How likely is this to take place in the short to near term ?
What might be the likely extent of such conflict ?
What should it be called ?
I think such a conflict is a serious possibility, maybe even probable. Because I think it would politically suit each country's leadership; it allow the Iranian leadership to distract the population away from the domestic political crisis, gives them the cover/excuse to crush all opposition and it could further strengthen its leading position in non-A.Q. radical islam. Not to say there won't be significant downsides to a possibly unrestricted conflict.
For Likud's Netanyahu it offers the chance to win/stage a high profile victory over the emerging strongman of 'Middle Eastern' countries, largely erasing the embarassment of the Lebanon war. At a stroke, the Obama administration has to fall in beside Israel and back it to hilt, talk about restraining Israeli settlement activity and establishing a permanent peace with the Palestinians gets push aside., if not forgotten about depending on how unsympathetic/terroristic of any palestinian reaction, be that Hamas, small terrorist groups or from an all-out conflict with Hizballah.
I'd guess a significant factor in the determined, time-tabled response of the USA-UK-France to the 2nd Iranian nuclear program might be a clearly stated Israeli intention to attack Irans nuclear/missile facilities fairly soon, unless there is a definite negotiated solution to the problem.
I think it should be called the the Israel-Iran war, as we've already had the Iran-Iraq war making Iran-Israel too similar sounding. Maybe if the conflict is limited it could be named after the major characteristic of the fighting, like the 'tanker war' or 'the the war of the cities' which we've already seen with regard to Iran.
I do not think it would really suit either country's political leadership because the disastrous consequences a defeat would create. Israel would be putting its existance at stake, Iran's governing party would be risking everything. I think both parties will avoid an actual war and things will continue business as usual.
Effectively zero.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Iran's governing party would be risking everything.
They may soon have nothing left to lose.
How would the war even work? Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?
That depends..
If Israel just strikes Natanz and other Nuclear sites gets away clean then Iran can choose to either respond or not. How?
1) Hizbullah. Is Hizbullah going to be willing (political price within Lebanon etc.) to fight for Iran against Israel with Lebanon as a casualty?
2) Iraq. Is Iran willing to provoke a fight against the US as a response to an Israeli strike?
3) Oil. Is Iran willing to use it as a weapon like the Arabs did in 1973, can they?
4) War of the Cities. If the Iranians start lobbing ballistic missiles on Israel. How far are they willing to go before Netanyahu cries WMD and uses his own WMD. Israel is much more capable of destroying economic infrastructure than Iran.
There are alot of what-if's here.
But then again, how to declare victory? Well if Israel bombs Natanz et.al. damaging the facilities and killing some technical staff and gets a cease fire afterwards they can declare victory. But then again Iran can declare victory ala Saddam and declare survival to be victory.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work? Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?
Iran doesn't have the bomb yet and Iran sure as hell don't have miniaturized warheads. Even if Iran has an untested device the only delivery mechanism they can use is Container Ship.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 25, 2009, 02:31:13 PM
How likely is this to take place in the short to near term ?
What might be the likely extent of such conflict ?
What should it be called ?
1) 5%
2) Israelis bomb a couple installations. Iranians retaliate (or attempt to) with conventional missiles and Hezbollah proxy attacks.
3) The Crock of Shi'ite War
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2009, 03:17:16 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on September 25, 2009, 02:31:13 PM
How likely is this to take place in the short to near term ?
What might be the likely extent of such conflict ?
What should it be called ?
1) 5%
2) Israelis bomb a couple installations. Iranians retaliate (or attempt to) with conventional missiles and Hezbollah proxy attacks.
3) The Crock of Shi'ite War
3) Heeb' of Shi'ite War?
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work? Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?
For Israel to send fighters across Iraq, they would at least need the tacit approval of the US. I don't see that happening. Iran may have conventional missles that can reach Israel, but no nuclear warheads to fit on a missle yet. So they could shoot missles at each other I guess. But that wouldn't make any side able to actually win, so I guess both sides aren't interested in war.
Quote from: Zanza on September 25, 2009, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work? Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?
For Israel to send fighters across Iraq, they would at least need the tacit approval of the US. I don't see that happening. Iran may have conventional missles that can reach Israel, but no nuclear warheads to fit on a missle yet. So they could shoot missles at each other I guess. But that wouldn't make any side able to actually win, so I guess both sides aren't interested in war.
Saudi has been suggested as a rout.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 04:25:42 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 25, 2009, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work? Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?
For Israel to send fighters across Iraq, they would at least need the tacit approval of the US. I don't see that happening. Iran may have conventional missles that can reach Israel, but no nuclear warheads to fit on a missle yet. So they could shoot missles at each other I guess. But that wouldn't make any side able to actually win, so I guess both sides aren't interested in war.
Saudi has been suggested as a rout.
Also France, Denmark etc.
Since neither country's armies can reach each other (since neither side has any significant sealift capacity that I am aware of) then all they can do is conduct air-raids and shoot missiles at each other. I don't think many generals would advise war in such a case.
If Israel attacks the Iranian nuclear program, Iran will not declare war (due to the above and also due to the Americans being "next door" on two borders), and Israel has never really seen the need to declare war if all they are doing is dropping a few bombs.
So, chance of war = nil.
Chance of increased terrorism due to Iranian funding = 100%.
Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.
I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?
Quote from: HVC on September 25, 2009, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.
I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?
Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom; Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 25, 2009, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.
I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?
Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom; Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.
Only on the internet.
Anyways lets get back on the subject of Iran.
How do you guys see the new revelations playing out?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/with_iran_the_cuban_missile_cr.html
Quote
With Iran, 'The Cuban Missile Crisis in Slow Motion'
Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who is one of America's leading security strategists, likes to speak of the U.S.-Iranian nuclear confrontation as "the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion." Well, on Friday morning, that slow-mo process started moving a little faster, as President Obama issued a stark warning about a secret Iranian project that poses a "direct challenge" to the international order.
World leaders used language this morning that described a dangerous ladder of escalation ahead. Obama said Iran will be "held accountable" for its actions. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that unless Iran changes its nuclear stance by December, harsher sanctions will be imposed. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, normally no Churchill, said there was "no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."
Allison's Cuban analogy may strike some people as alarmist, but it seems more and more apt to me. The United States and its allies have caught Iran cheating, again, on International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards -- this time by building a second undeclared enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom. It was an Iranian effort to gain leverage, reminiscent of Moscow's moves in Cuba in 1962 as described by Allison in his classic book, "Essence of Decision."
The Iranians outed their covert project in a lame, obtuse letter to the IAEA last Monday. But they must have suspected that the U.S., which has covertly monitored this breakout since the Bush administration, was about to blow the whistle.
A senior Obama administration official described the enrichment facility as a "hardened" facility, built to withstand attack, which has been under construction for several years. Constructing this mountain fortress was a significant Iranian move, since if it had remained undiscovered, it would have allowed them to keep pushing toward bomb production even if the Natanz enrichment site were taken out in a bombing attack or closed through negotiations. Basically, it gave them the ability to cheat.
So why didn't the Obama administration lay down an even stronger marker in response to this breakout -- by threatening, say, to intercept ships at sea that it believed were carrying parts for the Iranian nuclear program?
The answer, explained the senior official in a telephone interview, is that the U.S. wants to preserve consensus among its allies for much harsher sanctions, even as it heads toward a face-to-face negotiating meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1.The U.S. has privately communicated with the Iranians in recent days that it wants those talks to go forward, the senior official said.
Obama's consensus-building seems to be working: The U.S. briefed top Russian officials this week on the intelligence about the Iranian covert enrichment site. "They are now much more prone to join us" in backing tough sanctions if Iran doesn't back down, the senior official said. "They have been bamboozled by the Iranians. They're pretty mad."
If the negotiations fail and Iran makes a further breakout toward weapons capability, "we could always escalate," says the senior administration official. It's hard to see how this one will end short of military confrontation if the Iranians don't start bargaining for real.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2009, 02:37:14 PM
They may soon have nothing left to lose.
Still, even after the last 'election' crap they're not a out and out evil dictatorship. They're not exactly going to see the writing on the wall, the rebels at the gates and decide there's nothing for it, they should launch the nukes.
Even full-on, no pretensions of democracy dictators never did that.
I agree with Agelastus I guess.
Chances of aerial skirmishing/Israel bombing Iran a little- quite high. This will also lead to increased terrorism.
A actual war? Nah.
Quote from: Tyr on September 25, 2009, 06:24:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2009, 02:37:14 PM
They may soon have nothing left to lose.
Still, even after the last 'election' crap they're not a out and out evil dictatorship.
:yeahright:
What colours are each side's counters?
Quote from: Warspite on September 26, 2009, 05:16:36 AM
What colours are each side's counters?
Israel light blue text on white background
Iran black text on brown background (hard to read :bleeding: )
Revolutionary guard have green text on brown background (easy to read)
US white on blue
UK white on blue with "Uk" [sic] in corner
Iraq black on blue
Kurds white on blue with black stripe
Gulf Arabs white on blue with yellow stripe
Saudis white on green
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:49:51 PM
Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom; Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.
One of the main symptoms of Asperger's is lack of empathy; that is a terrible diagnosis.
Better break it to Timmay gently then.
Quote from: Viking on September 26, 2009, 05:29:08 AM
Quote from: Warspite on September 26, 2009, 05:16:36 AM
What colours are each side's counters?
Israel light blue text on white background
Iran black text on brown background (hard to read :bleeding: )
Revolutionary guard have green text on brown background (easy to read)
US white on blue
UK white on blue with "Uk" [sic] in corner
Iraq black on blue
Kurds white on blue with black stripe
Gulf Arabs white on blue with yellow stripe
Saudis white on green
Great, now I want to play TOAW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH! :mad:
How times change.
This was pre-drone, or near it.
Still probably not going to happen, but more likely than it was
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2024, 08:41:54 AMStill probably not going to happen, but more likely than it was
I'm guessing the axis of evil might try something on the 7th
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2024, 08:41:54 AMStill probably not going to happen, but more likely than it was
:huh:
It's being fought as we speak.
I predict an imminent Israeli attack on the Iranian leadership. Would not be surprised if Khamenei is dead by this time next week. The movement of the army to the Lebanese border is just a diversionary ruse. The real target is Iran.
Quote from: PJL on September 30, 2024, 10:36:32 AMI predict an imminent Israeli attack on the Iranian leadership. Would not be surprised if Khamenei is dead by this time next week. The movement of the army to the Lebanese border is just a diversionary ruse. The real target is Iran.
Nah. That would be a real escalation unlike the neutralisation of enemy combatants actively attacking Israel like the pan-Muslim British left likes to talk about their strikes against terrorists.
Looks like they are picking off the proxies one by one and daring Iran to react directly.
So I'm trying to quit this hell-hole of a discussion forum, but I keep getting dragged back. Of course the fault is mine and only mine.
Earlier today I saw a post on the CBC website about the Oct 7 attacks in Israel one year anniversary. The article was ludicrous - it was all about the attacks by Israel in response4 in Gaza and Lebanon. You had to go about 5-6 paragraphs deep to find a reference to the dead Israelis and hostages from October 7th.
But I guess I must not have been the only one to be outraged. Because now if you go on the CBC website the articles now prominently mention the Israeli dead and captured.
So - good I guess?
Beeb, do you really think it is a hell-hole here? Certain posters who are renowned for being disagreeable certainly try to make it that way, but I think if you, like me, avoid them, you'll enjoy this place much more.
You don't actually have to respond to people that consistently prove themselves belligerent and dishonest!
Don't respond to CC. Easy as that.
Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2024, 04:06:43 PMSo I'm trying to quit this hell-hole of a discussion forum, but I keep getting dragged back. Of course the fault is mine and only mine.
:cry: Don't go!
Frankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing. Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.
Such drama queen theatrics. Stay or go (and hopefully stay) but don't do whatever this is.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2024, 04:53:01 PMFrankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing. Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.
The hell hole aspect of this forum is you and CC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2024, 11:52:20 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 07, 2024, 04:53:01 PMFrankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing. Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.
The hell hole aspect of this forum is you and CC.
:yes: Like a battered wife, Beeb thinks that after the 30th time it really will be different when he replies to CC.
I like to think it's a function of his Christian charity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2024, 11:52:20 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 07, 2024, 04:53:01 PMFrankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing. Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.
The hell hole aspect of this forum is you and CC.
:lmfao: Name a time I made this a "hell hole." With quotes, please.
QED.
I thought Yi meant "Beeb and CC" when I replied. :blush: