will the US and/or Israel execute an overt air strike against Iran by 12/31/12?

[© tweed]

Intrade puts it at around 1 in 3 chance of yes.

[dead0man]

I'm leaning towards no.

[Redalgo]

I think not but then again I have never been any good at making predictions.

[Bacon King]

Lean no; the 33% odds sound about right, maybe slightly on the high side.

[Silent Hunter]

No - Iran is still a long way from a bomb.

[Cory]

I honestly have no idea. Bibi might attack before out of fear of Obama being re-elected.

[The Mikado]

I've been hearing about how this was "imminent" since 2005.

[dead0man]

Is it the same people (the kneejerk, anti-Americans/Israeli block...they need a better name than that) voting "yes" every time this poll comes up?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I've been hearing about how this was "imminent" since 2005.

Exactly.  I don't see it happening now.

I honestly have no idea. Bibi might attack before out of fear of Obama being re-elected.

Nope.  Not a chance.

[Cory]

I honestly have no idea. Bibi might attack before out of fear of Obama being re-elected.

Nope.  Not a chance.

Why exactly? Also, do you think they would act in 2013 if Romney becomes President? Because unless Iran "gives in", Israel is going to have to strike Iran at some point to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think it's absurd to think that Netanyahu would do anything purely based on who is elected President.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Question on the phrasing of the topic title (I know, it's directly taken from Intrade):

Would something like a covert air strike even be possible in the case of Iran or is adding the word "overt" pretty much redundant?

[Bacon King]

Question on the phrasing of the topic title (I know, it's directly taken from Intrade):

Would something like a covert air strike even be possible in the case of Iran or is adding the word "overt" pretty much redundant?

Definition of the terms, from Intrade:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The part that I emboldened should answer your question

[Middle-aged Europe]

^^

Well, not exactly.

I asked whether a thing like a "non-overt/covert air strike" would even be possible. Are there any historical examples for an aerial bombardment where the identity of the bomber remained a total mystery or where the bomber (successfully) denied any responsibility?

How is this supposed to happen in Iran's case? Iran's nuclear installations suddenly explode and we'll never find out who did it? Doubt that. As far as military operations go, air strikes are probably almost impossible to cover up, so the American and/or Israeli media would figure everything out pretty fast. At which point the U.S./Israeli government would have to admit the whole thing anyway.

[Platypus]

US: no chance.
Israel: Lean yes.

[Cory]

I think it's absurd to think that Netanyahu would do anything purely based on who is elected President.

Why? Are you saying that who's President doesn't impact the situation? Nation's have been taking each others domestic political situation into consideration when making decisions for some time now. You may disagree but the notion is by no means "absurd", especially when dealing with a nation that has a very close special relationship with the United States.

[dead0man]

^^

Well, not exactly.

I asked whether a thing like a "non-overt/covert air strike" would even be possible. Are there any historical examples for an aerial bombardment where the identity of the bomber remained a total mystery or where the bomber (successfully) denied any responsibility?

Sure.  It happens all the time to countries with sh**tty air defense that nobody cares about.  S.Sudan claims they get bombmed by Sudan all the time, but they have little solid proof (other than blown up oil equipment) and Sudan denies it happened.  Hell, a couple of days ago S.Sudan managed to shoot down a Mig-29 and Sudan then claimed they didn't do it and that they didn't even have any Mig-29s (they do).  But these are poor, brown people fighting slightly less poor, slightly less brown people so we don't care very much.  Even if we had a thread about it, it wouldn't get more than a post or two.  Meanwhile we have Why do gay dudes have sex in bathrooms and yet another Family Guy thread getting multiple pages.  Clearly those are more important than Iran trying to blow up multiple embassies in Azerbaijan.(because to accept/acknowledge that would fly in the face of the meme that the US/Israel would be the aggressor nations if they attack)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if done perfectly they could get away with it....but as the only people capable of it, it would still clearly be us.

[politicus]

An Israeli attack (with or without US assistance) would be legitimate self defence. Sometimes the best defence is a preventive attack.

[ag]

Neither will. A nasty unresolved conflict isn's something that anybody needs. The Netaniyahu gov't is using the "Iranian threat" to divert Israeli public opinion (and, less successfully, the foreign opinion) from what really matters. Actual bombing will make it obvious that there is nothing that can be done to prevent Iran (or somebody else in the area) from getting the nukes in the middle-term.  Doing that, at the cost of some random, not very efficient, but damaging missile strikes and all the attendant problems, is not in anyone's interest.

And, yes, Middle East will, most likely, be generally nuclear within the next 25 years. Nasty, but one will have to learn to live with it.

[Silent Hunter]

^^

Well, not exactly.

I asked whether a thing like a "non-overt/covert air strike" would even be possible. Are there any historical examples for an aerial bombardment where the identity of the bomber remained a total mystery or where the bomber (successfully) denied any responsibility?

No, I don't think there is. While US stealth aircraft or a Tomahawk cruise missile could certainly get in without being detected (and in the stealth aircraft's case, out), it's very difficult to disguise an air strike as something else, especially with modern forensic techniques.