Iran threatens to launch shebab at Israeli Dimona reactor

[Deltacamelately]

WW111 here we come , still it should bring the price of gas down / cure global warming and give new scope for competetitive rebuilding of homes and industries / cure the out of control birth rate /and oh yes , also get rid of the sabre rattlers who want to start it in the 1st place , out come the penile projectiles , look Sahib my guide muscle is bigger than yours , so bend over and take it like my camel , only the pretty one of course , ( but we all know that wont happen , it never reaches the bastards who deserve it , does it )

Right Tankie. It won't.
Further I would love it if it indeed reaches the deserving bastards.
Its getting too dangerous a world to live in harmony.

[Stan]

I am pretty sure that if Iran tried to launch 600 missiles at Isreal, some ones patriot system in Iraq or thier destroyers in the Gulf might notice and be concerned enough to start taking care of them

[citanon]

The US would more than likely stay out of this one unless it directly affects them such as the violation of Iraqi air space.

I believe that an Iranian propaganda victory from damage on US and Israeli assets, or the closing, however brief, of the Straits of Hormuz, would give Iran a lasting and amplified ability to influence the price of oil. It would also bring about a long term increase in the average price of oil without any further Iranian action due to greater risk that such action could occur and be successful. The vast long term damage to US national interests from such an outcome may compel the US to take military action in any scenario where such outcome appears likely. The prospect of chemical warheads or catastrophic damage to Israeli nuclear assets make preemption more likely in the case of detectable preparations for a missile salvo able to overwhelm US and Israeli defenses. Once military action starts, this strategic imperative creates great momentum for escalation of measures until Iran is crushed.

There is strategic imperative and there is countervailing domestic and international pressure (notably, Russian would benefit greatly from a hike in oil prices and greater Iranian influence in the Middle East). The McCain or Bush administrations are more likely to consider the strategic imperative the overriding concern. An Obama administration would be more likely to respond to political pressure (not necessarily in a predictable way).

Since Israeli success depends heavily on US domestic politics, its timetable is likely heavily influenced by the election. If McCain is not doing well in the polls at a significant statistical spread and a time-point (late Aug early Sept?) where historically opinion surveys become truly predictive, Israel may strike well before Nov. One, they'd want to shift national security back into the electoral spotlight in an attempt to put the race on McCain's terms (at least create some volatility in a losing trend). Two, they'll want to give the Bush administration more time to act in their favor.

[Deltacamelately]

Israel won't just get into the thick of the things without a resonating US support. Its not done.

[citanon]

Israel won't just get into the thick of the things without a resonating US support. Its not done.

I'm not sure Israel's history supports this statement. In recent years it has been more deferential to the US, but Israel has often acted without US prior knowledge or consent, let alone resonating support, in vital matters of national survival. Furthermore, despite the lack of US consensus regarding military option, as long as the resulting US response is predictable, what has Israel to lose considering the alternative is a nuclear Iran?

[Johnny W]

I'm not sure Israel's history supports this statement. In recent years it has been more deferential to the US, but Israel has often acted without US prior knowledge or consent, let alone resonating support, in vital matters of national survival. Furthermore, despite the lack of US consensus regarding military option, as long as the resulting US response is predictable, what has Israel to lose considering the alternative is a nuclear Iran?

I agree, Israel has certainly shown a historical willingness to act without US approval, although at the time, the US wasn't providing the majority of Israel's military hardware. The 56 and 67 wars are prime examples.

[Deltacamelately]

Read the current geo political scenario.
Plus, Israel would stand a political pariah if even a single wire catches fire in the entire mission.

[JodiSP]

I tend to think if Israel had the enough military hardware to finish the job in one strike it probably would attack. However, does Israel have enough aircraft, in strike and support roles, capable of destroying multiple dug in targets a long way from home?

The US could do it, but the lead up may become public

[Swift Sword]

However, does Israel have enough aircraft, in strike and support roles, capable of destroying multiple dug in targets a long way from home?

A typical counter argument to the idea of Israeli pre-emption via air strikes that is heard in various quarters is that they do not have the tankers to support any comprehensive activity.

This seems like a reasonable proposition but I have no real idea just what the IAF's capability to support strike aircraft over those kinds of distances over multiple days might be. Anybody have a solid estimate?