(No kids, please) In a war between Iran and Israel, who would triumph?

Question

Only the educated and knowledgable, please. I've seen things like this go down badly, so let's exclude the "Israel sucks!" and "Iran sucks!" crowd: does anyone have a source to compare armies, strategies and likelihoods of victory between these two countries?

Appreciating the answers thus far. To those who mentioned Israel's nukes, yes, and they also have a superior air force, but how can Iran's 1-million-man army factor into this? The Shi'ites in Iraq have their hands full with the anti-American, anti-Shi'ite insurgency, so I doubt their contributions would be helpful.

Crusader, I think it's very unlikely that Israel would nuke Iran, let alone those other Arab cities. Nuking means "now hit me with everything you got", and that would be bad enough with Iran already (with a formidable Russian-made weapons closet), let alone all these other ones. An Israeli nuclear attack is only likely if it's the last resort, as even other nations (Europe, Asia) might turn against Israel if it does so.

To all those who object to the question: I DON'T want to see a war there or anywhere else, but that's the way the situation seems to be heading right now, and it's only natural to ask such a question.

Answer 1

Let’s look at each country separately first:

ISRAEL
-----------
Israel is a small country surrounded by other countries that aren't exactly sympathetic to the Israeli freedom cause. Their army is well trained and well funded so you can be sure that in a fight, they would know what to do. Also remember that America backs Israel in many ways and that would make the USA a really good ally in a war (especially against Iran who the USA isn't too fond of either). Also Israel would probably get support from others. Iran's leader declared a desire to 'wipe it off the map'. So other countries could see this as an attempt to cash in on this promise. Israeli support wouldn't be short.

IRAN
-------
Iran's movement to war wouldn't be good at all. Technically it might be able to defeat Israel though numbers since Iran dwarfs Israel in size and probably military force (know nothing about their armed forces really).
However Iran hasn't gained much world-wide support recently. Apart from the leader’s extremely hostile comments to Jews and Israel (denying holocaust, wanting Israel wiped), it also has that controversial nuclear program. The idea of nuclear weapons in Iran's hand worries more than a few and many could say that Iran possibly might use them on Israel in order to cash in on its promise for Israel's fall.

OUTCOME (if this ever happened)
--------------------------------------
Iran would strike first on Israeli soil. Israel would know not to attack someone much bigger than themselves.

Iran's attack would cause George W. Bush to rally against the Iranian forces against Israel, using the Iranian leader words as a main reason for intervention.

Soon after a coalition force (made up of the US, UK and others) would be sent to Israel to aid its military for defence. Like how US got supporters for Iraq but I'd say after the global negativity towards the Iraq war, support would be in a lesser number if US suggested Iran and military force.

The UN would probably send in peacekeepers to Israel but in the long run hand out sanctions to Iran.

Eventually I’d say that Israel would be saved from any extreme damage and Iran would have to pay significantly for its hostilities in today’s heavy anti-war times.

Now as for nuclear weapons… I couldn’t even begin to imagine what that would bring about.

Answer 2

Israel has the capability to run a lightning-type war against anyone in the mideast. If it can cripple Iran dramatically early by airpower and heavy artillery, it can get troops on the ground enough to fight a sustained war. However, the Shiites from Iraq probably would aid Iran, which may make a decisive victory long in coming.

Answer 3

I think your remark, "An Israeli nuclear attack is only likely if it's the last resort, as even other nations (Europe, Asia) might turn against Israel if it does so," practically answers your question. I doubt seriously, though, if other countries would blame them for reaching their saturation point in enduring attack after attack, bombing after bombing, invasion after invasion. They are entitled to defend what they hold dear. So yes, they would attack only as a last resort, and other nations, even though they might not come to Israel's aid, will not fault them since they are not the aggressors.



I know for a fact that Israel is a peace-loving nation and only wants to be left alone so they can concentrate on the constructive things they produce, rather than the destructive aspects that threaten their society. While it's true that Israeli's are brought up learning to be fighters, they have found that it's necessary only to defend themselves against all the other Middle East countries that are trying to infringe on their territory, such as the recent Gaza Strip fiasco. Being the pacifists that they are at heart, they gave up that territory, thinking it would generate peace with the Egyptians. But there still exists, invasions and bombings and terroristic threats. Israel is probably one of the few countries in the world that is not an aggressor. If it were up to it solely, Israel could be one of the most progressive nations in the world in terms of scientific discovery, technology, production, world trade, health and education, tourism -- the list goes on, and would rival or even surpass the United States in achievement and productivity. War is actually the furthest thing from Israel's mind, but they have to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves. I can't really give that much credit to any other country, particularly Iran. What has Iran ever done for society except, like it's neighbors, cause or threaten to cause violence and trouble?

Since good triumphs over evil, I would give my vote to Israel -- hands (or weapons) down!

Answer 4

First, I do not see there being any conventional armed conflict between Iran and Israel. This would be well nigh impossible. No Arab nations would allow Iran military to pass through, nor could Iran mount any type of invasion otherwise.

Likewise, Israel would also be similarly limited.

So that leaves airstrikes and, necessarily, the unthinkable. Airstrikes would be difficult for either country, as they could not pass over any adjacent countries without provoking incidents.

That leaves the unthinkable. But is it really that unthinkable? In the 1930's, people, including Jews, ignored the anti-semitic rantings of a socialist nutjob. Tens of millions of dead people later (including over 6 million Jews), the lesson was learned - take the threat seriously.

So now, what you have is a radical militant theocracy, with a terrorist nutjob as figurehead, who scream, "Death to Israel", who vow to wipe Israel off the map, and who are developing nuclear weapons. Israel is too small to absorb a nuclear attack, and may feel forced to act because the threat is to their very existance.

It's not really that unthinkable or that inexcusable. They're not going to sit on their thumbs betting their lives on the sanity and humanity of a ranting militant radical Muslim. I wouldn't either.

Answer 5

Who would triumph? Lets hope if this happens that after a few skirmishes they both are bruised bad enough to quit! An all out war would bring the entirety of western civilization to war with the Muslim religion. Lets keep in mind that the west would be outnumbered 4 to 1. Advanced Weapons systems would even that disadvantage to 1:1
I think the one who would triumph would be the undertaker!

Answer 6

interior the famous conflict, there is in basic terms one sparkling thank you to outline if somebody gained or lost - did they gain the objectives the conflict became declared for. interior the case of 2006 Israel - Hezbollah conflict, there became no loser. Israel's objective became a series of retaliatory strikes against Hezbollah - which they did. observe that there became no sparkling-decrease objective at the same time with "smash opponent's communications" or "kill all opponent's leaders". Hezbollah's objective became to stay to tell the tale with minimum casualties - which additionally they did. If Israel comes to a decision to attack Iran, the region would be thoroughly distinctive. Israel's objective often is the destruction of Iranian nuclear software (besides as, doubtlessly, crippling their key militia marketplace and guidance camps). Iranian nuclear scientists will in all probability be evacuated interior the 1st hours of attack - however the production flowers are actually not that easily moved. If Israel manages to ascertain air dominance and suppress Iranian anti-airplane materials (it is strictly the place the better technologies concerns the main), they'd desire to have an person-friendly time to attain those objectives. This, of path, assuming that Israel has an air-strike hall from certainly one of Iranian associates. they have not any effortless border, so Israel will the two would desire to violate somebody's airspace, or have somebody to grant a hall. There are rumors that Saudi Arabia has already agreed to grant its airspace - yet no individual who knows for a certainty if it is the case, for sure, will proportion this guidance.

Answer 7

In an open, army to army war, Israel has better tactics, equipment, and personnel than Iran. In all likelihood, they would quickly take out the Iranian air force and establish air superiority over the battlefield (probably in Jordan if this was a real fight). They would then slaughter the ground forces sort of like the US did in Gulf War I on the way to Baghdad. If it looked like Israel would lose or be overrun, they would probably go nuclear to take out the bulk of the Iranian army. To be safe, they would also probably take out Damascus, Tehran, and Amman to ensure Syria was too crippled to take advantage of them while they put their army back together.

Answer 8

Israel just got it's a*s kicked in Lebanon, so why should it do any better in Iran. It could always nuke Iran, but it better be careful which way the wind is blowing.

Answer 9

nobody ever actually "wins" a war. How many children/mothers/fathers/friends die, even if you have more standing up than the other side?

Ok, getting off my rant, now.

Answer 10

No-doubt Iran would win!