Thread: Will Israel Attack Iran in 2012?

Theory is nice,practice is a bitch.
Astralis,make it double.It's on the house.

"Hey S-2, I am well aware of the Sinai campaign..."

Nice. Then you should have acknowledged Troung's simple fact. You didn't. Why? I'm unsure but I'll chalk it up to your inattention to detail.

But you be a planin' mofo, bro. Sho nuff.

"...but try this on for size... It all starts with training, and if you would of watched the video, they are getting back to readiness, and doing this on an annual basis, and doing a drop, brigade, is impressive."

1,000 guys exited their planes. Big deal. Beyond that, you wouldn't know squat about the exercise. What was the notional target? What were the exercise overall objectives? How quickly did they coalesce and move to their targets? How was command and control on the ground once down? How long were they in the exercise? Were there resupply drops made later?

You don't actually know sh!t about the intent of this exercise beyond the article but you're ready to call it "...impressive..." anyway. Well...maybe it was. If so, though, it wouldn't be because your expert eyes deemed it so.

You're a fan-boy and this thread has degenerated into starkly ludicrous fantasy...thanks to the likes of you and those who've been dancin' to your tune.

This sucker long ago needed locking.

I am reopening this thread, as the question of an Israeli attack this year is heating up in the media.

S2 correctly points out that not all posters here are focused on the main question.

If you can't stay on topic, stay away.

This suggests that an attack is not far off. The Israeli clock may be running fast than the US clock, but which will prevail?

U.S. and Israel Split on Speed of Iran Threat
By MARK LANDLER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: February 8, 2012


WASHINGTON — Amid mounting tensions over whether Israel will carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel remain at odds over a fundamental question: whether Iran’s crucial nuclear facilities are about to become impregnable.

Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, coined the phrase “zone of immunity” to define the circumstances under which Israel would judge it could no longer hold off from an attack because Iran’s effort to produce a bomb would be invulnerable to any strike. But judging when that moment will arrive has set off an intense debate with the Obama administration, whose officials counter that there are other ways to make Iran vulnerable.

Senior Israeli officials, including the foreign minister and leader of the Mossad, have traveled to Washington in recent weeks to make the case that this point is fast approaching. American officials have made reciprocal visits to Jerusalem, arguing that Israel and the West have more time and should allow sanctions and covert actions to deter Iran’s plans.

The Americans have also used the discussions to test their belief, based on a series of public statements by Israeli officials, that an Israeli strike against Iran could come as early as spring, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

President Obama tried to defuse arguments for military action in a telephone call last month with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the substance of which was confirmed by an Obama administration official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the conversation. While the two men have had an often contentious relationship over Middle East diplomacy, American officials emerged from that exchange persuaded that Mr. Netanyahu was willing to give economic sanctions and other steps time to work.

The difference of opinion over Iran’s nuclear “immunity” is critical because it plays into not just the timing — or bluffing — about a possible military strike, but the calculations about how deeply and quickly sanctions against Iran must bite. If the Israeli argument is right, the question of how fast the Iranians can assemble a weapon becomes less important than whether there is any way to stop them.

“ ‘Zone of immunity’ is an ill-defined term,” said a senior Obama administration official, expressing frustration that the Israelis are looking at the problem too narrowly, given the many kinds of pressure being placed on Tehran and the increasing evidence that far tougher sanctions are having an effect.

The Israelis have zeroed in on Iran’s plan to put much of its uranium enrichment near Qum in an underground facility beneath so many layers of granite that even the Pentagon acknowledges it would be out of the reach of its best bunker-busting bombs. Once enrichment activities are under way at Qum, the Israelis argue, Iran could throw out United Nations inspectors and produce bomb-grade fuel without fear the facility would be destroyed.

At its core, the official said, the argument the Israelis make is that once the Iranians get an “impregnable breakout capability” — that is, a place that is protected from a military strike — “it makes no difference whether it will take Iran six months or a year or five years” to fabricate a nuclear weapon, he said.

The Americans have a very different view, according to a second senior official who has discussed the concept with Israelis. He said “there are many other options” to slow Iran’s march to a completed weapon, like shutting off Iran’s oil revenues, taking out facilities that supply centrifuge parts or singling out installations where the Iranians would turn the fuel into a weapon.

Administration officials cite this more complex picture in pressing the Israelis to give the latest sanctions a chance to inflict enough pain on the Iranian leadership to force it back to the negotiating table, or to make the decision that the nuclear program is not worth the cost.

Iran’s currency has plunged, they note; its oil is piling up in storage tanks because it cannot find buyers, and there is growing evidence of fissures among the country’s leadership.

After a period of doubt about Israel’s intentions at the end of last year, administration officials said the two sides were now communicating better. Mr. Obama, they said, reflected that when he said in an interview on Sunday with NBC News, “I don’t think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do.”

This is not the first time that the Israelis have invented a phrase that suggests a hard deadline before an attack. At the end of the Bush administration, they said they could not allow Iran to go past “the point of no return.” That phrase was also ill-defined, but seemed to suggest that once Iran had the know-how and the basic materials to make a bomb, it would be inevitable.

While nuclear experts believe Iran now has enough uranium to fuel four or more weapons, it would have to enrich it to bomb-grade levels, which would take months. Beyond that, Iran would have to produce a warhead that could fit atop an Iranian missile — a process that could take one to three years, most experts say.

Still, Mr. Barak’s theory of “immunity” has gained a lot of attention in recent weeks, complicating a debate charged with bellicose language — in Israel and Iran and among Republicans on the presidential campaign trail, where Mitt Romney and other candidates have pledged Israel full support in any military confrontation with Iran.

Disputes between the United States and Israel are inevitable, according to experts, given the radically different stakes of a nuclear Iran for a distant superpower and for a neighbor whose very existence the leaders in Tehran have pledged to eradicate.

“No end of consultations can remove that asymmetry,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.

Next month, Mr. Netanyahu is scheduled to visit Washington to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israeli lobbying group, to whom he and other Israeli leaders have regularly spoken about Iran’s “existential threat.” The White House has not yet announced whether Mr. Netanyahu will meet with Mr. Obama, though officials say it is likely.

Officials said that for all the friction between the United States and Israel over issues like Jewish settlements in the West Bank, it had not spilled over into the dialogue over Iran, in part because Mr. Obama has ordered it “walled off” from politics.

Administration officials also noted a distinction in the tone of Mr. Barak and Mr. Netanyahu, who does not publicly favor the phrase “zone of immunity.” This week, an American official noted, Mr. Netanyahu declared that on the topic of Iran, officials should just “shut up.”

“I think that’s good advice,” the American official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

Originally Posted by bigross86

All nice and well, but you might wanna get your numbers straight. There is absolutely no reason in the world you'd send Palsa"r 188 on a mission like this.

First of all, Palsa"r 188 is mainly a reserve unit, not an active duty unit like Palsa"r 7 or 401, so if you're already taking one of them, 188 is probably the one you wanna choose last, since they aren't as up to speed as the other two. Oh, yeah, it's also less than a year old.

Second of all, even if you do take along one of the above three, they are nothing but wasted space and resources on this mission. The above three, 7, 188 and 401, are company sized Armored Corps advanced reconnaissance units. Their job is to go out ahead of the tanks and scout the land, call in artillery on enemy artillery and lase targets for the IAF. Entirely worthless skills when it comes to taking and holding an FOB, unless you want a brigade of tanks to do the actual taking and holding of the FOB.

A smarter unit to choose would be one of the Recon battalions, Gadsa"r Nahal, Golani or Givati. Each Gadsa"r contains an engineering company, Palha"n, a recon company, the Palsa"r, and a dedicated AT company, Palna"t.

My mistake, I got mixed up on the units from Global Security, and it could be outdated somewhat. You clarified, and that was what I meant. The recon battalions of the other Infantry brigades to augment another force. So I will leave the discussion at that, as I was only responding to someone else, I never originally brought up the "land attack" etc etc.

So I will leave it at that. The subject was started elsewhere, and I chimed in as well as everyone else.


Anyhow in the likelihood that Iran will be attacked soon, I read something that was interesting, when Israel struck Iraq/Syria they never started drumming up PR, and talking about it in the media, it just happened. IMHO, if they were really going to do it, they wouldn't be talking about it in the media, instead you wouldn't hear anything, and they would just do it.

And all this talk about Obama being in office, or some other hawkish figure, I think it would all be the same. Bush was in office, and it still was status quo. I do not think Obama being in office is preventing Israel one bit. Short of a complete hawkish policy, of the US, of initiating an attack, Israel will do things on their own time. To really think the US or any other country truly has any influence on their decisions is just flat out wrong.

Originally Posted by Dago

Anyhow in the likelihood that Iran will be attacked soon, I read something that was interesting, when Israel struck Iraq/Syria they never started drumming up PR, and talking about it in the media, it just happened. IMHO, if they were really going to do it, they wouldn't be talking about it in the media, instead you wouldn't hear anything, and they would just do it.

That means two things:
- given Irael is talking about it it implies they are not going to attack.
- when they go silent is the time to worry ?

I think all the talk has as its main objective to build global consensus to push for harder hitting sanctions. After all why take on Iran alone when you can get the world to do it and shoulder the cost.

But its one thing to get everyone to agree that its in nobody's interest that Iran develops a nuclear ability and quite another to get them to actually do something about it. Tough sell.

Originally Posted by bigross86

The sad realities of modernity is that such pertinent fact based debates have now been reduced to the corridors of academia while policy makers of the world look the other way preferring discussions about discussions.

US Navy accuses Iran of preparing 'suicide boats'

The commander of United States naval forces in the Gulf says Iran has built up its naval forces in the region and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks.

Iran has made a series of threats in recent weeks to disrupt shipping in the Gulf or strike US forces in retaliation if its oil trade is shut down by sanctions, or if its disputed nuclear program comes under attack.

At a briefing in Bahrain, Vice Admiral Mark Fox told reporters the US Navy's Fifth Fleet can prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

He says Iran now has 10 small submarines.

"They have increased the number of submarines... they increased the number of fast attack craft," said Vice Admiral Fox, who heads the fleet.

"Some of the small boats have been outfitted with a large warhead that could be used as a suicide explosive device. The Iranians have a large mine inventory.

"We have watched with interest their development of long-range rockets and short, medium and long-range ballistic missiles and of course ... the development of their nuclear program."

Military experts say the US Navy's Fifth Fleet patrolling the Gulf - which always has at least one giant supercarrier accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers - is overwhelmingly more powerful than Iran's navy.

But ever since Al Qaeda suicide bombers in a small boat killed 17 sailors on board the destroyer USS Cole in a port in Yemen in 1996, Washington has been wary of the vulnerability of its huge battleships to bomb attacks by small enemy craft.

Asked whether the US Navy was prepared for an attack or other trouble in the Gulf, Vice Admiral Fox said: "We are very vigilant, we have built a wide range of options to give the president and we are ready... What if it happened tonight? We are ready today."

Iranian officials have threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet to the Gulf through which nearly all of the Middle East's oil sails.

Asked if he took Iran's threats seriously, Vice Admiral Fox said: "Could they make life extremely difficult for us? Yes they could. If we did nothing and they were able to operate without being inhibited, yeah, they could close it, but I can't see that we would ever be in that position."

He added that diplomacy should be given priority in resolving the tension.

"So when you hear discussion about all this overheated rhetoric from Iran we really believe that the best way to handle this is with diplomacy... I am absolutely convinced that is the way to go. It is our job to be prepared. We are vigilant."

Contacts between the US Navy and Iranian craft in the Gulf region were routine, Vice Admiral Fox said, referring to cases where his sailors helped Iranian ships that were in distress or threatened by pirates.

I think Al Shaheen Oil Field would be on any potential retaliatory strikes. As I doubt that facility has air defense cover.

Attack by June, Panetta reportedly told a columnist.

This article in Atlantic Monthly magazine says that Israel and now some Western European countries have concluded that Iran is not likely to retaliate fully to a preemptive attack for two main reasons. 1) Iran's economy is too weak and 2) it's surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah are unlikely to attack Israel in force.

Panetta's prediction may be prove to be true. Or, is the west playing a massive game of chicken with Iran?

Why Israel Might Believe Attacking Iran Is Worthwhile
By Michael Hirsh

Feb 12 2012, 8:01 AM ET 61

A barely perceptible but hugely important shift has occurred in recent months. Israel now appears to believe that the benefits of attacking Tehran's nuclear sites outweigh the costs. As Iran builds an enrichment complex underground near the city of Qom, the timing has also become critical. All of which may mean that, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly told a Washington Post columnist, Israel will probably strike Iran in April, May, or June. (Panetta wasn't quoted directly, and a Pentagon spokesman tells National Journal that the secretary has "refused to comment" on the story.)

Western powers had thought that a preemptive strike on oil-rich Iran could have devastating implications for the region and the world. It could undermine the global economy (especially at a time of high oil prices) and peace in the Middle East. It could rain rocket fire on Israeli towns and possibly shift global power balances. But now, some American and Israeli experts--both inside and outside their governments--argue that Iran is less likely to retaliate in a serious way. An attack, in other words, may have fewer drawbacks than the skeptics first thought.

Partly, this has to do with Iran's internal problems. Its government is mired in chaos and infighting, its military is weak and disorganized, and its economy is crippled. Iran's main proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are not eager to attack Israel, and the United States is less vulnerable in Iraq now that its military has withdrawn. Tehran's lone ally in the region, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, is fighting a civil war. Iran "basically only has three asymmetric options for retaliation," says Matthew Kroenig, who recently published a controversial essay in Foreign Affairs urging a U.S. attack on Iran as "the least bad option."

First, it could support terrorists and proxy groups. But Kroenig points out that Hezbollah and Hamas, which both possess missiles and rockets along Israel's border, do not want to relive the devastating Israeli counterattacks of the 2000s. "Neither wants to provoke another Israeli invasion," Kroenig says. "They might engage in some kind of token retaliation just to satisfy Iran," but it wouldn't fundamentally change life for Israelis.

Second, Iran could fire ballistic missiles "at population centers in the region and at U.S. bases and ships," says Kroenig, who until last July was a special adviser to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "But their missiles aren't all that accurate."

Third, its irregular navy, run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, could wreak havoc in the Persian Gulf or even possibly close strategic oil-shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, as Tehran warned recently. "They do have a bunch of guys on speedboats," Kroenig says. "But if we bombed half a dozen nuclear facilities, I don't think their response is going to be to close the straits, especially if we issue a clear deterrent threat.... We could completely destroy their navy in a matter of weeks." Anyway, Iran desperately needs oil sales to keep its sanctions-damaged economy going, so it is unlikely to halt the petroleum trade. That fact could assuage White House fears about a spike in gas prices bad enough to shake the global economy during an election year.

The pressure is growing to act soon. Israel has previously used its air force to demolish nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, and it has warned for a decade that it would do the same to prevent Iran from getting a bomb. "This time, the Israelis seem truly serious," says one European diplomat who works on Iran negotiations. The reason is that Iran's new facility at Fordo is buried so deep in the mountains that Israel may not be able to destroy it. So if it can't at least cripple the station before Iran transfers many more than the several hundred centrifuges it already has there, Fordo's enrichment program may be out of reach. Those transfers are happening this year.

Meanwhile, Arab states in the Persian Gulf region--beginning with Saudi Arabia, whose former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, warned bluntly last year that an Iranian bomb would lead to a Saudi one--are more eager than ever for action to stop Tehran. President Obama even spent half of his pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC's Matt Lauer (before an audience of 110 million Americans in an election year) worrying about Iran.

Still, some experts argue that a miscalculation--say, striking before Obama's sanctions run their course--could actually make the danger from Iran far worse, particularly for Israel. Because the Israelis don't have the firepower the Americans do (their "bunker-buster" bombs are smaller), "the biggest worry is that the attack will be ineffective, that it just won't take out enough to make a difference," says David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security. "Then what you get is an Iran that feels justified in racing to get nuclear weapons, potentially sooner than they would if we just continue this [current sanctions] pressure." Nevertheless, Israeli strategists believe the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran is "far greater" than the potential danger of retaliation, according to a senior Israeli official who asked to remain anonymous.

The most likely response to an attack, analysts agree, would be Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on Jews--and possibly Americans--worldwide. American diplomats in Shiite-dominated Iraq are still vulnerable, as are U.S. forces in Afghanistan, says Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The biggest issue," he says of an Iranian response, "is that you don't know what you don't know."

Why Israel Might Believe Attacking Iran Is Worthwhile - Michael Hirsh - International - The Atlantic

If attacked Iran will retaliate in any way it can. An attack on Iran means 'regime change' and the regime will fight it's own people and us to stay in power.

I think the only way Iran would not retaliate would be if the Israel strikes proved to be non-successful or wasn't successful enough, in which case, Iran wouldn't risk it's facilities and provoke a response from US Aircraft which actually have capability to deeply penetrate nuclear sites. So they would figure, salvage there nuclear facilities, and keep any strike constrained on the capabilities of Israel and betting on your own forces of defeating said Israeli aircraft.

However, if they did manage to succeed, Iran would have nothing to loose, as it's not like the US is going to regime change in Iran, most likely it would only be coastal strikes, and limited in scope. So any retaliation by Iran, even attacking the Al Shaheen Oil Field, would still see constrained retaliatory strikes by the USN. Don't see the US doing a regime change over tankers being sunk or an Al Shaheen Oil Field being destroyed. However I still haven't had any one answer or provide there opinion on the affects of a Al Shaheen Oil Field being attacked. All the oil that could potentially be released would be more then the release of oil from tankers.

So any sort of retaliation by the USN wouldn't involve boots on the ground, and it's not like the capability exists in theater, except a MEU? I doubt the USN has the capability with aircraft to strike all of Iran and instead be constrained to the coastal areas. So any operation, it would probably revolve around keeping the Straits of Hormuz open as opposed to air strikes farther within Iran. As I don't see the USN currently has the capability, to attack every single a/d defense asset, initiate 24/7 air patrol over Iran, and striking Tehran.

For (1) They don't have the assets. (2) What would be the stated objective? Any prolong conflict would make matters worse.

Originally Posted by snapper

If attacked Iran will retaliate in any way it can. An attack on Iran means 'regime change' and the regime will fight it's own people and us to stay in power.

I take it that is your opinion.

I don't believe the prospect of regime change would necessarily cause the regime to fight its own people to stay in power. A weakened regime may yield to popular demand that it step down. And if it were to fight anyway, it risks losing the support of the police and military, which certainly would want to survive to live on in a new regime.