Panetta: Israel could attack Iran as early as April

[Thorn]

If you people even knew (homeland security wise) what is really going on with this situation you'd be scared ****less, and not so smug.

[Dinner]

Then they'd need to have a protracted air campaign (and question is if Israel alone has the resources for that, and it may still not be achieve something decisive, since Iran continues to move the nuke stuff underground)

The short answer is no. Israel can't maintain a sustained air campaign on it's own, the locations are at the very edge of it's aircraft's operational range, and even then they'd have to load them with fewer bombs in order to make the distances. Also Israel doesn't have the bunker buster bombs the US has (the most powerful of which are actually nuclear and so likely wouldn't be used but even the next most powerful likely aren't enough to get the job done) so Israel would have to settle for a small strike (1-2 days worth using maybe a dozen aircraft) but that would only set back Iran a couple of years at most so is it worth the risk? The range of the Israeli planes could be extended if the US air refueling tankers refueled them but there still just aren't enough of them with enough payload to blow up facilities deep underground so likely Israel would have to settle for sites of secondary importance which wouldn't set Iran back all that much but which might make people rally around the autocrats who rule the country.

If you want to stand a chance to stop it you need a sustained campaign with an airforce much bigger with much more heavy bombers than Israel has (read: USAF) but Iran could always up the ante and go for broke in Iraq, Afghanistan, or attempt to close the Persian Gulf (one or all of all three) which isn't good since the US has removed ground forces from Iraq and has already reduced forces in Afghanistan. Navy wise we have the Iranians beat butt cold but that still means they can send out fast attack boats to attack tankers, or quick strike aircraft, or fire anti-ship missiles from the shore. The only way to degrade those capabilities is through a long drawn out aircampaign lasting months a la 1991 Iraq. Even then if we don't send in ground forces the regime will survive to try again so, in my mind, you either do it all the way or you don't do it but since Iran is several times the size of Iraq & Afghanistan combined you'd have to seriously increase the number of ground troops or it's not worth doing. None of this is politically possible so why bother dreaming about it? No one is going to start a Korean War type situation in an election year especially since it would send oil sky high, crash the US recovery, and send the EU into even deeper recession.

[Dinner]

I have a feeling Israel can pull it off. The managed to get Osiraq and they have long range drone bombers. If we give them some of our bunker buster bombs, I'd bet that they could take those sites out.

You would but cheerleading in the face of evidence seems to be something you do when it comes to Israel. Osiraq was bombing one reactor much closer to Israel so one strike could get the job done and it was well within the aircraft's operational range plus if they got in trouble in just a short time additional fighters could be on the scene. That isn't true in eastern Iran where Israel would have to stripe their fighters down into flying gas cans with almost no payload just to get there and then when they get there you'd have to find a way to penetrate the Iranian equivalent of NORAD buried deep underground in a hard rock mountain. Can it be done? Sure, with enough tries and efforts but it's questionable if even the USAF can do it on a single strike or a few strikes short of using nuclear powered bunker busters which would be politically impossible to use. In short, a quick strike this is not and Israel can't sustain a massive long term air effort as it has too few planes, too few crews, and no air refueling power of its own. They can give them a slap but not much more.

To do more you'd need big daddy who isn't going to be doing **** in an election year especially if said **** would involve double the price of oil and tanking the economy.

[Wezil]

If Israel starts an attack anyway (unprepared by your assessment) will the US sit back and let them go it alone since it's "an election year"?

I think the tail will wag the dog.

[dannubis]

If Israel attacks and Iran retaliates by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz the US will be forced to enter the war regardless.

[Wezil]

That's kinda what I was getting at.

Can the US prevent Israel from attacking? I have my doubts.

[rah]

The only way the US could prevent Israel from attacking would be to publicly condemning it in advance. I doubt there is a Politician with enough balls to do that in an election year.

[DinoDoc]

Can the US prevent Israel from attacking? I have my doubts.

You mean telling the date of an attack to the enemy in a very public fashion wouldn't be enough to stop it?

[Wezil]

Meh.

"Israel plans on attacking March 5th" [/US official]

*Israel attacks on the 3rd or 7th.*

[dannubis]

You mean telling the date of an attack to the enemy in a very public fashion wouldn't be enough to stop it?

No, but threathen to withdraw support if Israel ****s with the world economy might do the trick.

[giblets]

Why would Iran close the strait of Hormuz in order to retaliate against Israel if that just forces the US to enter the war?

[Wezil]

Good question.

I think the problem is the unpredictability of the response. Would they or wouldn't they.

[rah]

It's all they got. And they figure the price of oil would rise thereby hurting the US.

[Wezil]

Other Iranian reactions (besides the Strait) could also draw a US response.

[dannubis]

Why would Iran close the strait of Hormuz in order to retaliate against Israel if that just forces the US to enter the war?

Do you honestly think the ayatollahs care who they hurt? We are all infidels in their eyes...