The Atlantic: Israel is getting ready to bomb Iran

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by P2000, Aug 11, 2010.

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. I don't like the idea. Although I would have to admit that something has to be done about Iran's nuclear programme, before they add SSBNs and their attendant SLBMs to their arsenal of Kilo-Class SSNs, cruise missiles and such.

    I have a fear of the Chinese, for what they will do in the distant future, but I have a terror for what the Iranians may do in the near future. And a certainty that there will be no ground invasion to sort the mullahs out.

  2. ****ing awful idea. The Persians are going through a nasty phase with the mullahs and the west is doing **** all to help the Persians and everything to help the mullahs by endorsing this kind of behaviour.

    Of course, it's because the actual Persian people have got **** all to do with the west's oil equation.

    'The British' have legendary status in Persia as clever, cunning foxes with fingers in every pie, agents around every corner and are most definitely not to be trusted an inch. But we do at least inspire some awe and grudging respect in their culture, which is more than can be said for the name of America or the nation of Israel.

    If we wanted to take the sting out of Iran we could do it by investing heavily on the back of German trade in Persia. Germany is Iran's biggest European trading partner, and they have a pretty good relationship going back yonks. Almost all the Persians I knew in the far east could speak some German, having been educated in German schools or at a German university.

    If the Israelis and Americans start bombing Iran we should stay well away.
  3. Indeed, good article. As I've said before though, I don't think Israel will go until they either have support from D.C., or know there is no prospect of getting it in the near-term. Given that, if Obama wins in 2012 I'd expect a raid in November 2012, and if some nutter Repubican wins I'd expect a raid in Jan/Feb 2013 once the new President is installed.
  4. Wish they'd hurry up and do it, I'm sick of hearing about these so called air raids.
  5. Let's face it, reference the war graves, if it really hypothetically (scary as the thought is and highly highly unlikely) came down to a high intensity conflict between Iran and the US, then the US would give the Iranians such a kicking, a la Desert Storm. Yes, Iran is a bit better off than Iraq was back then, but so is the US with it's modern weaponry and I truly believe it would (initially) just be a re run of anyone trying to take on the US at what it does best. Just don't involve us, is all - I like my iPod ;)

    The aftermath however, if they decided to stay...
  6. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Agreed, just get on with it. Many Nations - that is, USA, all the EU, the Arab States, etc. - will simply not allow the Iranians to get atomic weapons. They will be stopped, it's just a matter of when and how.

    They have a choice - the easy way, or the hard way. Israel represents the hard way. Thinking about it, the USA/EU/Arabs represent the so-bloody-hard-it's-off-the-Mohs-scale harder way.
  7. The sooner iran gets bombed the better, don't care who bombs them but just get on with it.
  8. I'd like to see Israel and America try (and occupy) it. Germany already does quite well out of Iran and too many Europeans came away empty handed when they went along for the last Middle Eastern adventure so they won't be coming out to play next time, thank you very much.
    The Gulf Arabs? :rofl: . They couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. Truly all the gear . . .

    The Russians are probably fidgeting uncontrollably in their seats clutching some rather distressed S400 export papers - "Shall we? Shan't we?".
  9. Why would Israel or the US want to occupy it, they only want to stop them having an Atomic bomb.
  10. There are rumoured to be multiple sites and they're all supposed to be hardened, some underground etc. Even if they get them all, the Iranians will just start the programme up again won't they? There are plenty of nations in the world who couldn't give two 50s for Western/Israeli huffing and puffing about the bomb, so they'll continue to trade with them.

    In fact, if I'm to be cynical, other more capable nations might lend Iran a hand in all sorts of ways, before, during or after in order to draw the hand of America.
  11. Constantly threatening a country with an attack, while demonstrating what it will look like on examples of Aghanistan and Iraq is a sure way to force Iranians to make a nuclear weapon even if before they were not thinking of doing so.

    Please, stop your "spreading democracy and peace" nonsense. Iran is a key not only to Caspian basin, but also to energy sources/routes to Europe -- US needs it, only a miracle can stop an attack on Iran that can potentially lead to a far greater war with all the consequences.
  12. Extract from Gwynne Dyer's column 3rd August 2010

    Gwynne Dyer: There's no way for the U.S. to win a non-nuclear war with Iran | Vancouver, Canada |

    "If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran’s south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs—but if they aren’t nuclear, then they aren’t very persuasive. Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the United States.

    Just stopping Iran’s own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around seven percent of internationally traded oil. But it could also block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.

    The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200-km range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just metres above the sea’s surface, and it has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 percent.

    Iran’s mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf, and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease, and in a few days insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region’s oil exports completely.

    Meanwhile Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that would soon shut down the U.S. military effort there. (It was the arrival of U.S.-supplied Stinger missiles in Afghanistan in the late 1980s that drove Russian helicopters from the sky and ultimately doomed the whole Soviet intervention there.)

    Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The United States would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world’s industries and transport ground to a halt.

    The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States, and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every wargame the Pentagon played, and Mike Mullen knows it. So there is a plan for an attack on Iran, but he would probably rather resign than put it into action. It is all bluff. It always was."