Israeli general plots war with Iran

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Aug 28, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:



  1. Iran- Military expenditures - dollar figure:
    Definition Field Listing Rank Order
    $4.3 billion (2003 est.)

    Military service age and obligation:
    Definition Field Listing
    18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)

    Manpower available for military service:
    Definition Field Listing
    males age 18-49: 18,319,545
    females age 18-49: 17,541,037 (2005 est.)

    Manpower fit for military service:
    Definition Field Listing
    males age 18-49: 15,665,725
    females age 18-49: 15,005,597 (2005 est.)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Israel- Military expenditures - dollar figure:
    Definition Field Listing Rank Order
    $9.45 billion (2005 est.)

    Military service age and obligation:
    Definition Field Listing
    17 years of age for compulsory (Jews, Druzes) and voluntary (Christians, Muslims, Circassians) military service; both sexes are eligible for military service; conscript service obligation - 36 months for men, 21 months for women (2004)

    Manpower available for military service:
    Definition Field Listing
    males age 17-49: 1,492,125
    females age 17-49: 1,443,916 (2005 est.)

    Manpower fit for military service:
    Definition Field Listing
    males age 17-49: 1,255,902
    females age 17-49: 1,212,394 (2005 est.)
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    From that world fact book thing, not sure how acurate it really is but still. Anyone think its only a matter of time before a war with Iran kicks off? With whichever country.
     
  2. I would prefer it if they did Iran instead of us i guess.
     
  3. While my 7 million to 70 million may be a overgeneralization, it does reflect the 10 to 1 ratio that your more precise figures reflect.

    Israel may just be trying to put pressure on the UNSC to place sanctions on Iran.
    If a war was going to take place you would see a lot of preparation before it happened especially after the recent confrontation.
    Any country thinking about attacking a country 10 times your size would need to really think through the outcome.
    It truly would be a act of desperation.
     
  4. Oh i wasnt trying to prove you wrong or anything mate, just knew of that site and thought it would be interesting to see anyway. Type cia fact book into google, pretty interesting read about some places.
     
  5. The size of either armed force, or their respective budgets are not really relative in the scenario getting closer every day.

    The reality is that Israel believes that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, then it will launch a nuclear assualt on Israel with the intent of destroying it.

    To those who scoff at such fears, I would make several points. Firstly, I very much doubt that your country has had to fight for its very existence in the last 30 years or so, or that, up until relatively recently, several other sovereign states had the destruction of your country as an integral part of their foreign policy!

    Secondly, it is an un-refuted fact that it is Iranian money that is equipping Hezbollah (as anti-Israeli an organisation as you could dream of). Given that they have now admitted they 'under-estimated' the strength of Israeli reaction to killing 8 and kidnapping 2 soldiers, it is hard to describe them as capable any kind of strategic consideration, which will undoubtedly be of use to their Iranian paymasters.

    Thirldy, I also doubt that you take the Iranian Presidents claims of wanting to wipe Israel off the map seriously - if that is the case then you surely have not studied the man at all and are the more foolish for it. He is a man who is an extreme Shiia muslim, even by those standards, who truly believes he can help create the conditions for the return of the 'mahdi' (the next Mohamed, in laymans terms). Although I have no evidence to back up my opinion, I think it would be fair to describe as 'religiously obsessed', (let's leave it at that shall we!)

    Finally I would point out, to those still foolish enough to believe in the power and influence of UN, that the chances of effective sanctions are slightly higher than zero - China is busy buying Iranian oil and gas and CIS is busy selling them weapons and nuclear technology.

    Additionally, in the event of sanctions against Iran, it is highly likely that Iran will then attempt to directly interfere with oil shipping out of the Gulf and, most probably, be relatively successful at it. (They have contingency plans for such activity and have conducted fairly extensive training as well). It can also be taken for granted that, if the Iranians had not already planned on giving Hezbollah nuclear devices, this would start to climb up the planning priority ladder.

    On top of all that, what sanctions there might be will almost certainly ultimately benefit Iran, as they will, eventually, drive up the price of oil, thereby negating the initial intent of causing Iran economic damage. This would most likely happen whatever form sanctions might take.

    Another consideration might be (I would hope), the populations reaction, (most especially if they are the ones who are effected!) It is probably that any efforts against Iran are highly likely to cause the population to coalesce around their President.

    But, on the other hand, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is almost guarunteed to cause conflict on a pretty large scale. It is a pretty safe bet that politicians around the world will want to bury this in the long grass. Whilst that is, for once, understandable, it will only delay the inevitable. I fear that whatever path is chosen, conflict is guarunteed.

    The only possible way I can see of avoiding this is to persuade both China and CIS to join in placing pressure on Iran long enough for a peaceful resolution.

    (Incidentally, I very much doubt the recent nuclear agreement US arranged with India will help, given that it is in breach of IAEA protocols! Well done Pres Bush, just give your international enemies a stick to beat you with!)
     
  6. ...and how many IAEA inspections has Israel opened it's doors to?
     
  7. That is a fair point PTP. However, I would point out that Israel does not have a track record in supplying terrorist organisations and has never made public declarations for the destruction of another sovereign state.

    Put another way, from an international perspective I do not think there is much dispute that Iran acquiring the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons is anything other than bad for everyone, except Iran.
     
  8. As log as Israel refuses to have the IAEA in, or even an audit by a friendly power of it's current Nuclear capability , then Iran can quite justifiably (annoying that it is) argue for a deterrent.......

    Though Iran does keep stating peaceful means only.
     
  9. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Not that I want to stick up for the 'Israeli' General, but isn't the title of the piece a little loaded. I think that the word 'plot' has an inherrent inference, and surely given he's a soldier wouldn't the word plan be more fitting. I don't know but the word plot seems to suggest conspracy and a certain illegality. Given that most of the media (western) would seem to accept the legal right of Israel to occupy former Arab lands I find it a most strange use of language.
     
  10. I agree totally with you PTP. It would be a pretty smart play if Israel had someone (ie UK, definitely not US) conduct such an inspection. It would win widespread applause, if nothing else.

    However, given that the only logical reason for doing this would if Israel expected Iran to do the same, it is about as likely as winning the lottery without buying a ticket!

    Iran are about as likely to open their doors as they are to say 'Actually, it seems a lot of bother, we're going to can our nuclear ambitions'!

    The worrying thing is that, as things stand, I don't see any peaceful resolution to this situation.
     
  11. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    That's working on the premise there is nothing for the 'auditors' to find and/or the 'auditors' lie. Are you proposing that if there is a weapons system that would justify a 'deterrent' as PTP alluded that the USA and UK lie? Whatever next...
     
  12. The IDF would be criminally negligent in not preparing contingency plans for war with Iran.

    All countries have contingency plans for wars with other countries, even when they're on good terms. In the '20s, the US had on file a plan for war with the UK, including an invasion of Canada, with the use of chemical weapons if necessary.

    Who knows, we may still have contingency plans for invasion of Canada, locked up somewhere.
     
  13. However, let us not forget that Israel has almost zero air and sealift capability and as I have mentioned at least three time before, the IDFAF cannot even reach Iran without significant US tanker support and they're too few in number to fcuk the place up properly.

    Can somebody explain to me how either side is going to close a 1000nm gap to go at each other in any meaningful way? (Unless, of course they're going to start trading buckets of sunshine, in which case Israel, for basic geographic reasons, will more than likely come off second best.)
     
  14. Newsflash--- The Iranians hate us almost as much as the Spams. We were the ones who started nicking their oil first, we started the system of puppet governments and we were co-conspirators in the the plot to overthrow Mossadegh. (In fact, CIA tried to cancel the op, but the guy in charge- Kermit Roosevelt- went freelance with SIS.)