What's new

US can't attack Iran, and Israel probably can't handle the response: Slate

In 2005, one of Iran's top military generals said that the Iranian armed forces have concluded that no country could attack Iran and that the only threat facing Iran will be internal.

If they were foolish enough to try such a thing, the US fifth fleet based in Bahrain will be obliterated as would their bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Qatar. American soldiers will once again face the Mahdi army in Iraq and their vulnerable bases will taste shahab and zelzal missiles. A single barrel of oil will not be exported from the Persian Gulf and the world economy will grind to a halt. US fighter planes that will try to carry out such attacks won't have an airstrip to return to.

Israel will also be severely punished by Iranian Missiles based in Iran, Syria and Lebonan.

Should any Arab Dictator in the Persian Gulf decide to join in on any such attack, their oil and gas fields will be put out of operation for many years to come.

America can say goodbye to its aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, it will be forced to remove them or let them sink to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. To give you an insight into military planners in Iran; they have said in the past "as long as the US navy is in the Persian Gulf, we're not worried, as soon as they leave, we might start worrying" meaning we have the ability to sink their ships and they know it.

I went to a lecture given by an Iranian general and i got the impression that they are almost itching for a confrontation with the US for two reasons, one it will give us a reason to build nuclear weapons and two America would be forced to leave from the Middle east.

LOL...What total nonsense and delusional thinking....

How exactly will Iran destroy the US Fifth Fleet and their bases in the Gulf?

American B-52 Bombers, B-2 Bombers, Submarines, Cruise missiles will destroy all of Iran's Naval installations.

American Cruisers and Destroyers will make short work of any speed boats that might harass its Carrier Battle Groups.

America has deployed Aegis Battleships along with Arrow II and Patriot Missile Shield which will shoot down any incoming missiles from Iran.

Iran has no air-force. It has an obselete Air Force which is no match for US Air Power.

Its Army is non-existent. It's Tanks will be made mincemeat by American Tanks.

Iran cannot seal of the Persian Gulf. They tried and they got blown out of the water by US Naval Forces in 1988.


The Danger that Iran poses that it can de-stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, tell Hezbollah to launch terrorist attacks around the world and start another war with Israel.

If US forces were not bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran would have been attacked already.

Iran is no match for US forces. It will take USA, maximum of 2 weeks to totally defeat Iranian Forces and destroy all of its infrastructure.
 
Opening up another front would be extremely bad for the US economy and image due to many reasons but in such an attack there is much more at risk for US as well.

Practically speaking, a US attack on Iran would severely jeopardize the Operation in Afghanistan, Taliban are not at all liked by Iran and that has worked extremely well for current Afghanistan government and ISAF.

However if the two are pushed in the same boat...what then?
Nightmare?
Perhaps so...history has seen stranger bed partners than a hypothetical Taliban/Iran alliance!

I would say it is something which would genuinely worry American strategists and maybe Iran also factors this in their own plans.

Just my 2 cents here.
 
Well I would just say that may be mr ahmedinejad would be winning the hearts of the general iranian public but is leading iran towards international isolation and is surely destroying the public image of iran.Saying this I would also say that iran is extremely lucky that US cant risk a war with them now.As it is surely going to hurt the us economy which is badly struck by the depression,plus china is already giving them dreadly nightmares regarding the economy thing.Also the whole world after iraq war looks towards the US with suspicion.The war would only deteriorate their image further.Plus in US itself people and other parties wont approve of a war.Also they know that any war now would make countries like china and Russia and other central asian countries and probably pakistan and some small countries (which believe that US can attack them too in future) also to set up a military bloc against the nato(may be the military version of sco would become a reality) ...
 
I agree with S-2 in that while the Israelis are more than capable of pulling off a raid on a couple of Iranian nuclear sites, they don't possess the means to cripple the Iranian nuclear program so if anyone's going to do it, it'll have to be the Americans.

I don't think the US is looking for another war at the moment, they undoubtedly have the means but I doubt the public has the stomach for it. However, I believe they aren't willing to contend with a nuclear Iran either. If Pakistan is anything to go by, a nuclear Iran may well decide to blackmail the rest of the world with implosion. Israel will lose its conventional edge and will almost certainly have to contend with a sustained proxy war as India has for over a decade.

The fact is that while America can cope with a nuclear Iran, Israel definitely cannot. A nuclear Iran will have a direct bearing on Israel's future as a nation. I know India would have done everything in its power to stop Pakistan from going nuclear if it possessed the means to do so, our options today are severely limited simply because we know that a war with Pakistan could turn out to be more than we bargained for, at least for the moment we have no choice but to sit back and absorb blow after blow. I think Israel realizes the pitfalls of such a situation and as such an attack on Iran isn't really a matter of if but when.

I think the Israelis would be counting on American intervention, its clear that they cannot succeed without it. I only wonder how they'll manage to create the necessary conditions to compel military intervention. Contrary to what Abi had suggested in his post, the Iranians simply aren't foolish enough to block the strait of Hormuz as that would invite swift and decisive action on part of the Americans. It's plausible however that the Iranians would assume tacit American approval and use their proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan to retaliate against them and thereby invite a devastating aerial assault.

Israel cannot afford to let the Iranians stockpile enough U for even a single bomb, so if anythings going to happen I think it'll be now (2010) or never. IMO, it'll happen, India's sorry state is clearly not worth emulating.

Pakistan does not blackmail other countries with its bombs and India is not a timid little country which has absorbed blow after blow and has never threatened or done anything to Pakistan.
I do not see India in a very sorry state, but then it is your country so i will not comment any further.

However I will suggest we keep Pakistan and India out of this discussion!
 
Opening up another front would be extremely bad for the US economy and image due to many reasons but in such an attack there is much more at risk for US as well.

Practically speaking, a US attack on Iran would severely jeopardize the Operation in Afghanistan, Taliban are not at all liked by Iran and that has worked extremely well for current Afghanistan government and ISAF.

However if the two are pushed in the same boat...what then?
Nightmare?
Perhaps so...history has seen stranger bed partners than a hypothetical Taliban/Iran alliance!


I would say it is something which would genuinely worry American strategists and maybe Iran also factors this in their own plans.

Just my 2 cents here.

Hi ,

We all know that the war involving US is going to be bad for US economy, but no ones has even stated that how will it effect the world economy. Last year when US and UK went in recession half of the world was in the state of shock. China was the biggest looser , and it economy suffered too. China still has having a hanging sword as ti has the highest number of US$.

While Indian were little smarter to get gold from the market and not the US currency

Think guys it is not just US who will suffer it will be the whole world.
H
 
US along with Israel can definitely cripple Iran in quick time ....
but then to hold onto Iran after that is in the realm of impossibility for both the sates combined....and just hitting and leaving before creating a setup favorable for themselves is tactical and strategic suicide, i believe ... hence i dont think US is cannot open a third front coz it does not have the resources to finish this third front.....
 
US along with Israel can definitely cripple Iran in quick time ....
but then to hold onto Iran after that is in the realm of impossibility for both the sates combined....and just hitting and leaving before creating a setup favorable for themselves is tactical and strategic suicide, i believe ... hence i dont think US is cannot open a third front coz it does not have the resources to finish this third front.....

Hi,

I think US and Israel can definitely defeat Iran even if it is a third front for US.

Remember , that US has heaps of oil reserves which are untouched. It has technologies and also money to do some solid damage to IRAN and cripple it for a long time.

I also agree to ur point that US and Israel cannot hold on to Iran after Iran defeat. it will be US nightmare same as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very sorry to say but there are countries in the Muslim world who will help US and indirectly Israel in the fight with Iran.

H
 
Hi,

I think US and Israel can definitely defeat Iran even if it is a third front for US.

Remember , that US has heaps of oil reserves which are untouched. It has technologies and also money to do some solid damage to IRAN and cripple it for a long time.

I also agree to ur point that US and Israel cannot hold on to Iran after Iran defeat. it will be US nightmare same as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very sorry to say but there are countries in the Muslim world who will help US and indirectly Israel in the fight with Iran.

H

hey,

If US cannot hold onto Iran then there is not use starting an assault on it in the first place .... because ... today even if Iran is not going nuclear after that scenario it will go nuclear ... by hook or crook ....and u know where nukes are gonna go poping ... i believe an assault on Iran without a long term deployment strategy is more detrimental to US especially Israel than doing nothing at all .... because it will give the Iranian government and ppl a valid reason to retaliate ...
So i see more sanction and fear tactics and diplomatic presseure and isolation for Iran in the near future than a assault by the combined forces of Us and Israel.....
my 2 cents.......

P.s: i think i know which countries ur refering too...
 
hey,

If US cannot hold onto Iran then there is not use starting an assault on it in the first place .... because ... today even if Iran is not going nuclear after that scenario it will go nuclear ... by hook or crook ....and u know where nukes are gonna go poping ... i believe an assault on Iran without a long term deployment strategy is more detrimental to US especially Israel than doing nothing at all .... because it will give the Iranian government and ppl a valid reason to retaliate ...
So i see more sanction and fear tactics and diplomatic presseure and isolation for Iran in the near future than a assault by the combined forces of Us and Israel.....
my 2 cents.......

P.s: i think i know which countries ur refering too...



Hi,
US and Israel will see that Iran will not be able to make any N weapons for a long long time ,Also there is a opposition in IRAN TOO so this is a good time to get some puppet of US to rule Iran after the War.

Isolation and Diplomatic pressure are of no use, Eg North Korea, Cuba are few countries who has still survived and NK HAS the balls to even push US.

I think Iran leader if he is thinking good for his people then he will not escalate this issue because it will be the poor sections of the country which will suffer , they will be the one who will pay for thier president decision to go on to war. Richer class will run away from the country.

H
 
Hi,
US and Israel will see that Iran will not be able to make any N weapons for a long long time ,Also there is a opposition in IRAN TOO so this is a good time to get some puppet of US to rule Iran after the War.

Isolation and Diplomatic pressure are of no use, Eg North Korea, Cuba are few countries who has still survived and NK HAS the balls to even push US.

I think Iran leader if he is thinking good for his people then he will not escalate this issue because it will be the poor sections of the country which will suffer , they will be the one who will pay for thier president decision to go on to war. Richer class will run away from the country.

H
hi,

I completly . agree on ur last point that its the poor that will suffer the most ... and yes .....Iran has proved to the world that it will not bow down to the US so a goodwill gesture of leting the matter cool down will help Iran a lot more in terms of economics ....and technology....as they say survive today to fight again tomorrow....

lol, i personally believe if Iran lowers its stance ... and asks US to construct and maintain nuclear power plants in Iran for free ... they might do it to avoid a war.....:azn::cheesy::cheesy:
 
Just a reminder, in case some one missed it here. :disagree:

Fighter



War game shows how attacking Iran could backfire


By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Here's a war game involving Iran, Israel and the U.S. that shows how unintended consequences can spin out of control:

With diplomacy failing and precious intelligence just received about two new secret Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Tehran's nuclear complex. The strike is successful, wiping out six of Iran's key sites and setting back its suspected quest for a bomb by years.

But what happens next isn't pretty.

The U.S. president and his National Security Council try to keep the crisis from escalating. That sours U.S.-Israeli relations, already stressed by the fact that Israel didn't inform Washington in advance of the strike. The White House tries to open a channel for talks with Iran, but is rejected.

Instead, Iran attacks Israel, both directly and through its proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. It misinterprets U.S. actions as weakness and mines the Straits of Hormuz, the world's chief oil artery. That sparks a clash and a massive U.S. military reinforcement in the Persian Gulf.

This recent war game conducted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, part of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, appears to dampen hopes for a simple solution to Iran's real-world nuclear challenge.

The lesson is "once you start this, it's really hard to stop it," said Kenneth Pollack, a former White House and CIA official who oversaw the simulation.

Pollack and others who participated in the day-long exercise late last year are quick to point out that war games are imperfect mirrors of reality. How Iran's notoriously opaque and fractious leadership would react in a real crisis is particularly hard to divine.

But the outcome underscores what diplomats, military officers and analysts have long said: even a "successful" airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities — setting the program back by two to four years — could come at a tremendous, unpredictable cost.

"It's ... an option that has to be looked at very, very, very carefully," a senior European diplomat said Friday. "Because we know what the results could be, and they could be disastrous." He requested anonymity to speak more frankly on the sensitive issue.

Tensions over Iran's nuclear program rose again this week after the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog reported that the country could be secretly developing a nuclear warhead to be placed atop a ballistic missile. Additionally, Iran has begun enriching uranium closer to the purity level needed for use in a nuclear weapon.

Israel, which sees Iran as a direct threat, has refused to rule out military force, although officials there say they are counting for now on diplomatic pressure. There have even been hints from Sunni Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, that they would look the other way in the event of a strike on Shiite Iran, a historic adversary.

Yet one of the Brookings war game's major conclusions is that Israel could pay dearly for an attack on Iran.

By the end of the simulation, eight days after the fictitious Israeli strike, Israel's prime minister, under heavy domestic pressure, is forced to launch a 48-hour air blitz in southern Lebanon to halt rocket attacks from Hezbollah, the militant group sponsored by Iran. Israeli officials know the blitz is unlikely to achieve its objectives, and prepare a larger, costlier operation in Lebanon, including ground forces.

Israel's relations with the United States, its most important ally, are damaged. To avoid damaging them further, Israel bows to intense U.S. pressure and absorbs occasional missile strikes from Iran without retaliating.

Some members of the "Israeli" team nonetheless felt that setting back Iran's nuclear program "was worth it, even given what was a pretty robust response," said one participant. He asked that his name not be used, because under the game's ground rules, participants are supposed to remain anonymous.

Jonathan Peled, an Israeli embassy spokesman, declined comment on the war game or its outcome.

"All we can say is that Iran constitutes a threat not only to Israel but to the region, to the US and to the world at large, and therefore should be addressed without delay by the international community, first and foremost through effective sanctions," he said.

The Brookings war game was one of three simulations regarding Iran's nuclear program conducted in December. The other two, at Harvard University and Tel Aviv University, reportedly found that neither sanctions nor threats dissuaded Tehran from its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.

In the Brookings game, three teams of experts, including former senior U.S. officials, played the Israeli, Iranian and American leadership. They assembled in separate rooms at the think tank's Washington headquarters. Israeli and U.S. "officials" communicated with each other, but not with the Iranians.

One of the simulation's major findings was how aggressively the Iranians responded to the attack — more aggressively, some participants felt, than they would in real life — and how Washington and Tehran, lacking direct communication, misunderstood each other.

Iran did not retaliate directly against the United States or U.S. troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it struck back at Israel, then attacked Dharan in eastern Saudi Arabia, then began mining the Straits of Hormuz.

"There would be almost no incentive for Iran not to respond" with force, said another participant, a member of the Iranian team. "It was interesting to see how useful it was for Tehran to push the limits."

Without knowing it, Iran's last two actions crossed U.S. "red lines," prompting an American military response.

"No one came out on top — (but) arguably the Iranians," the Iran team member said.

The Tehran regime was also able to crush its domestic political opposition.


War game shows how attacking Iran could backfire | McClatchy
 
It really brings tear to my eyes

Please can someone bring me a handkerchief , I can't , bear this pain.

US can't attack Iran because , Innocent Israel will be totally unprotected

Lets see, :coffee:

ba0c90e126eb1eafff29aeee881dbfc4.jpg


YES fear .... its the best means to avoid unnecessary red bum:chilli:

And don't forget the S300 :)
86b662f6fbc324ca52711945144c1428.jpg


Check out those Shades and classy posture PUTIN is DA MAN
 
Last edited:
It really brings tear to my eyes

Please can someone bring me a handkerchief , I can't , bear this pain.

US can't attack Iran because , Innocent Israel will be totally unprotected

Lets see, :coffee:

ba0c90e126eb1eafff29aeee881dbfc4.jpg


YES fear .... its the best means to avoid unnecessary red bum:chilli:

And don't forget the S300 :)
86b662f6fbc324ca52711945144c1428.jpg


Check out those Shades and classy posture PUTIN is DA MAN

Hi,

I don't know what was ur post about , but u have definitely stop a good conversation.

CHEERS Mate

H
 
Before USA attacked IRAQ, Saddam Hussein also said same think.

If USA decides they can cripple iran in few hours.

Its just not like attacking iraq, vietnam or afghanisthan, US wont be able to bomb simply like that.

Also countries like Pakistan, India, russia and china which the iran has good relations will not support the idea.
 
As far as i am concened US is a big coward.. they had bigger problems and still have with countries in neighbourhood like cuba< venezuala and mexico but they never dared of talking a war. they send troops to places where they cant be attacked back like in ASIA and africa and even in eastern europe but never in north or south american territory.They have basically no lineage in any war apart from a atomic bombing in Japan. the world wars were fought in europe mainly and US role there has been not mentioning. They have successfull lured asian and african countries into fighting each other and letting their arms sales go up. the cold wars refleced on enemity between north and south korea, east and west germany, iraq and iran, inida and pakistan, now into russia vs states like georia, ukraine etc. Its a disturbing factor that India is looking for US in military and Pakistan acting on its behalf as an allay. I guess the world would have been much better without the bloody war mongering US.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom