It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran vs Israel?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
With the current tensions between the international community (especially Israel) and Iran, and the threat of Israeli action against Irans nucleur infrastructure increasing, I'm wondering how things would pan out if the Israelis' decide to air strike...

Would the U.S take part in it?

Would Syria support any Iranian retaliation?

What would be the fallout in Iraq? Afganistan? Lebanon? The Arab states?

Your input is appreciated...




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
All options are bad, very bad...



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Would the U.S take part in it?
Not the initial strikes other than maybe military intelligence and logistical support.

Would Syria support any Iranian retaliation?
Will be tricky because they are home to most of the terrorist groups who always attack Israel. They may very well be attacked in the same strike to dismantle terrorist headquarters located in Damascus.The government will respond through supplying these terrorist groups but will not get directly involved. Will send these terrorsts to Lebanon and maximize the shelling of Shaaba Farms.

What would be the fallout in Iraq? Afganistan? Lebanon? The Arab states?

Iraq - Probably relieved after having a succesful election process, they are eventually going to feel threatened by the Theocracy next door.

Lebanon - Will be forced into this situation through Syria. May stand up against Syria fearing regime change for them. Doubtful though as much of the government is Syrian placed.

Afghanistan - I see nothing from them.


Sep

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
Would the U.S take part in it?


Iran will, after the air strikes, attempt to widen the scope of the conflict. They will see the US and Israel as having worked together, because it is the US that controls Iraqi airspace and any attack from Israel would probably involve them crossing Iraqi airspace. Iran would probably retaliate through its networks in Iraq. It has massive influence there, especially in militias such as Badr Brigade, which is arguably one of the strongest forces in Iraq. If Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani (an Iranian national) and the most respected religious leader in Iraq, backs Iran, then we would see a Shia uprising. This is of course ignoring the fact that the current and most probably the future Iraqi government would be closely linked to Iran and the use of their airspace against Iran may distance them from the Americans.


Originally posted by kojac
Would Syria support any Iranian retaliation?


I don’t think they will get involved directly. Right now they are cornered in the international politics, with their recent meddling in Lebanon, and Israel can easily reach Syria by both ground forces and its air force, unlike Iran, which is a thousand kilometres away.


Originally posted by kojacWhat would be the fallout in Iraq? Afganistan? Lebanon? The Arab states?

Your input is appreciated...


As I mentioned Iraq may become a tough place for the US soldiers to live in. In Afghanistan, Iran has friendly relations with the government and has many allies in the warlords. We must remember that many of the warlords that assisted the US in its war in Afghanistan belonged to the Northern Alliance, which was backed by Iran through out the 90s till today. Iran's presence in Lebanon is very strong because of Hezbollah, an organization which they founded in the early 80s. Hezbollah is the dominant force in Lebanon, and any retaliation by Iran would certainly involve them. They have around 10,000 missiles and Iran has spent a great deal of money in arming the organization. The terrorist organizations operating in Gaza and West Bank, such as Hamas would probably back Iran as well.
www.alertnet.org...
Regarding the other Arab states, they will certainly do nothing. Iran may be able to destabilize some governments, such as Bahrain, by sparking demonstrations by the Shias. However the current Arab governments (mostly Sunni Arabs) hate Iran's (Persian, Shia) influence in the region and would love to see Iran being weakened.




[edit on 15-12-2005 by Sep]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
what was it saying russians are the protectors of the israelites or something like that?so russia is going to back israel and the US should be too right? or am i remembering wrong?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinabean
what was it saying russians are the protectors of the israelites or something like that?so russia is going to back israel and the US should be too right? or am i remembering wrong?



Somehow, i don't think Russia would be backing Israel in this kind of scenario...after Russia's recent arms sales to both Syria and Iran and their consistant moves to undermine U.S controll in the area, I believe, Russia if anything would be backing Iran in a proxy war against Israel and the U.S.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I think Russia has just about had enough of Irans War songs, maybe theyll sit on the side lines and grab the rebuilding projects and new oil contracts after the war.
After all Russia does seem on a really big cash dash lately.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Iran is pretty clever, they are tempting US and Israel to attack them around this time so that so that the US and Israeli troops get out stretched and get beaten slowly while they are totaly exhausted.
US stuck in-Iraq,Afghanistan and groups of resistant fighters around the world.
Israel stuck with-Hizbullah attacking from border,groups like Hamas n Al aqsa will increase resistance from Palestine



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
I can see russia getting involved if the usa launch a ground assault in Iran , then we could see the start of WW3 , us vs russia , with iran as the battlegorund.

it would be a meat grinder , right until the usa launch the battlefield nuke , followed by a nuclear reply - then there will be a pause , taking stock before escalation of teh use of nukes.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
I can see russia getting involved if the usa launch a ground assault in Iran , then we could see the start of WW3 , us vs russia , with iran as the battlegorund.


That's a proxy war not ww3.

And it won't happen, niether USA or Russia are stupid enough to get involved first.

They will let the middle east battle it out, and only step in if the other one does. But they won't.

* Waits impatiently for Bush to get out of office.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
my initial comment is pray they don't come to blows....
Assuming there were no mishaps and limitted local fall out from the strikes, Because that would be oh hail Mary here we go time for all of us. The fact remains that in this scenario it would be ISRAEL, a nation most of the region wants an excuse to jump (not inserting my opinion on the validitty of their dislike or any of that ATS flame war fodder so don't act like i did if you deign to comment behind me)
At the very least you'd see all of the hard liner organizations go berserker and start emptying their caches of weaponry in the form of suicide bombs lobbed rockets at israel, and a TORRENT of body bags from our own boys in Iraq. Because like it or not agree or disagree the average Joe Middle Easterner will in no way believe the israelis would strike without at least tacit approval of the US.

Many tend to want to draw false paralells between Israel's last raid to insure regional non proliferation of nukes was aimed at Iraq... A country not terribly well liked by other mid east nations for it's more secular government. The two situations are not the same in any way and the political dynamic has changed greatly since then.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Im surprised that the entirety of Europe doesn't threaten Iran with everything but war already ...

Its simple Iran makes her intentions plain as day with these foul public announcements, if Iran was to launch even one atomic bomb at Israel the consequences for Iran and the fall out to europe would quite probably be catastrophic.

Even a conventional attack by Israel on a Iranian nuclear plant could have deadly fallout implications, if they get the wind right it might blow across the gulf to King Abdullah so we dont have to watch what he dictates on CNN eh?

But while we touch on it, Saudi Envoy Rejects Iranian's Comments on Holocaust
www.washingtonpost.com...

Same article says there about to let women drive over there, so advanced arnt they



Has anyone invented water powered Cars already ??



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Iraq - Probably relieved after having a successful election process, they are eventually going to feel threatened by the Theocracy next door.


- Er Dreamz have you seen who the Iraqis are voting for?

The US forces have done a deal with Sadr's people and have tried to do deals with the other 'insurgents'.

Many of the parties and people standing are all about getting rid of the occupation forces, not embracing a version of our liberal western democracy.

Iraq is willingly becoming a theocracy, it's people are voting for Sadr's group in the centre and Shia fundamentalists in the south.
Kurds in the north.

That is not what I would call a "successful election process".
Frankly in view of the public reasoning for going in I'd call it a disaster.

I would expect the southern part of Iraq to be very friendly towards Iran and for this to spark new tensions in Iraq with the Sunnis (the south is where a lot of the oil/wealth is concentrated).

[edit on 16-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


Sep

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkeyIraq is willingly becoming a theocracy, it's people are voting for one Sadr's group in the centre and Shia fundamentalists in the south.


I think they will probably vote for the United Iraqi Alliance, which is a Shia fundamentalist group, but has no connections with Sadr. The dominant forces in the UIA, The Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq in particular, are closely linked to Iran.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
I think they will probably vote for the United Iraqi Alliance, which is a Shia fundamentalist group, but has no connections with Sadr.


- Sorry Sep but I think you have this bit completely the wrong way around.

Sadr's group is connected to the UIA.


United Iraqi Alliance: This brings together Shia religious parties including the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), the Daawa Party and the Sadrist movement of Moqtada Sadr.


news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 16-12-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


Sep

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I apologize. I have not been following these elections as closely as the last ones. In the last elections, I believe the UIA did not allow Sadr to participate in their group because of his radical activities previously. It is nice to see that Sadr and his followers are now participating in the elections.

Edit: here is a link
www.abc.net.au...



[edit on 16-12-2005 by Sep]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join