[CA Conservative]

Based on what I know, I believe Israel will use the military airport in Greece.

Greece is in the opposite direction from Iran, so that would make the flight even longer, and would still require them to fly over either Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Jordan and Iraq - I don't see the benefit to your idea.

[Kenny Bunk]

"Attack Iran" are militarily foolish words. Iran is larger than all of Western Europe. It contains vast deserts, remote mountain ranges, scattered cities a thousand miles apart. The thought that an airstrike ... even a nuclear air strike ... is going to ...quickly ... knock out Iran ... or even its nuclear capability ...is bullshiite. ICBM's, Cruise Missiles, one-way drone attacks might get their attention, but neither would this strategy knock out Iran. For example, look how long a military joke like Libya resisted NATO air attacks. And that was with a full blown rebellion on the ground, which we certainly would be foolish to count upon in Iran.

While this putative "attack" is underway, 15 or twenty missiles a day would be on their 15 minute ride to Israel's major population centers. "Attacking Iran" is the 21st Century equivalent of the Allied attack on Germany. It is not some Air Force operation that will be over in a week.

The place to be based for an air attack on Iran is Afghanistan or Turkmenstan, or Azerbaijan. Israel has no bases there. We do. But that could still be a 3,000 mile round trip for some missions in NW Iran. That's work for aerially refueled B-1, B-2, and B 52 squadrons, which Israel does not possess.

Attack Iran? Not bloody likely by anyone because it would be an all-out effort requiring Ground, Air, and Naval Forces, in addition to ICBM's and Cruise Missiles by the hundreds. The Iranian Shiites would be happy to sacrifice a million KIA. We are not.