Azerbaijan allegedly gives Israel access to airbases

[Dinner]

Think about it like this: Iran's exports are pretty much entirely driven by crude oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. It's simply not possible to allow only Iranian tankers through and not others. Even if they could do that, either we'd stop the tankers or other Gulf states would. Thus any and all Iranian imports are dependent on this strait being open. That includes all refined petroleum goods, food, medicine, and consumer goods. It would be a nightmare. They can't afford it.

The sanctions are already badly hitting their oil exports so what exactly do they have to lose again?

[Aeson]

Think about it like this: Iran's exports are pretty much entirely driven by crude oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. It's simply not possible to allow only Iranian tankers through and not others. Even if they could do that, either we'd stop the tankers or other Gulf states would. Thus any and all Iranian imports are dependent on this strait being open. That includes all refined petroleum goods, food, medicine, and consumer goods. It would be a nightmare. They can't afford it.

They can't afford letting Israel indiscriminately bomb them either. This isn't ****ing brain surgery. They would have to act in any way they could and hope they can make it too costly to us to do the stupid we're naturally inclined to do.

[regexcellent]

The sanctions are already badly hitting their oil exports so what exactly do they have to lose again?

No, they really aren't. When we put sanctions on them, the price of oil there drops enough that the Chinese buy their oil instead. Crude is almost entirely fungible so they have basically no effect as long as Turkey, Russia, and China ignore sanctions. The same thing happened with every other country we've ever used sanctions against, all the way back to Rhodesia.

They can't afford letting Israel indiscriminately bomb them either. This isn't ****ing brain surgery. They would have to act in any way they could and hope they can make it too costly to us to do the stupid we're naturally inclined to do.

Israel would not go to the effort of indiscriminately bombing them when it's so much cheaper and easier and politically expedient to bomb the bits that have nuclear projects in them. A total bombing campaign is not on the table. Israel doesn't have aircraft capable of carrying the bomb loads necessary for that anyway.

Consider the fact that bombing the Syrian and Iraqi nuclear programs destroyed them entirely.

We would not need to occupy Iran if Israel attacked the place.

[Dinner]

Iraq had one nuclear reactor while Iran has enrichment facilities buried underground in hard rock mountain complexes. It's like trying to bomb NORAD. Israel doesn't even have deep perpetrators so how exactly does it destroy them with a dozen or so aircraft?

We would not need to occupy Iran if Israel attacked the place.

That really depends on how Iran decides to respond, doesn't it? Why should we risk a wider war when a better, cheaper, and more likely to succeed option is on the table? Letting Israel risk sparking a counterproductive wider war is not in our interests at this time.

[regexcellent]

Consider the case of Rhodesia, a much more isolated and even landlocked country, which was only toppled due to intervention on the part of the Soviet Union and China, specifically providing insurgents with arms. At the very least until 1975, when the Estado Novo regime in Portugal was overthrown, Rhodesia was able to almost completely evade sanctions due to the noncompliance of only South Africa and Portugal. It remained the wealthiest country in Africa all the way until it became Zimbabwe in 1980.

That was the first country we applied sanctions against and they didn't work at all. I'm unfamiliar with any case since then in which they did work.

[regexcellent]

Iraq had one nuclear reactor while Iran has enrichment facilities buried underground in hard rock mountain complexes. It's like trying to bomb NORAD. Israel doesn't even have deep perpetrators so how exactly does it destroy them with a dozen or so aircraft?

Israel has deep penetrators now. It also has 396 tactical fighters, mostly F-16s and F-15Es capable of strike missions.

[Aeson]

Consider the fact that bombing the ... Iraqi nuclear programs destroyed them entirely.

We would not need to occupy Iran if Israel attacked the place.

I seem to remember we did end up occupying Iraq... also that Iraq had a nuclear program after Operation Opera.

[PLATO]

Okay...recent white papers show the Iranians have a substantial ability to disrupt the Straight. With 72 hours to operate without intervention, they can close it...albiet temporarily. However, once mined it will severly reduce the amount of traffic that would flow through the straight for months even after channels had been cleared. The Iranian ability to fend of a U.S. Naval attack, while not robust by any means, does have the ability to possibly sink some U.S. Naval Vessels. This would be a serious escalation in the eyes of the Navy and probably the U.S. as a whole.

If they try to close the Straights a wider war with us in it is nearly inevitable. And lets not be fooled by the ease of the initial campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan...the Iranians have a lot larger capability than they did during the Iraq-Iran war. A lot larger.

[regexcellent]

Yes, but it would devastate them to do it.

Still waiting on those LCS minesweeper modules...

If they are crazy enough to do that then it is even more important not to trust them with nuclear capability.

[Aeson]

If they are crazy enough to do that then it is even more important not to trust them with nuclear capability.

It isn't crazy at all for them to try to fight back against an unprovoked war forced on them.

Your statement should read:

"If they [show us they will fight back against a more powerful aggressor] then it is even more important not to [attack them and then just sit around and fight a holding war while we wait for them to develop nukes]"

[Dinner]

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/30-Jan-2012/us-bunker-buster-not-powerful-enough-against-irans-tough-n-sites-report

Supposedly our non-nuclear bunker busters don't pack a large enough punch to get the job done. I seriously doubt Israel would use a nuclear bunker buster even if we gave them one which we won't. Also Iran has supposedly strengthened it's defenses of these sites even more adding additional amounts of concrete and steel on the outside and ringing them in AA batteries as well as anti-aircraft missiles. It is questionable if they can do more then just blow up the entrance which would get cleared in short order.

Is it worth the risks given how likely it is the strikes would have very limited effect and lots of political downside?

[Dinner]

BTW this is from this month. It says the US may sell Israel bunker busters but so far they don't have them.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-might-sell-israel-special-bunker-busters/

[Dr Strangelove]

If Israeli jets struck Iran from Azerbaijan you don't think the Iranians wouldn't hit Azerbaijan back, or even invade? That would certainly involve the Russians, who might be happy for an excuse to bring Azerbaijan back into the old fold. Come to think of it, could Azerbaijan make a deal with the Israelis without Moscow approval?

[regexcellent]

Interesting thought on the nuclear bunker busters.

The main concern I have with the leak from the US perspective is that it will encourage the Israelis never to tell us anything again, or any of our allies for that matter. It's a huge betrayal against an ally, and when you betray an ally as close as Israel, it makes everyone else nervous.

Plus, it could have serious repercussions for Azerbaijan, which we don't want.

[Dr Strangelove]

BTW this is from this month. It says the US may sell Israel bunker busters but so far they don't have them.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-migh...unker-busters/

I don't think Israel has any plane big enough to carry a bunker buster.