewhere are different matters, have a different impact on local events. A Bradley is not an Abrams tank, though both are armored fighting vehicles with tracks. An LHD is not an Aircraft Carrier, although both are large ships upon which helicopters can land.

An LHD is a specific type of ship, purpose built for a specific reason. An Aircraft Carrier is a specific ship, built for a specific purpose. Arrival of either near your coast connotes very different presence, capability and impact. The CV, the aircraft carrier, with a pair of DDG's or CG's, controls the entire airspace volume within a few hundred miles of it when the E-2 is in the air. A LHD cannot do that, but it can deliver a bunch of Marines to your door, in a hurry, which the CV can't.

Using the terms imprecisely does not inform, it confuses and clouds the media report. It also paints a very different picture of who and what are out there potentially influencing current/world events. Three CV's in the Persian Gulf is a significant emotional event, a big risk, and a message that an air attack is imminent. It is also a bid for Air Supremacy over a considerable portion of the Gulf. Three LH_'s presents a modest show of force by a Marine Expeditionary Force, less than a full up Brigade.

Completely different context, capability, and messages of influence sent. It is called an LHD, not CV or CVN for a reason. It is http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

For a reporter, imprecision is no excuse for one covering matters involving military stuff, nor is ignorance an excuse. The reporter is either trying to paint a picture of more force, is lying, or is simply being unprofessional.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

True, but not particuarly relevant.


Only for very low values of "possible". As for other possibilities I fail to see them. What could China, Russia or anybody else do in response to a strike on Iran? Lunch nukes? Unrealistic. Invade Western Europe? Russia doesn't have the conventional strength for it. Be uncooperative and make US policy more difficult in Asia, Caucasus and such? Yes, but that's hardly WW3.

So, Kerbroris, you seem to know exactly how China, Russia, and India will react to an Israeli strike on Iran, and are certain that the reaction will be benign, in both the short and long term. I don't share your blythe confidence that the strategic situation is that stable. A general state of war is a possible outcome, WW III, all with no nukes being launched. Again, WW III does not require nukes to be launched.

I have little confidence in the current international "order" to put a lid on the scenario of Israel doing Iran.

DR

 

[firecoins]

Why? It isn't as if it hasn't shot down stuff from the UK.

and Canadians and Iranian civilian aircraft.

Israel has accidentally fired on the US.

 

[webfusion]

Darth Rotor:

*snip*
For a reporter, imprecision is no excuse for one covering matters involving military stuff, nor is ignorance an excuse. The reporter is either trying to paint a picture of more force, is lying, or is simply being unprofessional.

From DEBKA.
They are prone to use varying combinations of all of the above.

Yet, the fact remains, two CV groups are in position.
Eisenhower and Enterprise.

Three CV's in the Persian Gulf is a significant emotional event, a big risk, and a message that an air attack is imminent. It is also a bid for Air Supremacy over a considerable portion of the Gulf.

And two doesn't mean anything significant? (in combination with all the other warships from various nations)?

My point, anyway, was the the IAF will just fly right past them all, and do the job that they are all too afraid of doing. You sit there and think too much about ramifications and nothing gets accomplished. The Israelis are not prone to that. They act.
Chips fall where they may.

 

[Kerberos]

So, Kerbroris, you seem to know exactly how China, Russia, and India will react to an Israeli strike on Iran, and are certain that the reaction will be benign, in both the short and long term.

Straw man, I have never claimed to know exactly how they'd react, but I feel quite confident in predicting that it won't be by starting WW3. Not in the short term or the middle long term. I suppose it could set in motion event that will lead to WW3 many decades from now, but so could not attacking Iran or a butterfly flapping it's wings in South East Asia, if you're inclined towards chaos theory.
I

don't share your blythe confidence that the strategic situation is that stable.

In that case, I don't think you understand the strategic situation very well.

A general state of war is a possible outcome, WW III, all with no nukes being launched. Again, WW III does not require nukes to be launched.

No, but it does require a global, high intensity military conflict between all or most of the great powers. And that is not a plausible outcome of an Israeli strike on Iran.

I have little confidence in the current international "order" to put a lid on the scenario of Israel doing Iran.

The international order doesn't have to do anything, there are no powerful countries with a strategic interest in starting WW3, not any strong structural dynamics to create such a conflict against the countries wishes.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth Rotor:


From DEBKA.
They are prone to use varying combinations of all of the above.

Yet, the fact remains, two CV groups are in position.
Eisenhower and Enterprise.

Three CV's in the Persian Gulf is a significant emotional event, a big risk, and a message that an air attack is imminent. It is also a bid for Air Supremacy over a considerable portion of the Gulf.

And two doesn't mean anything significant? (in combination with all the other warships from various nations)?

My point, anyway, was the the IAF will just fly right past them all, and do the job that they are all too afraid of doing. You sit there and think too much about ramifications and nothing gets accomplished. The Israelis are not prone to that. They act.
Chips fall where they may.

The three "aircraft carriers" in the Gulf are not 3 CV's. They are three amphibious assault ships in the Gulf, which is a markedly different matter than 3 CV's. The two CV's are in The Red Sea. Different area, different geopolitical impact, different security concern.

The high level of naval presence in the Gulf is another matter, and certainly of more than trivial concern.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I feel quite confident in predicting that it won't be by starting WW3. Not in the short term or the middle long term. I suppose it could set in motion event that will lead to WW3 many decades from now,.

It takes less than a year to mobilize sufficiently to start a big war, two to three for a more significantly long war. Decades is an unrealistic time horizon, the "come as you are" nature of major war does not require more than a year to percolate into the big deal.

In that case, I don't think you understand the strategic situation very well.

And you do? Based on what?

No, but it does require a global, high intensity military conflict between all or most of the great powers.

We agree.

And that is not a plausible outcome of an Israeli strike on Iran.

We disagree on what will or won't be a catalyst to the above.

DR

 

[jay gw]

If Israel is going to attack Iran they'd better do it before the US military withdraws from Iraq. So if it happens, they'll do it within the next 12 months.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If Israel is going to attack Iran they'd better do it before the US military withdraws from Iraq. So if it happens, they'll do it within the next 12 months.

Per General Casey's recent remarks to the press, the next 12-18 months.

DR

 

[glsunder]

Any speculation on what the Muslim reaction would be if the US shot down an Israeli plane that was on the way to attack Iran?