# What happens if Israel attack Iran?



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Israeli Cabinet Has Majority To Approve Attack On Iran.
http://centintel.com/israeli-cabinet-majority-approve-attack-iran/

I still don't think Israel will to do, but if it's happens what will be market reaction?
Will "military" stocks like TXI, LMT, RTN.... go up?
Will DBO (WTI), TVIX surge?
Will all indexes tank?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

We know for sure that Larry is only thinking about oil prices soaring in such an event, which in turn would destabilize the rest of the economy. 

I really rather not speculate about the aftermath, but we know well that China and Russia will be right behind Iran, just like they are supporting the terrorist Assad at present time. 

As you mentioned before gibor, 2012 is not the same as 1981, when Israel successfully destroyed the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq. Much has changed in 31 years, though unfortunately not for the better in that region.


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

Oil rise = i sell my inflated SU position

The rest of the stock market drop due to oil price = i buy quality stocks, on sale !


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

larry81 said:


> Oil rise = i sell my inflated SU position
> 
> The rest of the stock market drop due to oil price = i buy quality stocks, on sale !


I like your thinking!

Larry, don't know if you saw, but I sold my SU @ 36.42 and got back in at $34. Let's hope it hits $36+ again.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Israel needs bombers to get this job done. Israel does not have any bombers. Only the U.S. has the planes and bunker-buster bombs necessary to do the job and, even then, it would only be a temporary set-back for Iran who would be back in the bomb making business in a matter of months. By the way, just for the record, which side are Hamas and Al Qaeda on in Syria? They are with the ANTI-regime rebels!! Be careful what you wish for!!! Best we just stay completely out of that hornet's nest.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Larry81 is right and the end of this oil bull market will be a parabolic spike from an attack on Iran. After this issue cools down the recession will return and a market crash not far behind unless QE is unleashed again in a big way.


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> I like your thinking!
> 
> Larry, don't know if you saw, but I sold my SU @ 36.42 and got back in at $34. Let's hope it hits $36+ again.


Wow Good timing KaeJS ! Make sure you use that money to put some gaz in your car hihihi


----------



## Dibs (May 26, 2011)

Here are two articles that I think you will find quite interesting:

"What Happens if Israel Attacks Iran" - Barrons, Feb 11, 2012



> At the very least, the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf would be dramatically slowed if not completely cut off, in Friedman's view. Ships would have to be painstakingly convoyed behind minesweepers. Tanker insurance rates would soar, particularly if any of the huge vessels were sunk or badly damaged. Oil prices would be likely to spike vertiginously and cripple global economic growth.
> 
> "In such a circumstance, Israel would find itself as isolated from much of the world as Iran is presently," he says. "Israel may regard a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, but that's not necessarily true of the U.S., EU or most other developed nations. Oil priced at $300 a barrel would be a heavy price to pay for delaying Iran's crossing the nuclear arms threshold by a mere couple of years and giving Israel temporary peace of mind."


"Attacking Iran: Up in the air" - The Economist, Feb 25th 2012



> Israel has nuclear weapons itself, including submarine-based weapons that could posthumously annihilate any aggressor who destroyed the country. But this deterrent is not enough to stop Israelis from seeing a nuclear Iran as the precursor to a second holocaust. The problem is that military action will not necessarily bring about what Israel wants—and could, in the medium to long term, make matters worse.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

gibor said:


> What happens if Israel attack Iran?


A lot of innocent people get killed. That's usually what happens.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> A lot of innocent people get killed. That's usually what happens.


On other hand if not prevent Iran, probably much more innocent people will get killed.
btw, do you know how many innocent people were killed when Israel bombed Iraq nuclear plants in 1981?
And now imagine if Saddam would have nuclear weapon in 1991? I was living in 1991 in Israel and remember this "fun" experience when tens of SKADs every day were landing close by.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

gibor said:


> On other hand if not prevent Iran, probably much more innocent people will get killed.
> btw, do you know how many innocent people were killed when Israel bombed Iraq nuclear plants in 1981?
> And now imagine if Saddam would have nuclear weapon in 1991? I was living in 1991 in Israel and remember this "fun" experience when tens of SKADs every day were landing close by.


Hey, I am not saying that it doesn't need to get done. It's just too bad that human always have to fall back on our primal instincts. Killing each other. We are our only natural predator on this planet.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> On other hand if not prevent Iran, probably much more innocent people will get killed.
> btw, do you know how many innocent people were killed when Israel bombed Iraq nuclear plants in 1981?
> And now imagine if Saddam would have nuclear weapon in 1991? I was living in 1991 in Israel and remember this "fun" experience when tens of SKADs every day were landing close by.


Indeed, American & other forces may have faced a nuclear Iraq in the 1991/1993 Persian Gulf Wars had it not been for the Israelis, who successfully destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. And guess who had financed the Iraqis back then? [Clue and answer to gibor's 1st question in link below]. Apparently, subsequent reports in 1981/1982 had confirmed that Iraq, had in fact, been but a year away from having had WMD's, so the outcome of the last invasion of Iraq may also have had a very different outcome, had it not been for the Israelis. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

Ironically enough, Iran had tried to destroy the Osirak reactor during the Iran/Iraq war of 1980, but with little success [not surprisingly I might add]. 

The question now is, does the world [not just Israel], wait for a nuclear-ready Iran, or is a 'Preventive Strategy' justified given recent discoveries in Iran? 

Something to think about regarding the 'Just War Theory'.

*Just cause*
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

*Comparative justice*
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

*Competent authority*
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or a deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".[15]

*Right intention*
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

*Probability of success*
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

*Last resort*
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

*Proportionality*
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

Though Iran is not just a threat to Israel, many prefer to understand it that way just to blame Israel for whatever aftermath. *Who really today, believes that Iran is no nuclear threat to anyone?* Interestingly, though not surprising, some believe that Iran has never attacked anyone. Really? 

There was international outcry against Israel back in 1981 and no doubt same would be in 2012. Nothing has changed when it comes to blaming Israel for all the evils of this world. Israel, a tiny nation just trying to live in peace.

In 1981: "Begin's decision told the world that there would be no nuclear holocaust involving Israel in the Twentieth Century".


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

"Just cause for war" Ironic sounding isn't it. I prefer to view it as a laundry list of things a politician must do to avoid your citizens rioting and stop producing the materials needed for war.

It's never just from the point of view of those receiving your rod shaped steel spear of explosive potential.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

And so, how is a senior investor supposed to invest in an uncertain world? Is a portfolio of dividend growth stocks the best way to go? What portion of your overall portfolio should be in fixed income and what fixed income? Bonds? What sort of bonds? These are the ongoing difficult questions for older investors that is not so much of a dilemma for younger investors with long time horizons that can afford to throw caution to the wind and invest mainly in equities for their long term growth potential. For us old timers, one Black Swan event could throw the quality of our entire retirement into question. With that in mind, any equity allocation over 30 per cent seems to be quite chancy. I never thought that it would be so difficult as I approach 69 but, then again, the world seems to be in a bigger mess than ever. I guess that the boomers are the ones who have created the mess or at the very least, not made things much better. Bombs away!!!


----------



## bayview (Nov 6, 2011)

Ya Geopolitics is a tough call. It can be a swift war and normality returns fast or a long drawn -ala Afaganistan. Fortified your portfolio- raise cash, reduce higher risk holdings, hedging eg gold, options etc. A black swan like Israel Iran war is very difficult to anticipate the actual implications on global investments. If it's a messy long drawn affair even popular stocks like AAPL will experienced a selldown as portfolios' re-alloactions and redemptions take hold.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Nobody can tell you what to do because nobody knows what is going to happen in Europe, the Middle East, China, the U.S. etc. One thing that we can be pretty sure of is that the equity markets are not going to continue to rise at their current rate. We'll be lucky to end the year in positive territory but, then again, nobody knows.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

I think Belguy is going to be right if he sticks to his guns


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

According to the pro capitalists war is essential for business, as is increasing debt. As are any other problems because the solution will be profitable for many. This conflict of interest is sure to keep things unstable in the ME in some way. Of course for how long that is sustainable who knows. The real question is, what happens to your stocks if the ME was suddenly settled? There goes a massive chunk of the US economy and employment rates.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> According to the pro capitalists war is essential for business, as is increasing debt. As are any other problems because the solution will be profitable for many.


Sad, but true.

As for the ME, it will never settle. I don't believe in the bible, but for whatever it's worth (zer0) I think even the bible says the Middle East will always have unrest.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Israel already has been attacking Irans nuclear program. 

They do have operatives and aircraft capable of conducting attacks in Iran.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Israel already has been attacking Irans nuclear program.
> 
> They do have operatives and aircraft capable of conducting attacks in Iran.


I always was telling that much more preferable (instead of bombing) to perform diversions at nuclear plants and even better to support strong opposition leaders (if they exists) ... initiate civil war over there and Iranian will forget about U


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Israel already has been attacking Irans nuclear program.
> 
> They do have operatives and aircraft capable of conducting attacks in Iran.


Yes, there have been reports of explosions at Iran's nuclear facilities and uranium processing plants, though Iran had denied any such explosions. It is also likely that Israel alone, is not conducting such operations as they did back in 1981.

The idea thus far, has been to try to disrupt their current operations that are [allegedly] aimed at enriching uranium, which the Iranians say are for 'purely peaceful purposes', so in that case, why have they refused to follow the numerous Security Council resolutions, as well as allow wider inspection?

It is also believed that they are enriching uranium to make nuclear bombs, which the IAEA has recently said, that such operations are at 'medium-level enrichment stages'. So what comes after 'medium-levels'?

It is not only Israel by the way, but also many Arab states, who wish Iran's nuclear program to be destroyed for obvious reasons [just look what is happening in that entire region].


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> to support strong opposition leaders (if they exists)


They exist, but are they not under house arrest most of the time? We're talking about Iran, which is ruled by a repressive regime & Islamic theocracy. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17028794


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Why do Russia and China keep supplying arms to these nut cases in Iran? Do they not have interests in the world economy as well? I guess they figure that they have more to gain by selling weapons to Iran than they have to lose if Iran lets loose a nuclear bomb on Israel. It's way beyond my pay scale to try to rationalize their thinking. Apparently, the cold war never really ended because both Russian and China still seem to be on the other side of the great divide.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Toronto.gal said:


> They exist, but are they not under house arrest most of the time? We're talking about Iran, which is ruled by a repressive regime & Islamic theocracy.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17028794


Lybia and Syria also were ruled by dictators....


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Belguy said:


> Why do Russia and China keep supplying arms to these nut cases in Iran? Do they not have interests in the world economy as well? I guess they figure that they have more to gain by selling weapons to Iran than they have to lose if Iran lets loose a nuclear bomb on Israel. It's way beyond my pay scale to try to rationalize their thinking. Apparently, the cold war never really ended because both Russian and China still seem to be on the other side of the great divide.


All about money and politics... This is why US was selling weapon to Bin Laden in 80s


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Lybia and Syria also were ruled by dictators....


Yes, but Assad/Gaddafi were not considered saint & divine leaders. In Iran's election earlier this month, the Ayatollah & his radical ideology were the clear winners. I read someplace, that if the Ayatollah were Catholic, that the Iranians would have beatified him and indeed some Iranians were making similar comments during the election, that electing a 'religious' leader was very good for the country. There is a minor opposition, but makes no difference as the regime knows how to deal with them [with violence].

It is also said that most Iranians feel that they already had their Islamic revolution [in 1979] and that there is no need for an uprise.

"Iran’s government allows for two presidents, one divine, the other democratic. As divine leader, Mr. Khamenei holds most of the power levers, controlling the military, the judiciary and the state broadcasting services. The divine leader is also permanent, while elected presidents serve a maximum of eight years." 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/ali_khamenei/index.html


----------



## PharmD (Dec 21, 2011)

Toronto.gal,

I often enjoy your posts on financial matters, but please leave the topic of Iran. I have spent a significant amount of time in Iran and involved in issues related to Iran and can assure you that Iran's reality is very different from what you perceive. It may be unfair to pick on you as this is very common, but your last couple posts just put me on edge a bit. Despite it's many problems Iran is not a totalitarian dictatorship like in Syria or formerly Libya and has a relatively functioning civil society where significant degrees of dissent are tolerated (although to a limit) and the reformists have been very active and successful in the arts, intellectual, and cultural spheres although they have been recently under intense pressure in the political realm. The point is that it is not a democracy like we have, but it is not really a dictatorship either. 

Yes, there are some borderline crazy people in relatively high places in Iran, but their finger is never going to be on the trigger. The IRI has always shown in its actions, although not its rhetoric, to be primarily focused on self-preservation and if Mr. Khamenei is known for anything it is for being extremely cautious. Going forward I think that it is inconceivable that the IRI does not either moderate (and many moderates and reformists exist and are active) or it will harden and collapse. The one thing that will severely damage the reformist movement is an outside attack on Iran which could have unpredictable consequences. If some sort of attack is necessary we can only hope that it is limited and does not have wide-ranging consequences.

I don't want to paint too rosy of a picture of Iran, but I want people to understand that it is a complex land which is very diverse both ethnically and ideologically and it should not be treated like a land of incomprehensible genocidal crazy people. Personally I hope for a lot of changes in Iran and safety for all my friends. Maybe we are best left with Hafez:

Before the mortal world is shaken to it's roots,
shake us with a draught of rose-colored wine

And back to thoughts of money...


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Belguy said:


> Why do Russia and China keep supplying arms to these nut cases in Iran? Do they not have interests in the world economy as well? I guess they figure that they have more to gain by selling weapons to Iran than they have to lose if Iran lets loose a nuclear bomb on Israel. It's way beyond my pay scale to try to rationalize their thinking. Apparently, the cold war never really ended because both Russian and China still seem to be on the other side of the great divide.


The more that China and Russia can undermine US authority around the world without directly causing a war between any of these 3, the better it is for their country. A US collapse would mean that either Russia or China (or both) rise to fill in the void that is the US. THIS is their thinking and this is probably why they are not helping US to tame Iran. The next leaders of both countries are also from a more Anti-US branch of their political spectrum, while they are secretly removing the socialist minded people from power. Spreading the wealth is fine during peace time, but like it or not, here comes war. US is not in war anymore and is mostly in the retreating phase from the two war front. Afghanistan and Iraq, logic says that it won't be long before US reach battle readiness again. Therefore both country need people with military experience to prepare for what the US is about to do, just in case US is targeting them. Once a target is chosen and US is fully engaged in another war, the rest of the world can then sigh a sigh of relief saying "ah, it's not me this time." And we can go back to business as usual.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

PharmD said:


> 1. please leave the topic of Iran.
> 
> 2. I don't want to paint too rosy of a picture of Iran, but I want people to understand that it is a complex land which is very diverse both ethnically and ideologically....


1. PharmD: you and I are free to express facts and opinions on a public forum & I'm sure you realize that you have no right to silence me. 

2. I'm well aware of that & I'm very familiar with Iranian history/politics.

By all means, please do challenge anything that has been said/posted here. I promise that I will read with interest.


----------



## PharmD (Dec 21, 2011)

T.gal, I apologize if I was overly aggressive. Iran is very dear to my heart so when iread things like this thread it is hard for me to not be emotional. I would rather not discuss this issue on a financial forum as that is not its place and just hope that everyone remains safe.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> T.gal, I apologize if I was overly aggressive. Iran is very dear to my heart so when iread things like this thread it is hard for me to not be emotional. I would rather not discuss this issue on a financial forum as that is not its place and just hope that everyone remains safe.


I was very relieved to see your apology, PharmD, because I was appalled to see your original comment to Toronto.gal. Of course the situation in the Middle East has the potential to strongly influence the world economy; thus I see it as a perfectly legitimate topic on this forum. In any case, why would you think that you have a right to express your opinion, but TG does not? If you can't control your strong emotions on this subject, perhaps you are the one who should remove yourself from this thread.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

PharmD said:


> T.gal, I apologize if I was overly aggressive. Iran is very dear to my heart so when iread things like this thread it is hard for me to not be emotional. I would rather not discuss this issue on a financial forum as that is not its place and just hope that everyone remains safe.


Thank you for the apology PharmD!.

I do indeed understand some of your comments & fears, but we are all worried regardless whether we have connections to the place or not [and I do happen to have many friends in the ME region as well]. However, that is no reason to stay silent on the current threat facing the world.

IMHO, I don't think that you should dismiss [daily] 'rhetoric' so lightly; sometimes rhetoric becomes reality [policies]. 

Also, not sure what you meant by saying that Khomeini was an 'extremely cautious' man, for if he were, Youcef Nadarkhani would not potentially be facing execution for [alleged] apostasy, not to mention the nuclear threat issues, or are we not to believe anything that is reported?. The man IMO, is not cautious, he is very rigid and a fanatic in fact, who bases his rulings and decisions purely on dangerous religious ideology, and those are not my own 'perceptions' as you have described them, but unfortunate realities, so that is no democracy in any sense of the word, though you are quite right, that the Iranian system is not the same as the Arab one. 

And what about the unprecedented sanctions, why Iran has not backed down? Is this an 'extremely cautious' move in your view?

Even if you wanted to, you could not possibly 'paint too rosy of a picture of Iran'. Its arts/culture/language/music/rich history [present & past], has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

I do agree with you however, that the IRI will eventually collapse, if it refuses to moderate; its economy is already in shatters due to global sanctions, plus there are many other political problems, so it can only get worse with time, unless something changes and fast. As for the reformist movement being damaged by a potential nuclear attack, I'm not so sure about that, in fact, it could have the opposite effect.

*Karen:* thanks for your comments/support.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

And imagine if the U.S. were to elect Santorum for President!! Then we would have leaders on both sides who feel that God is on their side. Religion is the cause of most wars.


----------



## gimme_divies (Feb 12, 2011)

Belguy said:


> Religion is the cause of most wars.


No, religion is the front used to justify wars that are really all about resources and power and this particular case is no different.


----------



## moneyisfornothing (Feb 18, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> We know for sure that Larry is only thinking about oil prices soaring in such an event, which in turn would destabilize the rest of the economy.
> 
> I really rather not speculate about the aftermath, but we know well that China and Russia will be right behind Iran, just like they are supporting the terrorist Assad at present time.
> 
> As you mentioned before gibor, 2012 is not the same as 1981, when Israel successfully destroyed the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq. Much has changed in 31 years, though unfortunately not for the better in that region.


well, the sabres rattled on oil and gold markets today.
never say never.
in case of an attack oil will spike at least 25 bux in the first hour.
as for Gibor's comments that things are different today , I completely disagree.
If the attack is necessary it will happen.


----------



## moneyisfornothing (Feb 18, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> Thank you for the apology PharmD!.
> 
> I do indeed understand some of your comments & fears, but we are all worried regardless whether we have connections to the place or not [and I do happen to have many friends in the ME region as well]. However, that is no reason to stay silent on the current threat facing the world.
> 
> ...


hmmmm

as usual very polite .
been reading ur posts and they are very interesting.
I think you forgot to mention to PharmD that the rulers of Iran denied the holocaust and also want the Israeli Annihilation.
Basically we call it the Armageddon, where Israel will have no option but to deploy their nukes.But anyway lets get back to trading right?


----------

