India has no history of attacking other country for territorial gain. Do not worry about us.
Are you kidding me? What about your wars with China and Pakistan and your occupation of Kashmir?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
India has no history of attacking other country for territorial gain. Do not worry about us.
They probably will -- indirectly. Now that would be something to boast about. Iran cannot hoard oil. Iran is an importer of refined petroleum products. Iran must export oil to survive.In 1973, during the blockade, it got its oil from the Shah of Iran. Maybe this time they can get it from Ahmadinejad
They probably will -- indirectly. Now that would be something to boast about. Iran cannot hoard oil. Iran is an importer of refined petroleum products. Iran must export oil to survive.
good luck, Iranian friend
How the U.S. government explains beforehand to the American public both those efforts of diplomacy and economic inducement/coercement as well as the consequences of an Iranian capability or acquisition will determine to a great extent our public's acceptability for the need. If good faith negotiations and patience to assess the full effects of possible sanctions has been demonstrated then there's little alternative beside war except a fait accompli. See containment.
Containment, however, is not an assurance and poses the risk of a regional nuclear arms race which nobody in the region currently desires. Others have the means to acquire or develop their own strategic assets and have heretofore refrained. Would they continue and what are the countervailing consequences? That's not an equation I'd feel comfortable calculating accurately.
"The president will not bomb Iran's nuclear installations for precisely the same reasons that George W. Bush did not bomb Iran's nuclear installations: because we don't know exactly where they all are."
This is false, IMV. We may not know exactly where they are but we certainly know where many (if not most) of those facilities are. We also know where we suspect others. GWB didn't attack Iran, however, for lack of knowledge. There was greater certainty in 2003 than there is now. He didn't attack Iran because there still existed
"...we don't know whether such a raid could stop the Iranian nuclear program for more than a few months..."
We don't do raids.
An attack upon Iran will unquestionably be a comprehensive air campaign. Serious issues require serious responses. To be successful, Iran's integrated air defense system, air force, chemical retaliatory capability and delivery means, and naval forces will require neutralization or destruction. Those are simply the requirements to facilitate our prosecution of the intended targets as well as our mitigation of possible retaliation. Additionally, we'd likely strike all known or suspected IRGC facilities and assembly points to mitigate the potential assymetric responses to any nearby vulnerabilities-our and our allies seats of power, embassies, troops, military facilites, etc.
Those locations would go to an extremely high state of alert in any case. That alert would entail all American facilities/entities and other governments regionally as well as American facilities and entities world-wide. Israel would likely do the same and may, additionally, proactively prosecute its near threats in Lebanon while keeping a VERY CLOSE eye on Gaza and west bank. I would expect such. Still, by nature an assymetric response is unpredictable so we can only proactively mitigate towards that without absolute assurance that the threat has been eliminated.
Can we conduct such an attack and how would it appear? Yes, IMV, we can. First, we've a demonstrated history of both successfully interdicting Iranian naval efforts to block the straits of Hormuz (Operation Preying Mantis in 1988) and forcibly opening a hostile airspace to our complete domination (Operation DESERT STORM). The assets to do so are partially in place now and the facilities to support such a campaign of undetermined duration have never been better.
At no point would the Iranian army be attacked unless it was mobilized and threatened the integrity of its near neighbors. I highly doubt that we'd see an attack upon the Iranian leadership. I'm fully confident that Iranian oil/natural gas production and delivery facilities wouldn't be attacked. I can't say the same with respect to key supporting infrastructure however.
I'm certain that, however capable the IAF is of achieving a one-off raid, they will not be a participant in a sustained air campaign nor would they desire such. It will be America or nobody.
My thoughts.
If you are implying that the UAE and Saudi Arabia will go nuclear... perhaps. Ultimately Israel will have 5 nuclear capable potential adversaries to contend with. Their conventional superiority will essentially be negated. Demographics will come into play as a means to "settle" the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this is what the Israelis fear.
If the UAE and Saudi were to go down the nuclear path would Israel have new nuclear adversaries? Is the Arab-Israeli confict becoming less important than the Arab Persian one?
Israel has had nuclear capabilities for years yet most Arab nations felt no threat and no neeed to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Yet the talk of Iran with a bomb stirs talk of a middle east arms race. Israel may be a pain to the palestinians but all things considered it is at least in recent times of little trouble to most of the arab world.
Perhaps the thought of a nuclear Iran promoting a Shia caliphate across the middle east worries the Saudi's more and if Isreal were to put a few spanners in the works they would be far from unhappy?
Perhaps the thought of a nuclear Iran promoting a Shia caliphate across the middle east worries the Saudi's more and if Isreal were to put a few spanners in the works they would be far from unhappy?
Are you kidding me? What about your wars with China and Pakistan and your occupation of Kashmir?
The fact is that while America can cope with a nuclear Iran, Israel definitely cannot. A nuclear Iran will have a direct bearing on Israel's future as a nation. I know India would have done everything in its power to stop Pakistan from going nuclear if it possessed the means to do so, our options today are severely limited simply because we know that a war with Pakistan could turn out to be more than we bargained for, at least for the moment we have no choice but to sit back and absorb blow after blow. I think Israel realizes the pitfalls of such a situation and as such an attack on Iran isn't really a matter of if but when.
Contrary to what Abi had suggested in his post, the Iranians simply aren't foolish enough to block the strait of Hormuz as that would invite swift and decisive action on part of the Americans. .
I agree with S-2 in that while the Israelis are more than capable of pulling off a raid on a couple of Iranian nuclear sites.