Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Solncepek
    Solncepek

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

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty 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.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1000
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty 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 .

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4015
    Points : 4011
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:40 am

    Could Trump Really Launch a War With Iran?
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1000
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  nomadski on Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:28 pm

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7t0t-lG0L1k

    The sanctions failed . No quick result for them . No negotiations . No capitulation.  Trump not in power for ever and neo - conservative war mongers , loosing ground . So a war of words . Since trumpet  and co and pompous  ass , can not win hot war . Trumpet  is a terrorist . His mother is a terrorist . His grand - mother is terrorist .

    LMAO .


    https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-family-fortune/
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6196
    Points : 6331
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  kvs on Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:41 pm

    nomadski wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7t0t-lG0L1k

    The sanctions failed . No quick result for them . No negotiations . No capitulation.  Trump not in power for ever and neo - conservative war mongers , loosing ground . So a war of words . Since trumpet  and co and pompous  ass , can not win hot war . Trumpet  is a terrorist . His mother is a terrorist . His grand - mother is terrorist .

    LMAO .


    https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-family-fortune/

    That video has more levels to it than intended. Any moron can break a board along its grain. Nobody can cleave the wood fiber bundles with a cross grain
    hand strike. This joke represents the "power of the west". Good at winning against powerless opponents, but de facto impotent against powerful opponents
    such as Russia. But the western chimps wallow in wishful thinking and confuse their "strength" against the former for some "guaranteed win" against the latter.
    This broken record is always on the player when it comes to the west.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1000
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  nomadski on Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:08 pm

    https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=710849530



    This announcements did not come as randomly and thoughtlessly  as seems at first . They were always waiting for opportunity to attack . Like mass demonstrations ,  then  do a sabotage . Strike when opponent is weak . This did not happen .

    But what has happened ,  are the devastating floods . Across vast areas of Iran. The army and IRGC  are busy with humanitarian  efforts   . Roads blocked . So I think they are looking for  opportunity . I may be wrong , but  the Iranians better allow civilian authorities to do flood relief work  .

    IRGC and army , better keep all vehicles and helicopter for possible surprise attack . If they are going  to  attack then the chances are no lower now than later .


    Last edited by nomadski on Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 448
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:11 pm

    No quick result for them

    The sanctions have little effect because this time the US is alone in them. The most important oil buyers have got waivers, that are regularly renewed. Besides, the EU could materialise its threats about circumventing the sanctions. In any case, the oil prices are too high for the sanctions to hurt the Iran significantly. This and next year will be rough, but afterwards the outlook is positive.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24896
    Points : 25440
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:55 am

    The US has said the waivers will not be renewed... if they follow through on that threat it will be interesting... very interesting.

    I am seriously hoping those countries that are trading with Iran will realise their rights to trade with whomever they want is more valuable than any short term pain the US could inflict... the Americans are not a charity organisation... if they trade with you... it is for a reason... they get something out of it, so breaking trade ties with them will likely hurt them as much as or even more than it will hurt you and remember there are an enormous number of other countries out there wanting to trade and make money and grow and will be happy to replace the US buying your products or services but not control you or overthrow your governments when they make decisions the US does not like....

    The more hard line the US becomes, the easier it is to say... no.
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 448
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:18 am

    The US has said the waivers will not be renewed... if they follow through on that threat it will be interesting... very interesting.

    They renewed them last month.

    The more hard line the US becomes, the easier it is to say... no.

    The world has became very globalised in the last 20 years with the rise and integration of China and developing economies. Developed countries simply can't afford not to trade with big country like Iran, let alone China. This is limiting how much geoeconomic pressure can the US impose on its targets.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1000
    Points : 1006
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  nomadski on Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:27 am

    Global geopolitics reality is that the yanks share of world markets is far larger than many small nations . So if the yanks impose sanctions , then a third party will decide to opt for yank market . Rather than small nation . In case of Iran , and geopolitics of oil , the situation is that , the world can find alternate sources of supply . But fortunately for Iran , they are in close proximity to alternate sources , and they can stop flow of oil . Creating a deficit . The countries  of the world , then have no choice but to start buying Iranian oil again .

    The yanks have imposed  non oil sanctions against Iran too . Cars , mobile phones...you name it . So even if Iran sells oil , it can not do normal trade . Unless it imposes the condition that all non US related trade should continue and all secondary sanctions removed . I do not see this situation improving with yanks . The sanctions against Cuba for example lasted 50 years . So forget yanks . Trade with rest of world .

    For long term , when yank sanctions affect all goods and trade . There are alternative sources for these goods . So Iran can not physically  stop the trade . And it can not go to war with entire world . It then needs to be self sufficient .

    Iran must have the means to close the flow of oil for now . And must have the nuclear deterrent  . For display if needed to close the oil down . And future display , if confronted  with yank attack . So two things are needed :

    ( 1 )  Nuclear deterrent  .

    ( 2 ) Self sufficient economy .
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24896
    Points : 25440
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:22 am

    They renewed them last month.

    The waivers on trading in Iranian oil expire on May the first and Trump has said he wont extend the waivers...

    https://www.rt.com/business/457333-iran-oil-us-sanctions/

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7528
    Points : 7607
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    They renewed them last month.

    The waivers on trading in Iranian oil expire on May the first and Trump has said he wont extend the waivers...

    https://www.rt.com/business/457333-iran-oil-us-sanctions/

    After that the only waiver running AFAIK is the 90 day one for Iraq, mainly for gas for their power stations and electricity. If that stops there will be very serious unrest in southern Iraq as per last summer.
    which could lead to yet more pressure in the "Yankee go home" campaign.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24896
    Points : 25440
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:30 am

    But that is just it... it is not about normal commerce and free market trade... you do what I say and buy what I sell even if it costs a lot more than other vendors or I will cut you off of everything... the coca cola company has been doing that for years.


    Sponsored content

    Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East  - Page 3 Empty Re: Iran's military reaction against USA - Israel in M.East

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:53 am