[GK3]

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely.

I am absolutely certain Israel has no intention if fighting a "land war" in Iran. They just don't have the mass to even attempt it. It is also too far away. Israel hasn't got the sealift to get their troops there. Syria and Iraq can't impede Israel in the air but they can on the ground. Israel may establish one or more temporary airheads but they can't establish a persistent presence. Israel knows this. The US administration will not put boots on the ground. It is too politically unpopular among many other very good reasons.
 
The country of Iran will not just disappear. There are a plethora of articles on the net discussing what a successor to the present government might look like. IMO Israel intends to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capability. That is Israel's proximate goal. They also intend to destroy whatever air defense Iran has remaining. Israel will also destroy all the nuclear facilities that it can. These war aims are reasonably within their grasp. Israel has no illusions that there will be a "peace conference" or "peace treaty" signed to "end the war". Israel is hoping for a regime change occurring fairly soon, but they are not counting on it. They would like a government in Iran that will renounce any enrichment capability, will stop aiding the previous Iranian proxy forces, and will not build ballistic missiles to use against Israel. A "formal" agreement, while nice to have, isn't necessary. Such a public "surrender" may not happen, but a de facto one will do.
 
Failing any such agreement, Israel will accept an Iran that has no air defenses so that Israel can at any time kinetically "veto" Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile activities. Israel can also inflict economic devastation when "necessary". That is Israel's plan B. The major problem problem with this plan is that Israel needs the US to destroy the underground nuclear facilities that Israel cannot. IMO they expected we would have done that by now. We haven't, and there is no assurance that we will. Even if we do decide to do it, it is unclear when that would be. The second problem is that Iran's ballistic missile forces have proved more resilient than Israel apparently planned. Given how well everything else has gone, this is undoubtedly a surprise. Israel may or may not be running low on Arrow missiles. IMO Israel may have read its own product brochures and believed their missiles were 100% effective. They aren't. No anti-missile system is. IMO this is a "manageable" problem for Israel. The first problem is not.

Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles

Not fast enough to matter much. Same with Iranian ballistic missiles. It is a "come as you are" war.

and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?

Israel needs bombs from the US. It also needs all kinds of spare parts. We will provide them if history is any guide. There is enough of an Israel lobby in the US that we will not withhold this kind of aid as long as there is any doubt that Israel is going to "win". IMO this administration will not even refuse such supplies to force and end to a successful war.

Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely.

IMO that is a zero probability event.

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

We are already "seriously involved" in that we are shooting down Iranian missiles on Israel's behalf. Israel probably needs us to continue doing that. Either a slight miscalculation on Israel's part or the administration had already committed to do that. Not a "good look" but manageable. Israel needs US ordinance resupply for their air force. Most of all, Israel needs us to attack the deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. That is all they need/want. The last one is IMO key. Will we do it? Should we do it? Both are tough questions.
 
The US has no reason to do any more than the above. If we decide to start bombing Iran just to "help out" with Israel's other goals then we are certifiably crazy. Israel doesn't need that "help".

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.  Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support?  Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.  As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.
Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.

[GK3]

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely.

I am absolutely certain Israel has no intention if fighting a "land war" in Iran. They just don't have the mass to even attempt it. It is also too far away. Israel hasn't got the sealift to get their troops there. Syria and Iraq can't impede Israel in the air but they can on the ground. Israel may establish one or more temporary airheads but they can't establish a persistent presence. Israel knows this. The US administration will not put boots on the ground. It is too politically unpopular among many other very good reasons.
 
The country of Iran will not just disappear. There are a plethora of articles on the net discussing what a successor to the present government might look like. IMO Israel intends to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capability. That is Israel's proximate goal. They also intend to destroy whatever air defense Iran has remaining. Israel will also destroy all the nuclear facilities that it can. These war aims are reasonably within their grasp. Israel has no illusions that there will be a "peace conference" or "peace treaty" signed to "end the war". Israel is hoping for a regime change occurring fairly soon, but they are not counting on it. They would like a government in Iran that will renounce any enrichment capability, will stop aiding the previous Iranian proxy forces, and will not build ballistic missiles to use against Israel. A "formal" agreement, while nice to have, isn't necessary. Such a public "surrender" may not happen, but a de facto one will do.
 
Failing any such agreement, Israel will accept an Iran that has no air defenses so that Israel can at any time kinetically "veto" Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile activities. Israel can also inflict economic devastation when "necessary". That is Israel's plan B. The major problem problem with this plan is that Israel needs the US to destroy the underground nuclear facilities that Israel cannot. IMO they expected we would have done that by now. We haven't, and there is no assurance that we will. Even if we do decide to do it, it is unclear when that would be. The second problem is that Iran's ballistic missile forces have proved more resilient than Israel apparently planned. Given how well everything else has gone, this is undoubtedly a surprise. Israel may or may not be running low on Arrow missiles. IMO Israel may have read its own product brochures and believed their missiles were 100% effective. They aren't. No anti-missile system is. IMO this is a "manageable" problem for Israel. The first problem is not.

Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles

Not fast enough to matter much. Same with Iranian ballistic missiles. It is a "come as you are" war.

and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?

Israel needs bombs from the US. It also needs all kinds of spare parts. We will provide them if history is any guide. There is enough of an Israel lobby in the US that we will not withhold this kind of aid as long as there is any doubt that Israel is going to "win". IMO this administration will not even refuse such supplies to force and end to a successful war.

Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely.

IMO that is a zero probability event.

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

We are already "seriously involved" in that we are shooting down Iranian missiles on Israel's behalf. Israel probably needs us to continue doing that. Either a slight miscalculation on Israel's part or the administration had already committed to do that. Not a "good look" but manageable. Israel needs US ordinance resupply for their air force. Most of all, Israel needs us to attack the deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. That is all they need/want. The last one is IMO key. Will we do it? Should we do it? Both are tough questions.
 
The US has no reason to do any more than the above. If we decide to start bombing Iran just to "help out" with Israel's other goals then we are certifiably crazy. Israel doesn't need that "help".

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.  Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support?  Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.  As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.
Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.