Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:39 am

    A bit of chest thumping.

    Haji Zadesh claimed that 35 US bases are within the 2,000 km range of Iran’s rockets, although the actual number of bases within this area is closer to 10.

    I suspect he would consider some bases in Saudi Arabia and Iraq as being US bases too.

    The west likes to pretend that secret CIA bases are not American bases sometimes.

    The amusing thing is that if Iran accused the west of doing something without actually giving any proof and imposed unilateral sanctions the west would consider that an act of war.

    Talk about innocent till proven guilty...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mr.Kalishnikov47

    Posts : 293
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 29
    Location : U.S.A

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:06 am

    I already knew it was chest thumping the second I read the headline. Plus, you know, it's RT, the Russian Fox News. Smile

    Still, it's an interesting article so I thought I'd post it here anyways.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:52 am

    Western media wouldn't spend too much time on this issue, because they don't want western audiences developing sympathy.

    Iran is depicted as a religious dictatorship that stones women when they are not beheading them.

    They will of course happily play any footage of Iranian military exercises and the threat to peaceful (oil) traffic such exercises represent... remember the mantra... western exercises promote positive ties and peace and stability in the region, all others are dangerous and destabilising or some sort of show of force or a prelude to a conflict.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:04 am

    BTW there is no Russian equivalent to Fox News.

    RT is actually becoming more Americanised, which I really don't like much.

    It might make it easier for Americans to relate to, especially the disaffected, but it pretty much alienates the rest of the world population that used to watch RT regularly.

    Personally I liked seeing world events from a source not slanted by western views of the world, and of course I realise it was slanted in the Russian view of the world, but to me that is closer to reality than the CNN/Fox/BBC portrayal.

    Now however the American journalists who got fired from western media, or couldn't get a job in western media because they didn't shape their stories to fit the western media mould seem to be getting jobs at RT and spend most of their time ripping on the western media slant on stories rather than bringing stories themselves.

    It is almost as if Jon Stewart got his own TV News Channel, but no where near as clever or intelligently done in terms of satire.

    I still download the Technology Update program each month, but rarely watch much else.

    They need to make about 5 episodes of Tech Update a month, plus some programs focusing on the Russian military and its upgrade.

    They could split the Tech update programs into a Science one, a Military one, a Business one, an Energy one, and a Manufacturing one that all include domestic and joint venture programs and projects. The programs are only a hour long and they rarely revisit technologies they have looked at in the past to see how they are progressing and what are the stumbling blocks to introduce new ideas and products.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mr.Kalishnikov47

    Posts : 293
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 29
    Location : U.S.A

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:20 am

    Well Rianews isn't so bad, if you don't mind the voices that is.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    'Military attack on Iran suicidal for Israel'

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:01 pm



    German expert

    pacificfreeintel

    Posts : 3
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2015-01-21

    S-300 deal with Iran about to cause escalation?

    Post  pacificfreeintel on Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:19 pm

    Can the S-300 system deal with Israeli F-16i Sufa strike force?
    Tensions already escalating since yesterday's announcement.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d6HLHB8IbU


    Last edited by pacificfreeintel on Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:38 pm

    pacificfreeintel wrote:Can the S-300 system deal with Israeli F-16i Sufa strike force?
    Tensions already escalating since yesterday's announcement.

    Yes it can of course much would depend on the quantities used on both sides because if you put 200 planes vs 2 AD than it does not make sense although 2 AD can surprise still

    if you would put equal streinght on defense and offense than things get much more interesting.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3333
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  medo on Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:21 pm

    pacificfreeintel wrote:Can the S-300 system deal with Israeli F-16i Sufa strike force?
    Tensions already escalating since yesterday's announcement.

    They could. Iranian S-300 will not work alone, but integrated in Iranian IADS. Iran have their own long range OTH radars, which will detect Israeli planes in Israeli air space and a network of various domestic and imported EW radars, so Israeli or US fighters could not come there undetected and make a surprise attack. IADS will work with Iranian fighters and with SAMs. Iran produce domestic medium and long range SAMs like Patriot clone based on Standard missile. This one is in class with early S-300 versions.

    pacificfreeintel

    Posts : 3
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2015-01-21

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  pacificfreeintel on Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:17 pm

    medo wrote:
    pacificfreeintel wrote:Can the S-300 system deal with Israeli F-16i Sufa strike force?
    Tensions already escalating since yesterday's announcement.

    They could. Iranian S-300 will not work alone, but integrated in Iranian IADS. Iran have their own long range OTH radars, which will detect Israeli planes in Israeli air space and a network of various domestic and imported EW radars, so Israeli or US fighters could not come there undetected and make a surprise attack. IADS will work with Iranian fighters and with SAMs. Iran produce domestic medium and long range SAMs like Patriot clone based on Standard missile. This one is in class with early S-300 versions.

    Good point about IADS - Russia sold 29 Tor M1 systems to Iran in 2005 which defend at a lower range but with high accuracy - can take down a missile or bomb - the TOR M1 compliments the S-300 system.

    However Israeli reports that Russia gave Israel the access codes for the TOR system. There is some belief that Israel used these codes to neutralize Syria's TOR M1 system when Israel bombed Syria's "nuclear reactor" in 2007. Do you believe that Russia would undermine its own technology?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:24 am

    However Israeli reports that Russia gave Israel the access codes for the TOR system. There is some belief that Israel used these codes to neutralize Syria's TOR M1 system when Israel bombed Syria's "nuclear reactor" in 2007. Do you believe that Russia would undermine its own technology?

    Hahahahahaa... Israeli reports are not worth the toilet paper they are written on... few governments at war tell anything like the truth.

    How would Russia giving Israel access codes to TOR help Israel in their attack on Syria?

    Why would Russia give Israel access codes to anything?

    Syria doesn't have TOR or BUK or S-300.

    In about 2006 Syria ordered some Pantsir-S1s which were delivered from about 2008 through to about 2013.

    One of its features however is not time travel.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10778
    Points : 11257
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  George1 on Fri May 22, 2015 1:29 am

    Iran Could Raze Tel-Aviv to Ground if Israel Attacks – Top General

    If Israel tries to attack Iran, Tehran will raze Tel-Aviv to the ground, a top Iranian general said.

    Intelligence agencies of the United States and Israel are responsible for causing political unrest in the Middle East, said top Iranian Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

    The Zionists in the United States and Israel provoke separatism in the region with the help of different extremist groups, the Major General said.

    If the Zionist regime continues to follow its aggressive policies in the Israeli-occupied territories, Safavi said that Hezbollah has 80,000 missiles that it can use against Israel.

    Speaking about his country's security, the Major General boasted Iran is powerful enough militarily and therefore it can effectively defend itself against possible aggressors.

    "If Iran is attacked, we will raze Tel-Aviv and Haifa to the ground. Iran and Hezbollah has enough potential to counter Zionist aggression," the General said, speaking on TV Wednesday night, cited by IRNA.

    Safavi also said that Iran urges its regional neighbors to work collectively on security issues in the Middle East.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150521/1022423807.html#ixzz3aooj2uli

    andalusia

    Posts : 111
    Points : 155
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Navy's little missiles

    Post  andalusia on Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:33 am

    Can these missiles be countered by Iran if the US attacks it?

    http://missilethreat.com/the-navys-little-missiles-could-be-popping-up-in-many-more-places/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:51 am

    They are just Hellfires in most practical terms... and optically guided systems too.

    their short range means they are only threats to small vessels at sea... those small vessels just need something like PAPV, or some other dazzler system to negate the effect of IR or laser homing optics... or the obvious... it could simply carry missiles itself like Kornet-EM that could hit US vessels at stand off distances... ie hit the US ships before the US ships can launch at the Iranian small ships.

    Knowing the Americans their small ships will likely only get one or two four pack launchers... the US ships will number in the tens or 20s which sounds like a lot of small missiles, but the Iranian speed boat attack method uses swarms of hundreds of small boats... if each have 8 ready to fire missiles with a 10km range in its current model then those US ships will be in trouble.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    andalusia

    Posts : 111
    Points : 155
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Thanks

    Post  andalusia on Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:19 am

    Thanks Garry B for the response. You are always well informed and articulate.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10778
    Points : 11257
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  George1 on Sat Jul 25, 2015 1:27 am

    andalusia wrote:Thanks Garry B for the response. You are always well informed and articulate.

    Garry is the best man!!


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    jka

    Posts : 63
    Points : 69
    Join date : 2015-02-05
    Age : 31
    Location : Olofström

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  jka on Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:29 pm

    USA or Israel can drop two nukes in Teheran if they will. Twisted Evil
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2967
    Points : 2998
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  max steel on Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:35 pm

    jka wrote:USA or Israel can drop two nukes in Teheran if they will. Twisted Evil


    Nope firstly Iran will not be a aggressor it'll be Israel ( using US forces) . It ain't that easy to drop nukes on a nation now as you'll be suffering global backlash moreover it will initiate a geopolitical war . #Wet dreams
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:08 am

    USA or Israel can drop two nukes in Teheran if they will.

    Yeah... murdering millions of innocent people is certainly their favourite passtime, when they are not preaching to foreigners about how evil they are and why can't they all just accept and support their natural superiority in all things, they are murdering them with drones usually these days.

    Of course the real problem with nuking Iran is that there is plenty of world wide revulsion at the actions of the west and this will make things much worse... wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians didn't just buy a nuke from North Korea or get South African assistance.

    Hell even India might give them a nuke if they promise to nuke Pakistan while they are at it...

    I really don't think the only country who has actually used nukes in anger will want to open that Pandoras box again... but you never know a bush or a clinton at the reins and it is certainly possible.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    jka

    Posts : 63
    Points : 69
    Join date : 2015-02-05
    Age : 31
    Location : Olofström

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  jka on Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    USA or Israel can drop two nukes in Teheran if they will.
    Yeah... murdering millions of innocent people is certainly their favourite passtime, when they are not preaching to foreigners about how evil they are and why can't they all just accept and support their natural superiority in all things, they are murdering them with drones usually these days.

    Plus the president killed in bunker if Israel drop one or two nukes in Teheran...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:24 am

    Plus the president killed in bunker if Israel drop one or two nukes in Teheran...

    Hahahaha... the irony... Israel, which never signed the non proliferation treaty and has illegal nuclear weapons dropping nuclear weapons on tehran to stop them being so damn aggressive...

    It is like raping a baby because you think they might grow up to be a sexual deviant...  your preventative measure will ensure your fears are realised... but you wont see that and when they do get a capability to do the same to you and do it you will blame everyone else for their inaction...

    But of course escalation is always the best solution... don't whatever you do talk to them and find out what they want and what they fear... that might only end in a lasting solution and peace but you might have to give up some things you have stolen in the past.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    crod

    Posts : 131
    Points : 158
    Join date : 2009-08-04

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  crod on Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:27 am


    [/quote]

    Plus the president killed in bunker if Israel drop one or two nukes in Teheran...[/quote]

    not even the Israeli's are that stupid...they wont be nuking anyone anytime. The world is wakening to the dangers of past total Israeli support...the west, particularly in the E.U. are horrified by bibi and his merry bunch and are frankly sick to the back teeth of them.
    avatar
    Solncepek

    Posts : 277
    Points : 280
    Join date : 2015-08-27
    Location : USSR

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  Solncepek on Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:46 pm

    On Aug. 21, Israeli Channel 2 Television aired a recording of Ehud Barak, Israel's former defense minister and former prime minister, saying that on three separate occasions, Israel had planned to attack Iran's nuclear facilities but canceled the attacks. According to Barak, in 2010 Israel's chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, refused to approve an attack plan. Israeli Cabinet members Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz backed out of another plan, and in 2012 an attack was canceled because it coincided with planned U.S.-Israeli military exercises and a visit from then-U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

    The fact that the interview was released at all is odd. Barak claimed to have believed that the tape would not be aired, and he supposedly tried unsuccessfully to stop the broadcast. It would seem that Barak didn't have enough clout to pressure the censor to block it, which I suppose is possible.

    Yaalon, like Ashkenazi, was once chief of staff of Israel Defense Forces but was also vice premier and Barak's successor as defense minister. Steinitz had been finance minister and was vocal in his concerns about Iran. What Barak is saying, therefore, is that a chief of staff and a vice premier and former chief of staff blocked the planned attacks. As to the coinciding of a U.S.-Israeli exercise with a planned attack, that is quite puzzling, because such exercises are planned well in advance. Perhaps there was some weakness in Iranian defenses that opened and closed periodically, and that drove the timing of the attack. Or perhaps Barak was just confusing the issue.

    A number of points are worth noting: Ehud Barak is not a man to speak casually about highly classified matters, certainly not while being recorded. Moreover, the idea that Barak was unable to persuade the military censor to block the airing of the recording is highly improbable. For some reason, Barak wanted to say this, and he wanted it broadcast.

    Part of the reason might have been to explain why Israel, so concerned about Iran, didn't take action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Given the current debate in the U.S. Congress, that is a question that is undoubtedly being asked. The explanation Barak is giving seems to be that senior military and defense officials blocked the plans and that the Israelis didn't want to upset the Americans by attacking during a joint exercise. The problem with this explanation is that it is well known that Israeli military and intelligence officials had argued against an Israeli strike and that the United States would have been upset whether or not joint exercises were occurring.

    It would seem, intentionally or unintentionally, that Barak is calling Israeli attention to two facts. The first is that militarily taking out Iranian facilities would be difficult, and the second is that attempting to do so would affect relations with Israel's indispensible ally, the United States. Military leaders' opposition to the strikes had been rumored and hinted at in public statements by retired military and intelligence heads; Barak is confirming that those objections were the decisive reason Israel did not attack. The military was not sure it could succeed.
    The Potential for Disastrous Failure

    A military operation, like anything else in life, must be judged in two ways. First, what are the consequences of failure? Second, how likely is failure? Take, for example, the failure of the U.S. hostage rescue operation in 1980. Apart from the obvious costs, the failure gave the Iranian government reason to reduce its respect for U.S. power and thus potentially emboldened Iran to take more risks. Even more important, it enhanced the reputation of the Iranian government in the eyes of its people, both demonstrating that the United States threatened Iranian sovereignty and increasing the credibility of the government's ability to defend Iran. Finally, it eroded confidence in U.S. political and military leaders among the U.S. public. In reducing the threat and the perception of threat, the failure of the operation gave the Iranian regime more room to maneuver.

    For the Israelis, the price of failure in an attack on Iranian nuclear sites would have been substantial. One of Israel's major strategic political assets is the public's belief in its military competence. Forged during the 1967 war, the IDF's public image has survived a number of stalemates and setbacks. A failure in Iran would damage that image even if, in reality, the military's strength remained intact. Far more important, it would, as the failed U.S. operation did in 1980, enhance Iran's position. Given the nature of the targets, any attack would likely require a special operations component along with airstrikes, and any casualties, downed pilots or commandos taken prisoner would create an impression of Israeli weakness contrasting with Iranian strength. That perception would be an immeasurable advantage for Iran in its efforts to accrue power in the region. Thus for Israel, the cost of failure would be extreme.

    This must be measured against the possibility of success. In war, as in everything, the most obvious successes can evolve into failure. There were several potential points for failure in an attack on Iran. How confident were the Israelis that their intelligence on locations, fortifications and defenses were accurate? How confident were they that they could destroy the right targets? More important, perhaps, how certain could they be that the strikes had destroyed the targets? Finally, and most important, did they know what Iran's recuperative capabilities were? How quickly could the Iranians restore their program? Frequently, an operationally successful assault does not deal with the strategic problem. The goal of an attack was to make Iran incapable of building a nuclear weapon; would destroying all known targets achieve that strategic goal?

    One of the things to bear in mind is that the Iranians were as obsessed with Israeli and U.S. intelligence efforts as the Israelis and Americans were obsessed with the Iranian programs. Iran's facilities were built to be protected from attack. The Iranians were also sophisticated in deception; knowing that they were being watched, they made efforts to confuse and mislead their observers. The Israelis could never be certain that they were not deceived by every supposedly reliable source, every satellite image and every intercepted phone call. Even if only one or two sources of information were actually misleading, which sources were they?

    A failed Israeli assault on Iran would cause a major readjustment among other regional players in the way they perceive Israel and Iran. And for Israel, the perception of its military effectiveness is a strategic asset. There was a high risk of damaging that strategic asset in a failed operation, coupled with a strong chance that Israeli actions could unintentionally bolster Iran's power in the region. The likelihood of success was thrown into question by Israel's dependence on intelligence. In war, intelligence failure is a given. The issue is how great the failure will be — and there is no way to know until after the strike. Furthermore, operational success may not yield strategic success. Therefore, the ratio of potential risk versus reward argued against an attack.
    Considering Iran's Capabilities

    There is another side to this equation: What exactly were the Iranians capable of? As I have argued before, enriched uranium is a necessary but insufficient component for a nuclear weapon. It is enough to create a device that can be detonated underground in controlled conditions. But the development of a weapon, as opposed to a device, requires extensive technology in miniaturization and ruggedization to ensure the weapon reaches its target. Those who fixated on progress in uranium enrichment failed to consider the other technologies necessary to create nuclear weaponry. Some, including myself, argued that the constant delays in completing a weapon were rooted both in the lack of critical technologies and in Iranian concerns about the consequence of failure.

    Then there is the question of timing. A nuclear weapon would be most vulnerable at the moment it was completed and mounted on its delivery system. At that point, it would no longer be underground, and the Israelis would have an opportunity to strike when Iranians were in the process of marrying the weapon to the delivery device. Israel, and to an even greater extent the United States, has reconnaissance capabilities. The Iranians know that the final phase of weapon development is when they most risk detection and attack. The Israelis may have felt that, as risky as a future operation may seem, it was far less likely to fail than a premature attack.
    Barak's Motivations

    Whether intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally) Barak was calling attention, not to prior plans for an attack on Iran, but to the decision to abandon those plans. He pointed out that an Israeli chief of staff blocked one plan, a former chief of staff blocked a second plan and concern for U.S. sensibilities blocked a third. To put it in different terms, the Israelis considered and abandoned attacks on Iran on several occasions, when senior commanders or Cabinet members with significant military experience refused to approve the plan. Unmentioned was that neither the prime minister nor the Cabinet overruled them. Their judgment — and the judgment of many others — was that an attack shouldn't be executed, at least not at that time.

    Barak's statement can be read as an argument for sanctions. If the generals have insufficient confidence in an attack, or if an attack can be permanently canceled because of an exercise with the Americans, then the only option is to increase sanctions. But Barak also knows that pain will not always bring capitulation. Sanctions might be politically satisfying to countries unable to achieve their ends through military action or covert means. As Barak undoubtedly knows, imposing further restrictions on Iran's economy makes everyone feel something useful is being done. But sanctions, like military action, can produce unwelcome results. Measures far more painful than economic sanctions still failed to force capitulation in the United Kingdom or Germany, and did so in Japan only after atomic weapons were used. The bombing of North Vietnam did not cause capitulation. Sanctions on South Africa did work, but that was a deeply split nation with a majority in favor of the economic measures. Sanctions have not prompted Russia to change its policy. Imposing pain frequently unites a country and empowers the government. Moreover, unless sanctions rapidly lead to a collapse, they would not give Iran any motivation not to complete a nuclear weapon.

    I don't think Barak was making the case for sanctions. What he was saying is that every time the Israelis thought of military action against Iran, they decided not to do it. And he wasn't really saying that the generals, ministers or the Americans blocked it. In actuality, he was saying that ultimately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked it, because in the end, Netanyahu was in a position to force the issue if he wanted to. Barak was saying that Israel did not have a military option. He was not attacking Netanyahu for this decision; he was simply making it known.

    It's unlikely that Barak believes sanctions will compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program, any more the current agreement does. My guess is that for him, both are irrelevant. Either the Iranians do not have the ability or desire to build a bomb, or there will come a point when they can no longer hide the program — and that is the point when they will be most vulnerable to attack. It is at that moment, when the Iranians are seen arming a delivery system, that an Israeli or U.S. submarine will fire a missile and end the issue.

    If Barak didn't want a strike on Iran, if Netanyahu didn't want a strike and if Barak has no confidence in agreements or sanctions, then Barak must have something in mind for dealing with an Iranian nuclear weapon — if it ever does appear. Barak is an old soldier who knows how to refrain from firing until he is most certain of success, even if the delay makes everyone else nervous. He is not a believer in diplomatic solutions, gestures to indirectly inflict pain or operations destined for failure. At any rate, he has revealed that Israel did not have an effective military option to hamper Iran's nuclear program. And I find it impossible to believe he would rely on sanctions or diplomacy. Rather, he would wait to strike until Iran had committed to arming a delivery system, leaving itself wide open to attack — a nerve-racking solution, but one with the best chance of success.
    avatar
    nomadski

    Posts : 125
    Points : 125
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  nomadski on Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:56 am

    The meeting of 5 plus one goes ahead . This time the yanks are demanding curtailment of Iranian missile programme . And inspection of military sites . And God knows what else . It is not that they really think they have any hope of success . The real reason is that the millionaires in the house of representatives and senate , that pushed for further pressure and sanctions , know that by removing the sanctions , that they may have a small part of the cake . And they have never been satisfied with that . They will take the losses in the short term . In order to try to monopolise their position and the markets in Iran and the middle east . Big bucks is the name of their game . Total domination . Power to dictate to the Iranians . Dominate the country like the days of old . Everything from political life to banking to military etc . Capitulation .

    I think Iranians are now realising the state of the game . And I don't think that Iranians will collectively choose to yield and surrender to the yanks . Despite internal problems and chaos endemic in some middle eastern countries . And the existence of a pro-western lobby . I can say this , because I am Iranian . And I know their thinking . But they need time to come to this collective conclusion .

    The only alternative to improving relations with yanks , is further confrontation . This is the only probable alternative . It could carry on as before , with sanctions and threats . Or escalate into a series of military showdowns . Like north Korea . I just hope that there is time for Iran to establish and strengthen ties with as many states as possible . And also to covertly develop a credible nuclear deterrent . But not declare this force until threatened by actual war by yanks or their zionist stooges . The other world powers , must realise that the alternatives of Iran ( and therefore the world ) being devastated or overrun by yank forces , is far worse than a nuclear Iran . They will I believe practically not maintain sanctions against Iran . This is the most probable scenario .


    Sponsored content

    Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:38 pm