ANALYSIS / How Israel's war with Iran will be fought
Iran regime's Shiite ideology will dictate a prolonged war that will be measured in years, not days.
By Amos Harel Tags: Iran Israel newsIt is precisely from the events of the passing week, which culminated in an impressive show of force reminiscent of the good old Israel Defense Forces - the IDF that carried out Entebbe and bombed the reactors in Iraq and in Syria - that Israel can glean an important lesson about the limitations of the power at its disposal. These are the limitations dictated by U.S. President Barack Obama: Israel's navy can intercept weapons shipments from Iran, Israel's Military Intelligence can expose Hamas long-range missile tests from Gaza, but at least for the time being, as long as the international community is conducting dialogue with Tehran over its controversial nuclear program, it is best that Israel doesn't do too much to annoy the adults.
The interception of hundreds of tons of weapons, believed to be an Iranian shipment meant for Hezbollah, in the Mediterranean on Wednesday wasn't any different from similar operations carried out by the U.S. Navy, twice this year, though Israel seized a significantly larger amount of weapons. Therefore, the display of the loot the IDF invited everyone to see at the Ashdod port on Thursday received a lukewarm welcome by the world media. It is great that Israel is uncovering and seizing Iranian weapons, the world leaders must be telling themselves, but is there anything here that we didn't know well before the Israeli commandos raided the Antigua-flagged ship in the middle of the night?
The execution by Israeli forces was impeccable, that's true. The IDF apparently followed the arms shipment for a long time, identified the correct ship and planned the operation which went off without a hitch. Now comes the part of diplomacy and public relations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will be visiting Washington in the coming days, will be accompanied by intelligence officials who will present the details of the operation to their American colleagues, along with all the necessary proof that Iran is continuing to support terror despite Tehran's denials, and in blatant violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
On the public relations front Israel has gained some ground in light of the fact that both the seizure of the arms ship and the exposure of the Hamas missile test occurred right before the United Nations General Assembly debate on the Goldstone report, which accused Israel of having committed war crimes in Gaza last winter. While the IDF is being accused of war crimes, and the Goldstone report argues that the Israeli offensive was designed specifically to punish the Palestinian civilian population, it doesn't hurt to bring to the forefront the background to these allegations: the ongoing Iranian effort to arm terror organizations with rockets meant to kill Israeli civilians.
But, that's approximately it. Israel is allowed to pester Hamas and Hezbollah with intelligence maneuvers, initiate brilliant pinpoint operations, block their supply of weapons and expose Iran and its proxies - and no more. Here is what Israel isn't permitted to do, for now: Israel is forbidden from threatening to attack Iranian nuclear facilities (our leaders have, in an exceptional move, become silent on the issue). Also forbidden are deterrence displays against Hamas and Hezbollah that go beyond the norm. The White House has enough problems without having to pull satellite photos of Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza.
The priorities of the Obama administration are completely different. Besides its long delayed, critical, decision on the war in Afghanistan, the president is also plagued with internal U.S. issues and the erosion of his popularity among the American public. After that, in a high place on the priority list, stands the issue of Iran. Israel's job, right now, is not to interfere. We are apparently headed toward several more weeks of dialogue, and after that, if talks fail, a U.S. move to impose more sanctions on Iran. Only in 2010 will there be an actual assessment of what effect these sanctions will have, and whether it is possible to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb without resorting to military tactics.
A man who was, up until recently, involved in Israel's decision making process and continues to serve as adviser to many at the helm, said this week that in his opinion, the Israeli leadership should be very careful in formulating an opinion on the dialogue with Iran. He says that the idea of transferring enriched uranium from Iran to Russia is not necessarily a bad idea, and a similar idea was raised five years ago. It was then director of Israel's atomic energy committee Gideon Frank who came up with the idea, and presented it to then prime minister Ariel Sharon. The key, the man says, is in the supervision clauses of the deal. If Iran, in a surprise move, accepts a deal similar to the one it rejected last week, there is definitely room for dialogue.
The IDF must prepare itself for the possibility of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities because that's the IDF's job. But when the debate among experts and analysts regarding such a scenario revolved around operative questions (will the Americans provide Israel with an airspace corridor over Iran? How many fuel jets will be required? Etc.) it is missing the point. The important question is how willing the U.S. is to protect Israel in the event of a counter attack. The message Israel is getting from Obama's administration at this time is that it is out of the question - and thus the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran diminishes drastically.
But how will an Israel-Iran war look if it breaks out eventually? This question is at the center of a new study compiled by the Defense Ministry. Researcher Dr. Moshe Vered writes that such a war could go on for a long time. He believes that the Iranian's typical willingness to sacrifice many victims for a long period of time in a conflict with Israel will dictate a prolonged war between the two states, which will be difficult to end.
Dr. Vered, a physicist, occupies various roles in the defense establishment's technology division. He published his study this week as part of a sabbatical at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University. He argues that the length of an Israel-Iran war "will be measured in year, not in weeks or days." This stems from the Shiite perception by which one must fight and sacrifice for the sake of justice and to correct wrongs to Islam and to Muslims. "This outlook sees Israel's existence as a wrong that must be corrected for the sake of world redemption. The achievement of this goal will only be possible once Israel is annihilated. The Iranians will continue fighting this war, as much as it is up to them, until they achieve their objective, despite the heavy toll that will be exacted in battle," Vered writes.
Vered argues further that only the fear the Iranian regime being toppled could bring such a war to an end. But, it seems unlikely that Israel will be able to pose a real threat to the Iranian regime, and "in the absence of a way out, acceptable to both sides, the war could continue for a very long time."
Vered mentions the fact that the Iran-Iraq war, in the 1980s, lasted eight years. Iran fought many years to achieve its demands - to correct the basic wrong of Iraq's invasion into its territory, Iraqi recognition of its culpability, and the removal of the head of the Iraqi regime Saddam Hussein.
Iran paid an inconceivable price in that war - half a million dead and economic damage higher than the country's entire oil income in the 20th century - before it agreed to a ceasefire. The ceasefire came only when there was a real danger that the Iranian regime would not survive.
Vered writes that "one can't rule out with a high degree of certainty the possibility that a war will break out between Israel and Iran." Therefore, a careful assessment of the details of a possible war, and preparation for it, are essential. In his study, he fails to find anyone who could develop an effective method to shorten the time of a war.
He goes on to write that the fear of such a war should prompt Israel to prepare mentally, politically, and militarily, while creating ways to end it quickly, should it erupt. The assumption that the war will become prolonged should affect the way Israel prepares for it, as well it should affect the decision whether or not to attack Iranian facilities in the future.
Vered rejects the assumption that in the absence of a shared border, the Israel-Iran war will be fought only with surface to surface missiles. Such warfare shouldn't last a long time because Iran's supply of long-range missiles isn't large. However, he writes, it is more plausible to assume that Iran will want to continue the fighting against Israel via messengers: Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and maybe even an Iranian force on Syrian soil, as part of a defense treaty between Tehran and Damascus. He plays down the likelihood of a short confrontation (Israeli assault followed by a punishing counter assault and then an immediate ceasefire under international pressure while both sides realize that the war has played out), he thinks that the ideology of the Iranian regime will dictate a prolonged war. Yes, this isn't exactly what you would call relaxing reading material for the weekend.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
I appreciate actually the pros and the cons of all the posters here. You know what-you are all correct. Yes, the pros are right and the cons are right-in their assessment of the general scope. However, and this is a huge "however", notwithstanding whatever seemingly obvious cons there are to bombing iran, nothing, and I mean nothing you can ever imagine will be worse than a nuclear armed Iran. Nothing. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Israels comming war with Iran (and lets be real - Turkey, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah) is a forgone conclusion. It will not be averted because Israel's only true ally and the only country that has any chance of derailing this train --- has turned traiterous!!!! Israel will be alone! There WILL be a war - because Iran WILL not stop (it has been, and continues to be empowered and emboldened by the worlds, and the new American administrations BLATANT impotence, liberal complacency and incompetance) in its Relentless Endevor to aquire for once and for all --- Nuclear Power in the form of Nuclear weapons for Islamic Jihad and the Neo-Islamic Revolution!!!! Israel not only needs to plan for WAR on ALL fronts, but also needs to break the seals and load the codes into its own Nuclear Arsenal ---- People sticking their heads in the sand, crying peace and attempting to hide behind the DELUSION of a perfect world is quickly comming to an end --- and "Put Up or Shut Up" is at the door!!!
Iranians are not stupid that they would be cursing Israel without having a nuke with them - In fact they have enough to counter any adventure from Israel which has proved so far good to keep Israel scared away. I think Israel knows it, too otherwise they would have repeated what they have done to Iraq in eighties.
Just a note that Saddam Hussein is dead and Iran owns the Iraqi government, no matter there was a cease fire after Iran-Iraq war, that war continued until Iran essentially won.
that you don't know that a flier can't fly while he's reading a copy of Jane's or any other book
However, most Chinese people have never heard of Israel, don't know where it is and don't care.
Maybe they're hoping for the Rapture.
You saw a fighter pilot with a copy of Jane's in his lap?
'The United States informed Israel of a ship carrying tons of weapons allegedly en route from Iran to Hezbollah, but vetoed Israel`s plans to attack, the A-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported on Friday.' - HaAretz 6.11.2009 'The IDF apparently followed the arms shipment for a long time, identified the correct ship and planned the operation which went off without a hitch.' - HaAretz, 7.11.2009 A-Sharq Al-Awsat reports the US told Israel of 'a ship' carrying arms to Hizbullah. HaAretz says Israel identified precisely *which* ship was carrying the arms. My point is that the US tip-off wasn't, seemingly, very precise at all. It still remained to Israeli intelligence to figure out exactly *which* vessel was carrying Iranian arms to a Syrian port, and then to plan and execute a naval operation to intercept it. I wouldn't minimise this operation by calling it 'empty boasting' by the Israelis, Axel. There is plenty of sting left in the IDF. MV
I belive it's time all scaremonegering and warmonegering evil jews were all sent to live in Canada. The Canadian will be happy to have them there, and whilst they are there they cant be bothering the rest of the world.
how can Israel with some 200 to 300 warplanes in total possibly attack Iran ? The answer is (and it begins to look as if it may be a grim possibility) that Israel may use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation. the second question is precisely how can Israel attack Iran geographically ? Turkey ? Saudi Arabia ? you kidding me. The only possibility is over American-occupied Iraq or (even more stupidly) Kurdish Iraq. Israelis had better hope that the US high command is as dim as it looks because the weakness of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is their very limited supply-lines. If US troops lose those then it may be that the American public will not blame Iranians, Iraqis, Al-Queda, etc. but look with increasing hatred at the age-old people-to-blame. And that, my fellow Yids, is us. have I ever looked an "existential threat" in the face ? no, I've never met Bibi.
"The United States informed Israel of a ship carrying tons of weapons allegedly en route from Iran to Hezbollah, but vetoed Israel's plans to attack, the A-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported on Friday." Haaretz 6/11/2009
'Newspapers including Haaretz reported that the USA tipped off Israel about the smuggling affair. And tracking a merchant vessel from an Egyptian port to the waters near Cyprus is not impressive.' - Axel 'The IDF apparently followed the arms shipment for a long time, identified the correct ship and planned the operation which went off without a hitch.' - HaAretz HaAretz's report doesn't back your statement, Axel, but let's suppose for sake of discussion you're right about a US tip-off. Israel still took the operation from there; and even if it's not on a scale like Entebbe or Osirak, it still indicates what Israel is capable of. Happy 9 November, celebrating the end of the Schandmauer. I originally agreed with Mrs Thatcher that Germany should remain divided, but now realise no human being should be repressed for the sake of Realpolitik (or any other reason, for that matter).
"Have you wondered how many drones equipped with missiles and electronic countermeasures Israel may have to soften up the targets for the IAF?" First of all, my post answered one which presumed an Israeli missile attack, so your statement is off topic as a response to mine, as so often. Next, you are invited to share information about the number of Israeli drones which have sufficient range and payload to deliver what you surmise. And you can explain how drones will survive in a fighter opposition environment, given their slow speed and inability of self-defence.
I'm amazed at the competence of the IDF IDing and tracking the arms shipment. Well done. It's too bad they couldn't have done half as well IDing the U.S.S. Liberty that ANYONE with a copy of Janes' Fighting Ships could have recognised.
"Culminated` is the operative word. Think about the intelligence gathering apparatus which the IDF needed in the first place" Newspapers including Haaretz reported that the USA tipped off Israel about the smuggling affair. And tracking a merchant vessel from an Egyptian port to the waters near Cyprus is not impressive. "you`re letting your hatred get in the way of a clear appreciation of all the facts." And what about letting uncritical reception of boastful claims getting in the way ...?
Have you wondered how many drones equipped with missiles and electronic countermeasures Israel may have to soften up the targets for the IAF?
It started from them not Israel. Trumpeting Israels demise is a well worn Arab pathway enthusiatically taken up by their fellow travellers. Have you tried to count how many Arabs have left their super strong,Islamic paradise, democracies?
It started from them not Israel. Trumpeting Israels demise is a well worn Arab pathway enthusiatically taken up by their fellow travellers. Have you tried to count how many Arabs have left their super strong,Islamic paradise, democracies?
"... events of the passing week, which culminated in an impressive show of force reminiscent of the good old Israel Defense Forces - the IDF that carried out Entebbe" - HaArtez "Boarding an unarmed merchant vessel seems a bit short of heroic achievements ... " - Axel You've missed the point again, lad. 'Culminated' is the operative word. Think about the intelligence gathering apparatus which the IDF needed in the first place to lead to its apprehension of the arms-carrying vessel. A pity you're letting your hatred get in the way of a clear appreciation of all the facts. I believe one of your former leaders suffered from the same problem. MV
Don't count on the fact that the atom bomb put Japan out of the war and therefore it would quickly influence a conflict with iran....check your history..Japan capitulated after the Soviets entered the war. This isn't to say that the atom bomb wasn't a factor, but Japan was terrified of the Soviet army-it had a brief skirmish with them before the outbreak of WWII and got beaten (it wasn't a repeat of 1905).
I fail to understand why Israel would want to start a nuclear war in which thousands of Israelis would die.
use america and the rest as an example, the battle may be won, but the war is lost.
Any war can have surprises. If Russians knew in advance what would happen to them in Afghanistan, they would have never invaded them. Iran because of its size will be able to endure a long war as they did with Iraq. Americans also were defeated by Vietnamese while having military superiority, and I bet you they never imagined in their wildest dream to be defeated. So Israel better be careful, since they can start a war but they might not be able to end it. As many people have already mentioned, Iranians are not suicidal to drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, the problem is that Israel wants to be the only nuclear state in the region so that they can use their nuclear weapons as an insurance while they continue their land grab without worrying about getting destroyed by Syrians or other Arab countries.
A: "Israel will cripple the Iran`s nuclear facilities in the first salvo," With what, Andrei? A: "after taking out its air defense." How, exactly?
No doute Israel has a formidable force because it had a sort of magic making powers big and small adopting its cause blindly.The US, Nato, Arab collaborators and feceived international opinion areworking for Isreal, stupidly. But, if we can take the Palestinian struggle and the Lebanesesteadfasting as a reference, then Isreal has not gained strategically. Think of a possible day when mortally diminshed US and Nato fed up ftom years of losses in Iraq and Afghanistan leave this area. Borders protected by enslaved Arab regimes crumble and millions of well trained and ready to die Muslims come to liberate Al Qudos, what can then Isreal can do?. This is shear reality and lucid and realistic strategists would not dispute these rudimentary facts.The day of truth has not yet come. [I am afraid that you would not appreciate those lines. Tant pis pour vous].
Israel has the 4th or 5th largest military in the world; it won't need the US or NATO because of it's own ICBM's and submarines. Israeli military technology is the envy of the world; it's why they are one of the world's top exporters of military hardware. All arms that Israel buys are upgraded with their own superior technology. Case in point, the new F-35 fighter jet that the US wouldn't allow Irael to upgrade. Iran has old US fighter planes and buys Russian and Chinese arms. Look how easily Israel was able to evade going into Syria. Iran is a paper tiger sitting on a house of cards. The regime doesn't have the support of the majority of it's population; they treat their citizens brutally. I have a feeling that Iran's nuclear plant technology has been spiked or bugged to fail. Never underestimate Israel's Mossad.
war with iran is very dangerous.
remember Entebbe, and send IAF & commandos down to Harare and take out that filthy devil, Robert Mugabe. Announce during the eturn flight that you're bringing him to The Hague for trial, then have an "accident" attributable to a foreign power, engine failure, whatever - and we'll all lament a well-intentioned operation that went wrong.
Another strong factor in the equation is if Obama is a one-term president. Many in America - both Right and Left - are beginning to consider the possibility that he is turning out to be a do-nothing president. If that is the case, and Israel is under attack from Iran, if the US simply sits on the sidelines, Obama would know he has a good chance of being thrown out of office in 2012. Centrist Democrats, who rely on overwhelming Jewish American support, would be disgusted with him, too -- not to mention the very pro-Israel Right. If the US does nothing (certainly the EU will do nothing), it would affirm Israel's basic contention that when push comes to shove, and Jewish lives are on the line, the world does nothing. This would free Israel psychologically from all the baggage restraining it from the UN, NGOs, NY Times columnists, Richard Goldstone, ad nauseum.
with or without the US & NATO, she'll have no time to wait for them to get their acts together
Muslim animosity was present look before the settlements came into being Dayan foresight also gave the WAQF domain over the Temple Mount, from which they preace hatred against Israel Dayan was a great general, but stank as a visionary
"events of the passing week, which culminated in an impressive show of force reminiscent of the good old Israel Defense Forces - the IDF that carried out Entebbe" Boarding an unarmed merchant vessel seems a bit short of heroic achievements ...
And the world will pay for it for years to come.
"Iranians of course will embrace the concept of martyrdom." I'm glad that you have the authority to speak for the people of Iran. Seeing as Iran has its own domestic issues, I believe that nuclear development is becoming increasingly marginalized. No matter your position as a ruler, mass protests against the validity of your regime, severe economic paralysis due to ego and "the principle of the matter" are going to sting. The fact is whether it is right or not, Iran will have to accept the Security Council's resolution because economic sanctions are crippling it. 1953 has proven this or course 1979 has proven otherwise. But how long can you sit on one of the largest oil reserves in the world and have nothing to show for it? MAD has it's limitations. As #58 mentions the "success" of it with Pakistan and India. I'll mention the failure of it with the US and Soviet Union. I don't believe MAD is a correct application for India and Pakistan, seeing as both are US allies.
'How many missiles with conventional warheads would be needed [to destroy Iran's military establishment]?' Axel, a critical point you continue to miss is the determination of the Jewish people in general - and of Israelis in particular - to never, ever again allow themselves to become the victims of genocide. Iran's nuclear programme, and its intentions toward Israel, are (rightly, in my opinion) viewed with great foreboding by most Israelis throughout their society. Do not, then, be too terribly surprised if you indeed wake up some fine morning, to discover Israel has launched pre-emptive *nuclear* missile strikes against Iranian military sites - particularly 'hardened' nuclear research sites. Israel's continued survival doesn't require the permission of Mr Obama, nor of anyone else - not even of you. You would be dreaming to think otherwise. MV
Israel might not get the chance to divert attention for their Gaza actions with this sham..The UN is taking up the case!
Israel will cripple the Iran's nuclear facilities in the first salvo,after taking out its air defense. Iran will be compelled to absorb that. If Iran responds by preparing to launch against Israel towns some chemical missile, Israel will terminate Iran entire military infrastructure first by many tactical nuclear strikes, followed by punishing one or 2 Iranian towns. Iranian military establishment is well aware of the real danger and most probably will topple the mullahs. If Iran will choose to "beat the saddle" instead by attacking its neighbors or activating Syria et al. then Israel and USA will handle it quickly locally. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Egypt, Turkey should know that any chemical or other wmd, will trigger an immediate disabling nuclear response on their military infrastructure first, from Israel and USA. By the time Russia will emit its ultimatum to freeze, the game will be over. Russia can't go further than that, and China doesn't count.
Israel has a long history, not really. Iran is not bad and arrogance is suddenly not enough anymore. What can Israel really offer?
"Take out Iran`s ONE petroleum refinery and the country would be brought to a standstill." Funny that Iraq did not bring Iran to a standstill for eight years; but perhaps your strategic genius wasn't apparent then.
Israel will launch her side of the war just as soon as Iran fires her first rocket in Israeli's direction She won't wait for the U.S. or anyone else, there won't be time As soon as the war starts all the countries between Iran & Israel and those in the surrounding areas will also be affected by radiation
Cut the head off the snake, take out the regime. A freedom loving and peaceful Persian country won't have a need for a nuclear weapon, to support terrorism, or try to rule the arab world. Let the Turks continue to fantasize about a return of the Ottoman Empire. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and other arab countries will breathe a sigh of relief. Hezbollah and Hamas will crater. I agree with an earlier post, support the opposition party in Iran.
... Iran has 1.7 million sq/km of land, 74 million people, oil(lots of it) and a civilization predating the Jew by nearly four thousand years. - Iran won`t start a war. Only a brainles person couls nake sucha conclusion
Moshe Dyan was against colonizing the West Bank. His foresight was and still is worth considering.
"One fine morning, we will be awakened to the startling news, that Israeli ICBM·s destroyed not only nuclear facilities but also all military, air force and naval bases." How many missiles with conventional warheads would be needed for that?
Israel can not challenge Iran militarily. Militarily, Tehran is above Israel?s league, despite the illusions of Israeli strength. Tel Aviv will only launch a war against Iran if the U.S. and NATO are partners in the military operation.
what would happen,assuming israel is crazy enough?very probably a palestinian state.possibly foreign intervention on site.(assuming no u.s. complicity).
Take out Iran's ONE petroleum refinery and the country would be brought to a standstill.
Iran will not make a pre-emptive attack on Israel. What Iran might do is provoke Israel to make a pre-emptive attack and then respond. What Israelis need to try is a bit of charm. They can be quite scary and are losing US and world sympathy as a result. An attack on Iran producing a similar death toll to that in Gaza would exacerbate that process. While Iran?s nuclear ambitions may worry some people, that concern is balanced by respect and support for the regime?s political opponents. Film of those young heroes dismembered and dead in the streets would make a very bad impression, not readily alleviated by dialectical justification. I doubt anyone, outside Israel, accepts the arguments proffered for not arresting settlement expansion. That simple act would kick start a peace process and give the world such joyous relief it might even reignite the world economy. If Israel does try a pre-emptive strike on Iran, it might be wise do that first.
to destroy Iran Iran wants nuclear weapons to neutralise Israel's Israel and Iran will then follow the model that currently works between India and Pakistan. Mutually Assured destruction. Problem is for israel the threat of being nuked by Iran may cause the collapse of immigration and a flight from Israel by those with a second passport. Iranians of course will embrace the concept of martyrdom. Which is the real reason Israel is jumping up and down shouting not fair. It is not the mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv Israel is worried about. It is the fear of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.
Israel does not need the US to attack and defeat Iran. It can do so independently without much a stress on its systems and capabilities. Israel's military power is on par with the great powers (Russia, China, US) and far exceeds that of the EU. Iran is incredibly vulnerable to defeat. With only 2 bombs, Israel can eliminate their entire internal refinery capability such that they run out of gas in 2 weeks. Their oil wells are easy targets. With these out of the way, Iran would be out of cash in weeks and would fold. Israel will defend its basic interests. Obama doesn't represent the USA. His political zenith has passed, his party trampled in the elections last week, and his Muslim sympathies and anti-Israeli bias renounced by the Congress, the US military, and the American people. Israel's opponents are jealous of its capabilities and success, resentful that Jews don't fit their historical caricature and are strong and capable of self-defense, and nuts (appeasers, pacifists).
.Israel cannot go to war against Iran without american aproval and/or help.That is why until now they did not attack Iran.And since America is not to going to give the green light because they cannot be involved in another war,the israeli government should be very stupid to attack. .The consequences of such attack would be israeli isolation without any possibility of renewing their arsenal in a prolonged conflict,while on the other side of the coin,the russians would be the biggest winners of such war.The oil prices would go to the roof,and Russia is a big oil exporter.They could bank Iran arsenal for years,and later be repaid in oil or money.Israel would be the big loser,economically and politically.America knows that,Iran also and Israel too.That is why there will be no war.MONEY talks not fantasies.
So dude you are agreed Israel is armed with N-weapons and is ready to charge Iran with A-bombs before Iran can use it against Israel .So the game is finished and Iran must be allowed to be armed with nukes. It is the fundamental right now for Iran. Why why all of you are crying against the N-projects of iran???
The problem herein lies with the Iranian proxies, whom with weapons supplied by Tehran are waging war against Israel. Obviously this status quo cannot continue. Israel will no doubt have to make some pretty drastic decisions in the near future. Should Iran decide on the continuance of said approach, we must therefore conclude that Iran is indeed at war with Israel. Israel no doubt has studied the best manner in conducting a strike against the Terror Regime. One fine morning, we will be awakened to the startling news, that Israeli ICBM·s destroyed not only nuclear facilities but also all military, air force and naval bases. A long and protracted war.? No. A military response from Syria.? Forget it. Hezbollah and Hamas will neither attack, unless they wish to perish. Its all that typical ME hype. "The mother of all wars."! That fellow ended up on the hangman's noose after been literally dragged from a hole in the ground. Good day, from snowy Alps.
There won't be a war. The object of the exercise is to divert attention from the Occupation, from the relentless land-grab that accompanies it, and from any so-called 'Peace Talks'. So we hear "Existential Threat", Holocaust II. A far, far, more serious issue than the plight of a few Pals, obviously! Why waste time on them when we're looking at the outbreak of WW3 here?
Irans's support for the resistance groups of Hezbollah and Hamas is called "support for terror" by Zionists. Israel's war on Gaza is called terror by the other side.
Amos Harel in his article on a projected war with Iran neglects to add another possible party in the war.He also neglects to indicate one citical consequence of a possible lenthy war with Iran Added to the diffaulties that he forcasts is the possibility of a Syrian thrust into the Golan.This added to the length and severity of the projected war with Iran leads to the possible conclusion that Israel will threaten or actualy use nucleur weapons to shorten the war. Israel simply cannot fight the kind of long projected war that Mr Harel predicts
" (Iran) wants one collective referendum of the whole israel/palestine area, to determine the solution....` why are you limiting it to the 'isrel/palestine area. why not enlarge it ti the entire middle east. We already know the outcome of that vote. In fact we already know the outcome of the" israe/pelesine area" vote. The outcome was, is, and will be, to eradicate the Jewish state. Now, I suppose you call that democracy. I call it Jerrymandering.
Israel has frequently threatened to attack Iran. I know of no such Iranian threat to Israel; other than a stated preference that Israel not exist. (am not sure how this is frequently interpreted as an immediate threat of attack). Israel has frequently preemptively attacked its neighbours ove the last 80 years; Iran has not for hundreds of years. So consider where the real threat is.
Vered says that, in the Shia view, to correct wrongs to Islam and ensure redemption, Israel must be annihilated. I wonder. What Ahmadinejad actually said was that the Zionist REGIME must be annihilated. Hamas says the same but adds that Jews will be entitled to live in an Arab Palestine. Basically, Iran does not accept the 1947 decision to give Muslim land to a non-Muslim state. How fixed is that attitude and where are the edges? Ivo says interestingly: '(Iran) wants one collective referendum of the whole israel/palestine area, to determine the solution....' Strangely, that is what Hamas is calling for, except they only want a referendum on the Pal side. This is maybe not so intractable. Any final status agreement would likely go to a referendum among the PLO parties, which would meet Hamas demands. To what extent would it meet Shia ones? Nothing is as fixed and inflexible as the Israeli right wants to portray. Probably because they are entirely fixed and inflexible themselves.
Can't you guys hold your Massada demons in check?
Iran has limited conventional forces. Its only conceivable opponents in its sphere of influence - Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states - are covered by a US military (and if required nuclear) umbrella, as are neighbouring Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan. Iran is in no position to wage a war, even if it wanted to or could afford to. It is highly unlikely that it will be able to build nuclear weapons now, with all eyes on it. Even if it could, it is not going to use them because that would invite heavy military retaliation from the US and allies leading to the early defeat of the regime, as Saddam found. Talk of an existential threat to Israel is just nonsense. The right, giddy with past military successes, looks for excuses to bring out the train set at every possible opportunity to live again the thrill of Jewish nationalist might. If they put the same energy and money into a missile defence system, then any threat from Iran is neutralised overnight and we can all stop talking about it.
Israel need note suffer years of war with Iran. it can be ended in a day. Israel is the most powerful country in the ME.
"In a war any longer than a few days, with missiles landing on Israeli cities, how quickly would the 40% of Israelis who have sensibly kept their foreign passports leave?" Past experience, notably the first U.S.-led war on Iraq, proves that during bombardments, even Israelis abitually residing abroad come back home to share the destiny of their fellow citizens and hurry to enlist as reservists. "Finally, after sixty-one years of crying wolf, an existential war." Israel has been under existensial threat in at least three instances: 1) War of Independence; 2) War of the six days; 3) War of Yom Kippur. More, Israel has not enjoyed one only day since its very beginning without an Arab or Persian leader somewhere in the world threating to annihilate it and its people.
There will be no war for at least 3 more years. Simple answer,if a war breaks out during the Obama administration his presidency will be seen as a failure. He will not condone an Israeli action nor will he support it, and the Iranians will never strike directly but only through their intermediaries. Obama is the talking President. He already has too many balls in the air that are about to fall. Add one more of the magnitude of an Israeli/Iran war, no way.....His legagy would be crushed. Underneath his slick persona lies a huge ego. Its not happening folks!!!!
Though many from various sides try to push Israel to attack Iran, each for it's own reasons, Israel will not swallow this bait for many reasons. 1. Israel will be condemed whatever it does by everyone including the West.We have been there. 2. Israel will stand alone even if some countries will openly bless Israel , but no one will do anything. This time the West will have to fend for itself if they want to live as the do.
to an inabsorbable Iranian nuclear first strike. Given that these are the two alternatives being presented by Iran to Israel, there appears to be only one alternative - an Israeli preemptive strike. Even if this action results in a long and broad war. Modern Israel will not be another Masada. It cannot wait till the only alternative is national suicide.
Some delusional folks here have suggested that the US will jump in and join the fight if US interests become collateral damage due to an Israeli offensive war. As if the US didn't have any choice in the matter. Don't be fooled. The US is far from being without choices here. The moment an Israeli offensive threatened US interests, the US would simply join the EU, Russia, and China on a unified front. Together they will yank Israel by the chain so hard Israel will spin on their heads for decades. An Israeli attack that threatens US interests will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Don't threaten US strategic interests and delude yourselves that Israel will ever be allowed to benefit from it.
The war could be fought and won by peaceful means. By that I mean technology for the defence of the air, sea and land needs to be urgently developed.Its not only expensive hi tech anti missile systems that need to be employed but old fashioned low cost technology such as barrage balloons integrated with sensors and heat detecting laser systems also may have a place in bringing down missiles and eventually depleting and neutralising the Iranian war machine. Armed with such defences Israel may have a good chance of enduring a prolonged Iranian assault.
After an initial exchange of weapons, most of the people in Israel will realize they are in deeeeep trouble and flee Israel for a much safer place (Europe, Asia, US, Africa). This will gut Israel's ability to sustain the war and lead to its defeat sooner than later. Death raining from the sky tends to make most people look for a safer place. War with Iran will be ugly and deadly for Israelis and the US will provide limited support if any - Americans are tired of war and have no resources left. Note that every poster has ignored the fact that Iran has some very powerful and vindictive partners (Russia and China) who are NOT afraid of the US. War with Iran is stupid and Israel will deep regret it in the end.
Japan started a war with the United States based upon the premise that if they kicked us real hard at the beginning of the war, we would simply fold up and sue for peace. The one important man in Japan who had been to American and seen how we operated begged to differ. Admiral Yamamoto told his superiors that if he was ordered to attack the USA that for the first six months he would run considerably wild, but after that he could not say. Japan, who's only chance of winning was a short war and who's only hope of winning was that the US would quit, lost. Israel can hit Iran, but can it beat Iran in the long run? Who knows? And who wants to risk the farm based upon fantasies and desires? The desire that Iran would quit is no sound basis for starting a war.
The extreme right has it's plans to start a war. And it has fantasies about how the war will go. "We only need to kick in the door and the whole corrupt edifice will collapse." - Adolf Hitler, telling his generals why they need not worry about starting a war with the Soviet Union. Living in fantasy land didn't make Hitler sane. Nor did it make the Soviet Union collapse as he dreamed. One should have a clue how the war will be prosecuted to a successful conclusion before starting a war. This is a sound idea that the extreme right does not comprehend. Or should I say cannot comprehend?
"Israel has the right to attack once Iran begins to develop the means to pose existential threat." Indeed. Thus far, there is no 'cassus belli'.
As said in this article, Iran's long range missiles are small. It's only alternative would be Hezbollah, Syria, or Hamas. Hamas would not be able to maintain a prolonged war against Israel without risking another few hundreds of it's men dying. So the chances of a big deal of damage from there is improbable. Hezbollah will only be able to fire short range rockets at Israel. However, we all know that Israel has the ability to deliver crushing responses. In about a month, Israel could easily secure south Lebanon by invading it and expulsing all the 1.5 million residents. It would be messy, it would be bloody, and costly on the IDF's side as well. But Israel has the power to conquer. Syria has a strong army, and weapons that can cause great damage to Israeli interests. However, if Israel were to use a full force attack against Syrians, it's fire power would outmatch Syrian's 4-1. And finally, do not forget. Israel is the only country able to terminate a war with nuclear wepons
Should a war erupt,to weaken the regime already somewhat unstable from internal divisions & economic misery suffered by the discontented people, massive cost to infracture must be inflicted to reduce the funds available for warmongering. The consequences of this (even if it does not increase internal upveal), will be to constrain the Ayatollahs to salvage their regime by having to concentrate quickly to heal internal wounds. Assuming the nuclear program targets are sufficiently damaged in the early phase of the war,then Iran will likely to be less agressive for a while, leaving Israel to deal only with Hezbollah & Hamas should they implicate themselves into the fighting.Of the many infrastructure targets, oil refineries are among those with immediate & long term financial & military importance.The more so since Iran is currently unable to produce enough refined products from internal sources & is dependant on foreign supplies.
An Israeli war against Iran necessitates American support--an air corridor over Iraq, American refuelling aircraft, American defensive/offensive action to stop an Iranian counter-attack, and ongoing supplies of weapons and American troops in a prolonged war. All this will be required/demanded of the U.S. Yet Netanyahu will not even TEMPORARILY halt settlement construction for the U.S. to attempt peace with the Palestinians.
All that Israel can do is one lightning attack to the nuclear facilities and their air defences and that is it. Even this will create a huge anger in the ME and will possibly cause a new Lebanon war but a prolonged conflict wih Iran is a death gamble for the whole ME. Also, militarily it is not really sustainable. The best solution to this problem is to accept the iranian bomb and sit down, it will never be used anyway. Israel may have a very powerful army and nukes etc but at the end it is a small country, its power is huge but finite, it cannot maintain a long fullscale war and IDFs war doctrine is to win wars in very short time anyway.
Also South Korea and Japan are big customers. And Turkey. If Israel messes the international economical recovery and dangers big nations energy security it is Israel which is in big troubles and has eventually pay the price for its constant aggressions.
If the British Navy had intercepted the ship they would have been put on display in Iran and then exchanged for a large amount of money.
In international law, such a pre-emptive attack is only legal if the feared attack by the other side is *imminent*. That certainly does not apply to a possible Iranian attack at the moment. However, Iran could well argue that such an attack by Israel is imminent, the evidence being all those well-publicised remarks by politicians and generals.
But here I thought the underlying reason for Hamas and the Gaza offensive was the continued oppression of the Palestinian people?
OK, Israelis. Go ahead and start your war, but do it without any assistance (money, ammo, weapons, intel) from the US. Refuse to accept any more foreign aid. Call AIPAC off the US congress. Quit spying on us. You have become dangerous and much too expensive for the US to be our "only ally in the middle east." Those of us who were formerly your friends, are peeling away in droves. GO it alone and see what you get.
Iran has a defense budget equal to that of Sweden, and you fascists call this an "existential threat". Iran has shown no inclination to invade or attack anyone, but has been attacked and threatened with attack many times (Saddam/US, the civilian airliner, sanctions, and now these threats). Aren't you happy with your success in Iraq? You want another war? I think Gideon Levy has it right, you guys need a good war every two years just to make you feel good. And, you want to drag the US into your wars, and that will not happen.
In a war any longer than a few days, with missiles landing on Israeli cities, how quickly would the 40% of Israelis who have sensibly kept their foreign passports leave? Finally, after sixty-one years of crying wolf, an existential war. Is that what Israel's leaders want?
than Iranian nukes in the future. Doubt Syria and Lebanon would want to turn into a Gaza by the IDF.
Amos, No doubt you are a scared correspondent. You preach to sit on our hands and let the Iranians and their sattelites to prepare to attack us. Of course they make it publicly clear that this is their intention. Pere-emptive strike is only to our advantage as you may not understand we should do it without Obama's permit. He is being defeated in both Iraq and Afghanistan although he does not understand it yet. We are under existential threat and should of course knock out the oil fields of Iran (all the world will cry with crocodile tears) and bring it back to the stone age. No oil-no Iranian threat. The hell with the world we want to survive and not to be consoled after our destruction. DO not play the cynical reporter, you do a terrible job.
Iranians fighting from Syrian soil sounds clumsy. Firstly, other Arabs won't allow Syria, and even if they did it would be hard to face Israel on its backyard. Israel owns the strategic Golan. Also, I doubt if Syria is prepared to lose any more land. I hope MaoBama decides to help.
I`ve asked before (was not published) and I`ll ask again: How many countries has Iran attacked / occupied in recent history ? How many people of those countries are in Iranian prisons without a trial ? How many fruit plantations in those countries has Irans army destroyed ? How many people has Iran bombed with phosphor? How many farmers in those countries are separated from their fields by Iran-built fences ? How many farmers in those countries are denied the water needed to grow their crops ? How many settlements has Iran built in those countries ? How many roads for "Iranians only" has Iran built in those countries ? How many private homes has Iran bulldozed in those countries ? How many checkpoints...... The list is long, it may be better if Israel attended more to to their own, self made problems & try to rectify them, than trying to find reasons to go to war. Meanwhile it is common knowledge that the often quoted "wipe Israel of the map" statement was a puposely false translatio
Who cares if the war rages for the next 100 years. Iran will never utilize more than 40% of its surface to surface missiles and a ground war against Syria or Lebanon won't last more than a month. There is no chance of an active war between Iran and Israel than will last more than a year. No chance.
shelley, you sound like the choice is between peace in the ME & a war w/iran. that's not the picture. first, israel has per se no accounts to settle w/iran, none whatsoever. no claims but to be left in peace, to be accepted as a country that is there (not any specific borders, just the existence of the state in principle, the way it was conceived in the beginning), which is what you normally take for granted & don't even discuss. iran has no business threatening israel, which they've done on a regular basis over the years, nor to meddle directly in the ME conflict via proxies that not only don't accept israel as a state, but are committed to dismantle it. finally, iran is itself committed to this, one way /the other. they've made it explicitly clear that they don't even accept the arab initiative of 2002 implying 2 states. they want one collective referendum of the whole israel/palestine area, to determine the solution, which is their way of making a joke on the whole world.
If the US is Israel's #1 ally, why don't Israeli war plans consider the effects on the US of an Israeli attack on Iran? If missiles start falling on Israel or oil shipping through the Straits of Hormuz are threatened, the US will join in immediately. But then comes increased deaths and injury of American soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf, gasoline prices in the US at 15$ a gallon, economic chaos and further loss of jobs in the US, turmoil in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, the end of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, etc. etc. How do you think Americans will see Israel after this? As another commentor noted, there are reasonable plans to assure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon -- seems like a far better option than a disastrous war for all concerned.
If (and that a big question mark) this goes from a single one-off attack on Iran's nuclear program to an all out war between Israel and Iran, then the question is how long can Iran go without any oil revenue. A war means that Iran's refineries, and distribution points become legitimate targets. No oil? No money. No money, no subsidies from the government to the Iranian people. No money to Hizballah, to HAMAS, to Syria. In fact, before Syria decides it wants to go to war, it should remember the comments made by the Egyptian minister of defense who noted that a war with Israel would cost Egypt approx $100 billion. Last I heard, Syria doesn't have a piggy bank that big. That leaves Hizballah and HAMAS as Iran's allies. We saw how well HAMAS did the last time, and one can't imagine how well the Lebanese would receive Nassrallah's latest call to war.
Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince," chapt. 3, "The injury we do to a foe must be sufficient that we need not fear his vengeance." His point - if you fear the foe's response, you simply didn't hit them hard enough in the first place. But Vered has it Chriztian style: Turn the other cheek. Escalation makes victory impossible so let Israel get nuked. Give Iran a finger wagging, put our head between our knees and kiss our rear goodbye. Become 1960s antiwar hippies and smoke a joint. Trust Vered, Barak and Bibi. They really know what they're doing saying "mother may I" every 5 minutes to Obama, genuflecting to the US & UN and hiding under the desk while Iran gets the bomb. That'll really work. Put off an attack on Iran. Mother might get angry. Also, do not consider that a nuke north of Tehran in the unpopulated Alborz Mountains would empty out the city without a loss of life & make clear to Iran what happens if they keep fighting. But instead, shut up & cower at the boogeyman of escalation.
Iran sees itself as a regional superpower and the bomb will give it hegemony, as well as sponsor an unwelcome local nuclear arms race. It's rejection of Israel's existence, regardless of the Palestinian question, means decades of more guerilla warfare against Israel under Iran's protection. An Iranian bomb means endless tension and no peace. So the question is, if Israel strikes, can Iran really wage a prolonged war after it runs out of long range rockets? The answer lies in whether its proxies in Lebanon and Syria can be pummeled sufficiently to drop out of the fight and take that card out of Iran's hand? (most likely, yes)And will the US ultimately intervene to stop it all? Despite the sobering risks, it seems that the failure of these talks with Iran will lead to a necessary, if painful assault. There are no good options either way. Let's hope the Iranians cut a serious deal.
"Nobody wants to see a prolonged war between Israel and Iran, but it`s much better than a nuclear one." Boaz, This statement shows how little you know about history. True - no one wants to see a war between Israel and Iran, but better than a nuclear one? In fact this exact calculation was made by the US during WWII when the US nuked Japan. We were at a crossroads - Do we fight a multi-year, dragged out conflict losing hundreds of thousands of lives on BOTH sides, OR do we end this with 1 swift blow(aka NUKE them) minimizing our losses and rapidly bringing the overall war to and end much quicker than a drawn out conventional war? Obviously the US chose to end the war quickly, in the end saving more lives then had we fought conventionally. In fact, it was the RIGHT DECISION. WWII ended very quickly after Japan came to terms with how swiftly their existence would be completely erased from the history of mankind, they came to their senses....QUICKLY!
The idea of a prolonged war runs completely counter to Israel's military strategy for 60 years. Israel has always calculated that it had to quickly crush opponents because it lacks strategic depth and reserves for protracted struggle. And yes, an Israeli strike would ultimately accelerate Iran's quest for the bomb. Yet even the IAEA now thinks Iran is trying to weaponize and has tested designs. The other commentators who naively trust that an Iran with the bomb would behave like a pussycat ignore the Mullah's actions and foreign policy for the past 30 years. They probably wouldn't strike first, true, but they extend a nuclear umbrella to all the radicals who do their dirty work. How does one deter Hezbollah or check Iran's ambitions in the brave new world?
sponsored by the Arab League, are not subscribed to by Iran. A peace with Iran, if it were possible, would be much more effective than any version the peace with the Pals, Saudis Syria and the Arab League. However, because there is not even a scintilla of hope for a peace with Iran, there is no value whatsoever in even talking about it with any of the Arab states. The only utility these so called peace negotiations with the murderous Palestinians is to ease Arab pressure on the US and EU. The EU and the US can and should get out of the loop by simply washing their hands of the Arab Israeli conflict, regardless of the olympian efforts that the arabs are putting forth in foisting their problems to the EU and US to solve. However, the EU and the US cannot quit because their umbilical is deep into Arab oil. There is nothing the EU or US can do other than what they are doing; force peace Israel into a Peace acceptable to the Arabs, but that is death to Israel
... Exponential threat to another nation, i.e. a cassus belli. So, if Nation A, states that its goal is to destroy what it views as the unlawful occupiers of city/land X, and therefore wipe Nation B off the map. And if Nation A insists on developing the means to develop weapons that would give consequence to their threats, than Nation A has declared War on Nation B. Regardless of whether they have fired a shot they have performed an Act of War and nation B need not wait until the formal first shot is fired to consider the war begun. The same happens in domestic laws, Assault, in Canada, is actually when someone threatens, Battery is when they hit you. i.e. Words do count, and Words when backed with means, count as war. Iran doesn't have the right to espouse its hate, develop nukes and insist that Israel wait until Iran has made the first move before it attacks, Israel has the right to attack once Iran begins to develop the means to pose existential threat.
Good point. States that engage in "blatant violation of UN Security Council resolutions" should be punished.
An attack on Iran will only drive them toward seeking the possession of a nuclear device. Such a device would be the only deterrent from further attacks on their country. Attack Iran, and it will be the last dying breath of every Iranian to get nuclear. You will only drive them toward the ends you seek to prevent. Furthermore, such an attack is likely to endeavour the mutual hostility where a nuclear exchange becomes more likely. Rather than prevent the spectre of mutual annihilation, you will only bring it closer to fruition. Please explain to me the logic of going down this warpath. It's worse than doing nothing.
Iran doesn't care for Israel one way or another. This idea of Iran making a bomb to annihilate Israel is utter rubbish. Read your history and you see Iranians usually do the opposite. Iran (Persia) gave shelter to Armenians fleeing the Ottoman Genocide. Iran gave shelter to 2.6 million Afghans during the 1990's. Israeli historians have written about Iran officially asking Nazi Germany to leave Iranian Jews alone. (Germany complied.) Israel is a new comer on the block and of course Iran can't let it have military hegemony in the region. But the idea of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv is so counter to the facts on the ground that it begs the question as to the agenda of people doing such fear mongering. Now if Israel actually did attack Iran, it will then change the facts on the ground and anything could happen after that. But as things are now, Persians and Jews both feel threatened by Arabs and shouldn't waste their resources fighting each other.
Your paranoia, hate, brutality, lawlessness, racism, and nuclear hedgemony are nauseating. Iran has 1.7 million sq/km of land, 74 million people, oil(lots of it) and a civilization predating the Jew by nearly four thousand years. Iran won't start a war. Salaam/Shalom
"our leaders have, in an exceptional move, become silent on the issue (Attacking Iran)" - Amos Harel Mr. Harel should read Haaretz, for example todays issue: "Deputy FM: Israel threat to attack Iran is not bluff". http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126394.html
Isn't there anyone home who gets the bigger picture? Several peace plans are on the table, and viable. Too bad the money to fund a think tank on this isn't there, while the IDF does its thing.... and the state will go down the tubes.
Seizing weapons wasn't just show. Those weapons would be utilized against Israelies. The less of them that make their way into the hands of the madmen, the better.
A mushroom cloud over Tel-Aviv? Not to mention the painful Israel nuclear response to such an attack. Nobody wants to see a prolonged war between Israel and Iran, but it's much better than a nuclear one.