Wartime tasks split: US to smash Iran’s missiles, Israel tackle Syria, Hizballah

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Wartime tasks split

An authoritative US military source told debkafile Sunday, Aug. 5 that the American armed forces are standing ready for war with Iran. Without going into the thorny question of who should lead the operation to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, the US or Israel, it is understood that one of the US Air Force’s tasks will be to destroy Iran’s Shehab-3 ballistic missile batteries which have Israel and Saudi Arabia within range. This task is not as formidable as Iranian spokesmen would have the world believe. Tehran’s entire stock of those missiles is no more than 30-40.



He went on to explain that by wiping out the Shehabs, the US high command would leave the Israeli Air Force free to take on the thousands of rockets Syria, the Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami have stored ready for shooting in support of an Iranian missile offensive - not just against Israel, but Turkey and Jordan as well.




We’ve been hearing about a strike on Iran for years now but I must admit this plan at this time definitely seems most plausible. I’m not saying I support this idea. I’m simply stating that this seems like the most likely scenario. We are close to one of the most hotly contested US presidential elections in history, Iran is becoming increasingly paranoid and its actions increasingly erratic, China and Russia have been blocking sanctions and other actions against Iran, and things just appear to be headed in the direction of war IMO.

If Israel were to strike Iran there is no doubt Hizbollah and Hamas would instantly launch an offensive to weaken Israel. By the US attacking Iranian missile sites Israel would be free to decisively stop any incursions from neighbors before attacking the Iranian nuclear sites. I also don't believe Israel can pull off a surgical strike against Iran's missile defenses or nuke sites WHILE fighting off the inevitable attacks against its homeland that will follow. If Israel was left to go it alone it wouldn't be a surgical operation, it would be a bit more....violent and destructive, if you know what I mean.

Regardless of your feelings about Israel or the US, what do you think about the plausibility of this scenario? Do you think we will see something happen before November or is this simply more drum beating?

edit on 5-8-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

Unfortunately I would have to agree with you.. war in the middle east is about to gear up to a whole new level..


Saturday, the Iranian Defense Minister,
Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, announced that his
ministry’s aerospace industries had
successfully test-fired the fourth generation
of high-precision Fateh-110 missiles with a
range of over 300km.

He said that the new missiles can hit and
destroy both land and sea targets, enemy
concentration points, command centers,
missile sites, ammunition dumps, radars
and other targets with 100 percent
precision.

DEBKAfile’s military sources add that the
Fateh-110 is the core weapon Syria and
Hizballah have stocked for destroying
strategic targets in Israel, Jordan and
Turkey.

Sunday, Aug. 5, a senior Israeli defense
official reported that Israel is upgrading its
Arrow II ballistic missile shield, designed to
intercept medium range rockets and fill the
gaps left by Iron Dome.

The announcement
in Tehran was taken in Israel as a threat
and an indication that the improved
Fatah-110 had already been dispatched to
its Damascus and Beirut destinations, so
exacerbating the perils of Syria’s Scud
missiles and chemical weapons which its
government has threatened to use against
external enemies.

All this preparation and sabre rattling isn't for nothing.. there is a Holy War around the corner..



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Like this is something new...or unexpected.

It was logical that US will "do" Iran and Israel will "do" Syria and Hezbollah.Not rocket science.And defo not news.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

An authoritative US military source told debkafile...


Caveat emptor



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Regardless of your feelings about Israel or the US, what do you think about the plausibility of this scenario? Do you think we will see something happen before November or is this simply more drum beating?

edit on 5-8-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)
It is a very real scenario, probably one of a hundred being discussed.

That's what the Military do, they plan Scenario's. There's probably a scenario or two for a war with Canada.

As far as a Good Scenario, no.

Just because Israel chooses to crap in their own backyard, why must the US clean it up?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Recollector
 



Like this is something new...or unexpected.

It was logical that US will "do" Iran and Israel will "do" Syria and Hezbollah.Not rocket science.And defo not news.


Uhmm….yes, it’s something new.

Where have you read that Israel would attack Syria while US attacks Iran?

I know the plan seems logical; I said so in the OP. And regardless, I didn’t post this in the “breaking news” forum.

Stop playing MOD.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by seabag

An authoritative US military source told debkafile...


Caveat emptor


Yes, but most news comes from “anonymous sources” or people speaking off the record.

This could be propaganda to keep Iran guessing or to get Iran to change course…I don’t know.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I hope it is more drum beating. A war would be too costly in terms of monetary value and human lives. I can't remember which thread I read it in, but, another poster said, "In war it doesn't matter who's right, it only matters who's left". I hope, if this happens, it isn't about getting more votes, but, based on proof that Iran is going to start being the aggressor with nukes. A war started about 'what ifs' and 'maybes' was already fought, and cost many innocents their lives and their way of life.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 


If what the op says is true I don't think they'll be able to build enough 4G missiles in time to make a difference. They do have a lot of 3G missiles though, and I would hate to be on the receiving end of a hellstorm of missiles, no matter what kind of missile defense I would be standing next to.

picture relevant




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 



As far as a Good Scenario, no.


This isn't a pro-Isreali thread and I didn’t ask if anyone agreed with the scenario (I know most people hate Israel here). I asked if it seems plausible (having an appearance of truth or reason). I'm worried something is going to go down soon and I have no doubt the US will have some involement which will affect our economy.

The scenario in the OP makes the most sense to me because it would be difficult for Israel to engage these missile targets and fight off multiple attacks at home at the same time.



Just because Israel chooses to crap in their own backyard, why must the US clean it up?


I never advocated for the plan I simply said this seems like the most plausible scenario that we might witness soon.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



I hope it is more drum beating. A war would be too costly in terms of monetary value and human lives. I can't remember which thread I read it in, but, another poster said, "In war it doesn't matter who's right, it only matters who's left".


I hope it doesn’t happen either….at least there should be no US involvement at this point.



I hope, if this happens, it isn't about getting more votes, but, based on proof that Iran is going to start being the aggressor with nukes. A war started about 'what ifs' and 'maybes' was already fought, and cost many innocents their lives and their way of life.


Agreed!


I haven’t seen congress declare war so war should not occur (but the law doesn’t seem to stop Obama). I’m of the mindset that if we have credible evidence of an imminent threat and congress declares war we should go in with full force and get it done. That has not occurred in the case of Iran.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I'm marking this on my calendar. Seabag and I agreed about something.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 



They do have a lot of 3G missiles though, and I would hate to be on the receiving end of a hellstorm of missiles, no matter what kind of missile defense I would be standing next to.


Your assessment on the quantity and impact of the Shehab-3 may be an overestimation.

From the article in the OP:


This task is not as formidable as Iranian spokesmen would have the world believe. Tehran’s entire stock of those missiles is no more than 30-40. That quantity is not nearly enough to take on the entire gamut of potential wartime foes, the United States Middle East bases, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey. They would quckly be picked off by American Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and Israeli Arrow guided interceptor rockets, which are synchronized through the advanced US X-Band radar systems installed in the Israeli Negev and southeast Turkey.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



I'm marking this on my calendar. Seabag and I agreed about something.


RIGHT!

I haven’t changed my position. In the past we must simply have been arguing too vigorously to listen to each other's position on this topic!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
If that's the actual plan, why would Debka put it out there? IDF putting this story out (that's what they use Debka for, as most know I think) serves some purpose, though I think it's hard to say what, exactly. Just to keep them guessing? I don't know, it's odd.

Also, if something happens, where does Turkey stand in all of this? Obviously they have no love for Syria or Iran, but their relations with Israel have been strained the past few years (after a long time of very good relations). Obviously they are the US's NATO ally and have a close relationship with us. Do they just sit it out or are they going to play some sort of role, too. They are the other major regional power in the area. The article makes mention of them several times as another potential foe of Iran, but doesn't suggest how specifically they would play a role. Just basing, or would they be part of an attack too?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I often wondered WHERE the HumanSlayer Assad gets his troops from, after numerous military defections and being tied down in the many districts to slaughter his own citizens.

Then, I read about the animal's defence minister visiting Iran last week, on a surprise visit, and suddenly reports of a massive 20,000 human slaying troops massing in Aleppo alone, and supposed 'pilgrims' captured were actually the oppressive and brutal Iranian revolutionary guards, I finally realized Iran's usual destabilizing hands in Syria.

For all its hypocritical condemnation and groundless accusations of other M.E. states supplying weapons to the Syrian freedom fighters, the Iranian apostate leadership were ACTUALLY supplying manpower to support buddy HumanSlayer Assad!

With brainwashed Iranian soldiers whom should be defending Iranian mothers and civilians, but dying for their apostate leader and the animal Assad, as well funding terrorism in other M. E states, what better time than to strike at Iran's nuke and repressive military installations now?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 



If that's the actual plan, why would Debka put it out there? IDF putting this story out (that's what they use Debka for, as most know I think) serves some purpose, though I think it's hard to say what, exactly. Just to keep them guessing? I don't know, it's odd.


More propaganda? Maybe so. They may be trying to intimidate the Iranian regime, though I don’t think that will happen.

In reality, even if what they described is true it’s not like Iran could do anything different to prevent it so why not throw it out there.



Also, if something happens, where does Turkey stand in all of this? Obviously they have no love for Syria or Iran, but their relations with Israel have been strained the past few years (after a long time of very good relations). Obviously they are the US's NATO ally and have a close relationship with us. Do they just sit it out or are they going to play some sort of role, too. They are the other major regional power in the area. The article makes mention of them several times as another potential foe of Iran, but doesn't suggest how specifically they would play a role. Just basing, or would they be part of an attack too?


Turkey would likely provide support in the way of basing, yes. I can’t see them getting involved in fighting but I also can’t see them appearing to take a stand against the NATO in that situation.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
While I wouldn't trust a Debka source to tell me what is on TV tonight, it would make sense that the IAF would ensure that it was not overcommitted to action on Iran when there are potential threats closer to home. However, while it may be in Iran's interest for Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria to fight Israel on its behalf, I wouldn't say that the reverse was true.

Recent events have made Iran's regional prospects look decidedly bleak. In the past Hezbollah has ridden Iran's coattails and accepted generous support; Iran is now looking for a return on its investment. The crisis in Syria has exacerbated issues for HB at home and reports indicate that it is not committing itself to the fight in Syria to the extent that Iran would like. This is notable due to the importance of Syria to both Iran and foreign aid to HB and it indicates that HB it is trending towards a future role as a force in Lebanon as opposed to a regional proxy of Iran.

Hamas on the other hand is actually supportive of the uprising in Syria and been distancing itself from Iran for some time. Iran's relationship with other Palestinian groups has been similarly complicated more recently, perhaps with the exception of PIJ. Iran cannot count on Hamas to do it any favours.

The Syrian military is running itself ragged trying to deal with events inside Syria. If things are bad for them now, an attack on Iran would make their situation absolutely hopeless. So not only will they hardly be in a position to begin a successful military offensive on Israel, but those who haven't already defected by that time will certainly be looking to make a break for it if their primary sponsor is being taken apart. Those who are left behind could hardly hope to better Syria's situation by initiating a war with its neighbours using the exhausted remnants of the Syrian army.

The big question of course is whether this war with Iran will materialise in the first place. I don't think that it will. It wouldn't make sense. My view is that as much as each may claim otherwise, a nuclear Iran would be tolerable to both Israel and the US providing that its regional influence is severely restricted.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Time to strike is within the next 45 days....just a guess.
Hit them hard and faaast.
Be done with them and move on.
This time lets take the OIL so we can lower prices at the pump....



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 



The big question of course is whether this war with Iran will materialise in the first place. I don't think that it will. It wouldn't make sense. My view is that as much as each may claim otherwise, a nuclear Iran would be tolerable to both Israel and the US providing that its regional influence is severely restricted.


Its almost impossible to restrict Iran's influence now. What makes you think they will be more cooperative once they have nukes? I'm confident they will be even more belligerent. N.Korea is a good example. 

Did you hear the bearded one in Iran running his mouth just this week? He basically said there will never be ME peace until Israel is obliterated. Does that sound reasonable to you?
edit on 5-8-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join