What should have israel done instead?

Politics and religion
3761

Aleck - Except that was because Israel struck first.

The Yom Kippur war, in what was arguably a far better balance of overall forces for Israel, was a near-defeat. (Golder Meyr ignored intelligence warnings)

And you’re ignoring that nuclear weapons allow open and blatant funding of terrorism (see; Russia), which is the problem with Iran.

Plus Israel’s military could wipe out the Iranian military and still be home in time for supper.

What? No, not at all. Not even in the slightest. Even a targeted strike at the Iranian nuclear facilities is very unlikely to succeed!*

While Israel might well be able to win, we’re talking about a far smaller gap than, say, the Gulf War. The Merkva tanks are not bad, but don’t have the same sort of modern armour British and American tanks have (as Hezbollah proved, with a 45% penetration rate against them with missile hits in 2006!) - and Iran has some pretty good Russian missiles, both anti-tank and enough modern SAM’s to make close air support problematic.

There’s nothing wrong with the Iranian troops basic equipment or training, either. While they have conscripts, so does Israel. Iran’s also got quite a few competitive (to the Merkva) tanks, some based on British designs and a solid core of nearly 500 modern-build (post-2002, so Iran-Iraq war comparison’s don’t apply) T-72’s. Oh, and a shitload of artillery.

(*Unless they have a back door in their systems. See: Syria’s smoking hole in the ground where they’d started building a nuclear facility, and the Israeli warplanes were completely invisible to Syrian Radar. Whoops!)

3762

Wait – back up a second. Is Iran a threat to Israel once it has nukes because only then does it gain the ability to fund terrorism without repercussions? Because, frankly, that’s ridiculous. Iran has been funding terrorism, specifically terrorism aimed at Israel, since the early 1980s. Nothing Israel has done – including Israel alluding to its own nuclear stockpile* – has dissuaded Iran from funding terrorism (which is a low cost, high impact way of spreading its influence as a regional power). Nukes don’t change that calculation at all. Nukes change the calculation by making an Israeli attack on Iran much higher stakes for Israel.

Ironically, the Six Day War is probably the better example, since the lesson learned from the Yom Kippur War is to never let your guard down – and Israel is unlikely to do so again. However, even in the Yom Kippur War, in which they were caught flatfooted, Israel again defeated all of its neighbors – this time in under three weeks. The aftermath of the war also cemented the partnership of the US with Egypt and Jordan, which have had peaceful relations with Israel ever since (with the exception of the little experiment with democracy in in Egypt a few years ago…)

Israel can/would beat Iran badly in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel would be highly unlikely to attempt to hold territory, which renders most of Iran’s forces fairly impotent. If Israel were to go on the offensive, it’s true that attacks on the nuclear program – which is the single most heavily bunkered and defended program in Iran – would be problematic if Israel weren’t willing to use nukes. That’s like saying “attacking Cheyenne Mountain would be difficult.” The issue is, frankly, virtually everything else in Iran is fairly vulnerable to conventional attack. Once the SAM threat is eliminated (which would likely take a week or two of sorties if the US experience with Iraq is any guide), Israel could/would be able to bomb the shit out of everything in Iran except the nuclear program with little or no threat from Iran’s conventional forces. They would likely see a dramatic upswing in sponsored terrorist attacks against Israel, of course, but that’s to be expected.

Iran’s conventional forces would be a greater threat if Iran were to invade Israel, but that’s also highly unlikely – not least because getting Iranian military forces to Israel poses a serious burden. While that would be an interested war game, it’s not something that would ever happen – in part because Israel would likely respond to such an invasion with WMDs.

Of course, any attack by Israel on Iran (even in their own defense) would likely have disastrous long term consequences for Israel, but, based on the rhetoric from today, the current Israeli leadership doesn’t seem to be able to think much beyond this month’s elections.

*It’s also worth noting Israel developed a nuclear stockpile through means just as illegal as those being used by Iran – which is simply to say there is no moral high horse when you’re talking about developing nuclear weapons.

3763

Including the likely theft of highly enriched uranium from the US, of all nations. For Israel to pontificate about Iranian nuclear development is hypocritical in the extreme.

3764

There are comebacks possible against non-nuclear powers which are not possible against nuclear ones. Like it or not.

However, even in the Yom Kippur War, in which they were caught flatfooted, Israel again defeated all of its neighbors – this time in under three weeks.

The breakdown was between the intelligence services and the President. A breakdown which we appear to have again.
And “barely not being defeated by the skin of their teeth” is hardly a good recommendation. Moreover, no, they throw back the invasion but were not in a position to move seriously on any but Egypt, and it’s unlikely they could of held there in the long term, while the attack in Syria was run on speed and bluff.

The Bar Lev line which defended against Egypt was overrun - not bypassed, but downright overrun in two hours - and only some very successful operations by Israeli commandos in disrupting Egyptian C3 allowed General Sharon to push back the Egyptians. In the Golani, if the Syrians had broken through at the Tapline Road, they could have been in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem the next day - and they nearly did. If not for Zvika Greengold, they probably would have done. Even then, the Syrians were only held back by a bluff - fifteen tanks, mostly damaged, and crewed with injured men “reinforcing” the last six tanks of the 7th Armoured. If Syrian doctrine for using their IR vision systems had been better (systems Israel didn’t have in any number), they would have broken through. It’s also far from certain that if Syria had chosen to counter-attack rather than accept the UN ceasefire that the Israelis could of held.

(I do agree the Iraqi troops efforts in Syria stunk. Lots. Massively, even. And at sea and even in their home ports, the Syrian and Egyptian navies got their ass kicked from one side of the med to the other. In air to air combat, Israel also utterly dominated, but SAM fire was as deadly to them as it was to Arab jets.)

Once the SAM threat is eliminated (which would likely take a week or two of sorties if the US experience with Iraq is any guide)

Not remotely comparable. Israel does not have the same level of equipment on it’s aircraft (which for strike are F-16’s and a few F15-E’s), and they would be facing far, far better missiles than Saddam had. No strategic bombers, no massive amount of cruise missiles stockpiled.

Do read up on what ex-Generals and ex-Mossad leaders have said about this! They’re not at all confident.

in part because Israel would likely respond to such an invasion with WMDs.

If that was true, then they’d have been deployed during the You Kippur war. Oh, there was initial prep done - in the open. It was an attempt to - a successful attempt to - get America to send material aid.

the current Israeli leadership doesn’t seem to be able to think much beyond this month’s elections.

Not least because they’re in grave danger of losing power. Unless, of course, they get external help. Like “Right, America’s turning it’s back on you”.

It’s also worth noting Israel developed a nuclear stockpile through means just as illegal as those being used by Iran

Factually untrue. Israel never agreed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Iran did so, and has voluntarily remained a party to them while trying to develop nuclear capacity. Israel is not required to refrain from development of nuclear weapons, and accepts limits on imports as a result - for instance, America wouldn’t sell it missiles for it’s submarines because they might be adaptable for a nuclear warhead.

(So they developed the Popeye missile, and sold a few to America (And a bunch of other countries). Not a practical second-strike weapon though, as it’s subsonic and fired from the Med it’d take nearly two hours (and be interceptable) to strike, and Israel’s subs don’t have the range to loiter in the Red Sea…and wouldn’t be able to go through the Suez canal when a war was pressing anyway…Egypt would say no)

Iran’s the only hypocrite of the piece here.

3765

I don’t think the IAF would have it that easy with Iran. For one, there’s no easy airspace to Iran. Saudi might be willing to turn a blind eye, but the detour for that exacerbates the IAF’s range problem (see below). I can’t see Turkey ever saying yes. And Iraq wouldn’t allow it, because the last thing they need right now is having to worry about Iran on top of everything else on their plate. (And we have been giving the Iraqis F-16s; Israel would have to blow those out of the sky if Iraq decided to put up some token resistance).

Second, the IAF has a shitload of short-range fighter bombers and very little refueling capability. They’ve never really needed tankers; you can fly over the width of Israel in like 10 minutes. They certainly don’t have the numbers required for the kind of “raze Iran’s air defenses and roam over the skies at will” that you’re talking about. The Osirak strike back in the 80s was at the absolute limit of their fighter’s range; the F-15s and F-16s came back on fumes. Iran’s targets are at least 2-3 times further away than Baghdad (Osirak is on the outskirts of Baghdad).

And the entire point of bombing Iran would be to take out their nuclear facilities, which are built under mountains because the Iranians remember Osirak, too. Short of going nuclear themselves, the Israeli’s can’t do it. So any kind of military action that doesn’t take out the nuclear facilities will only piss off Iran and motivate them to get the bomb and they’ll be done with negotiating.

3766

Well, you will be mainly talking about Israel trying to bomb Iran, while Iran will be having no ability to strike back, they sure as fuck don’t have any long range stuff that would survive the trip to Israel, it would be a ONE WAY bomb street.

Last, Starlight doesn’t seem to have a clue what he’s talking about anymore, I’ve read chariots in the desert, Israel did have a fight on their hands, but those regimes back then was HEAVILY backed by Soviet weapons, which was at the time pretty good stuff, and they STILL couldn’t do it, It was a fucking turkey shoot at times. Now they got NO backing from that regime, they got weapons that are pretty much obsolete, they have seen what USA did to Iraq, they know very fucking well what the result is going to be now, the only one who doesn’t is Israel and Starlight.

3767

WH - Exactly. Long range strike capacity is something very, very few countries have.

(Although I’m not sure the Iraqi F-16’s would matter, they’re not going to have state of the art electronics and Israel’s proved it’s got pretty good training there over the decades. You just can’t win a land war with air power…and Russian SAM’s are good.)

Janster is no doubt playing Iraqi Information Minister again on the arms situation, of course.

3768

“Iran’s military reportedly has 1,613 tanks, including some 100 locally produced Zulfiqar, about 100 ageing British-made Chieftain Mk3 and Mk5 models obtained before the 1979 revolution, alongside 150 US-made M-60A1s - as well as 480 Soviet-designed T-72 tanks and 540 T-54/T-55 models, according to the Reuters news agency.”

Here is their tank force, how’s it looking Jim?

Last, Israel has Jericho 3 missiles that seemingly can hit the pacific, meaning they have global payload delivery systems, Iran doesn’t have anything like that…

Only the truly narrow minded, or warmongering would not see there is a HUGE discrepancy in power levels here, its almost sinister.

3769

Iran could have 10,000 tanks. It’s that whole driving all the way across Iraq and Syria part that’s an issue for them.

3770

Could make a good road movie.

3771

But you don’t need ICBMs to hit israel when you only a few hundred miles away.

3772

There are threats, and there are threats. Iron Dome and Arrow and such are good responses, if passive, to small rocket attacks. A long term approach to the Palestinian problem is the permanent solution. But a massive conventional military has zero bearing on that threat–there is nothing to attack with it, and it can’t defend against pinpricks.

The point some are trying to make is one of scale and proportionality. There are countries and groups that routinely claim to want to destroy Israel, or at least the Israeli state. To put it mildly this is unacceptable and unhelpful. But none, none, of these groups or countries has the combination of will and ability to do anything about it. There are no military forces in the region remotely capable of doing anything more than annoying Israel. That doesn’t mean they can’t suffer damage–and I agree, it is entirely within Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket and terrorist attacks–but these are not existential threats.

I’m not sure what Starlight is going on about, but his vision of Israel’s security posture is somewhat unconvincing to say the least. And Israel would not need to spend vast amounts more on defense, because they really don’t need to. As Janster points out, defend against what? The stuff that they do have to defend against doesn’t cost money so much as it costs political capital and national will.

3773

This is true. But we lived with the USSR having thousands of warheads pointed at us with command and control systems fully capable of delivering those weapons on target, controlled by a regime that was fully invested in a desperate ideological struggle with the West. We also managed to talk with them, and it turned out no one wanted to commit suicide.

Right now, we live with a lot of weird countries with nukes, like, um Pakistan? North Korea? Not a great situation, but neither of those countries, not even the whack jobs in Pyongyang, seem to really want to join their ancestors any time soon. Iran is far more rational as a society than either of those places. There are parts of its government and leadership that are pretty far out there, and I’m sure some of them might, personally, be the suicide vest wearing types, but all in all, Tehran has never shown any sign of suicidal urges. Even if they had nukes, and even if they had delivery systems (both of which they do not, actually, have right now), there is zero reason or expectation they would use them against Israel, or probably anyone else who didn’t launch an all out invasion of Iran. The response would annihilate Iran, and there is zero support for that sort of thing. And Tehran is far, far more interested in exercising hegemony over the northern Gulf area than they are, in practical terms, in a dust up with Israel.

Israel is right to be watchful of Iran. They are right to criticize loathsome statements from idiots like Ahmedinijad and his types, when they froth at the mouth about destroying the Jewish state. But the logic Netanyahu is pushing is one of perpetual conflict, enforcing security by destabilizing everyone else, and ignoring what really matters back home.

3774

Again, that’s based on Israel spending vast sums on the military and having America’s support on territorial integrity!
Also, the margins are getting thinner by the year, thanks to Russian arms sales.

And Israel would not need to spend vast amounts more on defense, because they really don’t need to.

Without America’s backing? Israel’s a TINY country, there’s no room for the strategic depth needed so badly in modern warfare. 50% more would not be at all unreasonable without it.

Defence can’t be predicated on “oh, they won’t do that, really”. And you’re ignoring the fact that nuclear weapon states can openly sponsor terrorism and regime change, and nothing can be said or done about it! There’s a difference between the level Netanyahu is on, and the level of reasonable defence, and you’re having a go at the second as far as I can see.

3775

Does everyone here agree that it would be really bad for Iran to get a nuclear weapon?

3776

“Really bad” is overstating it. I am much more concerned about the nuclear capabilities of North Korea (for obvious reasons) and Pakistan (because it’s unstable, terrorist-ridden, and not in full control of its own territory). Iran is an also ran by comparison.

3777

Well, it has no upsides for anyone but Iran.

Edit: I agree I worry more about people who already have the damned things and are much less stable. I’d rather Iran have one than Pakistan, I think, but I’d much rather neither of them did.

3778

I’m not sure if it would be any worse than Pakistan (and India) having the bomb, or any of the splinter states from the old USSR, or Israel themselves even, or North Korea, or… you get the picture? Nuclear weapons are a danger whomever has them, as countries and their leadership changes over relatively small time frames and once you have a bomb you can’t easily un-have one.

From the Iran point of view, they obviously look at their neighbour Iraq, and how they got ‘pounded into the stone age’ by the US and UK etc and having nuclear weapons is a safe guard to stop that happening to themselves (or any other country that might be likely to feel the aggression of the USA led west). So our acts of aggression help countries like Iran desire to have nuclear weapons. Another situation (like ISIS, like Islamic Extremism) where it is our actions fueling the ‘problem’.

I’d rather Iran not have nuclear weapons, but then i’d also prefer those other countries i mentioned also didn’t have them either, the world would be a lot safer from a nuclear incident if they didn’t. However i completely understand why they feel they need them, and on that i can’t really blame them.

I don’t believe Iran is exactly like the portrayal of Islamic Nutters in Team America, or that kind of Israeli/Republican myth you might froth at the mouth over, i think they have a mature awareness of their place in the world, in relation to geography, their neighbours, their history and their relevance in Islam. I think they as a country are certainly less ‘crazy’ than North Korea, and i’ve not seen them leading wars of aggression outside their region for a good long while. Obviously they support terrorism, and have done for a very longtime, but who here can hold up their hand and honestly say their country has not done things to the same effect? None of us.

It might even actually aid stability in the region if they did get nuclear weapons, assuming Israel does not go mental and start the middle eastern apocalypse? Certainly they would be less likely a target for war when the next Republican party holds the keys to American power? That would make the middle east a bit more peaceful perhaps?

3779

Jumping in with my $.02…

The most likely “really bad” effect of Iran getting a nuke would be that it would push other states in the immediate vicinity to go nuke as well. I think it is almost guaranteed that if Iran goes nuke, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will in very short order; Egypt and Jordan would probably take a hard look at it as well.

3780

Yeah, folks who are saying, “well it’s no worse than other countries” seem to be missing the idea that nuclear proliferation is inherently bad. Having more countries with nuclear weapons is not really ideal.