Iran's response to Israeli strike?

[Thunder]

So, lets say Israel decides, in 8 months, to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran knows that if it retaliated with a huge barrage of missiles, Israel would respond against its cities, possibly with nuclear weapons. And the USA might also join Israel in a counter-retaliation against Iran.

So, how far is Iran willing to go? Is it willing to risk severe casualties and severe infrastructure loss inorder to punish Israel?

I say...it indeed is.

[Ziggurat]

I think Iran is more likely to attack Israel via their Hezbollah proxies than waste precious ballistic missiles before it has nukes to put on them.

[ServiceSoon]

Are you privy to information I am not?

Whatever their response it will not be good for homosapiens.

[Bikewer]

I'm inclined to agree with Ziggurat. Most of the pundits I listen to on NPR have said much the same thing; Iran is in a position to cause a great deal of mischief through surrogates and proxies rather than engage in open hostilities itself.

[JoeEllison]

If Israel attacks Iran, American troops will be invading Israel, right?

[MarkCorrigan]

I say...it indeed is.

Nope. Not a chance in hell.

IT may, and I stress MAY attack with a limited aerial bombardment and it probably will, as others have said, use (or at least ask for help from) insurgents in the region.

t wouldn't risk open war because despite what many want to believe Iran is not that stupid. It's also a pretty liberal country (no, seriously it is, for what is effectively a theocratic democracy, and yes, I know how stupid that sounds) and would like to push that side of itself into the public eye, otherwise it's always going to be seen as full of fascistic Muslim nutbars who call for an attack on anything even remotely close to allowing personal rights, while Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the area is sold all kinds of crap. They, as much as some of them don't want to admit it, want the rest of the world to help them, and they won't get that help if they constantly attack (or at least are seen to be attacking) Israel.

[JoeEllison]

Can someone explain to me how, if Israel attacks Iran, it is IRAN that needs to be worried about starting a war? Didn't Israel start this hypothetical war?

[Thunder]

If Israel attacks Iran, American troops will be invading Israel, right?

um...no...since the USA and Israel are pretty much on the same page..as far as Iran is concerned.

but, Iran, seeing what happened to Iraq, may yell "uncle" before its too late.

they may just accept some sort of crazy bribery package from the EU or Russia inorder to stop enrichment.

Iran is smarter then Iraq was and they may draw this out for another 5-10 years.

[gtc]

Can someone explain to me how, if Israel attacks Iran, it is IRAN that needs to be worried about starting a war? Didn't Israel start this hypothetical war?

It is purely hypothetical, but if Iran was preparing to attack Israel then I would have no objection to Israel launching a pre-emptive attack.

[MaGZ]

So, lets say Israel decides, in 8 months, to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran knows that if it retaliated with a huge barrage of missiles, Israel would respond against its cities, possibly with nuclear weapons. And the USA might also join Israel in a counter-retaliation against Iran.

So, how far is Iran willing to go? Is it willing to risk severe casualties and severe infrastructure loss inorder to punish Israel?

I say...it indeed is.

One possible scenario is for Iran to do nothing and gain support from the world community.

[arthwollipot]

One possible scenario is for Iran to do nothing and gain support from the world community.And for my next trick, pigs will fly and whales will walk on dry land.

[MaGZ]

Nope. Not a chance in hell.

IT may, and I stress MAY attack with a limited aerial bombardment and it probably will, as others have said, use (or at least ask for help from) insurgents in the region.

t wouldn't risk open war because despite what many want to believe Iran is not that stupid. It's also a pretty liberal country (no, seriously it is, for what is effectively a theocratic democracy, and yes, I know how stupid that sounds) and would like to push that side of itself into the public eye, otherwise it's always going to be seen as full of fascistic Muslim nutbars who call for an attack on anything even remotely close to allowing personal rights, while Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes in the area is sold all kinds of crap. They, as much as some of them don't want to admit it, want the rest of the world to help them, and they won't get that help if they constantly attack (or at least are seen to be attacking) Israel.

I think you have a better read on Iran than Parky. The Iranians are a rational people.

[MaGZ]

um...no...since the USA and Israel are pretty much on the same page..as far as Iran is concerned.

but, Iran, seeing what happened to Iraq, may yell "uncle" before its too late.

they may just accept some sort of crazy bribery package from the EU or Russia inorder to stop enrichment.

Iran is smarter then Iraq was and they may draw this out for another 5-10 years.

No, Iran will not be fooled by American actions in Iraq. They know the only way they can obtain national security is by acquiring nuclear weapons. They will continue their program no matter the threats.

[gtc]

Israel, Pakistan, South Africa and India are all believed to have or had nuclear weapons and North Korea appears to claim the same. None of those countries have 'obtained national security' by aquiring those weapons so I wonder why you think Iran would be different.

[mrbaracuda]

So, how far is Iran willing to go? Is it willing to risk severe casualties and severe infrastructure loss inorder to punish Israel?

I say...it indeed is.

THE MAHDI.. HE MUST ARRIVE!
:dc_tongue::dc_chief::dc_tongue:

[egslim]

Iran knows that if it retaliated with a huge barrage of missiles, Israel would respond against its cities, possibly with nuclear weapons. And the USA might also join Israel in a counter-retaliation against Iran.
I expect Iran would raise diplomatic hell, by trying to incite as many people and nations against Israel as possible. Few Western nations except the US would support Israel after such an act of aggression, while many Muslim nations would probably take the side of Iran. Think spontaneous calls for boycots of Israelis and their goods, increased persecution of Jews in Muslim nations, souring relations and cancelled treaties, etc. For example, forget about securing a treaty for military access to supply forces in Afghanistan through a Muslim nation afterwards.

Simultaneously an unorchestrated campaign of violence against Israel and its supporters would erupt. Iran would probably step up weapon shipments to violent groups, but beyond that those people can act on their own initiative and indignation.

Iraq becomes an even bigger mess than it already is.

So, how far is Iran willing to go? Is it willing to risk severe casualties and severe infrastructure loss inorder to punish Israel?
I doubt it, simply because the country doesn't have to. After an Israeli attack it can isolate and punish Israel at least as effectively without risking conventional warfare. Iran will play to its strengths, not its weaknesses. And that means asymmetrical warfare, instead of conventional retaliation.

Not to mention that such an Israeli attack would set any Iranian nuclear program back only a few years, and motivate the Iranians to step up the effort. Destroying the Osirak reactor was different, because afterwards Saddam first became distracted by the war with Iran, then came the '90/'91 Gulf War and its aftermath with sanctions. Iran faces no such distractions.

[MarkCorrigan]

I really, really wish someone else had supported me, but I still stand by it, Iran is not going to strike at Israel. They would of course defend against any land invasion, and rightfully so.

I only wish MaGZ hadn't jumped in on my side.

[mrbaracuda]

I really, really wish someone else had supported me, but I still stand by it, Iran is not going to strike at Israel. They would of course defend against any land invasion, and rightfully so.

I only wish MaGZ hadn't jumped in on my side.

Well if it makes you happy I'll support your notion while saying Iran would rather, or well, is using already, some proxy like Hezbollah (which means party of Allah, for the curious and forgetful :D).

[MarkCorrigan]

Well if it makes you happy I'll support your notion while saying Iran would rather, or well, is using already, some proxy like Hezbollah (which means party of Allah, for the curious and forgetful :D).

I may not agree with you all the time, but at least you aren't a total nutjob.

I hate it when I mention a perfectly reasonable thing which happens to correlate to a perfectly UNreasonable belief of a bunch of racists, or sociopaths. Or sociopathic racists. ;)

[JoeEllison]

I may not agree with you all the time, but at least you aren't a total nutjob.

I hate it when I mention a perfectly reasonable thing which happens to correlate to a perfectly UNreasonable belief of a bunch of racists, or sociopaths. Or sociopathic racists. ;)

Do you mean the government of Iran, or the government of Israel? A pretty large section of the citizenship of both countries seem to be relatively normal people, dragged along by whackjob racist fanatics.

[mrbaracuda]

I may not agree with you all the time, but at least you aren't a total nutjob.

So I'm still a nutjob? Well, thanks, but why? :confused:

[MarkCorrigan]

So I'm still a nutjob? Well, thanks, but why? :confused:

Sorry, my bad. I meant you aren't any kind of nutjob, but MaGZ is a total nutjob. I was comparing you to him, not making a statement about you.

Joe, I was talking about MaGZ, not the government of either nation.

[mrbaracuda]

I may not agree with you all the time

Just thought about this, and either I've missed it all the time (I only remember the recent one in the Hamas - truce is strategic - thread) or you are not voicing the opinions which run contrary to mine nearly enough for my taste. ;)

[MarkCorrigan]

Just thought about this, and either I've missed it all the time (I only remember the recent one in the Hamas - truce is strategic - thread) or you are not voicing the opinions which run contrary to mine nearly enough for my taste. ;)

Rearrange the following words to find my political stance:

Socialist, Democratic, am, I, a

I think that will suffice;)

[WildCat]

Do you mean the government of Iran, or the government of Israel? A pretty large section of the citizenship of both countries seem to be relatively normal people, dragged along by whackjob racist fanatics.
You can't separate Israelis from their government, since that government was elected by popular vote. If you disagree with the government, you disagree with the Israeli people.

As for Iran, you have a point.

[MarkCorrigan]

You can't seperate Israelis from their government, since that government was elected by popular vote. If you disagree with the government, you disagree with the Israeli people.

As for Iran, you have a point.

Actually, the government of Iran is elected. Ish. In a way.

It is, in fact, the closest thing the Arab states have to a western liberal democracy. The only thing really, REALLY stopping it from becoming a rather poor version of them, in fact, is the council of guardians. That's pretty much the only thing retarding Iran at the moment.

[mrbaracuda]

only thing really, REALLY stopping it from becoming a rather poor version of them, in fact, is the council of guardians. That's pretty much the only thing retarding Iran at the moment.

And controlling Iran if I might add. :p

Rearrange the following words to find my political stance:

Socialist, Democratic, am, I, a

I think that will suffice;)

Okay!

Am I a Democratic Socialist?

Gee, if you're so unsure of it, just join the dark side! We got punch n pie! :D
Although I am not too sure on which dark side I am. :confused:

[Ziggurat]

It is, in fact, the closest thing the Arab states have to a western liberal democracy.

Not quite. First, Iran is not arab, and second, Lebanon (despite its troubles) is closer to a democracy than Iran is.

[Beerina]

If Israel attacks Iran, American troops will be invading Israel, right?

No, Israel is a freedom-based democracy, as is the US. If you don't like it, get involved in the political process to change representation at the next election.

Iran is not a legitimate state because it is a thugocracy, wherein those at the top are the best at killing their political rivals.


When attempting to draw analogies for rhetorical purposes, they should not be silly.

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, the government of Iran is elected. Ish. In a way.
Parts of it are, see below.
It is, in fact, the closest thing the Arab states have to a western liberal democracy. The only thing really, REALLY stopping it from becoming a rather poor version of them, in fact, is the council of guardians. That's pretty much the only thing retarding Iran at the moment.
You are, in fact, dead wrong. First point being that Iran isn't an Arab state.

Liberal democracy?

Nope.

Islamic Republic, with Islamic having sound reasons for pride of place in the title.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10962464c89629bdc2.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5822)
This structure has lasted a generation. What makes you think it will change any time soon?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So, lets say Israel decides, in 8 months, to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Using what means: Air strike? We went over this a year ago on this very forum. Not gonna be able to pull it off due to US still controlling airspace over Iraq. (Unless Bush and friends, or Turkey, are complicit in such a move. Even Bush gang are fnot ool enough to allow that, the traceability is too easy for anyone to do. I cannot find a reason for Turkey to allow use of their airspace for such a raid. My only puzzle is the Saudis. They might allow overflight of their airspace to get at Iran over the PG, but there is still the problem of the US Fifth Fleet and CENTCOM EW coverage. Not bloody likely to go unmarked. The reason Osirik worked was superb OPSEC, and relatively short range, and no EW support. Guess what the Saudis bought a few years later . . . )
Iran knows that if it retaliated with a huge barrage of missiles, Israel would respond against its cities, possibly with nuclear weapons. And the USA might also join Israel in a counter-retaliation against Iran.
Your mind reading skills are truly impressive, Sylvia.
So, how far is Iran willing to go? Is it willing to risk severe casualties and severe infrastructure loss inorder to punish Israel?
Why bother, when the clients do a fine job without as much effort. (See Zig's comment, an incisive observation.)

Don't quit your day job to work in the geostrategy industry, parky, you'll starve.

@ Joe E: If Israel attacks Iran, US attacks Israel. Hmm. We'd have the advantage of surprise, which counts for a great deal in modern warfare. Not betting the over.

DR

[ddt]

Parts of it are, see below.

You are, in fact, dead wrong. First point being that Iran isn't an Arab state.

Liberal democracy?

Nope.

Islamic Republic, with Islamic having sound reasons for pride of place in the title.

This structure has lasted a generation. What makes you think it will change any time soon?

Thanks for the schema; interesting!

What I don't understand: it lists "supreme leader" under "unelected institutions". However, if you look at the schema, the "supreme leader" is appointed by the "assembly of experts", which in its turn is elected by the electorate. In my book, that's called indirect elections.

In principle, the scheme doesn't look too bad; it could very well be the scheme for a liberal democracy, except for one arrow: the vetting of candidates by the Guardian Council. That "feedback" loop is withholding liberal candidates from entering the institutions.

[fuelair]

Can someone explain to me how, if Israel attacks Iran, it is IRAN that needs to be worried about starting a war? Didn't Israel start this hypothetical war?

Yawn

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks for the schema; interesting!

What I don't understand: it lists "supreme leader" under "unelected institutions". However, if you look at the schema, the "supreme leader" is appointed by the "assembly of experts", which in its turn is elected by the electorate. In my book, that's called indirect elections.
I see you are an optimist. Check the credentials necessary for membership in the unelected positions. You may reconsider. Look again at the assembly of experts.

"86 Mullahs elected for 8 year terms, reviews actions of supreme leader" (Who is himself a mullah/ayatollah) You have to be a Muslim Clergyman to be a Mullah, I hope you realize.

How does "absolute ruler" apply to a liberal democracy?
In principle, the scheme doesn't look too bad; it could very well be the scheme for a liberal democracy, except for one arrow: the vetting of candidates by the Guardian Council. That "feedback" loop is withholding liberal candidates from entering the institutions.
Ya don't say? :rolleyes:

DR

[Nogbad]

Israel struck at Iraqi (and possibly Syrian) nuclear facilities before they were operational. Blowing up functioning nuclear power stations is not a particularly responsible course of action and I would be surprised if Israel did this. Depending on the prevailing winds at the time much of the radiation could blow across Iraq and even up through Jordan and onto Israel.

People have predicted an Israeli attack on Iran for the best part of three years now and nothing has happened.

If hypothetically they did I don't think Iran would respond immediately but there would be a lot of politicking. The Shias in Iraq may well lurch heavily towards Iran.

[ddt]

I see you are an optimist. Check the credentials necessary for membership in the unelected positions. You may reconsider. Look again at the assembly of experts.

"86 Mullahs elected for 8 year terms, reviews actions of supreme leader" (Who is himself a mullah/ayatollah) You have to be a Muslim Clergyman to be a Mullah, I hope you realize.
I overlooked that part. I humbly stand corrected.


How does "absolute ruler" apply to a liberal democracy?
There's one sting, though. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran) states, FWIW:
The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is also in charge of overseeing the Supreme Leader, and has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time.

Not that it has happened; only Khomeini and Khamenei thus far have been Supreme Leader. But, to answer your original question: stranger things have happened. Even in September 1989, no-one foresaw the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

[JoeEllison]

So, no one has a logical argument as to why Iran cannot invade Israel in self-defense?

That's just what I thought...

[Thunder]

well, seeing as that Israel is threatening to unilaterally attack Iran, it is therefore justified in attacking Israel in pre-emptive self defense.

[gtc]

So, no one has a logical argument as to why Iran cannot invade Israel in self-defense?

That's just what I thought...

Its too much of a hypothetical situation.

In some hypothetical situations, I would think that Israel would be justified to attack Iran first.

In some, Israel would be justified to retaliate against an Iranian first attack.

In some, Iran would be justified to to attack Israel first.

In some, Iran would be justified to retaliate against an Israeli first attack.

If you want to make the scenario more concrete, I could tell you what I think.

[Darth Rotor]

So, no one has a logical argument as to why Iran cannot invade Israel in self-defense?

That's just what I thought...
Joe, the rational response to that scenario is that Iran lacks the strategic lift to do so effectively, and is not well positioned at the moment to gather sufficient regional allies to allow them to logistically support such an invasion.

Should the Iranians begin to make friends with all of the Arab nations of the Middle East, given that they share no common border with Israel, then another invasion of Israel, see Sadat 1973 with Syrian assistance, is a plausible scenario. Lacking the ability to build a coalition, it's not a practical endeavour for the Iranians to contemplate.

DR

[gtc]

well, seeing as that Israel is threatening to unilaterally attack Iran, it is therefore justified in attacking Israel in pre-emptive self defense.

But what if Israel thinks that Iran is threatening to unilaterally attack Israel? Surely then Israel would be justified in attacking Iran in pre-emptive self defense?

This line of reasoning just ends up going in circles.