Iran

[apg]

LOL, no that is North Korea.

Quite so. Iran is going to collapse quite nicely without military intervention. Due to sanctions and embargoes, oil exports just hit a thirty year low, and though the country is awash in crude, refining capacity has diminished to such an extent that they have to import refined product.

Oil accounts for over 60% of revenues - and income is declining. Add in fiscally-foolish programs like the monkey/man in space or a supposed competitor to our F-35 joint strike fighter will only drain the government coffers more quickly and efficiently. Just a few days ago, the crew of an Iranian tanker in India stopped unloading because they hadn't been paid in a while.

While run by religious zealots, Iran has a secular and educated middle class that once knew what it was like to live a comfortable life. Not so much these days.... The US has been quietly ramping up the pressure by restricting access to US financial markets to the buyers of Iranian oil. China buys 22% or Iranian oil, followed by Japan, India, South Korea, Italy, Turkey and Spain. Some of these countries we actually count as allies, so it's going to get tougher for Iran.

North Korea is the problem...and as with Iran, China seem to be the key.

 

[Eliot]

More like you lack the knowledge

This isn't Osirak.

There are the overflight issues, there are the refueling issues, there are the airframe issues (how do you sustain optempo with such a small airforce?), what about SAR? Or is everyone packing cyanide? What about the air defense network? What about the number of sites? What about the number of sites that are impervious to conventional bunker busters? Do you deploy nuclear weapons? Are you willing to take the heat for that? What about the sites that you don't know about?

There's only one airforce in the world that poses any credible threat to Iran.

It's the USN.

It's the only player in the region that can stage close enough to the targets and has enough aircraft to sustain any serious air campaign. I'd budget one month, minimum, to do any real damage. Anything less is pissing in the wind.

WE have supplied Israel with the hardware, Israel has the the attitude that we lack.

They don't have the tools to pull it off. They don't have enough aircraft, they don't have enough pilots, they don't have enough tankers, hell - they don't have a way of getting to the target.

-

I think the biggest tell is that Israel has spent the last ten years talking about it. Did Israel announce their strike in Syria ahead of time? Did they tell the Iraqis they were heading for Osirak? As a small power they rely on speed and surprise.

This is media campaign aimed at Washington. That's it.

 

[Rugbier]

This isn't Osirak.

There are the overflight issues, there are the refueling issues, there are the airframe issues (how do you sustain optempo with such a small airforce?), what about SAR? Or is everyone packing cyanide? What about the air defense network? What about the number of sites? What about the number of sites that are impervious to conventional bunker busters? Do you deploy nuclear weapons? Are you willing to take the heat for that? What about the sites that you don't know about?

There's only one airforce in the world that poses any credible threat to Iran.

It's the USN.

It's the only player in the region that can stage close enough to the targets and has enough aircraft to sustain any serious air campaign. I'd budget one month, minimum, to do any real damage. Anything less is pissing in the wind.



They don't have the tools to pull it off. They don't have enough aircraft, they don't have enough pilots, they don't have enough tankers, hell - they don't have a way of getting to the target.

-

I think the biggest tell is that Israel has spent the last ten years talking about it. Did Israel announce their strike in Syria ahead of time? Did they tell the Iraqis they were heading for Osirak? As a small power they rely on speed and surprise.

This is media campaign aimed at Washington. That's it.

LMAO

of course you have been there or better yet , you have served with the ZaHaL?.....doubt it , so once again, I stand by my previous statement

 

[Eliot]

LMAO

of course you have been there or better yet , you have served with the ZaHaL?.....doubt it , so once again, I stand by my previous statement

Apparently you are retarded, I'm sorry for your friends and family. They must have infinite patience.

 

[Mongo]

you have no clue...

 

[knewsom]

Eliot, trust Goose on this one. ...you know I'm always a doubting Thomas, but believe me - I certainly trust his opinion on this. 100%.

 

[Rugbier]

Apparently you are retarded, I'm sorry for your friends and family. They must have infinite patience.

I am going to play nice for a short time.

When use you words that scape your vocabulary make sure you choose appropriately.. as the definition of retard is to hinder.. and the only hindering in here is your ability to speak with knowledge.

Make sure at the next event, to introduce yourself if you would like to discuss this further.

Lastly, GFY, and stop talking about things you have no clue, so you can stop HINDERING your image


P.S> in case GFY is to difficult for you to understand it means GO FUCK YOURSELF

 

[Rugbier]

you have no clue...

Ignorance.. a gift of free will *LOL*

 

[Rugbier]

Eliot, trust Goose on this one. ...you know I'm always a doubting Thomas, but believe me - I certainly trust his opinion on this. 100%.

Chris,

Next thing you know.. I might become a liberal and start liking OBoy :rofl:

 

[1920SF]

Quite so. Iran is going to collapse quite nicely without military intervention. Due to sanctions and embargoes, oil exports just hit a thirty year low, and though the country is awash in crude, refining capacity has diminished to such an extent that they have to import refined product.

Oil accounts for over 60% of revenues - and income is declining. Add in fiscally-foolish programs like the monkey/man in space or a supposed competitor to our F-35 joint strike fighter will only drain the government coffers more quickly and efficiently. Just a few days ago, the crew of an Iranian tanker in India stopped unloading because they hadn't been paid in a while.

While run by religious zealots, Iran has a secular and educated middle class that once knew what it was like to live a comfortable life. Not so much these days.... The US has been quietly ramping up the pressure by restricting access to US financial markets to the buyers of Iranian oil. China buys 22% or Iranian oil, followed by Japan, India, South Korea, Italy, Turkey and Spain. Some of these countries we actually count as allies, so it's going to get tougher for Iran.

North Korea is the problem...and as with Iran, China seem to be the key.

Add in one other variable: ~10% of the population addicted to opiates.

 

[1920SF]

Apparently you are retarded, I'm sorry for your friends and family. They must have infinite patience.

For what its worth, what Goose has is experience which is, unless I'm mistaken, something you lack. Your academic insights are just that, academic insights. Neither culturally attenuated (like his) nor do they have any more fidelity than the narratives which you are looking at as though they convey fact.

To the broader point, I still contend picking a fight with Iran (as the US) is a poor idea for the ideas regarding their own issues already brought out. I also state that because it's been my experience that few that advocate for it are actually those that do it. Such is history. The Israelis live in a different context of course.
r
Ray

 

[p m]

My money is on the ex-Soviet equipment and munitions in Iran. The shit isn't going to fly. And half of it isn't even ex-Soviet - it is ex-Chinese or ex-NK, which only makes it worse.

(OTOH, I only recently learned more about MI-24 and 35 - that was some good shit).

 

[Eliot]

Eliot, trust Goose on this one. ...you know I'm always a doubting Thomas, but believe me - I certainly trust his opinion on this. 100%.

I appreciate the insight, still - I just don't see it. This is what I do and I just don't see it. Flying to Gibraltar is one thing, conducting an aerial campaign against Iran is quite another. Best case scenario Israel can conduct a pinprick attack against two or three sites. The return is minimal, and they have no assurance that they've actually knocked the sites out. They'll be operating over hostile airspace all the way in, and all the way out. Given the current situation in Georgia, will Tblisi really give them basing rights for search and rescue? The risks are huge - to the point of insanity. How many casualties are they willing to accept? How many POWs? The damage to their aura of invincibility is a very real, and very serious cost.

Worst of all will be the blowback in Gaza, and in Lebanon. Tehran can ratchet up the pain to their hearts content, and there isn't a damn thing Israel can do about it. The July War was a disaster, and Hezbollah has only grown more potent since then. Gaza will be easier to deal with, but it's still another stress on a small country with limited means. The last thing Israel needs is a two front war.

General Dempsey told Netanyahu, point blank, that this was a bridge too far. General Hayden said much the same. The intelligence community is pretty unequivocal on this.

This article in the Times does an excellent job laying out some of the issues with an attack. I know Israel has a reputation for being the wildman in the region, and the country that gets things done. This is where their ambition exceeds their grasp though.

 

[1920SF]

I appreciate the insight, still - I just don't see it. This is what I do and I just don't see it... ...They'll be operating over hostile airspace all the way in, and all the way out. Given the current situation in Georgia, will Tblisi really give them basing rights for search and rescue? The risks are huge - to the point of insanity. How many casualties are they willing to accept? How many POWs? The damage to their aura of invincibility is a very real, and very serious cost.

Worst of all will be the blowback in Gaza, and in Lebanon. Tehran can ratchet up the pain to their hearts content, and there isn't a damn thing Israel can do about it. The July War was a disaster, and Hezbollah has only grown more potent since then. Gaza will be easier to deal with, but it's still another stress on a small country with limited means. The last thing Israel needs is a two front war.

This article in the Times does an excellent job laying out some of the issues with an attack. I know Israel has a reputation for being the wildman in the region, and the country that gets things done. This is where their ambition exceeds their grasp though.

So if this is what you do, I'll start with something that should resonate first: your bias is effecting your analytic judgement. Everything you list as a factor, even with mitigating/caveated language, is looking at the problem through a US lens-moreover it's one that is placing value judgments and rational choices through that lens. If this was the US Air Force planning this mission in Israel's shoes I think you'd be spot on.

A better article that examines different ways, aside from a pure long range strike, they may go after this problem is here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/27/the_entebbe_option?page=0,0

The rest of the context is also viewed through other lenses:
-Gaza is a pissant place filled with people that Israel can marginalize through firepower fairly quickly if the situation ratchets too far up with Iran (think CAST LEAD 3.0)
-LH is stronger but also has a lot more to lose, and is facing their own multi-front problem as Syria collapses behind them.
-Iran has a similar issue given the Syrian context, as Asad falls apart they lose an ally, their proxy state of sorts, and their easy throughput to LH.
-If/when Israel did this, what would the US do-or be forced to do given Iran's stated rhetoric? Also plays into the context of the situation. Even an initial strike could rapidly turn this into a multiple player scenario well beyond Israel by herself against the Persians and their friends.

I'm not saying Israel will do it, I'm just saying looking at how they'd do it through the lens of how we'd do it ensures that the problem isn't being examined correctly.
r-
Ray

 

[Ballah06]

...ARGOFUCKYOURSELF... atriot:

 

[brian4d]

I appreciate the insight, still - I just don't see it. This is what I do and I just don't see it. Flying to Gibraltar is one thing, conducting an aerial campaign against Iran is quite another. Best case scenario Israel can conduct a pinprick attack against two or three sites. The return is minimal, and they have no assurance that they've actually knocked the sites out. They'll be operating over hostile airspace all the way in, and all the way out. Given the current situation in Georgia, will Tblisi really give them basing rights for search and rescue? The risks are huge - to the point of insanity. How many casualties are they willing to accept? How many POWs? The damage to their aura of invincibility is a very real, and very serious cost.

Worst of all will be the blowback in Gaza, and in Lebanon. Tehran can ratchet up the pain to their hearts content, and there isn't a damn thing Israel can do about it. The July War was a disaster, and Hezbollah has only grown more potent since then. Gaza will be easier to deal with, but it's still another stress on a small country with limited means. The last thing Israel needs is a two front war.

General Dempsey told Netanyahu, point blank, that this was a bridge too far. General Hayden said much the same. The intelligence community is pretty unequivocal on this.

This article in the Times does an excellent job laying out some of the issues with an attack. I know Israel has a reputation for being the wildman in the region, and the country that gets things done. This is where their ambition exceeds their grasp though.

You underestimate Israel. Just look at the Tank Battle of Abu-Ageila. When you are determined and have the will you hold the victory.