Is War Coming to Iran?

What do you guys think? Is war coming?

solarz..I hope not. Seems like everyday I pick up a different version about the situation in Iran. Everyday. And gas prices in the US are spiraling up because of all these "war jitters" coming from the Persian Gulf.

I think the US is trying to reign in Israel for fear that an Israeli attack on Iran would lead to a major and very bloody conflict. If war did come between Israel and Iran the US would come to the aid of the Israeli's..no doubt.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

solarz..I hope not. Seems like everyday I pick up a different version about the situation in Iran. Everyday. And gas prices in the US are spiraling up because of all these "war jitters" coming from the Persian Gulf.

I think the US is trying to reign in Israel for fear that an Israeli attack on Iran would lead to a major and very bloody conflict. If war did come between Israel and Iran the US would come to the aid of the Israeli's..no doubt.

Agreed! I wish all parties would stay calm and don't rush into things, especially Israel. IMO, for the US, the last thing they want now is another war. Obama just celebrated the "pulling out" from Iraq and declared another defense budget cut. This is NOT a good time for another major conflict, especially this is an election year. Giving the message that "we are sending American boys to another potentially long and painful conflict" would not be good for Obama.

While I don't doubt the US will come to the aid of Israel, I do wonder what form of aid the US will likely provide. If Israel decides to attack despite objection from the US, the aid probably won't come in any form of direct military action. The US won't allow itself to be taken hostage by Israel. The US might've told Israel exactly that.. "we don't want you to do it. If you do it anyway, don't expect us to give you any meaningful help..."

Considering that Iran is separated from Israel by several countries including Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, I don't think Israel has to worry about an Iranian invasion.

So what kind of retaliation options does Iran have? Off hand, I can think of two: missile attacks and using Hezbollah/Hamas as proxies. This means that if US intervention is necessary, it would be in the form of sending troops into Iran rather than helping defend Israel. This makes direct US military participation even less likely.

So what would be the implications? If Israel feels that Iran can't really touch them, then they are all the more likely to carry out their threats of airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Most articles I read about it say Israel will not be able to do serious damage to the Iranian nuclear complex. So the one way the US can diffuse the situation after Israeli aggression would be to get rid of the Israeli weapons of mass destruction. That would enable Iran to show that it has no nuclear bomb program without incurring the complaint that it is kowtowing to the Great Satan. This would no doubt cause a great uproar in the election campaign, but should the interest of the country not be more important than that of the President? And he should increase the prestige of the US enough to have a good chance to be re-elected.
Of course the policy of centuries is the start a war and then claim it is madness to change horses in mid-stream, but I don't think that can be an attractive policy against Iran. That country is much larger than Iraq, has a population twice as large, has prepared for such a war for two decades and has the support of the vast majority of its population.
Besides a war would be hugely damaging to the finances of the US and to the interests of China and India and Pakistan and even of the members of GCC.
Al together there is really no effective policy by the US towards Iran than an exchange of ambassadors. But the internal politics of the US is likely to prevent that.

I don't think Iran would both with a nuclear weapons programme if Israel didn't have nukes.

If you stop to really think about it, Israeli nukes are by far any away the most likely to be actually used in combat. More so than even North Korea's or India and Pakistan's.

If Israel does attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it is very likely that they will use tactical nukes as the bulk of Iran's nuclear programme is buried so deep no conventional weapons can reach them.

I have also made this point previously, but if the US offered Iran Israeli disarmament, and Iran will snap your hand off. Hell, they will probably demand the most stringent and transparent disarmament and verification process possible to be applied to both sides so that everyone can be absolutely sure all weapons and related materials and technologies have been disposed off.

For Israel, loosing nukes would mean very little in real terms, because their conventional forces are so much better than all their neighbours and rivals', and with their close cultural and military links with the US, there is no realistic existential threat to Israel any more. The only conceivable existential threat to Israel will only come about as a result of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME.

If everyone in the region had nukes, Israel stands at a distinct disadvantage, because of it's tiny size. With such a small country, even a handful of nukes would effectively wipe Israel off the map, whereas someone like Iran of Saudi Arabia are large enough to take a few nukes and still recover eventually.

What more, because of the small size of Israel and the close proximity of hostile neighbours, once those neighbours goes nuclear, there would be very little warning time of an incoming attack. This combine with Israel's small size means it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a saturation nuclear first strike could also knock out most if not all of Israel's own nukes, thus saving the attacking country from a nuclear second strike counter attack.

Because of this, it is very likely that Israel will adopt an unusually aggressive nuclear posture. This would be extremely dangerous, especially when you take into account the past record of Irregular forces launching massed rocket attacks against Israeli targets.

From Israel's POV, if would be very easy for them to mistake a conventional rocket attack as a nuclear first strike, and may well 'respond' before the true nature of the rockets are known. This in term would trigger a counter-launch from it's nuclear armed neighbours, and before you know it, we have a full scale nuke war on our hands.

So, Israel's strategic position would be massively damaged if a neighbour develops nuclear weapons. In addition, once a neighbour has developed nukes, there is a very strong possibility of a nuke war starting by mistake.

The only two solutions to this problem for Israel are 1) stop anyone else in the region getting nukes. Or 2) Disarm themselves and make sure no-one has nukes in the ME.

If Israel gives up it's nukes, it would preserve it's tactical advantages as in a purely conventional fight, none of it's neighbours would stand much of a chance, and if all of them ganged up again, the US would surely send in the troops (this could easily be a condition for Israel giving up the bomb). If no-one in the region had the bomb, no-one is going to be using it. That is far far safer and preferable to everyone being on a hair trigger to start lobbing nukes around.

But in reality, Israel will only push 1), maybe even up to the point of starting a war to keep anyone else from developing nukes. The Israelis have lorded over everyone else in the region with their nukes for too long for them to give them up now.

The only person in the world who could potentially make Israel give up it's nukes cannot do that without triggering a massive Jewish backlash in the states out of all proportion to their numbers.

He can forget about re-election or any lucrative speech giving or consulting/lobbying jobs, and will almost certainly get a pile of death threats and be branded as Hilter reborn by the Jewish owned/controlled media...

Perversely, if you want a nuclear free ME, you should probably hope that Obama contracts some sort of terminal illness, as the only way any US president can stand up to Israel on this issue is if he literally has nothing left to loose.

I disagree that Iran would be willing to give up its nuclear program if Israel disarms. Iran pursues nuclear weapons for the same reason North Korea does: as a deterrence against US invasion. Therefore, whether or not Israel has nukes makes no difference in this regard.

Well I think this is a lot of talk and no action. They're trying to scare Iran into submission. The Western economies would certainly go through another hit making it far worse. Does anyone really think after Iraq and Afghanistan, this would turn out any better? And after Obama turned the US's focus on the Far East, how would it look for the election that he let Israel do that and certainly dragging the US into another Middle East war?

We'll need to see how the mess in Syria will be dealt with - though Syria and Iran ain't physically bordered they're close allies, whichever way the current situation Syria goes - current regime toppled or survived - it'll nonetheless leave it invalid for some time, at least in terms of responding to the Iranian situation.

Thus it'd be when Syria no longer in the current state of flux then the "Iran question" will be answered...

Originally Posted by solarz

War with Iran is coming - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

I don't think the US has any appetite for war so soon after withdrawing from Iraq. However, it is difficult to tell how serious Israel is about its threats of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran is a pretty large country, and if the US does not get involved, I don't think Israel will contemplate any ground operations. The problem is, what will the Iranian response be after Israeli airstrikes? If Iran responds with missile attacks on Israel, the US may be forced to intervene. If the Iranian regime simply downplays the strikes and responds only with rhetoric, they will be seen as weak by their people and may lose their grip on power, not to mention considerable influence in the region.

What do you guys think? Is war coming?

They could always stop the Israeli air attack. Theoretically, the Israeli Air Force would need at least multiple precision strikes on the Iranian facility near Natanz, due to it's thick earth/reinforced-concrete arrangement, plus the fact that it's being guarded by a sophisticated and multi-layered IADS network. That's all assuming Israel bypasses the rest of the Iranian IADS along it's western borders, while having enough fuel and munitions to actually bomb the place, whilst evading or jamming Iranian SAMs. This is also a good time to note that the distance between Tel Aviv and Natanz is an even 1,000 miles!

Originally Posted by MwRYum

We'll need to see how the mess in Syria will be dealt with - though Syria and Iran ain't physically bordered they're close allies, whichever way the current situation Syria goes - current regime toppled or survived - it'll nonetheless leave it invalid for some time, at least in terms of responding to the Iranian situation.

Thus it'd be when Syria no longer in the current state of flux then the "Iran question" will be answered...

Many things are connected in many ways in the Middle East. We shouldn't look at the position of Iran in isolation, a MwRYum notices. When the unrest in Syria began it was the expectation of many that it would grow fast and that the Assad regime would be toppled. That didn't happen, apparently because the number of opponents to the regime is small. The sponsors of the unrest, among them Qatar, the US and France, then decided that an armed insurrection should be combined a massive propaganda campaign. That too hasn't yet been successful. In the mean time the influence of the US in Iraq is much smaller than the they expected after the failed occupation. The New York Times publishes today a hilarious article about halving the size of the US embassy in Baghdad. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/wo...lines&emc=tha2 ) That embassy was to number some 16 000 or 17 000 personnel, compared with the embassy of Iraq's main trading partner and neighbor Turkey having 55 members.
Quite clearly the US is signalling to the countries in the Middle East that they don't know what they are doing. That in itself is dangerous because it might lead Israel to think that it can propel the US into a war against Iran that will be very damaging to the economies of perhaps even all countries in the world.

Originally Posted by IronsightSniper

They could always stop the Israeli air attack. Theoretically, the Israeli Air Force would need at least multiple precision strikes on the Iranian facility near Natanz, due to it's thick earth/reinforced-concrete arrangement, plus the fact that it's being guarded by a sophisticated and multi-layered IADS network. That's all assuming Israel bypasses the rest of the Iranian IADS along it's western borders, while having enough fuel and munitions to actually bomb the place, whilst evading or jamming Iranian SAMs. This is also a good time to note that the distance between Tel Aviv and Natanz is an even 1,000 miles!

I think that would be the best case scenario: Iran gets boasting rights (and thus no need to take any retaliatory action), and Israel stops being overly aggressive, possibly even toppling the Netanyahu government. However, it's difficult to tell how likely this outcome is.

Originally Posted by solarz

I disagree that Iran would be willing to give up its nuclear program if Israel disarms. Iran pursues nuclear weapons for the same reason North Korea does: as a deterrence against US invasion. Therefore, whether or not Israel has nukes makes no difference in this regard.

But since when has there ever been a realistic threat of an US led invasion of Iran?

The US no doubt could invade Iran if it really wanted to, but why would it be willing to pay the massive cost in treasure and lives to do so?

The only realistic US military scenarios involving Iran are air strikes and limited ground operations, in the form of special forces. Against those kinds of attacks, a nuclear weapon is all but useless.

There are no large gathering of conventional military targets in the region to lob a nuke at, and even if Iran had the ability to hit CONUS with a nuclear armed missile, doing so would result in massively disproportionate retaliatory nuclear attacks from the US that will probably wipe Iran off the map.

Iran wants nuclear weapons primarily because Israel, unlike every other nuclear armed country, seems perfectly willing to deploy their nukes in non-doomsday scenarios and against non-nuclear armed states.

When faced with such a hostile neigbour, the only rational long term strategy for anyone who does not want to kowtow to the Israelis is to develop their own nukes to check this perceived Israeli nonchalance about using nuclear weapons.

If Israeli disarmament was on offer, Iran would achieve it's primary objective for developing nukes without having to actually do so (so save itself the costs of doing so, both materially in diplomatically). Hell, it would be far better for them than actually having nukes. Because Israel's nuclear arsenal is/will be much larger, and there is no realistic possibility of forcefully disarming someone else's nukes during a war, so there is still always the threat of an Israeli nuclear strike that they need to worry about.

What I find most striking about this situation is that while everyone fret about Iranian nukes and want to find a way to prevent that, in the name of non-proliferation, not one official, from any of the countries making the most waves about Iranian nukes, have ever even hinted at the possibility of Israeli disarmament.

Now, if we swap Israel for Pakistan, who wants to bet no-one from the west would be floating the idea that they should disarm their nukes in exchange for Iran scrapping its own nuclear programme?

Originally Posted by bd popeye

And gas prices in the US are spiraling up because of all these "war jitters" coming from the Persian Gulf.

+1 In Europe too it really is starting to hurt to fill the car up...

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

Well I think this is a lot of talk and no action. They're trying to scare Iran into submission. The Western economies would certainly go through another hit making it far worse. Does anyone really think after Iraq and Afghanistan, this would turn out any better? And after Obama turned the US's focus on the Far East, how would it look for the election that he let Israel do that and certainly dragging the US into another Middle East war?

Well, this is closest to the way I have been viewing this. For over a decade, we've witnessed this scenario many times over: some "leak" about impending war on Iran, questions about whether the Israeli's will strike on their own, etc. The threats have never panned out. Essentially, all of the "actors" are aware that Iran has become stronger, rather than weaker, as a result of America's twin mis-adventures (Iraq and Afghanistan). The Saudi's, Israel, and others in the neighborhood, have been somewhat upset with the US about this outcome, and now the US has even withdrawn most troops from Iraq, adding the regime in this country to the list of "Iranian influenced" forces in the region. Therefore, for the US there has been, and there continues to be a need to compensate, by piling a ton of pressure, threats, sanctions etc, on Iran.

But there's a new element, this time around, and this is the much advertized American "pivot" to East Asia. The notion that the US is going to effect such a shift to the East, and ALSO have a new war in the Middle East, is simply insane. As for Israel... no, the tail does not wag the dog, and it never has. To me, those rumors about Israeli intrigues to manipulate American policies are simply aimed at leaving the US a way to back out.

This time around, in my view, Obama is not aiming for war with Iran, but for a DEAL. This is why there are rumors about Israeli manipulations, why the US Navy has been rescuing Iranians at sea, and why Obama has been leaving the option of negotiations open. I think the Iranians are aware of this also, and this is why they are being so nice to the IAEA inspectors. Obama even hints that a deal is his objective. However, the deal he is seeking is probably not for Iran to abandon its nuclear research.

The "pivot" which the media has been discussing since the end of last year is actually not new. Already, the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review in 2001 called for shifting forces to the arc extending from the Bay of Bengal to the Sea of Japan. I don't remember the actual wording, but I took note of the geography! And for some years, the largest part of the US Navy has been based--though not deployed-- in the Asia Pacific region. And in 2010 we got a preview of what this could mean, with all of the activity around the Korean Peninsula, and the noise about "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea.

Somehow, the planned "pivot" never seems to pan out. The reason is that, while priorities are rarely actually stated (for the US, at least in public pronouncements, every corner of the earth always seems to be of "vital interest") it is obvious that the Middle East is the key to world supremacy for the US. Therefore, as long as things are not "quiet" in the Middle East, there can be no "pivot" to East Asia and the Pacific. And this means the US has to "resolve" things with Iran in some way, if it is to follow its avowed strategy.

With the upcoming embargo on Iranian oil, and sanctions on its central bank, and with the ongoing onslaught on its ally Syria, Iran is under unprecedented pressure. Yet there is absolutely no reason to think that it will give up its nuclear development. It can survive the embargo, since many countries will still be importing it's oil, and even if it were to lose Syria, well, it has recently gained Iraq and the US is set to leave Afghanistan. The only option for the US is a "RESET" of sorts. The US needs to put the Iranian problem on a back burner, but it needs Iran to agree to this.

We have seen this before. Nothing really changed in the relations between the US and Russia. Missile defense plans continue, and so do Russian strategies with respect to its "near abroad". But the TONE of the relationship has cooled down since the Bush years. Similarly, with Myanmar, we are witnessing a sort of media-event "democratization". We are told "change" is happening, relations improve, and a "rogue regime" is no longer. Facts are not needed; the media obliges. Today, there is even talk in the news about reaching some agreement with the DPRK! Indeed, the "reset" with Russia and the change in relations with Myanmar are both aimed at facilitating the isolation or encirclement of China. So is the current round of wheeling and dealing in connection with Iran.

Alas, things don't always work the way you want them to, and I don't think this will either. In this connection, I find China's response to be rather "on the money". The recent initiatives towards the GCC countries (Wen's recent trip), and also the initiatives towards Israel mentioned in the Bhadrakumar article posted by delft elsewhere are perfect. The Israelis and the GCC countries will definitely see through any attempt by the Obama administration to present a concession to Iran as a concession FROM Iran. They will not like Obama "playing nice" with Iran, after having put themselves on the line for the US. Nor will anybody else: India, Japan, etc. It seems to me China has moved pre-emptively to take advantage of this displeasure... unless, of course, Obama, once again, postpones the "pivot" to the East.

---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

Originally Posted by delft

The New York Times publishes today a hilarious article about halving the size of the US embassy in Baghdad. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/wo...lines&emc=tha2 )

A hilarious article indeed! The accompanying slideshow is even funnier.