OK. Suppose Israel Strikes iranian Nuclear Facilities...

...what then?

There's no doubt they can do it - with or without the complicity of Saudi Arabia. There is little Iran can do to stop them except dig deeper. their air force amounts to a bunch of obsolete target planes and Russian export air defense systems are discredited.

What does Iran do? Shoot their nukes at Israel? Do they have any? Do they work? Can the Iranians hit Israel?

Closing the Straits of Hormuz is counter[productive. Israel has oil and theirs will become more dominant in world markets because the Iranians cannot interdict their oil. the Saudis already have two alternate routes that bypass the Straits (Red Sea and Aden) and are working on more. Interdictiing the straits of Hormuz (impossible in the face of the US Navy) will only stop their own oil from being exported to Europe and china and will get their refined product importation terminal at Bandar-e-abbas blown to scrap metal.

No wonder Iran's leader is gutless.

 

Probably a couple of decades of occasional terrorist attacks against Israel and jews, which the Iranians will deny.

 

Good points.

In the event Israel decides to strike, I don't see how it can limit its strikes to Iran's nuclear facilities. I think they'll have no choice but to launch a full-scale take-down that will require incapacitating the Iranian military.

You can also bet that Iran's running dogs in Lebanon would attack Israel, so they'll have to plan for that contingency, as well.

I just don't see a limited surgical strike as a realistic scenario here...

 

Same way they did Saddams. I suspect it would be over before we even heard about it.

 

“I think they'll have no choice but to launch a full-scale take-down that will require incapacitating the Iranian military.”

Taxcutter says:
Why bother? Iran has almost no conventional military capacity. Maybe the Israelis level the Iranian refined products import terminal at Bandar-e-Abbas, but even that is truly not necessary. How does Iran get at Israel?



“You can also bet that Iran's running dogs in Lebanon would attack Israel…”

Taxcutter says:
Maybe if the fracas in Syria resolves to Assad’s favor. That may happen but not quickly. Hezbollah is lying low because Syria has been denied them if the Israelis come calling.



“Probably a couple of decades of occasional terrorist attacks against Israel and jews…”

Taxcutter says:
So how is that different from the current situation?

 

By proxy, like how most wars are fought in the region. What do you think the Israeli's are doing, They are the proxy.

 

Iran already has ballistic missiles that can easily target Israel and I would assume that could be the initial response.

We could also anticipate that Iran would covertly send large shipments of arms to Hizbolah and Hamas including small missiles that will be launched against Irsael over the next several years.

Finally we could, with almost absolute certainty, assume that Iran will covertly build nuclear weapons so that this would be the last time Israel ever attacked Iran.

 

Then we need to replace Iran's regime.

 

When do we then replace the warmongering Israeli regime?

 

Israel has identified 25 targets.

 

If they stop lobbing rockets into Israel I bet Israel will stop firing back.

 

Gosh, its 960 miles from Tel Aviv to Tehran.

 

Revealing that principle doesnt work in the case of Iranians. Its that twelver ideology. They long for the great chaos and upheaval that will preceed the return of the 12th Imam

 

Israel does not have the means for a sustained bombing campaign against Iran nor do they have the targets to justify it. You will see a quick sortie of strikes to take out the top targets they have designated and then they'll retreat.

What this is about is establishing an Israeli policy of force in the region and to send a message that they can and will strike first. Iran, undoubtably, has duplicates of their research hidden deep underground safely tucked away from any bunker busters Israel has so this isn't to eliminate their nuclear program. Its the destruction of obvious targets that will give them precedence for further attacks in the future.

This whole situation is really fascinating from a political science perspective in that both actors are going to be positively effected by this action. Israel will establish that they can use force in the region (pre-emptively) in order to protect themselves and Iran will essentially be victimized which should find them receiving more support from the surrounding Muslim regions.

Iran will really not be affected by this action other than having a few buildings knocked down, and there is no way in which Iran can retaliate leaving Israel relatively unscathed. The real battle will be fought in the court of public opinion. Which side will be able to convince the world that their actions were the correct one.

 

Israel has identified just one target.
It's the country stupid enough to support them and the one that will end up getting attacked because of that support.
Take a guess who Israel is using as it's trained poodle.

Just in case you're not too bright, I'll give you a clue.

ASU

 

Danny Aylon said two weeks ago that they were going to bomb Syria too... just in case you are not too bright.

 

Firstly, Israel and the United States have very limited options here.

Israel don't have the military capability, air force wise in order to effectively strike Iranian targets. This is due to their relatively small air force. Israel lacks the type of fighters that have the ability to fly the required distance to Iran, while still maintaining an effective payload. Israel doesn't have the military might to send an air force fleet over to Iran, without first looking at refueling concerns (which will reduce payload) and of course how they will get there in the first place (which path?).

They have a few fighter jets capable of 2500 km flight radius, which would get to Iran, but they have less than 30 of these planes - not enough to do considerable damage. Their other F16I fighters can do about 1600-1900km flight radius, which means they'd need to fly through the shortest airspace - which would be Iraq-Jordanian. Which is problematic.

Funny how all the armchair generals on this website don't even take basic matters into consideration. It should be obvious to anyone that in order for Israel to get to Iran with its fleet, it would need to fly over Iraqi, Jordanian or Saudi airspace. If Israel flies through Iraqi airspace (which is controlled by the USA), then even if the USA wasn't involved in the decision to attack, they will be drawn into the conflict, no doubt Iran will believe the US was involved in the plan - even if she wasn't. This puts the US in direct retaliatory actions from Iran which I will list below.

If Israel flies through Jordanian or Saudi airspace, it will undermine those regimes, which are close to Washington. Those regimes would not be pleased to have their airspace breached, especially with a surprise attack. It would mean Israel has one shot at Iran, because flying through Jordanian or Saudi airspace TWICE would be met with some sort of air defense. Additionally Turkey is a NATO ally with the US, meaning Israel has no right to fly through Turkey's airspace without US coming into the fray and thus revealing its role.

However, your question was what would Iran do?

-Firstly, an attack on Iran would see oil prices rise drastically immediately after the attack, possibly up to $200/barrel. When the International Energy Agency begins to release oil reserves, then prices will likely stabilize to about $6-$11 more than before the attack - which is manageable.

-The biggest threat is the fact you will see retaliation from Hezbollah on Israeli and perhaps US interests all over the region. Including a possible future 9/11 type/scale attack on the US.

-You will see Iraq become FAR MORE dangerous for US soldiers than ever before. It will once again become a kill zone for US troops. Iran will exert some sort of influence on the Shiite "terrorist" gorups in Iraq to target US troops.

-Iran will arm Afghanistan and Iraqi insurgents with advanced surface to air missiles and advanced anti-armor weapons, it has refused to do so thus far. Hezbollah has already been provided with anti-armor weapons, but Iran refuses to supply Iraqi or Afghan rouge elements - a strike on Iran, could see them reverse this.

-You will see them close the Strait of Hormuz, which will affect world oil prices worldwide. Even though this would be detrimental to their own economy.

-It will strengthen Iran's will to get a Nuclear weapon, and perhaps use it.

Not to mention the fact that an Israeli strike on Iran would be the weakest strike of them all. Israel isn't suited for an Iranian strike, and the inefficiency of such a strike would likely not be worthwhile. An Israeli attack will only slow Iran's Nuclear capability down by 6 months to perhaps 1 year. It's not really worth the hassle.

Israel would hit Iran's facilities ONCE with a relatively small air fleet. And then rely on its long range missiles for further attacks. Which will also open Israel up to missile attacks from Hezbollah. Because of Israel's constricted and complicated flight path to Iran, they would be unable to respond to weak points that Iran may showcase during, and after being attacked.

In other words, an Israeli attack would be the least favorable for both Israel and the USA.

 

Good analysis.... You haven't left anything out.

 

What is Israel's oil production? I haven't seen any numbers.

Saudi does have the East West pipeline to Yanbu.. and there is still Sumed and the Suez Canal.

The Straits of Hormuz could be cleared pretty quickly.. but lots of tankers would just park because its too risky and insurance would skyrocket.

There's really nothing good about on attack on Iran.. it would contribute nothing to peace in the region.

 

US and Israeli intelligence seem confident that in the event that Iran does decide to build a nuclear weapon, they would know about it when the decision is made. There are no sites in Iran which are suspected of being nuclear facilities that the IAEA does not already have under close inspection. Also, according to the IAEA, all enriched uranium continues to be accounted for, in IAEA sealed containers.

I agree a missile response by Iran is a possibility, aimed at military targets, but it's also possible there wouldn't be any military response at all. According to the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies in the 2011 US National Intelligence Estimate, Iran's military capability continues to be conducted on a cost/benefit basis. They certainly wouldn't benefit much from firing a few missiles at Israel, but it might cost them a lot should the US forces in the area decide to respond. While Iran does have a limited offensive missile capability, their military spending per capita is one of the lowest in the region, and according to US intelligence, their military forces are primarily designed to slow any invasion, in order to give diplomacy a chance.

While Iran supports any organisation that doesn't like Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas do seem to operate independently. Hamas didn't attack Israel during the invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Hezbollah didn't attack Israel during the Gaza slaughter. While Iran obviously supports the Assad regime in Syria, Hamas announced their support for the opposition months ago. Not that we would have heard about that on the evening news though, as it might look like Hamas are on our side. But it would seem they are not all as close allies as some would like us to think.

Although Netanyahu was rattling his saber at Lebanon the other day, promising to attack if Hezbollah ''attempts'' any ''provocations'', whatever he might decide that means. But then again given that he's currently threatening Iran, it could just be part of his propaganda to lead people to believe that Hezbollah and Iran are closer allies than they really are.

But to be fair, Iran's leaders also spread a lot of propaganda about their own military capabilities. I suppose talking about a response to an Israeli attack which could ''destroy Israel in 7 days'' or that they could ''close the Straits of Hormuz,'' will no doubt go some way to persuade the Iranian public that they can feel safe as Iran's armed forces could in some way compete with Israeli/US forces, so they have an effective deterrent against an attack, when of course in reality they would be next to useless.

Dusty

 

Hey Dusty: Good post and welcome to PF.

 

The rest of the world should invade Israel, arrest its terrorist leaders, execute them Nuremberg style, and the world will be at peace.

 

Iran can certainly close the Strait of Hormuz. If you think otherwise you are absurdly misguided. It won't last more than a few weeks (at most) but they can certainly close it all down.

And if you think an Israeli strike on Iran would garner no response from Iran, you are again misguided. There is no doubt that missiles will be fired into Israel. There will be an Iranian ballistic missile retaliatory attack against Israeli nuclear & missile facilities. You may also likely see an Increase threat of asymmetric attacks against American interests and allies in the region. Iran may Attack U.S. military bases that are active and stationed in the Gulf States, perhaps through proxy.

Iran would not, and can not afford to be seen to do NOTHING against a strike from their most grievously opposed enemy, Israel. you can count on that. The truth is an Israel strike is not only the least effective and efficient way to attack Iran, but it's also one of the most risky for both the US and Israel. Especially if Israel attacks without notifying the US.

 

Thank you. I do my research and like to be informed on issues I speak about. It also helps to have foreign policy documents that lay out the plans for attacking Iran

 

I wrote an analysis last year that covers the same points. I think it would be a disastrous ripple effect because the Shia in Al Hasa would no doubt riot.. or worse. Certainly Iraq would be inflamed.. as would the Shia in Lebanon. Tanker movement would stop.. and with all that Iranian oil stored offshore a Kharg, it could be a massive environmental disaster.

Another very real concern is that the GCC and the US would be perceived as complicit whether they were or not.