WI: Israel Attacks Iran in the 2000's

What if during the Iran nuclear crisis, Israel engaged in unilateral action to bomb and destroy it's facilities, even as the US is involved in Iraq? How would the global reaction be?
 
It wouldn't have come off.

Iran's nuclear facilities were distributed to somewhere between a dozen and thirty sites, hardened, with redundancies. They were all outside the range of Isaeli warplanes and bombers, and to have made an impact, they would have had to have bombed on a Desert Storm scale.
 

Pangur

Donor
It wouldn't have come off.

Iran's nuclear facilities were distributed to somewhere between a dozen and thirty sites, hardened, with redundancies. They were all outside the range of Isaeli warplanes and bombers, and to have made an impact, they would have had to have bombed on a Desert Storm scale.

Which is the same situation that you have now.
 
Which is the same situation that you have now.

They massive physical and logistical obstacles to such an attack have not changed at all, and an attack is no more likely now than it was twenty years ago.

There's also the political/realpolitik impediment in that while Iran is a terrific bogeyman to play to the home town crowd, in no way does it represent a threat to Israel. Iran is only the Nemesis du Jour because every single closer state fails utterly to be a credible challenger. If Israel didn't have the Iranian menace to vapour about, then they'd be beating the drum over the Kazakh menace, or the Somali threat, or the Pakistani challenge. Basically - Iran is much more valuable to Israel as a political and public relations nemesis. As an actual threat... not so much.

But assume that Israel does launch an Iraq in the 2000's....

Such an assault would need to be a major sustained air campaign, with dozens, maybe hundreds of sorties, with mid-air refueling or ground refueling along the way.

Even then, it's unlikely to achieve its military objectives, and might likely be counterproductive in incentivizing Iran to actively pursue a nuclear weapon.

There would almost certainly be significant Israeli casualties from air defenses, Iranian civilian casualties would be in the thousands, possibly tens of thousands.

The scale of the assault would not be a quick smash em up raid, but an actual military campaign and full fledged state of war.

The American involvement would be impossible to conceal. And that would invite reprisals in Iraq and all up and down the Persian Gulf.

Bad outcomes.
 

ThePest179

Banned
What if during the Iran nuclear crisis, Israel engaged in unilateral action to bomb and destroy it's facilities, even as the US is involved in Iraq? How would the global reaction be?

It would be a disaster on a massive scale. Even the West would be pissed at what Israel did.
 
If and it's a big IF the Israel's gained hard intel on an Iranian nuclear program about to succeed and the world stood by and did nothing they would do one of two things .

1. use their Air Force on flight that would be so risky they would have nearly no chance of success.

2. Use a combination of Cruise missiles from their submarines and either conventional or nuclear missiles from the Negev desert .

The only other possibility is to await the first terrorist nuc incident or Iranian missile launch at them .
 
If and it's a big IF the Israel's gained hard intel on an Iranian nuclear program about to succeed and the world stood by and did nothing they would do one of two things .

1. use their Air Force on flight that would be so risky they would have nearly no chance of success.

Essentially correct on, but I would remove the word 'nearly.'

2. Use a combination of Cruise missiles from their submarines and either conventional or nuclear missiles from the Negev desert .

Also a non-starter. Cruise missiles do not contain sufficient payload. And ballistic missiles from Negev would not be sufficiently accurate nor provide a sufficient conventional payload. It's actually a worse option than an air raid.

If you go nuclear, of course, then there's no payload issue. But you'd ratchet up civilian casualties by an order of magnitude. If Israel engages in a preventative nuclear strike, that's pretty much the end of Israel.

I don't see a country randomly throwing nukes at its neighbors and having long term prospects.





The only other possibility is to await the first terrorist nuc incident or Iranian missile launch at them .

There is no credible case to be made that any nuclear party is just going to hand a nuclear weapon over to a non-state actor of dubious stability. That's just not going to happen.

And there is no likelihood that Iran would, unprovoked, launch a nuclear weapon by missile.
 
There is no credible case to be made that any nuclear party is just going to hand a nuclear weapon over to a non-state actor of dubious stability. That's just not going to happen.

And there is no likelihood that Iran would, unprovoked, launch a nuclear weapon by missile.

While I disagree with you that Iran is not a threat to Israel (not an existential one, but it is a clear threat to Israel's regional interests through its funding of Hezbollah, Hamas and close relations with Syria), you're right here.

Nuclear war though could conceivably break out by accident, if a military confrontation between Iranian and Israeli forces escalated rapidly and spiralled out of control. The danger isn't really the Ayatollahs going nuts, it's more Able Archer or the Indo-Pakistani border.
 
Nuclear war though could conceivably break out by accident, if a military confrontation between Iranian and Israeli forces escalated rapidly and spiralled out of control. The danger isn't really the Ayatollahs going nuts, it's more Able Archer or the Indo-Pakistani border.

I guess we all need to keep an eye on the Israel-Iran Border.
 
Not unless Israel allies with ISIL

Da'esh isn't going to last forever. At some point, it's going to be rolled back, likely predominantly by Iranian and Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria. The 'moderate' rebels in Syria are useless, and Hezbollah is a state within a state. Once that happens, Iran is going to be a pretty undisputed regional power.

Look, I don't think the outbreak of nuclear war is likely, but these are two countries that do not get along, do not have any clear diplomatic contacts (like the USSR and US did) and are both run by regimes with gigantic chips on their shoulder who use apocalyptic rhetoric.

I don't think nuclear war would be likely to break out, but I don't think you should dismiss the possibility of two hostile nuclear-armed states going to the mattresses so easily.
 
but these are two countries that do not get along,

They're over a thousand miles apart, have no economic relationship, are not economic competitors, there's no resource issues as between them, there's not really a lot to fight about, apart from some vague ideological hostility.


do not have any clear diplomatic contacts (like the USSR and US did)
Which is, more than anything, a sign that there's really no overlap or conflict in interests that would require them to talk to each other.


and are both run by regimes with gigantic chips on their shoulder who use apocalyptic rhetoric.
On the other hand, Iran hasn't actually attacked anyone for a few hundred years, and the only recent war it was in was one that Saddam Hussein started.

As for Israel, its war fever is pretty much sated by the opportunity to regularly 'mow the lawn' in Gaza.

I'd say that the risk factor is a lot higher vis a vis Pakistan/India, North Korea/Whoever, or even Russia/China.

And yes, like it or not, Iran is and is going to remain a regional player in ways that the Israel is not and likely will never be, because Iran has relationships with its neighbors. That's not a security threat.

In any event, we're getting a bit afield here.

The OP is that Israel attacks Iran in the 2000's. I think our mutual verdict is that the attack fails and the blowback is fierce.
 
In any event, we're getting a bit afield here.

The OP is that Israel attacks Iran in the 2000's. I think our mutual verdict is that the attack fails and the blowback is fierce.

Yeah, pretty much. Unless they go nuclear (which, unless we've somehow put Meir Kahane in charge is not happening), airstrikes will fail to do much damage, will kill scores of Israeli pilots, and will cause the region to go up in flames.
 
Yeah, pretty much. Unless they go nuclear (which, unless we've somehow put Meir Kahane in charge is not happening), airstrikes will fail to do much damage, will kill scores of Israeli pilots, and will cause the region to go up in flames.

If they go nuclear, the region goes up in flames. I can't see a scenario where Israel pre-emptively deploys nuclear weapons and the world stays sane.

My best guess -

* Iranian civilian casualties in the tens or hundreds of thousands, Iran declares a state of war, closes the straight of Hormuz, and lays out the 'with us or against us ultimatum.'

* The Gulf states roll over like a row of Dominos rushing into the pro-Iranian camp. The ones that don't are overthrown by local uprisings that make the Arab spring look like peanuts.

* Saudi Arabia gets completely hamstrung. It can't be seen to be supporting America or Israel even indirectly. It goes along for the ride, supports Iran publicly, and starts looking for a way out of this mess through backchannels.

* All those American troops in Iraq? Hoo boy. Buckle down, because that whole country is going to go up in flames.

* Iran goes breakneck for a nuclear deterrent. Maybe it gets one from Pakistan. Maybe it comes up with one. Maybe it just lurches hard into the Russian orbit.

* The world economy goes into the shitter.

* Israel's got no friends. We're talking worldwide trade embargo, possibly a NATO/European blockade.

* America is in complete damage control mode, saying or doing anything to get out from under the mushroom cloud. Most likely line of defense - 'We didn't know they were going to use Nukes. We thought it was just going to be a small raid. We wuz lied too...'

* Israel will almost certainly be forced to divest itself of nukes, and will probably get stuck with gigantic reparations.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yeah, enjoy the Iranian guerrilla naval war and commando raids on Persian Gulf oil shipments.

Frankly it would be beyond braind ead to do this, which is why Israel never will; its far more valuable to use them as a boogeyman to scare the public and distract from the Palestinian issue, plus get them tacit support from the Saudis and other anti-Iranian Sunnis to have the Iranians around; attacking them would be far too costly and remove of their best propaganda tools.
 
Actually, Israel almost did attack Iran in 2010, 2011, and 2012, it was just reported yesterday.

A former Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, revealed new details to his biographers about how close Israel came to striking Iran’s military facilities in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and why it did not despite his and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to do so, according to interview excerpts aired on Israeli television Friday night.

Mr. Barak, who also previously served as Israel’s prime minister, said that he and Mr. Netanyahu were ready to attack Iran each year but that in 2010, the military chief of staff said Israel lacked the “operational capability”; in 2011, two key ministers waffled at the last minute; and in 2012, the timing did not work out because of a joint United States-Israel military exercise and visit by the American defense secretary. He noted that the two ministers who balked in 2011, Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz, “are the most militant about attacking Iran” today.

- The NYT
 

Deleted member 1487

Actually, Israel almost did attack Iran in 2010, 2011, and 2012, it was just reported yesterday.



- The NYT
So they didn't really come all that close; the politicians were interested, but the military demured and politics got in the way; its a bit of bluster, it could never have come off and would have been intensely stupid and death of their political careers and likely the US-Israeli alliance, not to mention everyone's economy.
 
in 2010, the military chief of staff said Israel lacked the “operational capability”;[/quote[

That says it all right there. There sure as hell isn't going to be any handwavium of operational capabilities in 2011 and 2012.

And throwing the United States under a bus, probably not a good idea anyway.
 
Top