MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL & IRAN - A DIFFERENT SCENARIO

Consider this: Common believe is that if ISRAEL conducts an airstrike on IRAN, the consequences for ISRAEL will be chaos, bloodshed and a high casualty rate after hundreds of missiles strike ISRAEL.

Strategic analysts however speculate with a different outcome, they claim that the problem is not that IRAN would fire 300 missiles at ISRAEL in two days, but rather, that they would do the opposite – fire only 5 or 6 missiles each month, but keep doing it for 2 years.

The results of such scenario would be rather devastating. ISRAEL’S airspace would be closed down. As a result of which Airplanes would not be taking off, ships carrying goods would not be arriving at ISRAEL’S ports, life would come to a basic standstill, and the economy would be paralyzed.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV OR DRONE) ATTACK VERSUS CONVENTIONAL AIR ATTACK

It is interesting that mainstream media speculations regarding ISRAEL’S alleged airstrike on IRAN in the not too distant future; refrain from mentioning the option of UAV usage instead of high numbers of manned fighter bombers.

UAV’S would probably do the job more efficient, under stealth and without risking pilot’s lives and in case of capture, being used as a political bargain chip for IRAN.

Could it be that the alleged downing of a US UAV by IRAN was a strategic move by the US in order to portray UAV’S as vulnerable so as to distract from a possible large scale drone attack on IRAN instead of conventional air force operations?

Mainstream media obediently focuses on information provided to them, claiming that ISRAEL would needing at least 100 fighter bombers to achieve and efficient airstrike on IRAN and at the same time question ISRAEL’S ability to conduct such large-scale operation. That way the public is diverted from a much more realistic and efficient option of a large scale UAV attack on IRAN.

Comment:

Despite current media hype evolving around an alleged ISRAELI attack on IRAN, it is the opinion of the author that such attack will not occur. Such rhetoric’s are part of a complex strategic bargaining game, played in order to establish the new sets of rules for a “reformed” Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape.