Anyway, my point is that many fanatics from all of these countries that i mentioned, would answer the call for Jihad against Israel just as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq against the US and NATO forces. Israel will have to deal with the same problems as US-troops do in Iraq at the moment, but on a larger scale. They would get more determined if they know they are backed by a country that harbours nuclear capacity and offers a sanctuary for so called "freedom fighters".
The difference between the current US operations (Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom) and any future Israeli operation against Iran is that the US has boots on the ground. And a very large footprint at that! The US has a vast logistics and support system that can ensure that the US presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and surrounding nations remains at a level where operations can persist.
Israel does not have this ability. The IDF (surface elements) is geared for defensive wars and pre-emptive, short range punches. Israel cannot support boots on the ground in a place as far away as Iran, so the issue of fighting an insurgency like the US is doing in both OIF and OEF will not exist. Besides, the last time Israel was up in Lebanon they got given a bloody nose and caught unprepared by holding onto their historic military successes. Hezbollah has made some technological advances with their surface to surface missiles and UAV capability.
Surgical strikes will only postpone the inevitable. I don't believe that kinetic strikes alone will ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. Unless the strikes are sustained over a year or longer there will be no way of enforcing a stop to Iran's ambitions. Israel cannot sustain this, nor is it feasible from a political or tactical stand-point.
Politically, the US cannot permit a sustained Israel air dominance over Iran, especially once collateral damage reports reach the media. The worldwide public outrage and political backlash will be bigger than anything the US is prepared to handle.
Tactically, after the first strike, let alone after a day worth of aerial strikes, the element of surprise will be lost. Any successive sorties will have a risk that will increase exponentially over time.
Israel will need a different approach, or at least augment a strike with a more persistent form of deterrence. Sabotage may be one option, but something that can be countered after the first few events. Political pressure on countries assisting Iran probably won't work. Targeted assassinations until a more favourable government takes over? Maybe extremely high altitude UAVs with JDAMs that are out of the reach of Iranian SAMs will provide Israel the ideal aerial strike persistence over a longer term.
In the event of a strike I believe Iran will attempt to fight back by proxy, as it has done in the past. Hezbollah and perhaps even the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But this will be difficult unless Israel moves into foreign territory. I doubt Iran or any asymmetrical force fighting on Iran's behalf will be able to fight its way into Israel; that is the one thing Israel trains for more than anything. Just looking at their MBT, the Merkava; it is designed to fight defensive wars and ensure crew survivability.
The other options is artillery and rockets, similar to what Iraq did in the early 90s. But to do this, Iran would need to put their artillery units on alert and any indication that shows these units are going active will force the US to destroy them. Having Iraq between Israel and Iran may well work in Israel's favour.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
