Posted on 03/30/2010 10:29:04 AM PDT by Fennie
JERUSALEM - Should Israel attack Iranian nuclear facilities, it would probably carry out precision strikes while making every effort not to hit the oil sector or other civilian sites.
Past Israeli operations, such as the 1981 bombing of Iraq's Osirak atomic reactor and a similar sortie against Syria in 2007, suggest a strategy of one-off pinpoint raids, due both to military limitations and a desire to avoid wider war.
A simulation at the Brookings Institution in Washington last December theorized that Israel, intent on halting what the West suspects is Tehran's covert quest for atomic arms, would launch a sneak attack against half a dozen nuclear facilities in Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Oh come on...
They need to smash the Guardian Council and the HQ of the Besij (sic)
*ping*
Israel should not attack Iran unless it is totally committed to a full-scale war. The Iranians would not allow a strike to go unanswered. Remember the Iraq-Iran war? They killed a million+ men between them.
Not exactly analogous. Irag and Iran share a border.
gee, ya think?
I’ve been waiting to see Israel take out Irans nukes for a while now. I don’t think they’re going to anymore.
Iran will go nuclear.
Make it so!
An essential part of the long term Iranian strategy is straightforward: to drive the US out of the Middle East. It figures that if it can achieve this one objective, everything else will work out to its advantage.
As such, this goal actually has a higher priority than does attacking Israel. Practically speaking, it amounts to an effort to destroy one or more US aircraft carriers.
The US Navy is more than aware that if Israel attacks Iran, Iran could immediately launch an attack against US ships, while seemingly ignoring Israel, except Israeli air forces over Iran. So the USN has been somewhat avoiding the Persian Gulf whenever possible. Because outside of the Gulf they are a much more difficult target.
This is not to say invulnerable. Iran would likely be more than willing to sacrifice several submarines to take out a US aircraft carrier. At the same time, they would disavow the attack, and try to delay any response by a weak willed US president.
As far as the attack by Israel goes, the Iranians have already probably moved sufficient missile, nuclear material and bombs away from the processing facilities as to be able to reconstitute their weapons program within a few years.
Standard US ROE: You take out a Carrier, we nuke you.
I THINK the decision rests with the Fleet Admiral.
Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment. Israel has a lot to lose if a full scale war breaks out. It’s also a lot harder for them to fight over the long distance, Iran has plenty of proxies in the middle east that surround Israel. Israel will probably rely on the US and their own nuclear deterrant. I think we will live to see a Nuclear armed Iran. I knew this was going to happen, and I knew that when the NIE released that report in 2007 that Iran had abandoned their nuclear program that it was a lie.
All sorts of twists and turns though. Even if under attack by Israel, the Iranians would likely try to get some variety of “plausible deniability”, such as blaming it on al-Qaeda. They might use naval mines, or a nuclear fire ship directed at a port, or just a smuggled steel shipping container.
They are far more interested in the final goal of the US leaving the area. And if this involves not firing a shot, they would be happy with that.
Unlike a buffoon like Saddam, the Iranians tend to think things through.
With Obama as President, do you think the Fleet Admiral has this discretion? I doubt it.
I pray very night that the USA & Israel will be able to destroy their Muslim Enemies and bring peace and sanity to the Muslim World!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.