Petraeus: Israel might attack Iran

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


What public leaders say for public consumption and what they promise behind closed doors are vastly different things. Did you know Mossad trains Saudi security at the King's level? No joke. Or maybe you didnt notice how during the last decade, when IDF attacked Gaza and Lebanon, Saudi Arabia defended Israel's position, not that of fellow muslims. Do the research. Its all in plain sight.

reply to post by synthesizer

Did you know Mossad trains Saudi security at the King's level? No joke. Or maybe you didnt notice how during the last decade, when IDF attacked Gaza and Lebanon, Saudi Arabia defended Israel's position, not that of fellow muslims.

Did you know credibility is proven, not assumed on ATS?

Saudi Arabia is about as close to an ally of Israel as Russia is.

The only reasoned they boycotted the Arab League summit in January is because Washington told them to, they didn't want any of the Arab states to get any bright ideas about shutting off oil production as a protest against Israel, like they did in 1973.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

King Abdullah personally asked George Bush to step in and stop the Israelis:
www.reuters.com...

If you think Saudi Arabia is a new found friend of Israel, then I have a bridge to sell you in New York.

reply to post by thefreepatriot

You forgot to mention that Iran has a pretty descent airforce... which israel warplanes would have to get thru...

"Decent" is a relative word. Decent in terms of Middle Eastern standards? Maybe.

But they're still no match for Israel. The only true interceptors Iran fields are 40 or so MiG-29UB's, and those are probably old and deprived of spare parts, not to mention capable pilots.

Iran's SAM network presents far more of a challenging threat to Israel. Especially once they get their hands on more of Russia's S-300's.

reply to post by JanusFIN

Why give SAM to Iran? Russia is on coarse to a strengthening relationship with the USA and UK under Medvedev. Israel has been threatened time and again by Iran, when Israel defends itself by any means at its disposal who are Russia or the USA to be in a state of surprise?

reply to post by synthesizer


Thanks from your critical reply: I hope you are right, and I am wrong.

There is always two side in every story - other claims that black really is white and white - its really black!

I put my words on long history of this battle - Jews are driving cristian states against muslim states for their benefits and believes. 800yrs war has officially never ended - and in the brink of economical collapse, armies are now ready - and time has finally come to fight the last battle of the long war.

That will make WW3...

Only way to prevent war from coming, we the people - need to cut the head of the snake - attack bankers all over the world.

reply to post by ufoorbhunter


Why give airplanes to Israel? USA is on coarse to a strengthening relationship with Russia and the rest of the panet under Obama. Iran has been threatened time and again by Israel, when Iran defends itself by any means at its disposal who are Russia or the USA to be in a state of surprise?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I didn't say that Israel hasn't been challenged. It certainly has. I'm saying that Israel survives such challenges with almost supernatural tenacity. This tiny Jewish state, surrounded by hostile nations, has survived for more than 60 years in spite of the overwhelming odds.

That isnt what you wrote:

Somehow, tiny Israel has enjoyed an almost supernatural immunity to outside aggression while surrounded by the most hostile Muslim nations.

You claimed Israel had "immunity to outside aggression", which as I've shown is demonstrably fallacious assertion.

Originally posted by munkey66
this was an April fools joke wasn't it?

Suddam had just come out of an 8 year war with Iran the first time the US went in.
after that Iraq had had sanctions placed upon them for years before the US went in again.
My Grandmother could have taken Iraq out with a bad hip and a walking frame.

Iran on the other hand was still able to put a sattelitte into orbit with sanctions imposed upon it.

Before your grandmother attempts to take Iraq, I would like to see you take Iraq or for that matter your whole neighborhood or state!

It is a well known fact that after the Iran-Iraq wars, Saddam Hussein had turned Iraq into a heavily militarized state, the most powerful in the gulf. This he was able to do because unlike Iran, Iraq wasn't under any sanctions from the West and was even aided in countering Iran. It is this military might that gave Saddam the confidence to attack and occupy Kuwait.
Obviously you are completely ignorant of what Desert Storm/Shield was like to even consider Iraq some walk in the park. Do you have any idea how many sorties the USAF and the USN took to neutralize Saddam's SAM's ? Not to mention the number of countries Saddam attacked with his Scuds ??

As for the Second invasion, despite the sanctions, it is clear that Saddam was not abiding by the UN restrictions and was accumulating wealth illegally to fund his military and himself. It might not have been as intense as Desert storm but it was war nonetheless.

Iran today is just being portrayed as "powerful" because Iraq is unstable at the moment. A few S-300 systems arent going to be doing anything for Iran at all. Sending a rocket to space is something any tyrannical nation can do, as evidenced by N,Korea recently. It doesnt make them miltarily superior in any way shape or form. Especially when comparing them to Israel.

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by IAF101

 

Israel doesnt need NATO help to take on IRAN. It can do it pretty much alone.

except it can`t - it requires US tanker assests to reach more than 1% of targets and thats with violating saudi airspace = expect Tornado F3`s and F-15`s to intercept the IAF aircraft.

Thats what the Syrians thought, thats what Saddam thought and thats what Hamas recently thought when IDF blew up their convoy.

They dont need to go through Saudi Arabia or use US tankers at all. They have their own tankers. They would just need their tankers to fly into Iraq, loiter, refuel their Jets and head out of Iraq. The USAF wont intercept them. And this is just one way they can do it.

They also have the option of simply using Jericho III IRBM's to take out Iranian facilities at ease from Israel. More over any Iranian response could be pretty well countered with the Arrow -2 BDM.

I just pointed out two ways they can do it, with capabilities that are well documented. Israeli military planners can easily come up with much more ways with other capabilities that most of us cant imagine.

Originally posted by IAF101
You claimed Israel had "immunity to outside aggression", which as I've shown is demonstrably fallacious assertion.

In your mind, boy, only in your mind.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by IAF101
You claimed Israel had "immunity to outside aggression", which as I've shown is demonstrably fallacious assertion.

In your mind, boy, only in your mind.

— Doc Velocity

Are you disputing what you have written yourself ?? I can quote your post once again. Or would you like to "interpret" what 'immunity to outside aggression' means ?

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
reply to post by JanusFIN

 

Why give SAM to Iran? Russia is on coarse to a strengthening relationship with the USA and UK under Medvedev. Israel has been threatened time and again by Iran, when Israel defends itself by any means at its disposal who are Russia or the USA to be in a state of surprise?

Russia is backing Iran out of its own interests. Remember, Russia has its own interests. It doesnt need to appeal to the US or the UK. It can sell weapons to whoever it want's to, because it gains them influence.

as for the main article topic,
If Israel attacks Iran, then iran will strike back at Israel and American forces, citing that American forces would probably become involved. If that happens, then its game pver. Facing both the isralei AND US military? its like the Nazi's. That would seal their fate as dead men.

reply to post by IAF101


i. no operation, ever, has israel sent its tankers anywhere far from there own bases - every long range strike has used buddy-buddy tankers loaded with the biggest drop tanks they can fit. no the IAF arn`t stupid enough to send there few tankers outside of there own airspace.

reply to post by IAF101

It is a well known fact that after the Iran-Iraq wars, Saddam Hussein had turned Iraq into a heavily militarized state, the most powerful in the gulf.

Correction: PRIOR to 1980, Iraq was one of the most powerful Arab states.

After loosing 250,000 plus men and the United States cutting off all military support because of the Iran-Contra scandal, Iraq was one of the least powerful Arab states.

By 1991, Iraq had almost half the standing army it had just 8 years prior.

This he was able to do because unlike Iran, Iraq wasn't under any sanctions from the West and was even aided in countering Iran.

Where do you think he was manifesting all this military equipment and professional training from?

The United States did everything for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war save for pull the trigger. They gave him constant satellite coverage, guidance for precision airstrikes, Special Forces advisors, even torture and interrogation methods ironically.

Without their support after the stalemate of the Iran-Iraq war, he had to rely primarily on Soviet support and second-rate arms imports to amass against Kuwait's largely Western military.

Obviously you are completely ignorant of what Desert Storm/Shield was like to even consider Iraq some walk in the park. Do you have any idea how many sorties the USAF and the USN took to neutralize Saddam's SAM's

1 American pilot was lost to enemy fire during the Gulf War.

One.

Your attempt to characterise Saddam as a potent threat to the combined arms force of some 32 Coalition Countries, in order to redeem the IAF's so-called "advanced capabilities" is just laughable.

Most of those search & destroy sorties you refer to were to hunt down SCUD launchers, which were a very viable threat to Coalition Forces stationed outside Iraq, and resulted in the single, largest loss of life during the entire war when an Al-Hussein missile hit the US Barracks in Dharan.

Unlike Saddam's hopelessly undergunned SAM network.

Not to mention the number of countries Saddam attacked with his Scuds ??

Two countries. Israel and Saudi Arabia. Causing a whopping total of 3 casualties in Israel and 28 in SA.

Nice attempt at spinning the story your way though.

Iran today is just being portrayed as "powerful" because Iraq is unstable at the moment. A few S-300 systems arent going to be doing anything for Iran at all.

Iran has the largest standing army in the Middle East currently.

Not to mention operates the longest-range ballistic missiles fielded by any Middle Eastern nation and has a huge indigenous military production capacity, making it's own planes, tanks, missiles, assault rifles and even UAVs.

Iran's airforce is second only to Israel and Turkey.

Forgive us for blowing Iran's almost 1 million combined soldiers "out of proportion" when comparing Israel's force of 180,000 .

Former US General John Abizaid laid it out very clearly, of just what the Pentagon thinks of Iran:

the commander of US forces in the region laid out capabilities Iran has that US military planners must reckon with.

"Number one, they have naval capacity to temporarily block the Straits of Hormuz, and interfere with global commerce if they should choose to do so," Abizaid said.

"Number two, they've got a substantial missile force that can do a lot of damage to our friends and partners in the region," he said.

"Number three, they have a pretty robust terrorist surrogate arm that could in the event of hostilities cause problems not only in the Middle East but globally.

"And number four, they have a very substantial land army that, while it's not offensively worrying, is certainly capable of conducting asymmetric warfare."

"Right now Iran is the most powerful military force in the region, except for the United States of America," Abizaid said Tuesday.

www.spacewar.com...

[edit on 3/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by IAF101

Thats what the Syrians thought, thats what Saddam thought and thats what Hamas recently thought when IDF blew up their convoy.

It's one thing attack neighbouring countries only a few hundred kilometres away, that are well within your Airforce's operational range, not to mention not possessing any real SAM defences.

It's quite another to launch a massive, aerial surgical strike against targets over 1,800km away, spread across a diverse area, buried upwards of 75ft underground, with nothing but F-16's and pitifully undergunned JDAM munitions.

They would just need their tankers to fly into Iraq, loiter, refuel their Jets and head out of Iraq. The USAF wont intercept them. And this is just one way they can do it.

Loiter?

What you think KC-130 refuelers can just circle around Iraq for a few hours while they wait for the F-16's to travel another 800km and take out the targets?

Any breach of Iraq's sovereignty is a breach of America's military sovereignty.

The Iraqi Government wouldn't ever allow Israeli planes over their airspace and the Washington made a big enough stink about the Turks cross-border campaign in Northern Iraq, so I seriously doubt they'd just allow Israeli planes to waltz in and out of their joint airspace without repercussions.

Israeli didn't get a green light last year for an air strike and that certainly kept that idea off the table for the rest of the year.
edition.cnn.com...

Unless Washington authorizes it, you can be sure Israel's never going to have the balls to go at it alone without big brother holding it's hand.

They also have the option of simply using Jericho III IRBM's to take out Iranian facilities at ease from Israel. More over any Iranian response could be pretty well countered with the Arrow -2 BDM.

Uh, not they don't. No one has the option of a Nuclear first strike here, which is the only way IRBM's would be effective in taking out Iranian sites.

Even Israel isn't as insane to consider that.


[edit on 3/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

It doesn't nessicarily have to be a nuclear payload on the missile. It could be a high explosive warhead or even a kenetic warhead

reply to post by TyrantStorm

It could be a high explosive warhead or even a kenetic warhead

Two things:

1. Do you know why it's called an Intermediate-Range BALLISTIC Missile? Because it's ballistic. Not kinetic. There's no such thing as kinetic, ballistic missile.

2. A HEAT warhead isn't capable of penetrating 75ft of earth and reinforced concrete.

The only way IRBM's would be effective in taking out Iranian nuclear sites is via Nuclear payloads.

[edit on 3/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by IAF101
First if you read those articles they will tell you that those joint exercises dont mean anything. Next, those exercises were a very small contingent of soldiers for each country. Also, the US has held similar "joint exercises" with the Russians a few times. english.people.com.cn...

They dont really mean anything significant other than some political maneuvering. Holding drills and evolving a military relationship are two very different things. To actually form a military alliance, they would need to evolve a unified command, a unified plan of action and unified communications and intelligence sharing. They have none of these things.

I know a lot of native Russians and if you think that Russia will stand idly by twiddling their thumbs while the US/Israel run roughshod over Iran than I'm going to have to inform you of the sad reality of your naivety.

It is common knowledge even amongst the common Russian folk that if Israel attacks Iran that Russia will allow Chinese troops to march right through mother Russia and the fledgling former republics in order to re-enforce the Iranian army. Russia will give arms by the truckload and then you've got another Korea situation at least. And a full blown retreat of any task forces land or sea at worst. Russia has some pretty damn impressive Sun Burn missile systems that are just dying to blow up a few 5000 personnel strong, aircraft carriers. I'm aware of no counter measures that the USA has developed to answer Russia's latest very nasty antiship arsenal.

I don't think the US economy will hold for one more Middle Eastern misadventure either. The fuel prices alone would bring what's left of our economy to it's knees and that's just for starters.

Iran is a powder keg waiting to blow the roof off of the Parthenon once again.

I also feel that your getting way too cocky as to what the USA/Israel is truly capable of at this point in lieu of the Bush administrations previous blunders.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


www.abovetopsecret.com...

^^ saudi arabaia has chinese built nuclear capable IRBM`s with a 2500 km range - and yet no one is complaining about them....

with a CEP of a few hundred meters they sure as heck arn`t loaded for duck with high explosives.


as for kinetic kill balisitc missiles - with a good enough CEP you could actually have a huge ass lump of pointed metal for a kinetic kill weapon - mach 28 from low orbit would make for a resonable bang.

reply to post by Harlequin
Look mate I bought a Chinese kitchen and it was cock....piss. Serious it was abig mistake. Next time I will buy something well made and not trying to screw my pocket with a joke product. They make stuff that is cheap but it is something that is not satisfying