Skip to comments.Israel Strikes Iran: Worst Case Scenario
Posted on 09/15/2012 1:22:49 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch
The tension in the Middle East is palpable. More potential triggers for regional conflict exist at this time, than any in recent memory. As Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Aviv Kochavi recently warned the IDF senior leadership during an annual situational assessment held Monday, August 27th, "It will be an environment dealing with a series of crises - regional and domestic - which raises the threshold of sensitivity of all the players and may lead - even without advance planning - to flare-ups."
While it's seemingly impossible to "expect the unexpected", it is possible to expect the worst and plan accordingly. For that reason, attempting to examine a "worst case scenario" for a future regional conflict is a useful thought exercise.
Imagine for a moment it's an unseasonably warm evening in October, Iranian Air Defense commanders are surveying their radars, and the coast seems clear. Suddenly the screen blips out. The commander attempts to reach his superiors in Tehran's Ministry Of Defense. There is no response. Israeli electronic- and cyber-warfare are targeting Tehran's air defense and command and control systems at the very moment that a large wave of fighter-bombers, representing the core strength of the IAF, come screaming overhead.
An Israeli Dolphin-class submarine surfaces at the limits of its 1500-km cruise missile range just long enough to launch, its missiles targeting the residences of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei, and top Iranian commanders in a decapitation strike. While some members of the Iranian high command are killed, the primary key figures, including Khamenei, survive.
Certainly interesting analysis. It goes specifically deeper than most I have seen; meaning a few moves deeper into the scenario. However, while it would be obvious that oil shoots up on the world market either from outright disruption of supply coming out of the Gulf, fearful speculation, or both, the author doesn’t address it here.
This would also have lasting impacts to other regions-—namely Asia. Does China’s economy finally hit the wall as a result? Knowing this, do they overtly try to influence events and ensure continuation of their oil supply militarily? I would say yes.
If various hits on the American soft targets take off, the resulting economic damage on that front, and any resulting civil liberty consequences.
Finally, the scenario presumes an Iranian nuclear program is only delayed. Therefore it is assumed inevitable that Iran or a proxy at some point will set off a nuke either against Israel or the USA, or both, in retaliation.
Holy Crap, I thought the balloon went up!
Thanks for the coronary ;o)
I have a feeling Iran will strike first, a dirty nuke smuggled in a shipping container will go off first. Iran will find some way to smuggle a nuke in by boat, by sub, or even by camel.
The best possible scenario: Israel nukes Iran. The sooner the better. Any other ideas are just fantasy on the Unicorn Farm.
Israel, let’s roll!
You’re forgetting the “other” nut-jobs with nukes, Pahkeestan!
“Worst case scenario” leaves out one major thing:
Obama “postpones” the election “indefinitely” due to the threat of all-out nuclear war in the Middle East as the situation is too critical to involve the transfer of the Presidency until things settle down - which they will never do, allowing him unlimited time as POTUS.
US citizens protest, nothing changes, then begin to revolt. Obama declares martial law, and posse commitus is instituted, with US military receiving orders to “control” the US population.
Large numbers of the military officers refuse to obey Obama (NOTE: oath sworn by officers and enlisted is DIFFERENT: Officer’s oath is to the Constitution; Enlisted oath is to the President), but some do. The military is rendered wholly ineffective.
Seeing chaos here, one of our big enemies - China or Russia - sees an opportune moment to take major action to permanently cripple the US and take turf around the world.
How’s that for Tom Clancy?
At this point in hindsight we should have seized the ME oil fields when we were over there in 91
You forgot because of all the chaos medical and food supplies are completely screwed up and we have riots and starvation and tens of millions of deaths
I think we’re the ones that will be hit with a dirty nuke. Venezuela’s detention of an American ship is worrisome. I don’t think it will come in a container. I think it will be installed in a ship or multiple ships in an area where it will not be detected. Once that ship enters the target port the weapon will be detonated. The ship will continue to carry freight as before with no change in routine.
This means any ship in a foreign port that undergoes repairs or is seized by pirates with the crew removed can be turned into a floating bomb.
I’m not convinced Israel will bomb all of the targets from the air. I think some will may be Entebbeed. They will be destroyed from the inside.
Check my tagline for a sure way to start the Middle East on the road to irrelevance.
They say our ports have the best in detection gear, they even claim they can detect a concealed nuke device embedded in a massive solid lead keel in a large sailboat.
And these agencies have been saying for almost ten years that Iran will be 12-24 months away from making a nuclear device.
Its all bullshit, these countries can just buy a surplus one from the russkies. And a nuke going off inside America may be just hours away, and we cannot do a damm thing about it.
The key to the worst case noted is missing the Iranian leaders.
The Iranian leaders must be killed or nearly killed, as in near mortal wounds, in the first strike. Perhaps two air craft should be delegated as a first strike on Hezbollah command.
Iran has already struck. The events currently unfolding are instigated by Iranian planners and implemented by surrogates.
Iran dose not dirty it’s hands. That is what they have paid staff and minions for.
We do not seize the property friends.
Besides, seizing and successfully occupying are totally different
When we have to send our military over to Gulf to keep the strait open as we did in the 80s when Iran and Iraq were going at it and when we have to send our military over to LIBERATE Kuwait and protect Saudia Arabia and keep a bunch of $$$$$$$$ Sheiks in power then we have the right to seize what we need since the producers are helpless
I like this scenario much better...more believable and very effective.
About the only un-surveiled assets the Israelis have are their sub-launched cruise missiles. Anything leaving Israel proper will be called-in to Iranian intel centers long before reaching Iran. It is presumable Iran could have a launch on warning policy.
I think it would be very difficult to take out their C4I before they would launch a counter strike. Their C4I is most likely the first target and it is reasonable there are multiple redundancies built into the system.
Didn’t forget! Just had to end the thing somewhere! ;-)
I like that option. I don’t think Israel will do it though.
One of the things that has been pointed out to me over the years is that the Islamics as a whole simply do not think or fight western style if they can avoid it. They prefer “subtlety” and letting others shed their blood to achieve their goals.
Part of that makeup is the usage of assassins, that too can be expanded into the concept of a tiny force achieving maximal impact. Terrorism fits that mold very well as well as the concept of WMD as long as it’s untraceable to the point of origin.
So with that out of the way, I too think that war in the middle east with Israel being used as the patsy and the “reason” is inevitable. The real targets though are the other Islamics involved, Shiite, Sunni, Wahhabi, Salafist and who knows how many other schisms there are now.
Because of that, I expect the usage of WMD’s are about to be deployed. Israel thinks “western” and will use Nuclear devices. The others though? They think “Islamic”, which is in many ways very different than “Eastern”. I expect them to use Chemicals and Disease if they can get away with it.
As for the United States, it’s a no win situation, no matter which way it goes over there. The best I think is to not be drawn in as “Mercenaries” using “Interests of the United States” as a reason. It’s time to let them shed their own blood and find out how utterly terrible modern warfare can be.
Kind of like the road to Munich approach - a Chamberlain take on the issue? Practical - looking at short term costs?
“At this point in hindsight we should have seized the ME oil fields when we were over there in 91”
We should have done that during the -first- “Arab oil embargo” of the early 1970’s.
If we had used force then, none of this would be happening today.
Can’t dispute that but the USSR was still a major power then and aiding the arabs