You assume that Israel doesn't have many nukes, and that the US wouldn't retaliate with its own nuclear capability. If Iran should stupidly nuke Israel, there is absolutely no reason for the US to not retaliate in the same capacity.

The Middle East will be aflame anyways and the NPT will not be worth the paper it was written on (this already seems to be the case, as many have no problem with Iran violating it). I see no reason why the US shouldn't reassemble its nuclear arsenal in such a case, most other countries will be doing it.

Also I implore you to go live in Iran so you can be part of the sacrifice.

See, he was making a very fair assessment, the way pretty much we Americans perceive this situation. I am a conservative and I support Israel, but that will be a huge failure if you attack Iran to save your broke Bibi's government for the actual unrest inside Israel (not Arab unrest, but very own Jewish unrest against a corrupt government that is drowning the country in a deep economic crisis, while Bibi becomes a bigger billionaire through his Real Estate companies that are selling houses at the settlements). But, as I was saying, if Israel attacks Iran, NOW, at this exact time, Iran is going to turn the international tables against Israel and then things will get ugly, as we and the Europeans are way too economically weakened to help you.
Or, do you want the Russian Army, the Brazilian Army and the Chinese Red Army using UN blue hats to invade and occupy Israel as a state sponsoring state terrorism?
The Chinese and the Russians are the rich and the powerful now, and they are aligned with Iran.
So, to attack now it will be a serious mistake that can mean the destruction of the State of Israel with the support of the new World superpowers.
The Iranians won't get the bomb for two or three years more, so, just wait until we topple down Obama, and win the presidential Election. So, with a Republican in the White House things will get easier for us and for you at Israel as well, and then we take care of Iran.

I'm not sure, I'm leaning more towards the opinion that if Israel did want to strike against a possible-hostile and nuclear Iran then now would be the time. I mean the Middle east is, generally speaking, destabilized at the moment and they could start a conflict between them and Iran without having any others joining in.
I also do not think the United States would retaliate on the part of Israel unless others, apart from Iran, join the fray.

With Obama and his weaklings in the White House that will be a HUGE mistake. China, Russian and Pakistan will get on the picture to defend Iran, and the Pakistanis have three times more Nuclear bombs than Israel, besides accurate long range missile technology that was developed with our own US help during the cold war, when the Indians were aligned with the Soviets.
Besides that, there are those 27 or so nuclear warheads that disappeared from Ukraine in the 1990's and that may be anywhere in the world now. Perhaps even inside a suitcase of some western looking Arab doing "business" in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem...
They are fully fledged nuclear explosives and can destroy a whole city like Tel Aviv. And with the money billionaire Arabs are investing in Jihad, you never know.
So, variables are too much right now against a successful Israeli strike.
Wait until 2013, with our country getting a strong economic recovery, and with a Republican in the White House so we can help Israel and protect them. Now, we simply can't. We have not even enough money to keep our whole Aircraft Carrier fleet operational. Three of them are just sitting in Norfolk doing nothing besides get rusted...
Israel must wait, so they can strike strongly, swiftly and deadly, and not have a wounded tiger chasing them...

"If Iran should stupidly nuke Israel, there is absolutely no reason for the US to not retaliate in the same capacity."

Yes there is and it's simple: Israel is NOT the US. Why should Americans care a lick about Israel or Iran?

@Embyrr - Disagree, this is actually a much worse time for an Israeli pre-emptive attack than any time in recent memory, for a few reasons:

1. The split in conservative Iran (Ahmedinejad vs. Ayatollah) would be finalized, with Ayatollah retaining control and some healing, as noted in the article, between the opposition and the regime. It creates a reconciliation moment that requires no reform.

2. The neighboring regimes are considerably less friendly to Israel, largely due to the influence of the street. While they are not particularly consolidated at the moment, they could assemble military action as needed. They wouldn't do so on Iran's behalf, but if they attract collateral damage (ala the Saudi oilfield bombing scenario) it could escalate quickly. Just as the US used al Qaeda as a pretext to enter Iraq, Egypt could use Arab self-defense as a pretext to attack Israel. In fact, depending on how the scenario played out, Egypt might have to, in order to prevent collapse of the interim regime.

3. The US-Israel and EU-Israel relationships are strained. An over-the-top provocation by Israel may not be backed by the US and almost certainly not by the EU (except, perhaps, Germany). Particularly bad if they aren't briefed in advance.

The reality is that Israel has poisoned its own environment such that it has few actions. It was satisfied with detente with its immediate neighbors, arguments with further-flung Arab/Muslim nations, an now-apparently fragile relationship with Turkey, and assuming wrongly that the US and EU would stand behind them come what may. Israel is increasingly becoming the reckless, obstinate friend who is harder and harder to back in a fight.

Israel really needs to reach out to its neighbors, and for chrissakes, fix the damned Palestinian issue.

Iran will have multiple cities nuked, as well as military installations. Iran does not have the capabilities to recover swiftly, if at ALL>Israel is a modern country w/ a modern infrastructure. WHO says Iran will get even close to delivering any kind of nuke to Israeli soil? Iran's puppets in Hezbollah would gladly take delivery-but they will die doing it.

WHY do we have to defend them? Those 3 carriers are being de-commisiuoned, refitted or just replaced. You seem really hell bent for leather you think its pretty? Christ almghty. War will kill us all 1 day, this one may be the last. Good luck.

YOU assume the US will "retaliate in the same capacity," how is that in our interest? Use of nuclear weapons against any country is a deplorable act but would in no way justify escalation. The first country to do so would immediately become an international pariah (in Iran's case, more so) but two rights do not make a wrong and nuking for "retaliation" is the essence of why M.A.D. worked as a deterrent; it's a suicidal impulse. Doing so would set a precedent that can only result in nuclear annihilation. Also, wishing someone dead because they expressed a view different from yours is ignorant and immature; clean it up, troll.

I think you might have misread my post. Not even getting into the US, I'm assuming that ISRAEL will be the one to bomb Iran. That's why I said that Iran is betting that it can take on just Israel, even if Israel has some 100 bombs, that still won't deter Iran since it is so much larger than Israel, whereas Iran just needs one bomb to destroy Israel. That's why even if Iran is so much "weaker", it can still come out on top (in its mind) since even if Iran is smothering, Israel will be in Kingdom Come.

Now getting into the US business, I'm 50/50 between whether US will back Israel. If Iran strike Israel first, then the US will strike Iran but Israel will be finished already. But if Israel strikes first, then the US will not be able (unless it pulls off another post 9/11 Afghan-Iraq style war) to retaliate. Again Iran will get hurt, but it will just need to launch one bomb on Israel for the damage to be done.

This is why Israel is so afraid. This is similar to the "Indefensible Boarders" debacle since Israel's "weakness" is is small size. Israel is powerful militarily but it has very little margin of error whereas Iran can afford to screw up a few times.

I hope this guy is not representative. However, with Iran's president casually blathering about wiping Israel off the map, its not very reassuring. I mean, wouldn't the smooth thing be to NOT say scary crazy things if you want your nuclear program to be tolerated?

Either they really are nuts, or they are trying to provoke an Israeli attack.

On another note, isn't it lovely that Iran deliberately placed its nuke facilities near civilian settlements? I think that speaks volumes about the relative morals of the parties involved.

On a further note, does the author really think that Iran could "go dirty" and launch missiles at Israeli civilians and destroy Saudi oil facilities WITHOUT the US getting involved? Not a ground invasion of course, but taking down Iran's naval, air, and missile forces is the kind of thing the USA does best.

Personally, I think that from an Israeli perspective, an attack now has very serious consequences, but waiting will only make things worse. Ahmenutjob aside, my bet is they wouldn't actually nuke Israel, but having nukes would give them a blank check to behave aggressively and irresponsibly and sponsor terrorism without fear of reprisal.

Iran won't nuke Israel. This situation will go one of two ways. The media will lie and say Iran has Nukes and are about to strike at any minute, like Iraq and the WMD's. Or terror attacks will be staged and blamed on Iran for a pretext for a US backed Israeli invasion. I don't think Iran has any Nukes, unless China has supplied them, which wouldn't surprise me. WW3 is coming.

- Vince Delmonte

The US has built a world model where there is global interdependence, for economics, for diplomacy, for military.

Should Iran decide to send a nuclear missile at another nation, the system, not just the state attacked, would be threatened.

Any nation that witnesses Iran's attack and see's it go unpunished, would do their damnest to get their hands on one or more nuke.

And then, of course, since there is no shortage of unsavory and corrupt governments, there would certainly be nations willing to sell weapons to other states and even NGO actors, including militant groups, who would be even more willing to use them on an enemy.

No, shunning wouldn't work. The idea of the world just shrugging its shoulders and turning its back on Iran wouldn't work because of the Iranian oil supply. Sooner or later economic imperatives would trump the social stigma.

No, the US would have to show the world that use of nuclear weapons is not a free lunch, and no state gets away with a freebee shot on another.

How many nukes would it take to set back Iran as a nation state.

Figure Tehran and Qom are in the target sites. Figure Iranian oil fields and/or Iranian distribution services.

Then, take out another few major Iranian cities (Ishfahan, Shiraz) and Iran as a state, becomes crippled.

Iran may be larger than Israel, but its population is concentrated due to the wide expanses of desert. Take out the top half-dozen, and Iran is a vastly different state.

Picture it this way, how would the US look if New York City, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles, were bombed back to the stone age?

Understand that it is entirely impractical for *either* country to use a nuke on the other. If Israel did strike Iran - particularly preemptively - they could never use nukes without the international community - particularly the EU and the BRICs (maybe minus India, though maybe not) - coming down full force on Israel. They would be 100% persona non grata. The sanctions would devastate Israel and their economy would collapse within weeks. And that is assuming no retaliation by Iran - which, of course, is foolish. Iran would absolutely retaliate - though certainly not using nukes because 1) they dont have one yet, and 2) they know that this would only lead to Iran being struck by Israel and other nations (read: the USA).

Israel does not have the military to carry out the sort of sustained military response that would be needed to disarm Iran completely. The IAF would sustain fairly heavy losses and could not continue this sort of attack without the US. Even NATO could not sustain this sort of attack against Libya. The only western power that could facilitate this is the US. And the US simply ain't budging on this. They recognize that the damage to their economy (and the rest of the world) would be simply too great. This just won't happen. Israel is just playing a dangerous game of chicken.

This can indeed get very ugly if not kept under control. A lot of NGOs such as Inchirieri Auto already protest against nuclear energy in EU understanding the risks. An incident in Iran after the strike would create mass panic both in the oriental and occidental world (Turkey is not that far from Iran and greece is only at 2700 KM away).

since there is no shortage of unsavory and corrupt governments, there would certainly be nations willing to sell weapons to other states and even NGO actors, including militant groups, who would be even more willing to use them on an enemy. SWF Converter Mac

As for logistics, well, they only need enough food and water to traverse northern Iraq. Once they reach Syria they reach an ally, and that means resupply.YouTube Converter Mac

post that it was based off of.

Really, your idea of correct or incorrect is off base because I wasn't discussing the issue of global response.

The original question, was that Iran wouldn't have to worry about a nuclear strike because of its size. That's what my answer was in response to.

Try and have some clue about the discussion before barging into it.

WHY do we have to defend them? Those 3 carriers are being de-commisiuoned, refitted or just replaced. You seem really hell bent for leather you think its pretty? Christ almghty. War will kill us all 1 day, this one may be the last. Good luckPdf Converter for Mac

Zionism is racism and unending war. THAT is the problem.

A third war against Islam, against Iran that in reality is no military threat to superpower Israel, an Iran that suffers from Sunni radicalism as much as we do (Jundallah), for reasons of nuclear WMD which they do not have and may never have, and because of Iran's political opposition to Zionism, is the clear tipping point to worldwide catastrophe in many ways geopolitical, military and economic. Mass chaos from Lebanon to Pakistan. Straights of Hormuz being largely shut. Figure out for yourself what that would mean.

Very suddenly, all the usual ignorant Americans who see Israel as a metaphor, or a biblical prophesy, or as an ally (against whom, for what?) would in a single instant wake up and say: Who brought this doom upon us? The answer is politically controlling Zionism, which in unfortunate reality, is racism and unending war.

Love it, or leave it.

There are upheavals going on all over the Arab and Muslim worlds that have little or nothing to do with Israel. Israel is just the scapegoat for every Arab and Muslim failure to deliver good governance to their respective peoples.

I think Israel would love the opportunity to see 500,000 of Iran's Revolutionary Guards marching in the Bekka Valley. It is not as if they would be hiding behind trees, because their are darn few in the valley. No they would be just ripped up from the air. And they would be marching, because the IF signals from internal combustion engines would allow every truck & tank to be targeted easily.

The whole reason that Iran does & Iraq did want missiles is that the wide open desert plains of Israel's neighbors is prime hunting ground of the IDF AF, so some sort of regular army ground force invasion of Israel is ludicrious. It hasn't even been tried in almost 40 yrs.

And that isn't even considering the fact that the Iraqis would not take kindly to an invasion of Iranian troops. Shades of the 80s. And northern Iraq is mountainous, which means that the possible routes are extremely limited and highly predictable.

from a logistical standpoint, this is practically impossible for the Iranians. It also leaves them very vulnerable to a domestic uprising.

This would be the same airforce that is ALSO trying to degrade Iran's nuclear facilities, I take it? As well as being the same airforce that is ALSO trying to seek and destroy Iran's long-range missile batteries?

At what point might you like to ponder that Israel's oh-so-vaunted airforce will have bitten off more than it can chew?

"from a logistical standpoint, this is practically impossible for the Iranians."

Why, exactly? They won't need to FIGHT their way anywhere until their reach the Golan Heights, precisely because there is not a single enemy soldier in their path.

As for logistics, well, they only need enough food and water to traverse northern Iraq. Once they reach Syria they reach an ally, and that means resupply.

This needs stressing: until they reach the Golan they are traversing friendly territory.

"It also leaves them very vulnerable to a domestic uprising."

OK, that's just nonsense.

Your country is under continuous attack by a hated foreign country. Under those circumstances your vulnerability to a domestic uprising is ziltch.

The whole reason that Iran does & Iraq did want missiles is that the wide open desert plains of Israel's neighbors is prime hunting ground of the IDF AF,"

Dude, the reason why Iran wants missiles is because it doesn't share a border with Israel.

But Syria does, so the logical thing to do is for the Iranians to find a route to Syria.

There is such a route, and it goes through northern Iraq.

"It hasn't even been tried in almost 40 yrs."

And that's a reason against....errr, how, exactly?

"And that isn't even considering the fact that the Iraqis would not take kindly to an invasion of Iranian troops."

OK, I'm not positing an INVASION of Iraq, but that the Iranians use northern Iraq as a land corridor into Syria.

I'll also point out that I am not suggesting that Iran do this unless/until the Israelis have already violated Iraqi sovereignty by using Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.

"Shades of the 80s."

If you say so. I certainly didn't.

"And northern Iraq is mountainous, which means that the possible routes are extremely limited and highly predictable."

Hmmmm, is that so?

Nope, just had another look in google earth, and it looks pretty lush and green to me.

Your satellite images show something different, do they?

Iranian tanks, troops, will be shredded from the air. They may not make it past the Iran-Iraq border. In 2003 an Iraqi tank brgde was hit from the air by new cluster munitions. It hit the first 3rd of the column, the tanks that weren't hit, they got out of their tanks and ran. Iran does not have a crdible AF, you own the skies you do as you please. I hope it does not come to that. I believe the next time nuclear weapons are used, it will be Israel that uses them.

Pray tell, how does Iran mobilize half a milliont troops three states away for an invasion?

First off, you're talking about men alone. No heavy weapons. Moving such a large force alone would take time. Toss in logistics for basic living, let alone heavy armor and/or artillery, and you have a shipping time somewhere between three months and a year.

That's just to set up. (remember, it took the US somewhere in the neighborhood of four months to move its troops in place for an invasion of Iraq back in 1990).

Look at it this way, load up a Boeing 747 (can't be a new one or an airbus, due to economic embargos). figure fully loaded, something like 500 passengers. Iran's air fleet is not likely more than a dozen or two of these planes. so, 10 flights from Iran to Lebanon brings you 5,000 soldiers. You need another 100 flights, hidden from Israeli intelligence, to just bring the troops over.

Figure the Israeli's get a clue after the first dozen or so flights, and Iranian 747's start getting shot down.

Now, you need to figure out how to move Iranians around, without supplies and/or weapons.

Then, add to that the fact that Lebanon is not solely made up of Iranian supporting Shia. The Sunnis, Druze, and Christian populations, are all fed up with Hizballah. You think they're going to let 500,000 Iranians just waltz into Lebanon? No. Hizballah all of a sudden starts meeting up with problems, and so too would the Iranians.

So we then go with your land column. You think that the Sauds are going to be comfortable watching 500,000 Iranians stream into Lebanon? Not likely. Or, they would use the opportunity to send Iran several forgetme not's to block that run. And of course, the Iranian convoy would be easy pickings for some Drone attacks.

Then, forget weapons, you need to feed and hydrate, these fighting men. 500,000 men = 1.5 million meals per day + another 125,000 gallons of potable water per day. On a weekly basis, that means over 10 million meals + almost 1.0 million gallons of water just to drink. Just one month alone, translates into 40 million meals, and 4.0 million gallons of water. For the 3-month military adventure, that turns into 120.0 million meals and 12.0 million gallons of water.

Oh, and good luck paying for that as well as the salaries of the troops.

And, Iran would need to pay for all of this.

Look at it this way, load up a Boeing 747 (can't be a new one or an airbus, due to economic embargos). figure fully loaded, something like 500 passengers. Iran's air fleet is not likely more than a dozen or two of these planes. so, 10 flights from Iran to Lebanon brings you 5,000 soldiers. You need another 100 flights, hidden from Israeli intelligence, to just bring the troops over.YouTube Converter Mac

Dare I remind you of the confidence of the Israelis prior to the Yom Kippur War?

The Egyptians wouldn't dare attempt to cross the Suez, because if they did then the IDF's F4 Phantoms would incinerate each and every one of them.

Only.....ooops, everytime we send out all our F4s we only get half of them back.....

You don't need air superiority to launch missles. Ask Hezbollah.

Riiiiiiight. That'd work, wouldn't it....

It seems to me that you are not taking into account how the timing of this would play out.

Within an hour of an Israeli strike against Iran (nuclear or otherwise) the proxies will start their battles. Hezbollah would being lobbing missiles at Tel Aviv. We know they have a lot, but we dont know exactly how much more sophisticated and destructive they are. So lets say for the sake of argument - that they have at least some Scud type missiles and that they can hit Tel Aviv. That would likely cause a lot of damage and do so within hours. The IAF would be running sorite after sortie against Lebanon.

Syria would certainly get in the mix as well, seeing how they are Iran's #1 proxy. We know they have scuds and likely more powerful missiles from technology the got from Pakistan, N Korea and perhaps Russia. Israel would now be fighting on 2 fronts immediately.

Hamas would certainly chime in from Gaza and, though they are not a threat, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Egypt or at least militants from Egypt would join in. As soon as Israel starts bombing inside Egypt, you have the Egyptian military responding to Israel. The third front.

Oil would likely be at $250 a barrel (or more), and would be scarce on top of it because Iran would surely at least threaten to mine the Straits. Even if the US Navy was patrolling the Straits, the cost of insuring a tanker would be prohibitively high - hence 33% of the worlds oil would disappear.

Europe and maybe even the US would be PISSED that Israel decided to bomb Iran without their approval and in the process bring down the world economy. You would have some pretty strong sanctions against Israel being pushed by China and Russia. At least some of the EU would be forced to halt or reduce their imports from Israel, meaning they have no $.

All of this with the Israeli people scared out of their minds from the rockets raining down on them. This is a population - much like the US - that is not used to fighting *real* wars on their soil. (and NO, the fight against the Palestinians does not count)

So really, there is no need for 500,000 Iranians to move towards Israel. But if this dragged out for more than a few weeks, I would say that Israel would be significantly weakened to make it at least more possible than it seems at first.

All of this of course doesn't bring into account the reaction of the various other nations - particularly in Bahrain, Saudi (East Saudi anyway) and Pakistan. All of whom would be PISSED to see Israel bombing Syria, Egypt, Gaza, and Iran. Remember that during the 2006 war in Lebanon you had thousands of Egyptians marching against Israel holding signs of Nisrallah. Amazing to be sure, but an all out blitz by Israel could have the byproduct of bringing the Arab and Persian streets together - at least for a while.

All of this to me says that it is not looking like a good move - particularly considering that Iran would never preemptively strike Israel in the first place.

Besides, they got Hezbollah and Hamas at both Northern and Southern Israeli borders, respectively, and an attack against Iran will just give to the Islamic Radicals in Egypt the last push they need to win the elections in a landslide.
So, then you will have an Islamic Republic of Egypt arming and supporting Hamas, and Turkey supporting Hezbollah from the north (Turkey got nukes as well. Our NATO nuclear mobile facilities in Turkey are managed by Turkish soldiers. They can just take them and use them if the attack on Iran gives way to a widespread Islamic Jihad against Israel...)
That will be a big mess and Israel is going to suffer badly as we are not in the 1960's anymore and a bunch of dog fighting aces won't open the way to victory.
So, best strategy is to wait. Instead of attack push Iran into International talks. Force them to negotiate. Make them lose their stance with the International community by sending International inspectors into Iran, so they have to restructure their weapons program to keep it out of world's eye.
Then, in 2013, we deal with them our ole American way...

IDF airpower has not taken on a modern army equipped with AA defenses since the early 1980s, and there is not a single IDF flyboy still flying who has ever had a guided weapon fired at him.

The last time such an event occured was in 1982, and on that occasion the IDF countermeasures comprehensively defeated the AA defenses.

The previous time was the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and on that occasion the AA defenses clearly got the better of the exchange.

It's a see-saw technological battle, and simply because you won last time does not mean you are invulnerable this time.

An Iranian army marching down the Bekka Valley will bring its own AA missile defenses with it, and the IDF would attempt to attack it from the air. Sure. No question.

If the IDF countermeasures win then Israel will smash that force.
If the AA defenses are too good then that army will meet IDF ground forces in good order.

TANKER64 simply assumes the former because, apparently, he is incapable of conceiving of the latter.

Interesting -

I suspected that Saddam was going to attempt the same thing in 2003. Generally the west (I am lumping Israel in that) is much more dependent on its (vastly) superior technology. I assumed that Iraq was going to allow the US in and spring an EMP on them, essentially trying to equalize the odds. Obviously that never happened.

The same can be said about both sides in this war. Though, again, one side is much more dependent on technology than the other, and Israel does not have the same appetite for casualties as Iran, given that Iran is 10x the population. Israel without its technology is a small and feeble country. So if I were Iran, the EMP would be my first choice. No casualties (save the occasion pacemaker going kaput...) yet extreme damage to the military capabilities that Israel depends on 100%.

How can Israel simultaneously be a religious state & a democracy?
Technically a theocratic system (which Israel has tendency toward) cannot be a functional democracy. Iran, we clearly know is a Mullahcracy, (a dictatorship under the cover of religion).

Salem, I don't know if you have ever noticed before, but the big 6-pointed symbol on the Israeli flag is quite tightly linked to the Jewish religion, and might suggest to those who are not followers of that religion that they are not all that welcome there--apartheid states by definition cannot be true democracies.

Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland all have crosses as part of their flags. What are we supposed to make of that based on your logic?

WOW indeed,
& you really believe that your own analyisis is correct on all counts?
You're living in a dream! The scenario that you just painted is utterly childish at best.
Then again, to expect more from an extrimist pro-Israel enthusiast like yourself is much like expecting realism from an extremist islamist!

Please re-read what I wrote, your reply is a little confusing or were you joking.
As to childish progections, is that not you talking about Iran marching a huge army toward Isreal? The American civil war ended over 150 years ago, and even then that method of war was obsolite.

Perhaps, you should re-read what I wrote. I called the idea of marching 500000 soldiers across Iraq STUPID, it wasn’t my idea!. Then read again what you wrote! It's absolutely childish to think that Israel is in its best day able to entertain a regime change in Iran. You obviously know very little about the complex make-up of the Mullahs regime. Iran's regime does not in any way form or shape resembles Gadhafi's, Hassan's, Mubarak's, Ben Alis's, Hamad's, or any other regime in that neck of the wood. You also unrealistically overestimating Israel's ability. Apperantly you don't know israel that well either. Then you said:
"attack on Iran will be to first eliminate any chance of reprisal, hence an attach on the military and command and control"

This is also childish, how many hundred of sorties do you think Israel can run over Iran, & over how many days. Not to mention your idea of simultaneously attacking Southern Lebanon with the aim of annexing it. Again, childish.

Isreal will only start the war, and their planning assumes US entry to finish the job, hence no need for a second strike and all their energy can be focused on southern Lebanon.
I assume Isreal will attack using gound and submarine launched missiles, and not airplanes. Isreal will only light the match in the powder keg of Iran knowing that America will be drawn in. Isreal has 3 German built missle launching submarines now and will take delivery of 2 more soon. When they are operational, what out.
Think about it Chicken, would it make sence to attack Iran's nuclear sites and leave Iran's ability to retaliate in tack?
If you decapitate a government, it will be easy for the CIA to re-introduse the former Shah's people waiting in the wings like they did in 1954, especially when the communication system of Iran is destroyed and there is already a green opposition movement in Iran.
Have you not read chicken that any attak on the nuclear sites would only slow the development of Irans nuclear program?
Don't get me wrong, I am against any attack on iran and I am certainly not claiming that Iran wants a bomb. I do know that Isreal wants on only rivel in the area destroyed and they want America's blood and money to do it. It also puts the US permently in the bull's eye for the next 50 years and leaves Isreal free to settle and annex southern Lebanon. (read former Isreali PM M. Begins 1950's authbiography "The Revolt".

However you wish to rationalize it, attacking Iran, especially by Israel is a huge mistake. If Israel initiate an attack with the hope that we jump in, & chances are that we will, then the American public opinion will turn against Israel simply because taking into consideration the current global economic condition, thing will start heading south in a hurry!

"As to childish progections, is that not you talking about Iran marching a huge army toward Isreal? The American civil war ended over 150 years ago, and even then that method of war was obsolite."

Neither Gulf War I nor the 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out by airpower alone.
Both required the building up of a large army and then the marching of that army over the top of their opponent.

Honestly, where have you been for the last 150 years? Asleep?

It won't matter if they attack, Isreal will use the occasion to attack and destroy Hamas and Hezbollah and use as an excuse that it, Isreal, was attacked.
Hezbollah is ready to fight the last war (2006), but Isreal has the GPS coordinance for every Hezbollah bunker (remmenber all those daily over flights by the Isreali airforce over southern Lebanon) and will use bunker buster bombs first before gound invasion and occpation and settlement on the land up to the Latani River which will be free of Lebanese. (see former Isreali PM M. Begin's 1950's autobiagraph "The Revolt".

I'm not so sure about that. Israel has no reason to want to make this a widespread regional battle between Israel and everyone else, especially since Israel's political success depends on successfully portraying this as a desperate attempt to prevent an uncontrollable state from developing a nuclear weapons capacity*. Unless Israel has come to the conclusion that Hamas and Hezbollah will definitely attack once the air strikes begin (which they might) Israel doesn't gain anything by adding the confusion of Palestine, Lebanon, terrorism and the legitimacy of resistance groups to the debate.

*Yes I am fully aware that many of the nations in the region such as Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon view Israel as the uncontrollable state that has a nuclear weapons capacity. That doesn't mean that they want Iran to get the same ability to reduce the Middle East to a radioactive ruin.

Well, you should be reassured then, by knowing that HE NEVER ACTUALLY SAID THAT.

He said that Israel would "fall off the face of the earth" which by no means assumes that he is concluding that Iran will be the source of this.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but please try and be factual.

Unfortunately, it is so convenient & useful for some people & some gov’ts & media to take a mistranslation & pound it over others’ heads over & over & over & over & over & over & over………………………………………………..

But we're talking about Netanyahu, a real lunatic. He's not nearly as hawkish in real action.
He just talks the world to DEATH! Israel's cabinet for some stupid reason believes that this latest round psychological warfare is going to push Russia & China to accept sanctioning the Iranian Central Bank system, & I really think that all the ranting is producing the opposite result! Go figure!