War with Iran Could Last Years, Says Bar-Ilan U. Researcher

War with Iran Could Last Years, Says Bar-Ilan U. Researcher

www.israelnationalnews.com

A researcher at the university’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, he recently published a sobering paper that based his hypothesis on the Iranian Shi’ite Muslim approach that the very existence of Israel is an insult to Muslims. He states that its philosophy is that “Allah promises them victory” and there is an obligation of Muslims to sacrifice themselves and surrender material goods for the sake of annihilating the Jewish State.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Entitled “The length and conditions for ending a future war between Iran and Israel,” the research paper notes that Iran fought Iraq for eight years despite suffering the deaths of half a million people, with another two million wounded and catastrophic damage to the economic infrastructure, amounting to $100 billion.

Dr. Vered (pictured at left) pointed out that the war ended only when the Shi’ite rulers in Iran realized that the regime was in jeopardy. Until then, the leaders felt there was no room for compromise.

The scenario
He rules out ideas that a quick missile war would put an end to a conflict because neither side would score a “knock-out,” and Iran does not have the capability of successfully attacking Israel with hundreds of long-range missiles.

Although it is easy to dismiss this as Israeli propaganda, I think his analysis of the situation is very plausible. Personally, I have claimed that Iran does not seek suicide and would be very reluctant to use unconventional weapons. However, the Mullahs are willing to push it very far.

In the 80s of last century, Iran and Iraq fought a very bloody conflict. Many people are not aware of the atrocities that took place during that war and hence, many people do not have an understanding of how extreme the Iranian regime is. Take a look at the following example:

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran’s forces were no match for Saddam Hussein’s professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child’s neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them. source

However, I believe that the reluctance to use unconventional weapons on both sides will lead to a scenario that would last many years, as described by this researcher, since both nations indeed would not be capable to destroy each other easily through conventional means.


www.israelnationalnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Mdv2]

The invasion will be as swift as Iraqs the guerilla war however would be as bad if not worse than Vietnam.

reply to post by Mdv2



Israel vs Iran
I'll try to be as blunt as possible. Israel has never fought a long protracted conventional war. If a real protracted conventional war scares them then don't do it.



However a continuous air campaign without invasion just going after infrastructure etc. You don't need an invasion to destroy a country.

Just a thought

Given the sheer size of the country, and the high percentage of youth in the country.. boots on the ground is simply not viable..

*if* an attack happens on Iran, my personal opinion is that will give the Iranian leadership the opportunity to claim they are waging a war of freedom, and will invade Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan under the banner of liberators.. Syria not wanting to miss out on the fun can push through into Iraq as liberators, while Lebanon ties up Israel.

Now you have sections of the people in most of those countries siding with Iran, which gives a potential power base spanning Syria to Pakistan.. this is not going to be a conflict that can be contained within Iran itself. While at the moment the Western forces are in such places that block such an expansion, how long will they be able to contain the mess to Iran?

So if you where Iran would you not link up with forces, troops, allied to your cause, that would also divide the forces opposing you... Personally I think it would be a mess..

And then you open the can of worms that is opportunism..

I am sure Venezuela will want to sort out it's problems with Columbia, as will North Koran with South Koran, China with Tawian and India and Russia with places liek Georgia

(just off the top of my head that type of opportunism could drive this war like a contangion around the world)

[edit on 28/4/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Very good observation.

I went for the quick Israel vs Iran answer. True once you add third parties then the dimension change drastically.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I guessed you did no criticism of anyone intended.

I can't help but feel that any conflict will end up turning the whole region into a mess, and give the opportunists out there the chance to bash their neighbour..

It does seem to be lining up to have the potential to be another global conflict.. and another map redrawing exercise..

Originally posted by SLAYER69






However a continuous air campaign without invasion just going after infrastructure etc. You don't need an invasion to destroy a country.

Just a thought

I think that assessment is right on the money !

Israel will play to their strengths . There will be no boots on the ground , perhaps barring a few special forces dropped into key installation - causing havoc behind the scenes.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


IMHO.. Shock and awe only works on contained nations.. Which Iran isn't.. The Iranians can attack Western forces in the Gulf, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan..

If Syria sides with Iran they can launch attacks on Iraq..

All of which leaves Western troops fighting on many fronts.. That is unless we in the West pull our troops back to contain the whole region, rather than single nations, the flaw with that is it allows the region as a whole to consolidate into a single power base.

I can not help but feel strategically that it would be a mistake to attack Iran at this point..

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Indeed - there seems to be many - many variables involved .

Too many loose ends flapping in the breeze ....... no knowing what other regional powers might do should they get an opportunity .

Technically they've been at war for thousands of years as people groups although not always as Israel and Iran.

And I think when (not if) it hits escalations it will be over in minutes via nuclear and chemical weapons.

reply to post by Mdv2


I think that any war involving Iran will essentially lead to a new cold war. Russia will play the game but will back Iran with in-kind support and intelligence and China will play both ends against the middle.

A cold war is the best kind of war for the military industrial complex as it gives them all of the government spiff without the nightly reports on battlefield deaths which tends to place the entire matter under greater scrutiny.

In this scenario, the EU is dead because the politics of the matter will not permit all EU countrys to take a given side. The political interests of different nations will drive different agendas