Iranian response to a limited airstrike against nuclear facilities and infrastructure

[Beatmaster]

@Strum

For political reasons, the U.S. will have no choice to strike if Israel is hit by Iranian missiles. Whether its a single salvo or dozens of missiles and irrespective of whether they actually hit anything of political or military value, the U.S. will have no choice but to act due to its close relationship with Israel - not doing would contrary to American policy, would be political suicide for a President in an election year and would send the wrong signal to the Sunni Gulf Sate Arabs, all of whom depend on Uncle Sam for their protection.The Israelis are fully aware of this and their whole strategy is based on the knowledge that what their air force may be unable to accomplish, will be done by the USAF and the USN.

So what are you saying here? If Israel is being hit that the US has to act?
Now what about Israel hitting Iran first which is a act of war, would that not give Iran a 100% legal and international right to defend them self by retaliating in a similar way?
Which in case you are right means that Israel is sort of keeping the US hostage in this matter because Israel would be allowed to hit Iran but Iran is not allowed to respond, and in both cases it would get uncle sam into action.

Now to me thats just...lets say BS.
Imo Israel should just zip it and keep silent instead of winding everyone up about the so called danger coming from Iran.
One could say that Iran has violated some ethic and diplomatic rules, on the other hand this could be said about Israel to.
Personally i do not care anymore who is the bad guy here fact is that If Israel chooses to strike that Iran should strike back and vice versa.
Both nations totally lost their minds and in terms of legal grounds i believe that Iran should not have been treated they way they are being treated now by the international community.
On the other hand loads of analyst have said before that any intervention by uncle sam will lead to a bleeding nose for the US.
Military supremacy by the US will still not have the results they are looking for, as Iran is just to big in size and most of their key installations are hardened.
So for Israel striking Iran would be of limited effectiveness anyway as Israels arsenal does not allow them to penetrate hardened facilities which the US can to a limited degree.

That being said Iran has a lot of issues i would be the first to agree to that, but the way things are being played and the reasoning behind all this...is just ridiculous at best.

 

[STURM]

So what are you saying here? If Israel is being hit that the US has to act? Now what about Israel hitting Iran first which is a act of war, would that not give Iran a 100% legal and international right to defend them self by retaliating in a similar way?

Forget about what's right and wrong or what's grey or white. Due to the nature of the special relationship the U.S. has with Israel, the U.S. would have no choice but to respond if Israel was attacked, irrespective if this attack was the result of an Israeli attack on Iran in the first place. If the world was fair and the same rules applied to everyone, Israel would not still be occupying land that it does not own, in violation of international law and UN Resolution 362 and it would have been 'punished' the same way Arab leaders have for defying UN Resolutions. And Israel would be coming under the same pressure Iran is currently facing over its nuclear programme. Not to mention that North Korea would be threatened with air strikes, the same way Iran is.
The key difference is that Israel is a strategic ally of Uncle Sam and enjoys tremendous diplomatic support from Uncle Sam, whilst Iran is a key member of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' who is up to no good.

On the other hand loads of analyst have said before that any intervention by uncle sam will lead to a bleeding nose for the US.

I'm more concerned about the people who actually live there and the long term consequences military action in Iran will result in. Look at how great Iraq became after 2003. Sure things are better now but after how long - it led to a civil war, the close 'balkanisation' of Iraq, and thousands of Iraqis dead. Military strikes on Iran will inevitably lead to instability spreading across to Iran's borders, anyone who claims otherwise is indulging in wishful thinking.
And look at Afghanistan, after more than 10 years of war, where is the democracy and stability that the world was told would be achieved there?

 

[2007yellow430]

Once thing missing from the discussion: how will the Iranians citizens react to any such attack? If history is any guide, they aren't going to cave in. Look for asymmetrical warfare. We saw what could happen there with the Millinem 2002 (sp?) war games, where the opposition general quit, after he had 'won'.

Art

 

[spikehades]

Although the CEPs of Iranian missiles are not accurate enough to ensure destruction of selected targets, if the missiles were equipped with cluster munitions and sophisticated and large thermobaric warheads - they would cause massive levels of devastation to Israeli civilian and economic targets and their surrounding areas.
For too long Israel has had a free ride - attacking with impunity and letting others (U.S.A) pick up the pieces. Perhaps a bloody nose or two would make the Israeli administration behave more rationally in the future - who knows maybe they'll begin to see negotiation as preferable to costly military action.

 

[surpreme]

Forget about what's right and wrong or what's grey or white. Due to the nature of the special relationship the U.S. has with Israel, the U.S. would have no choice but to respond if Israel was attacked, irrespective if this attack was the result of an Israeli attack on Iran in the first place. If the world was fair and the same rules applied to everyone, Israel would not still be occupying land that it does not own, in violation of international law and UN Resolution 362 and it would have been 'punished' the same way Arab leaders have for defying UN Resolutions. And Israel would be coming under the same pressure Iran is currently facing over its nuclear programme. Not to mention that North Korea would be threatened with air strikes, the same way Iran is.
The key difference is that Israel is a strategic ally of Uncle Sam and enjoys tremendous diplomatic support from Uncle Sam, whilst Iran is a key member of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' who is up to no good.



I'm more concerned about the people who actually live there and the long term consequences military action in Iran will result in. Look at how great Iraq became after 2003. Sure things are better now but after how long - it led to a civil war, the close 'balkanisation' of Iraq, and thousands of Iraqis dead. Military strikes on Iran will inevitably lead to instability spreading across to Iran's borders, anyone who claims otherwise is indulging in wishful thinking.
And look at Afghanistan, after more than 10 years of war, where is the democracy and stability that the world was told would be achieved there?

I agreed with that. If Iran is label the Axis of evil than there already plan to do something to Iran. If I can recall you had N. Korean, Iraq , Libya, and Iran label as the axis of evil. Two of them already been taken care of which leave N. Korea and Iran left. The U.S. has made it worster in Iraq and Afghan in term of civilians killed.

 

[STURM]

Although the CEPs of Iranian missiles are not accurate enough to ensure destruction of selected targets, if the missiles were equipped with cluster munitions and sophisticated and large thermobaric warheads - they would cause massive levels of devastation to Israeli civilian and economic targets and their surrounding areas.

In the first place are any ballistic missiles fitted with thermobaric and cluster warheads? And as I've mentioned before, Iran has only so many missiles and what happens if it starts to run out of missiles or if most of its missiles are intercepted by the Israelis? What next? What's also important will be the reaction of the Arabs. though their leaders, for various reasons might welcome strikes as a way to weaken Iran, their citizens might start objecting to yet another war being waged on yet another Muslim country in the region. A lot will depend on how the Iranians react to an Israeli strike and whether they actually carry out their threats to attack targets in the Straits of Hormuz. And of course, if the U.S. enters the picture - which is inevitable if Israel or the Arab Gulf States are attacked or if Iran attempts to close the Straits of Hormuz - then things will be profoundly different.

Perhaps a bloody nose or two would make the Israeli administration behave more rationally in the future - who knows maybe they'll begin to see negotiation as preferable to costly military action.

I doubt it, Iranian retaliation on Israel would only harden their position and gain them more international support. Israel has the backing of the world's sole superpower and Iran doesn't....

Once thing missing from the discussion: how will the Iranians citizens react to any such attack?

One thing's for sure, the majority of Iranians, irrespective of whether they support the current government, will not look too kindly on an attack on their country. Most Iranians feel that they are the victims of double standards and hypocrisy. The Iranians haven't forgotten the 8 year war with Iraq in which thousands and thousands of Iranians died, a war in which Iran was facing not only Iraq but dozens of other countries who were providing Saddam with military, financial and diplomatic support. At the same time, the U.S. and Israel might provide support for Iranian Sunni groups, who have launched several attacks on the Iranian government, as well as Iranian groups in exile. there also remain the long term possibility that the the U.S. and Israel might develop new ties with Azerbaijan, to put pressure on Iran.

The U.S. has made it worster in Iraq and Afghan in term of civilians killed.

But the neo-cons will tell you that it was part of the price to be paid in introducing 'democracy' and 'human rights' to both countries and that both countries are 'better' and more 'stable' places now.

 

[just4me]

@Strum


So what are you saying here? If Israel is being hit that the US has to act?
Now what about Israel hitting Iran first which is a act of war, would that not give Iran a 100% legal and international right to defend them self by retaliating in a similar way?
Which in case you are right means that Israel is sort of keeping the US hostage in this matter because Israel would be allowed to hit Iran but Iran is not allowed to respond, and in both cases it would get uncle sam into action.

Now to me thats just...lets say BS.
Imo Israel should just zip it and keep silent instead of winding everyone up about the so called danger coming from Iran.
One could say that Iran has violated some ethic and diplomatic rules, on the other hand this could be said about Israel to.
Personally i do not care anymore who is the bad guy here fact is that If Israel chooses to strike that Iran should strike back and vice versa.
Both nations totally lost their minds and in terms of legal grounds i believe that Iran should not have been treated they way they are being treated now by the international community.
On the other hand loads of analyst have said before that any intervention by uncle sam will lead to a bleeding nose for the US.
Military supremacy by the US will still not have the results they are looking for, as Iran is just to big in size and most of their key installations are hardened.
So for Israel striking Iran would be of limited effectiveness anyway as Israels arsenal does not allow them to penetrate hardened facilities which the US can to a limited degree.

That being said Iran has a lot of issues i would be the first to agree to that, but the way things are being played and the reasoning behind all this...is just ridiculous at best.

To say Iran is too big to be subdued by the US conventional military might is a strategic fallacy. For Israeli although a small country but has very powerful global influence from some religious sentiments especially with some conservative christians based particularly on the effects of Islamic fundamentalism, the Shiite-Sunni devide, the dependency of some countries on its military technology, cultural relationship with some global powers etc count strongly why strategically Iran is dwarfed by Israeli. For instance in addition to Israel's cultural relationship with Russia , Russian attempt to enter the commity of UAS countries depended strongly on purchasing UAVs from Israel consequently building some kind of special relationship with Israel which cannot be undermined strategically. Can Russia which Iran depends so much on the purchase of military hardware abandon Israei? Iran is yet to understand how stupid Is the initiative of building WMD

 

[2007yellow430]

To say Iran is too big to be subdued by the US conventional military might is a strategic fallacy. For Israeli although a small country but has very powerful global influence from some religious sentiments especially with some conservative christians based particularly on the effects of Islamic fundamentalism, the Shiite-Sunni devide, the dependency of some countries on its military technology, cultural relationship with some global powers etc count strongly why strategically Iran is dwarfed by Israeli. For instance in addition to Israel's cultural relationship with Russia , Russian attempt to enter the commity of UAS countries depended strongly on purchasing UAVs from Israel consequently building some kind of special relationship with Israel which cannot be undermined strategically. Can Russia which Iran depends so much on the purchase of military hardware abandon Israei? Iran is yet to understand how stupid Is the initiative of building WMD

Your post seems to imply that Iran is building WMDs. All the information that I've seen, implies that they suspended that project sometime in 2003, and currently they aren't doing that. ElBaradie's book, The Age of Deception sets forth what he considers to be the one sided treatment of Iran regarding the nuclear issue.

If you just consider the use of conventional weaponry, I doubt that Israel has the wherewithal to defeat Iran, and by defeat, I mean reducing their ability to strike back at Israel. Use of nuclear devices by Israel or the USA on Iran would bring immediate consequences. For Israel to use them, the EU and the rest of the world would react negatively, for the US to use them, it would cause huge problems, given the pledge made in the NPT, whereby nuclear powers promised never to use nuclear weapons against those that signed the NPT who were not nuclear. Use by the USA would probably cause mass defections from the NPT by non-nuclear nations, since that one provision was essential to encourage them to become signatories.

It's a tricky mess, and frankly, given the propaganda from all sides, I don't know who is factual correct, or who is not.

Art

 

[PCShogun]

Many good comments here. As STURM points out, politics are never about black and white, right or wrong.

Once the decision is made to attack, the U.S. is going to be involved. Perhaps not directly, but Israel cannot reach Iran without U.S. help, unless they use missile, and missiles will not take out that complex without being nuclear, which Israel is not going to do, as pointed out by 2007yellow430.

Iran has essentially two choices if attacked; It can sit still and take the hit, then rely on the U.N. to lodge its protests, or they can escalate the conflict. Frankly, I doubt they'd get much satisfaction from the U.N., however, many smaller nations may side with Iran on the grounds that it is Iran's right to pursue nuclear power by the terms of the NPT, and because they hate America and Israel. Iran is confirmed as the victim of Western and Israeli aggression, and then depending on how much damage is caused, has to decide if she will rebuild the damaged facilities, or abandon her nuclear efforts for awhile. After all the finger pointing and rhetoric is done, nothing will happen, as usual.

As far as a retaliation attack by Iran? Iran, like Israel, has little ability to attack beyond her immediate borders via a conventional force. Firing large numbers of cluster munitions into a city, or worse, a large thermobaric device, would essentially be an attack by a WMD against the civilian population, and is going to generate a huge response from the Western nations. No, they will likely not put troops on the ground; but you would see, in effect, another "Shock and Awe" air campaign similar to that used by "Deliberate Force" in Bosnia, and Desert Storm and Storm II in Iraq at the beginning of that conflict. European and U.S. economics will not come into play until AFTER Iran is pounded to the point that her economy is in collapse and her military complex's are in ruin. Iran may strive to put up a brave defense, but barring a direct intervention by the Chinese (unlikely) or Russia (unlikely, but possible), Iran would not be able to continue defensive operations beyond a matter of a few weeks to a few months at most. This is not to say Iran is incapable of defense, it is simply a matter of U.S. technology and economy over Iran's. America has simply spent a whole lot more on her military and Iran is behind in the technology race due to decades of embargo's. F-4 and F-5 clones will not compete against F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet's, F-35 Lightning II's, B-1 lancer, and B-2 spirit stealth bombers amidst a whole storm of Tomahawk missiles from the Gulf and Arabian Sea.

 

[just4me]

Your post seems to imply that Iran is building WMDs. All the information that I've seen, implies that they suspended that project sometime in 2003, and currently they aren't doing that. ElBaradie's book, The Age of Deception sets forth what he considers to be the one sided treatment of Iran regarding the nuclear issue.

If you just consider the use of conventional weaponry, I doubt that Israel has the wherewithal to defeat Iran, and by defeat, I mean reducing their ability to strike back at Israel. Use of nuclear devices by Israel or the USA on Iran would bring immediate consequences. For Israel to use them, the EU and the rest of the world would react negatively, for the US to use them, it would cause huge problems, given the pledge made in the NPT, whereby nuclear powers promised never to use nuclear weapons against those that signed the NPT who were not nuclear. Use by the USA would probably cause mass defections from the NPT by non-nuclear nations, since that one provision was essential to encourage them to become signatories.

It's a tricky mess, and frankly, given the propaganda from all sides, I don't know who is factual correct, or who is not.

Art

I wish you could proceed with your information search and look deeply and more logically into the ''insanity''of Israel and the US and Iranian sought for nuclear energy and the magic by which Ahmedinajad will wipe Israel from the face of the earth . Well i pointed out strongly earlier that it's completely a strategic fallacy that with the might of the US conventional weapons can not defeat Iran, i never said nuclear device which has global consequence. And am still saying that emphatically. Or you think if Iran is reduced to the level of Afghanistan is not enough to be called a defeat?

 

[My2Cents]

To say Iran is too big to be subdued by the US conventional military might is a strategic fallacy.

Iran has 2½x the population of Iraq, and you won’t have half the population at least initially neutral to friendly like in Iraq. The US (and allies) don’t have the required troops to occupy the whole country (3x to 5x what was needed in Iraq).

Fast raids to take out limited objectives and a quick exit, sure. Take out the government, not very likely unless the US is really, really, lucky. Occupy and hold the country, not a chance unless the US is prepared to accept very heavy casualties, and not a sure thing then.

 

[spikehades]

I think the main difference is that the Iranian regime still enjoys popular support, and commands real loyalty (not faux loyalty as seen in Iraq and Libya) among large swathes of it people.
The core of its military is professional and well trained, they have a very large and loyal militia force, and are well stocked with defensive armaments (anti tank missiles etc). This in addition to the fact that invasion contingency plans have been at the heart of Iran's defensive military dogma, a ground invasion in my opinion would be enormously costly in men and material.
Also, Iranian military sources have announced publicly that their missiles can be equipped with cluster munitions. Imagine Tel Aviv being littered with unspent cluster bombs - nightmare scenario.

 

[just4me]

I think the main difference is that the Iranian regime still enjoys popular support, and commands real loyalty (not faux loyalty as seen in Iraq and Libya) among large swathes of it people.
The core of its military is professional and well trained, they have a very large and loyal militia force, and are well stocked with defensive armaments (anti tank missiles etc). This in addition to the fact that invasion contingency plans have been at the heart of Iran's defensive military dogma, a ground invasion in my opinion would be enormously costly in men and material.
Also, Iranian military sources have announced publicly that their missiles can be equipped with cluster munitions. Imagine Tel Aviv being littered with unspent cluster bombs - nightmare scenario.

As regards to Iran attacking Tel Aviv with missiles equipped with cluster munitions. That depends on weighing against Israeli ABM such as the Iron dome, David sling, etc and infact large stockpiles of more accurate GPS equipped missiles capable of pounding Iranian cities with high powered explosives. Infact in this regard there's realy a great military imbalance between Iran and Israel because of serious technological imbalance too. And explicitly that Israel arms industry is as competitive as some of the world most advanced countries and even ahead of some in some areas. So the use of long range strikes like what happened during the Iran-Iraq war will be completely counter productive for Iran and outdated here. Iran should be completely deterred from employing this strategy.

 

[Beatmaster]

To say Iran is too big to be subdued by the US conventional military might is a strategic fallacy. For Israeli although a small country but has very powerful global influence from some religious sentiments especially with some conservative christians based particularly on the effects of Islamic fundamentalism, the Shiite-Sunni devide, the dependency of some countries on its military technology, cultural relationship with some global powers etc count strongly why strategically Iran is dwarfed by Israeli. For instance in addition to Israel's cultural relationship with Russia , Russian attempt to enter the commity of UAS countries depended strongly on purchasing UAVs from Israel consequently building some kind of special relationship with Israel which cannot be undermined strategically. Can Russia which Iran depends so much on the purchase of military hardware abandon Israei? Iran is yet to understand how stupid Is the initiative of building WMD

Lets clear some thing up here, first and foremost Iran is not building WMD's, in the past they did have a program but that has been stopped and totally disbanded which has been confirmed.
At this very point they are within the limits of the NPT and International Atomic Agencies limits.
There are however a few procedures that might be used for a WMD program as they have multiple functions and applications used in " civilian" programs.
Now within those limits the EU or US is not going to stop them, however Israel on the other hand do want to deny them any form of nuclear based research and applications.
As IAEA reports have shown there is NO evidence that there is a nuclear weapons program, there are only a few leads that COULD lead to a program as some applications could be used to take it a step further due their multi purpose options.

In regards to the US being able to:
Iran is too big to be subdued by the US conventional military might is a strategic fallacy None said the US could not subdue Iran.
However what has been said is that Iran is twice as big as Iraq and Afghanistan combined and on top of that they have like 3 or 4 times the population.
And given the enormous mountain ridges in Iran and its incredible diverse terrain, it would be nearly impossible for the US to find and destroy the program as Iran can hide the program in deep deep caves far away from US reach.

So lets say that Israel would make a series of surgical strikes into Iran then its very reasonable to assume that Iran does stop giving a damn about the world.
It perfectly knows that it will never be able to win any war against the west, It perfectly knows that if the US is going to be involved in any way shape or form that they will lose.
However at this point Iran is not having a WMD and they probably never will have one, but this might change if they are being pushed to hard, and this is actually a real danger.
Also if Israel would strike Iran then Iran will probably return fire by hitting key targets deep into Israel using conventional Sahab 3 and 4 missiles, and even with Israels awesome defenses (Which they have) 1 or 2 Sahab missiles hitting their target will do more damage to Israel then the whole attack they did upon Iran.
By that time the US will jump into the fight, the US will have air superiority within days if not hours, and they will cut off and destroy most installations that Iran has, There is however a catch, Iran's army might be considered backwards but their have big numbers and they will have the support of the population as they civilians HATE their government, but one thing they hate even more is a attack upon their nation.
Not to mention that Irans backwards military assets are still a many times better then the rebels and saddam could use against the US, and given the fact that its going to be a sort of Guerrilla war it will proof extremely dangerous for the US to undertake a serious campaign.
Now imagine Iraq and Afghanistan combined with all the rebel groups and low tech arms killing hundreds US soldiers and NATO soldiers during the 10 years they fought (And still fighting) and multiply this by a 100 then you might get the idea why Iran is such a dangerous place.
If the US is going to be forced to jump into this war then they must finish it as NOT finishing it will mean that Iran might get the bomb as they might see that as their only way to maintain some sort of self respect.
Also the US will never want this war, because it would trigger so much shit in the region that has already been hammered in the past 30 years. the US with all its might and NATO where not able to stop the war in Afghanistan, they barley got the job done in Iraq...so there is not way that the US is going to march to Iran knowing that the whole region would turn into flames.

For example Pakistan is having really serious problems with Al Queda thanks to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now having Iran fall into war as well would seriously bring down the region and will cause problems that cannot be fixed.
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Some parts of Turkey and Iran all very troubled and ANTI US/West regions...I am sure NO us soldier wants to be there....during a war with Iran.
Not to mention the incredible amount of money it would cost the US to successfully find and destroy Irans program and war making capability.
Iraq and Afghanistan did cost over 3 trillion dollars (Borrowed money under bush) todays analysts believe that it would cost nearly the double amount to (As you say it: Subdue Iran, and thats money that the US does not have.

Infact in this regard there's realy a great military imbalance between Iran and Israel because of serious technological imbalance too. And explicitly that Israel arms industry is as competitive as some of the world most advanced countries and even ahead of some in some areas. So the use of long range strikes like what happened during the Iran-Iraq war will be completely counter productive for Iran and outdated here. Iran should be completely deterred from employing this strategy.

Just a note here you seem to forget that Iran is huge...they can take a lot of pounding....question: How much can take Israel?
I can guarantee you that a few missiles on Israeli economic centers will bring down Israel.
As many have said before....

Now obviously there is a way of bombing Iran to the stone age and trying to control it by air and only take key points (For example their oil fields near Iraq) but still that would be a very dangerous thing to do for the US, as Iran still has over 2000 medium ranged missiles and most of them are unknown or mobile, which they can use against all kinds of targets within range.

So its not a question if the US can win, or if they are powerful enough...sure they are no doubt.
But things are not as easy as they seem.
Ask veterans who where in Afghanistan and Iraq they can tell you one by one that its nearly impossible to fight such war and that behind each grain of sand there will be a IED, old AK47 or a RPG waiting for you....and they will tell you that they hate Taliban and rebels but they also will tell you that even with the low tech weapons they where incredible effective against the modern western forces.
Now here is the thing, Iran is backwards in many ways, but they are far better equipped then you give them credit for, and they will put up a fight i guarantee that.
And thats not even the biggest problem...what happens after the Iran regime and its military has been defeated... you will have nearly 80 million rudderless people walking around and ill bet that any hardcore rebel group will make a run for power.
which in turn will have catastrophic results in the region....

I might used a bit to much one sided info from my part to explain my point, but i am sure that the other guys here on the forum will be able to tell you pretty much the same thing, simple fact is the west is by far superior to Iran no doubt, but the west being forced into this war by war willing Israel..would be a bigger disaster then Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and so to speak the US with its already bad reputation does not need this....they really don't...

And the key here to have Iran get back into line here lies in Israel, if they would start talking serious peace and such and give back the captured regions to their surroundings then you will see Iran temper down in many ways.
One could say that Iran is mad, but one could also say that the true reason for this region to be so hostile is because of Israels own actions, because if you look practically then nearly every war in the past 30 years within that part of the region finds its origin in the ways how Israel did solve " their" problems.

 

[2007yellow430]

Everyone seems to assume that the US will attack Iran if Iran and Israel get into a war. I don't know if that is true. The last public opinion poll by PressTV, done in November of 11, showed that 85% of Americans are against any attack on Iran. I am uncertain if the politicians are going to authorize any such war, given the huge disinclination of the citizens to engage in any such conduct.

Art

 

[Beatmaster]

Everyone seems to assume that the US will attack Iran if Iran and Israel get into a war. I don't know if that is true. The last public opinion poll by PressTV, done in November of 11, showed that 85% of Americans are against any attack on Iran. I am uncertain if the politicians are going to authorize any such war, given the huge disinclination of the citizens to engage in any such conduct.

Art

The US will do whatever it takes to avoid a war, fact however is when push comes to shove then they will back up Israel.
Obviously the public will not be happy about this but they have little impact on such a event to sway the US from helping Israel.
Simply said the US does not have the option to deny help to Israel.
Thats why i said earlier Israel is holding the US sort of hostage in this matter.

 

[Twain]

The US will do whatever it takes to avoid a war, fact however is when push comes to shove then they will back up Israel.
Obviously the public will not be happy about this but they have little impact on such a event to sway the US from helping Israel.
Simply said the US does not have the option to deny help to Israel.
Thats why i said earlier Israel is holding the US sort of hostage in this matter.

The US might be obliged to get involved but that also begs the question of to what degree they might get involved. If Iran doesn't threaten shipping in the Gulf and doesn't threaten any other of it's neighbors, I don't see a large scale response from the US in this scenario.

The US has no desire to get involved in yet another ground war. The degree of US involvement in the case of an Israel/Iran conflict would depend on the scale of the conflict and the degree to which Israel is threatened. An Israeli strike on Iran followed by minimal or largely ineffective Iranian retaliation is not going to elicit a huge US response. On top of that, if Israel were to attack Iran, they would likely only be able to execute a small number of strikes. Probably one large scale followed by a small number of smaller followup strikes. The reason being that if Israel attacks Iran, every Iranian proxy/friend around Israel is going to start attacking israel asap so the IAF will soon find themselves tied down in ground support missions.

The US may indeed find itself obliged to help israel, but the amount and type of help could and would vary dramatically depending on how things develop. US support could be anywhere from additional military aid (dollars, bombs and missiles) to a full scale air campaign.

My point to all this being, while the US will support Israel, the degree of that support can vary dramatically depending on actual events.

2007yellow430

I'd be careful about citing PressTV as a source of American opinions. Independent US polls show public opinion nearly evenly divided to slightly favoring an attack on Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

 

[My2Cents]

Everyone seems to assume that the US will attack Iran if Iran and Israel get into a war. I don't know if that is true. The last public opinion poll by PressTV, done in November of 11, showed that 85% of Americans are against any attack on Iran. I am uncertain if the politicians are going to authorize any such war, given the huge disinclination of the citizens to engage in any such conduct.

PressTV is a wholly owned subsidiary of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, which is owned and operated by the government of Iran. I doubt that they qualify as an independent or reliable source of information on this subject.

And an 8 month old survey is hardly current. Here is a 3 month old one -- Iran

 

[spikehades]

War is inevitable now. The Iranian regime needs to focus on two objectives:
1. Hurt Israel as much as possible after an Israeli strike.
2. Stay in power whilst completing objective one.

Attacking U.S targets would be a massive mistake. Best to stick to Israel and give the impression to the U.S public that its "their" (Israel's) problem and not "ours" (America's).

 

[Beatmaster]

The US might be obliged to get involved but that also begs the question of to what degree they might get involved. If Iran doesn't threaten shipping in the Gulf and doesn't threaten any other of it's neighbors, I don't see a large scale response from the US in this scenario.

The US has no desire to get involved in yet another ground war. The degree of US involvement in the case of an Israel/Iran conflict would depend on the scale of the conflict and the degree to which Israel is threatened. An Israeli strike on Iran followed by minimal or largely ineffective Iranian retaliation is not going to elicit a huge US response. On top of that, if Israel were to attack Iran, they would likely only be able to execute a small number of strikes. Probably one large scale followed by a small number of smaller followup strikes. The reason being that if Israel attacks Iran, every Iranian proxy/friend around Israel is going to start attacking israel asap so the IAF will soon find themselves tied down in ground support missions.

The US may indeed find itself obliged to help israel, but the amount and type of help could and would vary dramatically depending on how things develop. US support could be anywhere from additional military aid (dollars, bombs and missiles) to a full scale air campaign.

My point to all this being, while the US will support Israel, the degree of that support can vary dramatically depending on actual events.

2007yellow430

I'd be careful about citing PressTV as a source of American opinions. Independent US polls show public opinion nearly evenly divided to slightly favoring an attack on Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

Very true and i can support what you said, but thing is that Israel cannot take that much, if you look at the many online resources then you will see that ANY missile from Iran on to economic centers of Israel is going to cause the fragile economy to break.
The degree of support by the US might differ from anything to full scale, but question is does it need to be all the way to trigger a chain of events that will lead to a all out war? On top of that Israel is far more superior to Iran, but it lacks virtually everything to seriously bring down Irans program, so any action by them will only heat up Iran into war.
Now when the US jumps in regardless what shape or form Iran will see this as a direct attack....and one could say this is wrong but technically they are right, the size of Iran combined with its pretty big army will make a large scale air campaign hard enough for the US specially now most structures are hardened.
And this is the point where Israel cannot achieve what they set out to achieve because they do not have the weapons needed to penetrate multiple layers of hardening. Even the US would have a hard time with it.
And given the huge amount of older types of AA and Mobile missile systems its going to be a touch job for anyone.
Simple said, if Israel fails and they probably will then US is forced to finish it...