The attack on Iran
Our buddy, Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times writes today about what an Israeli attack on Iran would look like and the probable response from Iran in “Plotting Against Iranian Nuke Sites“.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) — with its vaunted pilots and American-supplied warplanes — are so adept at surprise that Iraq and Syria never knew what hit them until their nuclear facilities lay smoldering.
But Iran and its scores of buried and cemented nuclear sites present a much more daunting campaign — one of days, not hours, and multiple weapons, not a few laser-guided bombs.
And unlike Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, Iran can be expected to launch a fierce counterattack that likely would draw the United States into a low-level war with Tehran.
You should read the whole thing about the last battle in the war against terror.
Category: Media, Terror War
Low level my ass. Granted, the Iranian Navy ain’t much to brag about, and a few Kilo boats would be found in the shallow waters of the Gulf in fairly short order, if they were able to get out before the Israelis attacked they could prove rather problematic.
I’m not a Sonar Tech, but I’d think water that shallow and all the littoral waters would play pure holy hell with trying to find those guys before they could try to stick a few into a carrier.
Either way, someone would have to almost set the same priority to counterstrike assets as the nuke facilities.
Sparky, I responded the same way: “Low level my ass.” My thought is that every country with an ax to grind with Israel would climb on board with a counterattack, and we’d be off to the races again.
I don’t know, with Syria and Egypt currently sidelined with interior issues I suspect we would have less to worry about than might otherwise be the case. Then again, an attack on Iran by Israel might have the effect of solidifying extremists holds on the two countries.
In either case the possibility of a total conflagration in the Middle East really shouldn’t prevent the prosecution of force against Iran if Iran is truly the threat we believe it to be.
Sparky and Pinto; you’ve got that right! It would be “game on” if Israel did attack. That being said; I don’t worry as much about Iran attacking as a “coalition of bad guys”, with other Israel haters in the region, being supplied by mother Russia would be all over it. The bigger problem arises that even in countries where there is unrest, at the present time, they would quickly unite to fight a common enemy; Israel.
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t OT. Historically the support structure between the Persians and the Arabs over the centuries has been spotty at best.
And how much help could we expect from NATO where Israel is concerned?
Well, Jacobite, the problem is that they wouldn’t really see it that way, because of their shared hatred for Israel. The reasonable voices in the region would probably stay out of it, but with the Muslim Brotherhood pushing very hard for control in North Africa, you can pretty much bet they would participate. It has happened before and will happen again. There was a time when about 12 different countries in the region were fighting against Israel all at once, including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, so it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that something like that would take place. I’m not saying that Saudi Arabia or Iraq would be involved, but there are others, to be sure.
@6: Pinto, we all know the answer to that, since most of Europe is anti-semitic and has blamed Israel for everything negative in the region for decades, it comes down to Israel would likely be pretty much on their own, especially if they attack first.
The Middle East is simply put, “crabs in a bucket”. One climbs up, the others look to pull it down. Letting Isreal do it is a bonus. At a national level they will never cooperate and even when they did were hopelessly uncoordinated. However an uptick of suicide bombings is likely.
If this does happen, I’ll put my money the Israeli’s. They have proven, unlike our government, they have the resolve to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Kick a$$ now, ask questions later. Public opinion polls be damn.
@4, I gotta agree with OT. Once they have something to unite behind they’ll put aside their squabbles. Remember 9/11, on the 10th everyone was at each others throats in the House and Senate, on the 12th everybody was standing holding hands singing kubaya.
Nice speculation here, but all I can say is..
Dead.Ass.Wrong.
And not even close.
Take it from me- btdt.
@11
What part is wrong? Seems every angle is being posited.
And you’ll no doubt forgive us for not taking your
word for ‘it’, what ever ‘it’ is.
Don’t keep us in suspense, Mr. Wolf! Give us your assessment / side of the discussion.
He can’t tell us, its classified double omega delat super duper secret I’m sure.
I believe somekind of war with Iran is unavoidable. That said, we have the upperhand in any conflict whether it excludes possible ground troops or not. Until that is they actually develop a nuclear capability with a delivery system, the second can be attained from Pakistan or North Korea.
Iran is a theocratic police state, it must control overtly to govern. They could not long survive a protracted conflict with us, whether we invade or not. Which I doubt we would anyway. A simple sustained blockade would probably be enough. In a clash with us or Israel they will not have the plausible deniability of their proxies to hide behind, they will be directly targeted.
As for some PanArab-Persain alliance some of you are pushing, your dreaming. Iran has a few Shia proxy it can count on amongst the Arabs but most of them still see Iran as an aggressive state, that unlike Israel, can possibly overthrow their regimes. They would have tacit if not overt support of much of the Arab regimes. The Arabs and Persians(and the Turks somewhat) have long standing historical and cultural animosities, that even the Ummah hasn’t ever bridged.
Now consider that you’re CENTCOM and you’re getting word that Israel is about to launch a strike. What do you do? Your options are to 1–do nothing and risk placing your naval assets at risk, 2–play wait and see and strike only when attacked (not a good idea when you’ve got a couple of carriers as primary targets), 3–jump in and take out the assets which could be used to strike your (not necessarily Israel’s) assets.
Talk about lose/lose/lose. And the SCOAMF would probably choose option 2 and still sit with his thumb up his ass if a Kilo got in close enough to launch a spread against the Lincoln or GW. I know if I was Tehran I’d be more than happy to trade a SSK for a carrier, to say nothing of the propaganda victory.
IMO, Cedo hits pretty close to the mark. The Shia-Sunni division within Islam is deep, and boils over into open hostility at times (the more radical adherents in either branch of Islam consider adherents of the other to be heretics and thus non-Muslim). Iran is predominantly Shia; the surrounding states are predominantly Sunni. But each has Sunni communities, and Iran stirs up trouble within those communities on a regular basis. Thus, the Arab states (and, to a lesser degree, Pakistan) and Iran don’t really get along that well.
There’s also the historical Arab-Persian animosity that predates Mohammed overlaid on the religious division. Each has conquered the other repeatedly throughout Middle Eastern history.
In short, I don’t think you’ll see a Pan-Islamic war against Israel if Israel hits Iran. But you will see quite a bit of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, and IMO in particular Hamas and Syria may side with Iran.
If it were Egypt or Saudi Arabia being attacked by Israel, that would IMO be an entirely different story. Both are predominantly Sunni, and Egypt considers itself (and is in turn considered by the rest) to be part of the “Arab world”. In that case, a pan-Arab war against Israel – like those in 1948, 1956, and 1967 – would not be out of the question.
Minor correction: “apostates” is probably a better term than “heretics” in my previous comment.
The only issue I take with that is the fact they ALL hate Israel, and even if unprepared for any sort of armed conflict, would be more likely than not to jump in anyway if only to later say “I was there when…”
Although I will agree with the uptick, for lack of a better word, in terrorist attacks–Iran has used that as a foreign policy tool for over 30 years and why stop now? It’s also that threat that will keep the NATO countries from assisting the US/Israel, at least overtly.
NHSparky: they didn’t when Israel hit Osirak in 1981. And that was a Arab state led by a Sunni that many in the region were only beginning to worry about – not a non-Arab Persian Shia state that’s been endangering regional stability for 3+ decades.
Then I would argue that the non-Arab state you mention has merely been doing via proxy (Hezbollah, et al) what the Arab states have wished they could do, but failed on many occasions, including 1967, 1973, and 1982.
Given the chance to pile on, anyone and everyone with more than one scintilla of a grudge against Israel will do just that, whether their piling on is productive or not in speeding Israel’s downfall or destruction.
And if they can eviscerate American influence in the Med and Gulf regions, so much the better.
@ 11 SFB Wolf non-Esquimua, well? You unzipped your fly so where is it? Please go trolling somewhere else.
Gentlemen, you have no idea how glad I am to have found this site. I consider myself fairly well up on current events and rather well read on history but every time I come here I either learn something new or come away with a new idea to consider. Thank and keep up the good work!
NHSparky: I don’t dispute your point above. And if Iran were on good terms with its neighbors vice showing clear evidence of wanting to establish regional hegemony, I’d agree.
But the fact is that the Arab states in the Gulf Region are IMO as disturbed by the prospect of a nuclear Iran as we are. So my guess is that they’ll raise Cain verbally if Israel hits Iran – and secretly rejoice that it happened. I seriously doubt that you’ll see much in the way of a united Arab military response.
But my crystal ball is old and cloudy – so there’s always the chance I’m wrong. (smile)
#17 The Ummah is not united. Despite occasional Sunni/Shia joint jihadi endeavors(Like Iran/Al Qaeda, Iran/Syria, Hamas/Iran, Syria/Hezbollah, etc) contradictions in theocracy and ethnicity always eventually split them.
” In short, I don’t think you’ll see a Pan-Islamic war against Israel if Israel hits Iran. But you will see quite a bit of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, and IMO in particular Hamas and Syria may side with Iran.” Nothing that we couldn’t withstand but they would find hard to sustain. That is not even considering whatever our reposte might be.
“If it were Egypt or Saudi Arabia being attacked by Israel, that would IMO be an entirely different story.” No it wouldn’t, Hezbollah would retaliate, the National governments would whine. There is simple nothing they could do to significantly threaten Israel. They are geographic place names with little military capability. Does the Muslim Brotherhood want to send a few thousand crazed suicide Kamikazes of islamic rabble across the Sinai, shouting “Allah Ackbar”. Ask Iran how that worked in the Iran/Iraq war. That wasn’t even against a well trained western opponent. Try it!
#19 “Although I will agree with the uptick, for lack of a better word, in terrorist attacks–Iran has used that as a foreign policy tool for over 30 years and why stop now?” Iran with a nuclear capability, no matter how crude, would dramatically alter the strategic dynamic. It would be much harder to retaliate directly for its terrorist activities if so equipped, think North Korea. The North Koreans aren’t aggressive like the mullahs are on the world stage either.
#20 Yep.
So Cedo what you are saying is that an Israeli strike on Iran probably wouldn’t be as destabilizing as the media is saying it would be?
#25 In regards to their retaliation? No it wouldn’t.
Cedo: my point was that if Egypt or Saudi Arabia were the ones attacked by Israel, there would be a chance of a coordinated Arab (e.g., not including Iran,, Pakistan, and Indonesia) military response. Collectively, they could well pose problems for Israel.
How likely would such a coordianted response be? Who knows? But the chance is IMO well above zero. And also IMO there’s virtually no chance of that happening if it’s Iran that Israel strikes. There are simply too many divisions, too much mistrust, and too much past history between Iran and the Arab world.
“…my point was that if Egypt or Saudi Arabia were the ones attacked by Israel, there would be a chance of a coordinated Arab” Its extremely unlikely.
“Collectively, they could well pose problems for Israel.” Again its relative. The capability gap between the Israelis and the Arab states has dramatically expanded since the 70s in Israel’s favor. So instead of Israel finding 1 flaming bag of dogshit on it’s patio, it might find 2 or 3. There still bags of shit. All evidence has pointed to the conclusion that the Arab armies have actually atrophed over the last 30 years. They are less capable of fighitng Israel today then they were back then.