Iran has strategic missle -- threatens Israel

[Sirotnikov]

You really think the reason that the Arab states aren't attacking Isreal is because Isreal has nukes? Get real!

Its not the only reason.

But it is a part of a wide array.

A wide array that may narrow with time.

My interest is to keep it as wide as I can. Nuclear superiority is just one thing.

Friendly regimes don't last forever.
American supremacy and aid, don't last forever.
Hatred of Yassir Arafat doesn't last forver.

[Imran Siddiqui]

u have a much rosier view of Israeli defences than you should as a self-acclaimed critical thinker. You have too low a view of arab forces.

No, I just look at the fact that any aggression is going to get the US steamed (& ready to deploy) and the fact that the Arab world can't even get together to decide on a color of a flag (exaggerating, of course) these days, not even counting agreeing on a course of warfare.

[GePap]

Again, fire power does one one side does not reduce fire power on another side.

If Israeli supply lines and centers are reduced quickly using projected fire power, Israel can only stop so much of it and probably will be left with no war-oxigen.

But I do not wish to speculate further.

Israel would have total air superiority over itself, and within little time over the entire area: balistic missiles are not good against military targets, and Israel's neighbors lack cruise missiles.

Because today a united arab front could probably bomb Israel to death despite all its defences before the first plane leaves US soil.

Again, with what? You are inventing a conventional threat that does not exist.

Internal instability as a result of growing Islamism and growing resistance to incompetence to act against Israeli "agression" against the palestinian brothers.

Egypt crushed its islamist resistance in the late 90's. As for the "Israeli aggression", that has been going on since 2000 and the most Egypt has done is pull it ambassador.

a. nothing here is too imaginary. especially when a nuclear bomb protects the arab armies from total loss.

Beyond the fact Iranians are NOT ARABS and have no ARAB solidarity, you also ignore there has never been such a thing as arab solidarity since 1948, and even then it was weak. Each arab state has its own reasons. If Syria got back the Golan, they would be appeased. Egypt is no longer an enemy, and Jordan has nothing to fight for, ditto for Lebanon.

Hezbullah is very good at polishing them for use in the next grand-scale conflict. It will rain metal in haifa and tel aviv.

And you have not yet explained a plausible reaosn for said conflict, except the old tired "the Arabs all hate us" boogeyman. Its an old and tired tune.

Iranian airforce really ain't that bad.

So how likely is an Israeli attack vs, Iran be.

Iranian airforce really ain't that bad.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'm tired of this.

In short - u have a much rosier view of Israeli defences than you should as a self-acclaimed critical thinker. You have too low a view of arab forces.

In short - You've been had by Israeli propoganda.

I am sure Egyptian and Saudi force are proficient, and that the Syrians can be tough when fighting in defense, and a convetional war would not be cheap or easy.

That said, you seem oblivious to the divisions and rivalries within the Arab world, or the fact the large Arab states like Egypt and SA have bigger concerns that Israel and the Palestinians. Also, that the mot powerful Arab states are in no condition for war or have no reason for it. Egypt is certainly out of the running since it gets too much aid for making nice and there is no threat of yet another Israel attack or attempt to take the Sinai.
SA has too many ties to the US and getting involved in a war would be to disasterous to oil prices, the life blood of the Monarchy.
Syria is alone, has to worry about Massive Turkey to the north, and the mess in Iraq to the east.

[Sava]

FIGHT@!!##!@#!@

[Sirotnikov]

No, I just look at the fact that any aggression is going to get the US steamed (& ready to deploy) and the fact that the Arab world can't even get together to decide on a color of a flag (exaggerating, of course) these days, not even counting agreeing on a course of warfare.

I'm talking about X years from now, with some changed regimes.

GePap - same for you. Israeli friendly regimes are not going to last forever. Can you tell me what will happen in 5 years?


A threat is judged by its abilities, not by its intentions. that because you never have a chip inside the opponents head.

We learnt it the hard way in 1973, when it seemed all the reasons were against Egypt and Syria understaking a silly war they can't possibly win.

And you have not yet explained a plausible reaosn for said conflict, except the old tired "the Arabs all hate us" boogeyman. Its an old and tired tune.

Exlcuding the option of an Israeli attack on Iran (as it has not occured in this reality, and thus Iran has its nukes):

A severe terrorist attack by Hamas (israeli president killed) causes an Israeli retaliation against Syrian targets and the killing of Arafat.

Lebanon starts raining missiles on Israel.
Israel attacks Lebanon.
Syria invades golan heights to reclaim it, especially mount Hermon.
Israel attacks back at Syria.

At this point I stop elaborating for my own reasons, but it can involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.


Another reason is possible unfriendly coups in some countries, which I also won't elaborate on.


You can call it silly, but I dare you 5-7 years from now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
GePap - same for you. Israeli friendly regimes are not going to last forever. Can you tell me what will happen in 5 years?

No, I mean, in the next five years Turkey might invade Syria an annex it while the iranian regime falls- that could happen. not likely, but it could.

A severe terrorist attack by Hamas (israeli president killed) causes an Israeli retaliation against Syrian targets and the killing of Arafat.

1. Why hit Syria? So you begin your hypothetical with an Israeli act of war against an Arab state? rolleyes:

Lebanon starts raining missiles on Israel.
Israel attacks Lebanon.
Syria invades golan heights to reclaim it, especially mount Hermon.
Israel attacks back at Syria.

Again, why do you begin your scenerio with an Israel attack against Syria? Its hard to see why Syria and its allies shouldn;t attack Israel if Israel was the first to attack Syria (thought you have already done it). Maybe if Israel gives up the tired ideology that attacking its neighboring Arab states will solve the palestinian problems, this would not occur yet again.

At this point I stop elaborating for my own reasons, but it can involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

You already have lebanon included. Even with Israel starting the war, i don;t see Egypt or SA coming to the aid of Syria thanks to heavy US pressure.

[Ned]

I think Siro has supported my basic point that Iranian nukes would be destabalizing and adversely, to Israel, affect the balance of power which today keeps the "relative" peace.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A severe terrorist attack by Hamas (israeli president killed) causes an Israeli retaliation against Syrian targets and the killing of Arafat.

Lebanon starts raining missiles on Israel.
Israel attacks Lebanon.
Syria invades golan heights to reclaim it, especially mount Hermon.
Israel attacks back at Syria.

At this point I stop elaborating for my own reasons, but it can involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

Aside from GePap's concerns (is Israel going to be the aggressor? Then it deserves to be struck down), how would Iranian nukes change ANY of that? You think Israel won't launch them if it is about to be extinguished?

[Ned]

Imran, it makes Israel use of nukes far less likely. I expect that Israel would accept very bad terms if things began to go bad in any upcoming war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it makes Israel use of nukes far less likely.

Why? You are seriously telling me that if Isreal was about to get annihilated, Iran having nukes would stop it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

it makes Israel use of nukes far less likely.

Why? You are seriously telling me that if Isreal was about to get annihilated, Iran having nukes would stop it?

Probaby.

What I suggest instead is that they would not let it go that far, but would cut a deal on very unfavorable terms.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I seriously doubt that as well. Why the Hell would they do that for?

[Agathon]

A combined arab attack with good use of missiles and planes could probably smite us.

As someone said, no serious military analyst believes this. One of the reasons many Arab countries are unhappy with the Palestine situation and the invasion of Iraq is that they are deathly afraid that their own populations will demand they do something about it by attacking Israel. They would do anything to avoid that because they know that they would lose.

How many sodding wins does it take before Israelis realize that there's something wrong with the Arab military?

You've thoroughly down-trousered them five times I think. Isn't that enough?

[Edan]

And is that likely?

Past Performance is never a guarantee of future performance.

Of course the rational thing for Israel to do would be to come to some peace agreement with the Arab countries, none of whom are really interested in fighting it again.

Is it in their interests to have a true peace with Israel? After all, the A-I conflict has, in many cases strengthened the governments of their countries from internal dissent. Even countries that have a peace agreement with Israel try to stoke those flames (eg, Egypt's Protocols miniseries)

(And, of course, when the dictator of such a country gets replaced/deposed/dies, will his successor maintain such a treaty?)