BF2S Forums Wag the Dog? Obama to attack Iran before elections

FEOS wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

The only way they'd be able to do it on their own is if they had loads of aircraft carriers, otherwise they'll need the support of other countries in the area. They won't really get to Iran without some sort of air passage/consent. It's unlikely that they'd be able to get to Iran without being detected by the countries they fly through if they were to try and do it covertly.

Saudi Arabia wouldn't risk letting Israel use their airspace to attack Iran. The US controls Iraq so they could allow Israel through but at the expense of just pissing everyone off in Iraq and probably starting a whole new war in that countrym which would end up killing even more US/Coalition soldiers for Israel. So I doubt they'd do that. Israel can't take the long way around using the sea. Really, there's no way they can do it without outside support.

I know I'm just arm chair military tactics, but looking at it in a simple way, they can't do it on their own. They don't have that level of force projection.

They've got a good military, Israel, but only in terms of dealing with their neighbours.

Not true. Israel can attack Iran without US support. It would just greatly increase risk and/or flight time for them.

Just look at a map. They have refueling tankers. There are multiple routes they can take that don't involve Iraq at all.

The long way round is way too risky for them IMO. I know people will say the risk of letting Iran have nukes is even greater. And then there's probably a general level of arrogance regarding Israel's military seeing as they've been able to wipe the floor with any threat. But something like that would probably be one step too far for them. They'd be able to do it but not in any meaningful way, except:

It would probably entice Iran into a proper war, which then the US/West would definitely get involved to help Israel. That might be the overral idea for Israel, to basically provoke Iran into a full war, sit back, and let everyone else then deal with them whilst taking the odd pot shot themselves.

If it does happen, that's how I think it will go down IMO. From there on shit will be quite bad though. I just hope the UK doesn't get involved. Why the fuck should the UK go around fighting and dying in wars for Israel and the USA when they don't exactly offer any support for the UK when it comes to shit, like the Falklands. I think this is something for countries like USA/Israel/France and Italy to do.

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Is a Nobel Peace Prize awardee allowed to start a war of aggression?
Or does being American override such oxymora anyway?

wasnt hitler times "man of the year" of someting like that?

The Bush family was happy doing business with the Nazis, so yes, probably.

And the Kennedys.

Mekstizzle wrote:

The long way round is way too risky for them IMO. I know people will say the risk of letting Iran have nukes is even greater. And then there's probably a general level of arrogance regarding Israel's military seeing as they've been able to wipe the floor with any threat. But something like that would probably be one step too far for them. They'd be able to do it but not in any meaningful way, except:

It would probably entice Iran into a proper war, which then the US/West would definitely get involved to help Israel. That might be the overral idea for Israel, to basically provoke Iran into a full war, sit back, and let everyone else then deal with them whilst taking the odd pot shot themselves.

The long way around is probably LESS risky overall than trying to fly through Syria, Turkey, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia (or any combination of those). They've got the tankers. It'll probably go down like the Syrian strike: it'll be over and the strikers will be well out of Iranian airspace before the rest of the world even knows it happened.

Mekstizzle wrote:

If it does happen, that's how I think it will go down IMO.

I think you're wrong. I think if it happens, it'll surprise the US as much as anyone. And we'll have to scramble to deal with the consequences in the Gulf.

Mekstizzle wrote:

From there on shit will be quite bad though. I just hope the UK doesn't get involved. Why the fuck should the UK go around fighting and dying in wars for Israel and the USA when they don't exactly offer any support for the UK when it comes to shit, like the Falklands. I think this is something for countries like USA/Israel/France and Italy to do.

No doubt. I think Obama's approach WRT the Falklands issue is fucking JV. With Chavez and other similar nutjobs siding with Argentina and our strongest ally looking at us like "What ya gonna do, mate?", his response is "We're going to remain neutral on this". Which is fucking ridiculous.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

wasnt hitler times "man of the year" of someting like that?

The Bush family was happy doing business with the Nazis, so yes, probably.

And the Kennedys.

people seem to ignore that...