Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The writer failed to discuss the type of war. No one invisions an all out land war - simply for the fact that Israel and Iran DO NOT JOIN BORDERS. And it's not like they have an aircraft carrier fleet or friendly neighboring nation nearby to use as a base to launch one. For that simple fact alone - this article is worthless. There will be some financial impact, as instability in the middle east always seems to, but the impact will not be calamoutous and it will be quickly over.
A war would, thus, be limited - air strikes by Israel, missle strikes by Iran. Once israel achieves it's goals (if even possible) of damaging Iran's nuclear capability, it will be over.
Why do we know this? Because it happened before. Israel sent bombers to damage Iran's nuclear test sites, and that was it. It was over and done in about 1 hour. Of course now Iran has hardened bunkers, so Israel would have to use some sophisticated hardware to destroy these nuclear sites. Iran may have some methods of missle retaliation - but why? They are much more effective just arming Hamas to throw missles over from Gaza.
But - I can't envision a massive land war an any practical scenario. People can play arm chair general as much as they want, but it's not happening, for logistical/practical reasons alone.
The writer failed to discuss the type of war. No one invisions an all out land war - simply for the fact that Israel and Iran DO NOT JOIN BORDERS. And it's not like they have an aircraft carrier fleet or friendly neighboring nation nearby to use as a base to launch one. For that simple fact alone - this article is worthless. There will be some financial impact, as instability in the middle east always seems to, but the impact will not be calamoutous and it will be quickly over.
A war would, thus, be limited - air strikes by Israel, missle strikes by Iran. Once israel achieves it's goals (if even possible) of damaging Iran's nuclear capability, it will be over.
Why do we know this? Because it happened before. Israel sent bombers to damage Iran's nuclear test sites, and that was it. It was over and done in about 1 hour. Of course now Iran has hardened bunkers, so Israel would have to use some sophisticated hardware to destroy these nuclear sites. Iran may have some methods of missle retaliation - but why? They are much more effective just arming Hamas to throw missles over from Gaza.
But - I can't envision a massive land war an any practical scenario. People can play arm chair general as much as they want, but it's not happening, for logistical/practical reasons alone.
Did you read the whole story? It's hard to believe that Israel will stand for any other country in the region having nukes no matter if they border them or not.
It helps to remember that Israel's big brothers America & the UK will provide all the help they need to defend themselves up to an including arms out the whazoo!
Why do we know this? Because it happened before. Israel sent bombers to damage Iran's nuclear test sites, and that was it. It was over and done in about 1 hour. Of course now Iran has hardened bunkers, so Israel would have to use some sophisticated hardware to destroy these nuclear sites. Iran may have some methods of missle retaliation - but why? They are much more effective just arming Hamas to throw missles over from Gaza.
Actually it was Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2008.
Both times there was neither widespread panic in world markets nor a regional war.
Most people like to talk but few want to do the dirty work. If Israel does the dirty work with Iran most of the region will be quite pleased secretly. You'll have some thug dictators and other whiny liberals blow hard in the UN, but really for most countries it will be thumbs up behind the curtains.
Both times there was neither widespread panic in world markets nor a regional war.
Most people like to talk but few want to do the dirty work. If Israel does the dirty work with Iran most of the region will be quite pleased secretly. You'll have some thug dictators and other whiny liberals blow hard in the UN, but really for most countries it will be thumbs up behind the curtains.
You are correct sir - that was Iraq (and Syria). I do hope Israel does the dirty work and you are indeed correct, the leaders of the other Arab states would be all bluster but secretly they would be please that Iran is b*tch slapped down. Nothing destabilizes a region more than Nukes, and Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, etc will be overjoyed (allthough they can't make it public) that Iranian nuclear efforts are ceased.
We just need to ship Israel a load of our bunker busters and let them do their thing.
So glad this isn't posted in the politics section. You would have all sorts of crazy conspiracy responses by now.
Did you read the whole story? It's hard to believe that Israel will stand for any other country in the region having nukes no matter if they border them or not.
It helps to remember that Israel's big brothers America & the UK will provide all the help they need to defend themselves up to an including arms out the whazoo!
And did you read my post? We both agree on that, what we don't agree on is the premise of the article on the financial impact - because they incorrectly assume an extended land based conventional war will occur between Iran and Israel. I submit that that scenario is almost impossible, for a multitude of reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.