Israel vs. Iran

Iran has a good and strong military and could easily wear off an israeli assault, and be able to retaliate with the Hizbullah and the Shahab high-precision long-range missile That is what the israelis are afraid of.

Moreover Iran is engaged in negotiations with the EU. Iran would cut it's civilian atomic energy programme (while i don't know why they should do it while israel has uninspected nuclear weapons facility) in return for a mutual defense treaty with the EU and access to european arms markets. Especially this later idea seems very good to me : While doing business, the EU could empower Iran to become completely invulnerable to the usual american-zionist bullying and threats policy.

[edit on 13-9-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

Originally posted by rustiswordz
err we are talkin Iran here and the fact its difficult to get ground troops there. Im saying its easier to attack Iran from the air.

Palestine is just a little closer.

(Besides the kid probably has a bag of C4 and the sooldier isnt taking any chances )

ah ya it must be very funny to you.

Originally posted by rustiswordz
err we are talkin Iran here and the fact its difficult to get ground troops there. Im saying its easier to attack Iran from the air.

Palestine is just a little closer.

(Besides the kid probably has a bag of C4 and the sooldier isnt taking any chances )

Bomb what from the air? An unprovoked airstrike even on nuclear facilities would bring strong political backlash against Israel domestically and internationally, as well as open the possibility of more Intifada and bombing by missiles. Basically, Israel doesn't have the airpower to do anything but piss off Iran. If they do, tell me where they have hundreds and hundreds of forward-based aircraft, AWACs, refuelers, strategic and tactical bombers, as well as ECM-jamming aircraft, a nearly unlimited supply of munitions, aircraft, spare parts, and pilots. Last I checked the whole IAF has about 28,000 airmen and 550 aircraft, the biggest one being F-15C. It's a defense force.

[edit on 13-9-2004 by taibunsuu]

Originally posted by drfunk
good post taibansuu. Israel can only win a long protracted war against Iran if its lapdog the United States was supporting it fully.

Do you really think a country like Israel controls the United States? Israel could not survive without US support. The US would survive quite well without Israel perhaps It would be better off without it.

Can the puppet survive without the puppet master? The Puppet master can survive without the puppet.

So if someone is controlling someone who do you think would be pulling the strings?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by drfunk
good post taibansuu. Israel can only win a long protracted war against Iran if its lapdog the United States was supporting it fully.

Do you really think a country like Israel controls the United States? Israel could not survive without US support. The US would survive quite well without Israel perhaps It would be better off without it.

Can the puppet survive without the puppet master? The Puppet master can survive without the puppet.

So if someone is controlling someone who do you think would be pulling the strings?

Basically... this is a huge subject covered extensively in other threads. On this one I want to hear how people suggest Israel could go to war with Iran. It's hard to believe there are people who believe this is possible, so it's entertaining.

hmm you have drawn hasty conclusions from my statements. Israel doesn't control the US but it has extensive direct and indirect influence on US Foreign Policy and the govt.


thanks,
drfunk

If Israel goes on the offense, then it will only be a pre emptive strike on nuclear facilities(like Iraq 1981). If Iran retaliates, then Israel will be on the defensive for the rest of the war. This is because Israel is not interested in targetting anything in Iran except for the nuclear facilities. Israel will never accept an enemy neighbor with Nuclear capabilities.

Israel has proven many times before that numbers dont matter. Israel never focuses on quantity, she focuses on QUALITY. Basically, they can only fight each other in the air. The IAF has proven herself many times to be one of the best. Think about it... Iranian F-14s vs. IAF F-15Es? that's a joke, no offense.

Simply, Israel has the edge in technology and quality. Therefore, I highly doubt that Israel will use their nuclear strength. Israel wont be interested in invading Iran, cuz they dont share a border. When it comes to air battles, like in every other war, Israel will dominate. Once the enemy's Air Force is depleted, its ground units are sitting ducks to the IAF.

Originally posted by DJAghetto
If Israel goes on the offense, then it will only be a pre emptive strike on nuclear facilities(like Iraq 1981). If Iran retaliates, then Israel will be on the defensive for the rest of the war. This is because Israel is not interested in targetting anything in Iran except for the nuclear facilities. Israel will never accept an enemy neighbor with Nuclear capabilities.

Israel has proven many times before that numbers dont matter. Israel never focuses on quantity, she focuses on QUALITY. Basically, they can only fight each other in the air. The IAF has proven herself many times to be one of the best. Think about it... Iranian F-14s vs. IAF F-15Es? that's a joke, no offense.

Simply, Israel has the edge in technology and quality. Therefore, I highly doubt that Israel will use their nuclear strength. Israel wont be interested in invading Iran, cuz they dont share a border. When it comes to air battles, like in every other war, Israel will dominate. Once the enemy's Air Force is depleted, its ground units are sitting ducks to the IAF.

F-15Cs have a flight range of 2,500 miles with external fuel tanks at subsonic cruise. Iranian nuclear facilities are located in eastern Iran. The distance to and from the area of these facilities from Israel is 2,000 miles. That does not give the F-15Cs much of a bombload capability or error correction in navigation, and gives them no capability to spend time in a dogfight. The Iranian nuke facilities will likely be in a hard underground complex, diminishing the chances of an effective strike.

Flying all the way across Iran in non-stealth aircraft and spending at least 210 minutes over Iranian airspace, when Iran has an operating air force with F-4s, F-14s, F-5s, Mig-29s, and a fully operating air defense system, and no external distractions, would be an extremely difficult operation. Israel's IAF is very defensive and they don't have the refueling capability, the C-and-C, or the ECM abilities to neutralize all of Iran, enter their airspace for over 2 hours, and hit a target.

The possibilities of losing planes and pilots to Iran, combined with the political ramifications of carrying out a first strike are too great compared to the possible benefit of hitting some nuclear facilities.

What happens when you bomb a nuclear facility, or lab, or anything else? Pieces remain, the research remains, and in a case like this Iran would have temporary damage to recover while Israel would have a far more difficult time recovering from lost pilots paraded on TV, and domestic and international dissent.

The 1981 Israeli strike on the Osiraq Reactor in Baghdad was a massive gamble. Israeli F-16s bombed a fully-loaded nuclear reactor in a heavily populated area. They didn't lose any planes, but the distance from Israel to Baghdad is about 900 miles round trip, and Iraq's air force was fully engaged in the East with Iran. The distance into Iran is much further, Iran is at peace, and bombing a research facility is more difficult than nailing a nuclear reactor.

So, Israel has a major challenge of unprecedented difficulty if they want to perform a strike on Iranian nuke facilities. What we are looking at is a measure of risk vs. reward. I'd say the risk does not equal the reward in this case.

Originally posted by drfunk
hmm you have drawn hasty conclusions from my statements. Israel doesn't control the US but it has extensive direct and indirect influence on US Foreign Policy and the govt.


thanks,
drfunk

That I cant argue with. Its just when the term ''Lapdog ''is used it seems to convey at certain message of control. Like one is the owner and the other is just this little dog under the control of its owner.

Israel is not the only country that has extensive direct and indirect influence on US. Saudi Arabia comes to mind right of the bat.

taibunsuu,

Israel has F-15Es, which will RAPE any other aircraft in service today.

Israel also has F-16Is, which were specifically designed for Israel. They could easily hit Iranian targets and return home without refueling.

taibunsuu,

As I'd promised, back tonight. I seen your posting with the geographic and demographic information. ? These things I already knew. What the bottom line here is the desire to win an armed conflict in the event that one should arise, and my money is placed on Israel.

As the world certainly knows, Israel has a sea to its west and is surrounded to the north,east and south (North Africa included) by over 300,000,000 Muslims who doesn't recognize Israel as a nation. They'd all assume to see her destroyed. given this extreme advantage, one may ask the question, "Why does Israel even exist?"

I'll tell you why. The entire region isn't organized as Israel is militarily and don't have the resources they need to meet their desires, let alone the will to fight. The Muslim's talk is loud, but loud talk don't win battles or wars.

On top of the fact that that Israel will be backed by the United States with arms and funding, Israel will be backed by the world's Jewish Community and India to combat it's enemies if needed. All Jews are born with the calling to return to Israel in her defense.

With all the statistics on the table, it is Israel who is the the underdog and instantly the world would think that they should have the disadvantage.

But you've also got to consider the nuclear capabilities of India and her support of Israel. I found this link: www.dancewithshadows.com...

Don't get me wrong. I never mentioned it would be easy. I just said Israel would be victorious.

Well I'm glad to see you now realize that Israel is in no way shape or form capable of engaging in a war with Iran, given the fact they share no common borders and have huge disparities in the form of populations, economies, and militaries.

This is your original post in reply to the thread asking what people thought about the possibility of war between Israel and Iran:

"Israel would be victorious.

Their military is a very highly trained force and they are not constrained by the same Rules of Engagement the the U.S. military is.

It wouldn't be much of a war if they did have one.

They are constantly in combat situations unlike any other nation on Earth. there is no doubt in my mind that they would come out on top, very quickly."

Israel of course does have a very good military, but this military is made to defend an area slightly smaller than New Jersey, with similiar geography. The abilities for Israel and Iran to have an open conventional conflict are limited by numerous factors. The defense paradigm between Israel and Iran excludes the possibility of conventional war and enters the realm of nuclear deterrence, which Israel currently has a monopoly on.

The reason Israel has been saber rattling as of late is because they don't want to lose the nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Iran's strategy over the past 25 years since their revolution has been to be purely defensive, walk quietly, and carry a big stick.

But before I'll shut up before I carry this thread into another arena. The politics of the Middle East, national alignments, geostrategy in the area of the world containing the best access to huge reserves of the world's most valuable commodity is an entirely different discussion.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Massed land formations are easy to take out with nukes. The only problem is that nukes are not politically popular around the world, and it would essentially make Israel the second country in the world to use nukes, and the first in an offensive tactical role. There would be no international support for Israel whatsoever, embargos against the country, and no tacit support from the US government if Israel used a nuke offensively on Iran. Besides that, look at the comparitive size of Israel and Iran and population density. How many more nukings do you think Iran can take compared to Israel? If Israel ever used a nuke first you are talking World War III.

Since when has Isreal been concerned with their popularity in the world? They would not hesitate to use nukes in their defence under any circumstance if they felt they needed to.

Isreals soldiers are much better trained and equiped. That coupled with air superiority would do the trick for them.

How could they extend air superiority all the way to Iran? They do have better fighters, but the IAF is not infinite by any means and they are more than mortal. Irans fighters include F-14s, which is about the same generation as F-16s. Not to mention the fully effective air defenses of Iran. Losses would accumulate quickly.

It's easy to extend air power - it has the most "reach" of any part of the military. Irans fighters include less then 5 (if i remember right) F-14's and they don't have the parts for upkeep. Isreal has F-15's all with modern avionics, radar, ect ect ect. Losses would accumulate MUCH faster for Iran then Isreal.

That being said, I agree with you in that there will be no war. I was responding to this as a hypothetical situation where military power was to be the main factor, not geopolitical situations and geography.

Geopolitics and geography are two huge strategic considerations of warfare in all instances.

Enemy
Terrain
Weather

I agree. My point here is that the Superior fighting force is Isreal - they have better aircraft, better equipment better training, more nukes ect. Plus, they have US backing.

Well, the issue that was brought up was could Israel and Iran go to war.

Of course Israel worries about it's image. If it didn't, there wouldn't be things like AIPAC, etc. If they didn't worry about their image domestically and internationally they would have done many things differently.

In 1985 on the revolutionary parade, Iran flew 25 F-14s in formation over Tehran. They had to use computer hackers to crack into the spare computer parts and also program new ones. The mechanical parts are manufactured in Iran itself. AIM-54s and at least one Tomcat were exchanged with Russia for technical assistance.

So, Iran has about 30 operational Tomcats, but they also have F-4s, F-5s, Mig-29s, and a host of lesser interceptors. They definitely have the ability to defend against an Israeli raid into their airspace given the distance.

Israel could use a nuke, yes. But nukes are valued for deterrence, not offense. If they use a nuke in an offensive manner they lose all political righteousness in saying that only they can be trusted with nukes. Like I said earlier, look at the comparitive sizes and population densities of Iran and Israel.

Bushehr power plant and other nuclear facilities are protected with S-300 and Iranian made anti aircraft missiles. There is no way your F15s and F16s can get there in one piece.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Well I'm glad to see you now realize that Israel is in no way shape or form capable of engaging in a war with Iran, given the fact they share no common borders and have huge disparities in the form of populations, economies, and militaries.

I'm watching Monday Night Football and been trying to keep up with what's on ATS at the same time, that's the reason I've not answering your postings promptly.

Back to the reply, I don't see where you say that I said that Israel is not in any shape or form of engaging in an armed conflict with Iran. They are highly capable with the backing of her allies. I can tell you this. Iran doesn't want to find out ( or any of her enemies that surround her for that matter) and Israel will not make the first move.

I'll repeat myself once again. Israel will be the one who is victorious if an armed conflict should arise between her and Iran.

Just because I said it wouldn't be easy, it didn't mean it would be a stretched out conflict.

even without the US, Israel could beat Iran.

In 1948, Israel had a limited amount of amunition, vehicles, planes, etc. She was up against six neighboring countries who had unlimited supplies!!!

...and against all odds, tiny Israel prevails...

there's only one explanation. Simply, muslims cant fight. they just cant. dont get me wrong!!! they're experts when it comes to blowing themselves up. but in real warfare, they lack STRATEGY and the ability to fight. no offense, but Israel has proven that many times before.

Israel is always struggling to survive. when you're bordered with hostile nations, you have no choice BUT to fight. Therefore, Israel must always stay on top of their game.

Israel would be able to make strategic strikes, like the one against the Iraqi nuclear facility a decade or so ago.

But to launch a land war would be a stretch of the imagination. The logistics alone are daunting, and unless the United states forces in Iraq were providing flank and supply line security, which, incidentally, they are having a hard time doing for themselves, it would be akin to Napolean invading Russia, without the winter.

The more probable scenerio is Iran invading Israel. In spite of the emotions running high as it relates to Israel's military potency, history resides squarely on their side as being able to defend themsleves.

Wars of a protracted nature are, for the most part I believe, a thing of the past. Protracted is when the force attempts to pacify a hostile population (Iraq/US). If Israel is threatened with extermination Operation Sampson will be launched, and the middle east will suffer a regional nuclear catastrophe.

The diffuculty in the entire scenerio is the position of US forces in Iraq. Any move by Iran toward Israel would more than likely engage US forces, and ignite a larger, uglier conflict.

The Spider

F-4s, F-14s, F-5s, Mig-29s

out of the four aircraft mentioned, the F-14 has the only chance of surviving at least 10 minutes in a dogfight with the IAF.

As far as im concerned, the mig-29 can hold its ground against F-15Cs, but against Israeli F-15Es and F-16Is? they dont stand a chance...

F-4s and F-5s? wow... im shocked!!! i dont know wat to say... i just hope that those pilots understand that they're not coming back home...

I think that Howard Bloom's assessment of Islam and the hazards is among the most astute and informed I've found. This article outlines France's complicity in giving Pakistan Nuclear Subs capable of launching nuclear Cruise Missles.

from

www.howardbloom.net...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Osama bin Laden may soon have his hands on three Agosta 90B next-generation stealth submarines capable of carrying sixteen sea-to-land cruise missiles each. Those missiles can deliver atomic warheads. And Osama, I suspect, will have access to the forty nuclear warheads constructed by Pakistan.
Washington and New York, two primary targets for Al Qaeda, are near bodies of water from which these nuclear-tipped missiles can be launched. So are many other major American cities.

Here are the skeletal details:

In 1994, DCN, the government-owned company that builds France's naval vessels, agreed to help the Pakistanis build and learn to operate a rather amazing shipyard. It was a next-generation facility building next-tech, Agosta 90B stealth submarines. As of today two of these subs have been built and a third is scheduled for launch by 2006.

Each Agosta 90B is able to carry sixteen Harpoon Stand-Off Land Attack cruise missiles. According to the Pakistani Navy Captain Iftikhar Riaz Qureshi, who commanded both of these subs in their test phases, Pakistan purchased its Agosta 90Bs to provide itself with "second strike nuclear capability." Qureshi's words imply that from day one, Pakistan's intention has been to tip these missiles with atomic warheads. And guess what? Since Pakistan tested its first nuclear bomb in 1998, every nuclear device it's made has been a missile warhead.


According to Defence Journal, Pakistan's subs have a range of close to twelve thousand miles…they can travel to the Hudson River or the Chesapeake Bay, unleash their missiles on New York and Washington, then still be able to take refuge in mid-ocean, lay low and threaten other world capitals with a similar fate.

The United States operates a network of hydrophones scattered all over the Atlantic and Pacific seabed. We are listening for subs like these. But we may not be able to hear them. The Pakistani subs use a methanol-and-liquid-oxygen engine bedded on a suspension system that quiets its purr to a whisper. We may not be able to detect their silent running beneath the sounds of zebrafish fanning their tails.

Many a Pakistani would love to see the nuclear destruction of America's key cities. Pakistan has one of the most violently fundamentalist and anti-American populations of any of the world's 57 Islamic states. And that's saying something.

--snip--

Pakistan is also the nation that educated a generation of Afghan refugees who later went home to take over their country in the name of Islamic purity and justice. We know those refugees as the Taleban.

Today Osama bin Laden is one of Pakistan's two biggest pop-culture heroes. The other is "The Father of the Islamic Bomb", Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan and Osama have reportedly met in Afghanistan. Khan is the weapons expert. Osama is the weapons user.

--snip--

Here's what I strongly suspect is Osama's dream endgame: Nuke a few key cities in the United States. Blind and devastate the Great Satan. Then watch while France, Germany, Italy, and England capitulate. Capitulate to what? To Osama's dream, his passion, his vision of truth and freedom--to a global Islamic caliphate.

I want a world of peace. So do you. But until our understanding of ourselves goes a good deal farther, we have to face the fact that we live in a world of violence. If we pledge to remain non-violent, those who've declared themselves our enemies and who love "death more than you love life" will chuckle at our weakness…and use it to cheer their comrades on to new atrocities. They will fight the battle of the faithful and the good--the fight for what Osama calls "justice, manners, and purity"-the battle for the truth of God's messenger. They will assert the truth expressed by an al-Qaeda-allied author, Seif Al-Din Al-Ansari, that we live on an expendable "speck of dust called Planet Earth." They will use our reticence to make the mother of all wars. And it will not be environmentally friendly.