i think they gonna whack iran

Everyone has been waiting for Israel to wack Iran for the longest time. The fact that Israel would wack Iran is no longer a surprise. What will worry most is Iran's reaction to it, especially if they choose to go the non-conventional, asymmetric route. (meaning to attack Israel and other Western interests through terrorism)

(19-08-2012, 07:37 AM)LionFlyer Wrote: Everyone has been waiting for Israel to wack Iran for the longest time. The fact that Israel would wack Iran is no longer a surprise. What will worry most is Iran's reaction to it, especially if they choose to go the non-conventional, asymmetric route. (meaning to attack Israel and other Western interests through terrorism)

I thinking there won't be much military action from the iranians, threats to mine the straits of hormuz may gain global media attention for a while, send oil prices flying but is overblown remember Iran is never a sea going power it is a land power. The americans joined by germans the french all sea powers have more than enough navy anti-mine countermeasure to clear out all the mines in the straits.

The main threat and response as you also say will come in the aftermath years that follow in the form of terrorism, airline hostage taking, suicide bombings that are proven in the past to be very effective and hard to defend against. Whether or not they will target just israeli nationals or also extend to allies & friends -- people like us not clear.

The longer they need not attack Iran the less costly becoz after Syria falls will likely be Iran.

(19-08-2012, 03:16 PM)corydorus Wrote: The longer they need not attack Iran the less costly becoz after Syria falls will likely be Iran.

This is why the Iranians are putting a lot of support to ensure Syria do not fall or else they will have an enemy(friendly to the west) at their doorstep. Right now for israel to attack Iran is not so easy without US support. If Syria falls then they will have a corridor to fly in an attack.Obama is not going to risk his reelection to attack now unless he thinks he might lose. So my bet is no attack until the election is over.

there are 2 camps now.
1 - the hawks in US and Israel who want war
2 - the doves in US who don't want war but don't want to appear soft

I bet the doves will win out. It's a strange choice but looking at how things are going I will say Syria could fall before the US election in November which may force Iran to the negotiating table, open all their facilities to allow inspectors in. This will allow Obama to claim credit by showing that he achieved a political solution and avoided another costly war and also appease the powerful Jewish lobby in America.

(19-08-2012, 03:23 PM)Jacmar Wrote:

(19-08-2012, 03:16 PM)corydorus Wrote: The longer they need not attack Iran the less costly becoz after Syria falls will likely be Iran.

This is why the Iranians are putting a lot of support to ensure Syria do not fall or else they will have an enemy(friendly to the west) at their doorstep. Right now for israel to attack Iran is not so easy without US support. If Syria falls then they will have a corridor to fly in an attack.Obama is not going to risk his reelection to attack now unless he thinks he might lose. So my bet is no attack until the election is over.

I agree with your train of thought; the current Syrian situation was a wildcard no one had expected. As long as that is not resolved and Iran does not do something stupid that would elicit a immediate Israeli or US respond, I think it will not happen for now.

If the history of Lebanon is any guide, the fall of Syria will be very nasty. What a waste. It is so sad. One of my colleagues had been to Lebanon and Syria (Aleppo) for holidays and the place is fantastic (and Lebanese girls rocks!)

(19-08-2012, 03:23 PM)Jacmar Wrote:

(19-08-2012, 03:16 PM)corydorus Wrote: The longer they need not attack Iran the less costly becoz after Syria falls will likely be Iran.

This is why the Iranians are putting a lot of support to ensure Syria do not fall or else they will have an enemy(friendly to the west) at their doorstep. Right now for israel to attack Iran is not so easy without US support. If Syria falls then they will have a corridor to fly in an attack.Obama is not going to risk his reelection to attack now unless he thinks he might lose. So my bet is no attack until the election is over.

I was hoping for the army and civilians in Iran to rise up against the revolution guards. Isreal may not even need to fire a single bullet.

Just finished watching Farenheit 911 - the Mike Moore movie. Distressing the US approach. Hope things here work out for the better.

(20-08-2012, 09:06 PM)corydorus Wrote: I was hoping for the army and civilians in Iran to rise up against the revolution guards. Isreal may not even need to fire a single bullet.

Well if you consider the track record of revolutions, the path to independence is always paved with blood and very rarely do revolutions work by themselves without some form of military support either domestic or foreign.

Looking at the Syrians if NATO hadn't given air support the rebels wouldn't even stand a chance to come so far.

seems to make pretty good common sense to me.

source: zerohedge

Binyamin Netanyahu recently slammed critics of a pre-emptive strike on Iran as “having set a new standard for human stupidity”.

Yet Netanyahu’s view is not shared by all Israelis. In fact, there are some very prominent Israeli critics of Netanyahu’s view. Meir Dagan, the former head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, says that an attack on Iran would be the “stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.”

Speaking to ’60 Minutes’ Dagan noted: “An attack on Iran now before exploring all other approaches is not the right way to do it.”

Dagan should be congratulated for his rationality. It is my belief that the greater threat to Israel and the West is not the potential for an Iranian nuclear weapon — the truth remains that mutually assured destruction remains the most potent peacemaking force in history, even for supposedly irrational regimes like Pakistan, North Korea and Soviet Russia — but the dangers of blowback from a unilateral strike on Iran.

Oil and resource supplies through the Persian Gulf could be interrupted, sending energy prices soaring, and damaging the already-fragile global economy.

A regional war in the Middle East could result, potentially sucking in the United States and Eurasian powers like China, Pakistan and Russia. China and Pakistan have both hinted that they could defend Iran if Iran were attacked — and for good reason, as Iran supplies significant quantities of energy.

And with the American government deep in debt to foreign powers like China who are broadly supportive of Iran’s regime, America’s ability to get involved in a war on Israel’s behalf is highly questionable. And even without a war, further hostility and tension between America and her creditors would surely result in an even faster rush toward more bilateral and multilateral agreements to ditch the dollar for trade, something that America will almost certainly seek to avoid. So even with a President in the White House significantly more sympathetic to Netanyahu than Obama, America may find herself constrained by the realities of global economics, and unable to assist Israel.

Most discouragingly, such a high risk operation seems to offer very little reward — a successful Israeli strike on Iran is estimated to set back Iran’s program by only one to three years. And such an operation would likely require bombings over many days and in many locations.

If Netanyahu wishes to go ahead with such a scheme then that is his prerogative. But if he will not listen to Dagan’s wise counsel, why should the West rush to his aid if his scheme backfires?