Why is it US foreign policy to support Israel in a hypothetical war with Iran?
In the history of relations between U.S and Israel I don't see anything that Israel has ever done for the US to deserve such an alliance.
|show 6 more comments|
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
Let me have a go in answering this question. Why should the US help Israel in a war against Iran. There is no real military reason that would stop the US. You commented on the Iranian ballistic missils, So far, according to Obama, who would have nothing to gain by lying(1) the Iranian missiles are only capable of reaching Europe, not America. There for, the US is under no threat by Iranian Nukes. However, it is true that, like in the first Iranian US conflict, (forgot the name) the Navy would, in a war situation, have a tough time. However, the missiles you mentioned we designed to hit "big submarines" rather than ships or planes. You might say that these torpedos are destructive to ships because of their speed, but what you are forgetting is that the tech used to sink ships is the torpedo. It is not used to blow a hole in the ship as most people think, but rather to create a air bubble so big that the change in pressure under the ship buckles the frame and sinks the ship( the torpedo never impacts). The picture that you show shows a torpedo above water, and this video shows the torpedo flying through the air and impacting the ship tiny ship (no aircraft carrier). This looks to me more like a shock weapon, rather than a useful one. In the event of a war. I very much doubt that the USA would spend its time fighting ship on ship in the gulf. (the straits are slightly different) Rather, the US, would use, what they built the aircrafts carriers for and strike from a distance. Now on a land war, I'd assume it would end much like Iraq; a destructive air strike, that buried troops in their bunkers and trenches, and killed officials in their offices. The next day, overwhelming force would come and take over Tehran. Militarily, America is under no treat by Iran.
Economically, the situation is very different. The US relies on oil going through the Persian Gulf, and so, the oil trade would hurt the US. However, in the long run, it could be beneficial to America; it could destroy OPECS dominance, and perhaps help persuade the US to invest in sustainable energy.
The more important aspect of this answer is, is there a different and more efficient solution to the possible senario that Israel attacks Iran. If we look at the motives of each nation, we can see a much simpler way out. What Israel wants is no danger from Iranian missils, so they'd be happy to attack and destroy Iran's. calutron Iran knows it will never be able to face the US in battle, and instead, is hoping to be a power the the region. To do that, Iran cannot let the attack go unvanquished. As a result, they counter attack. At this point, America would be wisest to mediate. Ask Iran to stop it's program, and offer to succeed a portion of it's power. In this case, everyone wins. America avoids war, Iran gains face, and Israel is saved (for now) from a nuclear threat.
The US has no trouble taking on Iran militarily, but knows that there is a much more economic way to fix the solution, politics and the UN. In other words, the reason to stay out of the conflict is because there is a solution that everyone is happy with.
Obama would gain nothing by lying because to lie that nukes would reach the USA would scare the US into war, when as stated in the paragraph above, there is a better solution than war.
This question is about future history, but it is not true that
Only one percent 1% of Iranian torpedo is enough to destroy the entire U.S navy in the Persian Gulf.
This is most stupid thing I have ever heard, because the U.S navy lost before the war began.
Just take a look at this ballistic missile.
And my answer is Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta answer to this question:
A diplomatic solution with Iran is still possible, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Wednesday. “We have always expressed a willingness to try do that,” Panetta said at a Pentagon briefing. Panetta was responding to a report from Iran that said President Barack Obama had proposed direct talks in a letter passed to Iranian leadership. Panetta refused to comment about specific communications but said diplomacy is always an option to pursue.