Iran has learned a lesson from Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007. Over the years, Tehran has deliberately dispersed key elements of its program across the country — placing some in hardened and deeply buried facilities — to make it difficult for an attacker to eliminate the program in a single strike. Tehran is also engaged in a concerted denial and deception campaign intended to obfuscate the status and location of its nuclear sites. Iran presents a significant intelligence challenge for its adversaries. Any would-be attacker would need to possess an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the program’s layout, the tactical capability to hit a large and protected target set, and the ability to manage the consequences of an attack.
Israel Should keep in mind that it would not be very easy for her to attack on Iran excepting following term followed strictly
A. Permission/co- operation with USA.
B. Permission to cross the sky border of KSA, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey etc.
C. Iran is a big country, and its nuclear facility are not concentrated in one town. Rather it is localted in mountain areas,
D. The interest prevail in Persian Gulf region would be hampered through an counter attack from Iranian response.
E. Iran is the most influencer of Iraqi Shia’s & it would try better to indueced them to destroy the interest of USA in middleeast region
A. I suppose Israel would be getting the US approval (either ‘openly’ or otherwise)
B. I suppose Israel would be getting approval of KSA, UAE, Kuwait and Turkey, not so sure about Iraq.
C. known.
D. If UAE, KSA and Kuwait would give permission than they would have to accept whatever follows.
E. ?
To me it appears that after having received the warning letters from spiritual head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and very true analysis from ex MOSSAD chief, Israeli PM seems to have understood the complications of this war. It looks gone in pending for the time being.
not so convinced…. let’s wait and see…. (and pray…)
But on what your convictions are based? I said held in abeyance not ruled out.
I think – as usual – it serves every ones purpose to sort of ‘keeping the problem dragging on’. After all, if the war would be over we would have to make peace, and that is not what these guys want.
On the other hand there will be some guys who say ‘let’s get it over with’.
It is a game of ‘who will loose his nerves first’.
Dangerous games….