When will there be an attack on Iran?

[Magox]

I've been arguing this point for 4 years now, the analogy I have made to my clients is that Iran and Israel are like 2 freight trains that are moving at full speed towards each other on the same track. I don't see either one of them backing down, and for years I have argued it is just a matter of time before we see a collision.

 

I don't believe the U.S under this administration has the political will to participate directly on a military level, so I believe if it happens, it will be the Israelis. I assume they don't want to launch an all out war, they will probably have surgical missile attacks and maybe some ground troops in targeted areas.

 

I believe it is going to happen, it all depends on how close the Israelis believe the Iranians are to being capable of building a bomb. I would say within a year.

[blzrul]

Since Israel will probably be the primary target of the first nuke Iran fires, I wouldn't blame them.

[DC Tom]

It'll certainly be an interesting political dynamic...the Arab world is scared shitless about a nuclear Iran, probably moreso than Israel. Israel's likely to get more support for a strike against Iran from the Saudi Arabia than they will from the US.

[Magox]

It'll certainly be an interesting political dynamic...the Arab world is scared shitless about a nuclear Iran, probably moreso than Israel. Israel's likely to get more support for a strike against Iran from the Saudi Arabia than they will from the US.

I would say approximately %60 of the Left would be against it and %95 of the Right would be for it. Those in the middle would probably be %80 for it.

 

I have no idea how I came up with that number, but I'm sticking to it.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

But the President now appears to be giving Israel political cover with the announcement of the secondary secret program and accusing them of escalation, or is it a tacit warning to Iran that they can't hold Israel back any longer? Either way, I tend to agree this is coming to a head sooner rather than later.

[KD in CA]

Do the Israelis even have the capacity to destroy the underground facilities where the real work is happening?

[Magox]

Do the Israelis even have the capacity to destroy the underground facilities where the real work is happening?

Thats a good question, I would be willing to bet that they would be receiving support from the US with weapons technologies such as some of the newer Bunker Bombs we have.

[DC Tom]

I have no idea how I came up with that number, but I'm sticking to it.

 

It's a belief...or what John Dumblapel calls an irrational disproven provable...or something.

[Magox]

It's a belief...or what John Dumblapel calls an irrational disproven provable...or something.

I had no !@#$ing clue what that dipsh*t was talking about

[DC Tom]

Thats a good question, I would be willing to bet that they would be receiving support from the US with weapons technologies such as some of the newer Bunker Bombs we have.

 

Even if they have them, delivery's an issue. The Israelis don't have a hell of a lot of planes that can reach all the way to Iran...particularly with heavy penetrators hanging on them. Not to mention that some of those planes would have to be dedicated to anti-air-defense missions as well. The Israelis simply don't have a hell of a lot of ability to project power that far on their own.

[DC Tom]

I had no !@#$ing clue what that dipsh*t was talking about

 

You're not alone. Neither does he.

[/dev/null]

My useless and unfounded thoughts on the matter

 

Israel makes the strike, not the US

 

Israel has all kinds of neat toys made in the USA that will do some wicked damage

 

Israel violates Syria's airspace (who can't stop them) en route to Turkey (who won't stop them) to avoid American controlled Iraqi airspace (giving the US plausable deniability about any involvement in the attack)

 

The attack delays but not destroys Iran's nuclear goals

 

The Arab world erupts in protest

 

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan publicly condemn the attack. Privately the thank Israel

 

Iran begins disrupting the flow of oil in the gulf. $4 a gallon will seem like the good old days

[Magox]

Even if they have them, delivery's an issue. The Israelis don't have a hell of a lot of planes that can reach all the way to Iran...particularly with heavy penetrators hanging on them. Not to mention that some of those planes would have to be dedicated to anti-air-defense missions as well. The Israelis simply don't have a hell of a lot of ability to project power that far on their own.

Ya, Delivery would be the main issue. They would definitely need more support, and they would also need cooperation from some of the Middle Eastern countries such as either the Saudi's, Afghanistan, UAE possibly Qatar. All though it would be extremely unpopular for them to help out on a political basis, but behind the scenes I would imagine they would be all for it.

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere, a few months ago, that the Mossad had assured their government that the Saudi's would allow them to use Saudi airspace to attack Iran.

 

 

Actually here it is:

 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275388

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

My useless and unfounded thoughts on the matter

 

Israel makes the strike, not the US

 

Israel has all kinds of neat toys made in the USA that will do some wicked damage

 

Israel violates Syria's airspace (who can't stop them) en route to Turkey (who won't stop them) to avoid American controlled Iraqi airspace (giving the US plausable deniability about any involvement in the attack)

 

The attack delays but not destroys Iran's nuclear goals

 

The Arab world erupts in protest

 

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan publicly condemn the attack. Privately the thank Israel

 

Iran begins disrupting the flow of oil in the gulf. $4 a gallon will seem like the good old days

 

On the nose, most likely. Theough the right-wing religious nutjob in me hopes it all ends in armageddon.

[Fan in San Diego]

I think Iran launches a nuke at Isreal and the rest of the world annilates Iran. The rest of the aggressive Muslim countries will be on notice, stop the **** or be nuked.

[BillsNYC]

Just read this objective article, makes sense that it will be Iran vs the world if it moves forward with the nuke, it reminds me more of the first Gulf War:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...missile_cr.html

So why didn’t the Obama administration lay down an even stronger marker in response to this breakout -- by threatening, say, to intercept ships at sea that it believed were carrying parts for the Iranian nuclear program?

 

The answer, explained the senior official in a telephone interview, is that the U.S. wants to preserve consensus among its allies for much harsher sanctions, even as it heads toward a face-to-face negotiating meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1.The U.S. has privately communicated with the Iranians in recent days that it wants those talks to go forward, the senior official said.

 

Obama’s consensus-building seems to be working: The U.S. briefed top Russian officials this week on the intelligence about the Iranian covert enrichment site. “They are now much more prone to join us” in backing tough sanctions if Iran doesn’t back down, the senior official said. “They have been bamboozled by the Iranians. They’re pretty mad.”

[DC Tom]

Just read this objective article, makes sense that it will be Iran vs the world if it moves forward with the nuke, it reminds me more of the first Gulf War:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...missile_cr.html

So why didn’t the Obama administration lay down an even stronger marker in response to this breakout -- by threatening, say, to intercept ships at sea that it believed were carrying parts for the Iranian nuclear program?

 

The answer, explained the senior official in a telephone interview, is that the U.S. wants to preserve consensus among its allies for much harsher sanctions, even as it heads toward a face-to-face negotiating meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1.The U.S. has privately communicated with the Iranians in recent days that it wants those talks to go forward, the senior official said.

 

Obama’s consensus-building seems to be working: The U.S. briefed top Russian officials this week on the intelligence about the Iranian covert enrichment site. “They are now much more prone to join us” in backing tough sanctions if Iran doesn’t back down, the senior official said. “They have been bamboozled by the Iranians. They’re pretty mad.”

 

Of course, Iran's nuclear program is motivated in no small part by their perception of their national security needs in the face of outside threats in the form of sanctions against them for their nuclear program...

 

More parallels to Japan's relations with the rest of the world in the late-'30s than there are to Gulf War I Act I.

[Magox]

I don't believe the Iranians are going to back down. Their motives are not the same as the North Koreans, with the North Koreans I see their Nuclear capabilities used as a bargaining chip. With the Iranians, I believe it to be more sinisiter than that.

 

Right now the Iranians are a fractured nation, they are not as united as they would like to be. For me, I believe that losing power is the worst possible outcome for their leadership, and most likely any attacks on Iran will not be to remove them but to take away or at least delay their nuclear weapons capabilities.

 

Considering how damaged they are politically, specially after the elections, in my view there is nothing better to unite a country than to be under attack on your own home land, specially if it's from the Israelis. If the Israelis attacked them you would probably see their country be more united, unless it was a surgical, targeted and quick attack. An in and out sort of deal, all though I am not too optimistic that it could play out that way.

 

The Iranians would be smart to bombard the Israelis, because you know if that were to happen, the Israelis would not sit idly. You would probably seee Mehdi army attack from Iraq, Hezbollah for sure from Lebanon, and maybe even the Palestinians, maybe.

 

I believe leadership from the Iranians would want there to be war. They are desperate for internal unification and nothing unifies a country more than being under seige from your most hated enemies.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just read this objective article, makes sense that it will be Iran vs the world if it moves forward with the nuke, it reminds me more of the first Gulf War:

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...missile_cr.html

So why didn’t the Obama administration lay down an even stronger marker in response to this breakout -- by threatening, say, to intercept ships at sea that it believed were carrying parts for the Iranian nuclear program?

 

The answer, explained the senior official in a telephone interview, is that the U.S. wants to preserve consensus among its allies for much harsher sanctions, even as it heads toward a face-to-face negotiating meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1.The U.S. has privately communicated with the Iranians in recent days that it wants those talks to go forward, the senior official said.

 

Obama’s consensus-building seems to be working: The U.S. briefed top Russian officials this week on the intelligence about the Iranian covert enrichment site. “They are now much more prone to join us” in backing tough sanctions if Iran doesn’t back down, the senior official said. “They have been bamboozled by the Iranians. They’re pretty mad.”

 

Sorry, I don't buy the Russian "bamboozlement" factor.

[pBills]

I would say approximately %60 of the Left would be against it and %95 of the Right would be for it. Those in the middle would probably be %80 for it.

 

I have no idea how I came up with that number, but I'm sticking to it.

 

 

100% do not want to see any strikes in either direction.