To open this topic, I reproduce here the article from PowerLine:
I can't see it, either. I think Israel has to play defense unless and until they are attacked, or they are in no doubt that they are about to be.Steven den Beste, formerly of USS Clueless, now proprietor of a very different site, writes in response to Paul's comments on the need to attack the root of Israel's problem:
"Horowitz suggests that Israel's best option is to strike Iran now. I agree. With Iran well on its way to becoming a nuclear power, Israel will never be stronger in relation to Iran than it is today. And, quite apart from the perfectly valid concept of a preemptive strike, Iran's central role in the current war justifies direct retaliation."
It's not that simple. There are some real logistical issues involved, because the nations are not near one another. It's 900 kilometers between the nearest points of Israel and Iran. On the Israeli side, it's the Golan Heights. On the Iranian side it's uninhabited mountains. And a direct flight path between them goes over Syria and Iraq.
For Israeli air strikes to actually hit anything that the Iranian rulers care about is much further, and a direct flight path goes over the West Bank, over Jordan, and over Iraq. It's out of range for any jet Israel has without inflight refueling, which isn't likely.
Making any kind of ground assault is even more unlikely -- how are they supposed to get from Israel to Iran?
Sending warships to the Gulf is not exactly likely, either. They may have a few in the gulf of Aqaba, but the majority of their rather tiny navy is in the Med. If Egypt refuses to let them use Suez, then they have to sail around Africa. And even from Aqaba it's 4500 kilometers by sea to Iran.
That leaves one, and only one, possibility: a missile strike. Which divides into four subpossibilities: nuclear or conventional, land-based or submarine-based.
Does Israel want to preemptively use a nuclear-tipped missile against Iran at this time? I don't think so. They're not at that extreme yet.
And a threat of a nuclear strike would also be a pretty drastic step, because Israel has never officially admitted to having a nuclear arsenal, though it's an open secret.
But conventional warheads on missiles just don't do that much damage, and Israel doesn't have all that many missiles. They're also a bit indiscriminate. Either Israel targets to hit nothing, which would make them a laughingstock, or they target something important, and almost certainly kill civilians in addition to what they were aiming at. I can see the headlines already.
A token strike by missiles with conventional warheads would just inflame the situation; it wouldn't be sufficiently devastating to cause Iran to back off, but it could become a justification for Iranian escalation.
The fact that something is desirable doesn't mean it is feasible. Even if there were really good reasons for Israel to militarily strike Iran, I don't see how they could do it.
Any other thoughts from our readers?
And then...
Freezes the blood, doesn't it? If you don't like the idea of Nuclear Israel fighting Nuclear Iran, you'd best get on-side with the idea that WE (the US, I mean; nobody else has the will or capability to affect anything in a positive way) are going to have to stop Iran's progress towards a deliverable nuclear weapon BY ANY AND ALL MEANS AVAILABLE.
We're going to be going to war with Iran soon. I see it as inevitable.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Hell, we've been at war with Iran for decades.
Right now we need to roll up the Radio Free Iran vans and start broadcasting and let the Iranian people know we will back them.
As far as Israel, the numbers (range, numbers, etc.) all argue against a meaningful strike being possible. So I say it isn't going to happen. Besides, Iran is, in the geopolitical store, our problem to buy and fix.
-dale
Absolutely agree with all of that. What I mean by 'going to war with Iran' is the FORMAL sense, with ordnance going from US-marked platforms into Iranian property, and Iranian personnel ordered to kill US personnel, with no pretense to plausible deniability. Gloves off, as it were.Originally Posted by dalem
And yeah...it really is up to us. Who else is going to the dance. Even the Brits have already opted out, no matter how righteous the cause, without reference to their interests. (Europe being what it is, and all, that really should be no surprise.)
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
More from PowerLine, as its readers reply:
Last night, we posted Steven den Beste's interesting email, which agreed with Paul's observation that ti would be desirable for Israel to attack Iran, but questioned whether it is logistically feasible for Israel to do so. Paul responded in an update earlier today, and we received an enormous number of emails from readers who had comments on Israel's strategic capabilities, as well as more unorthodox suggestions as to how an attack might be carried out. We can't begin to quote them all but here are a few.
Froggy Ruminations proposes a plan:
Jim Johnson rejects den Beste's main premise:If Israel decides to go after Iran, then that means they will have already begun to go at it with Syria beforehand. They might run a SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) package east through Syria as a feint to hit Damascus (which would be a target rich environment anyway) and pull through some heavy airlift assets (C-130s etc) and choose a remote airfield in eastern Syria and seize it Ranger style. If their SEAD is effective, they could set up shop at this airfield, bring in fuel and ammo and mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iranian targets at will. Most of Syria's military forces will be on the other side of the country and if they attempt to go after their FOB, the IAF could hammer them in transit. Besides, the IDF could destroy all roads leading to said airfield, and mine the **** out of the hinterland effectively creating an island out of their new base. Not a simple plan to execute to be sure, but one that could put them in striking distance of Iranian nuke sites. If they could pull off Entebbe in the 1970s, they could do this now.
Israel currently has at least 50 F-16Is and over 25 F-15Is all of which are capable of striking Iran with some ease with the use of external conformal fuel fuel tanks. They can do so without even significantly penetrating Iraqi air space if that is an issue. Both aircraft were purchased with Iran in mind - with some joking about the "I" standing for Iran. Both aircraft have a range, fully loaded, of over 2000 km which places virtually all the publicly mentioned high value Iranian targets within range including Tehran. There is even enough margin to allow some loiter time over the targets. The likely ordinance would be the BTU-28 which was purchased in quantity from the US as recently as last year and was designed to be deep earth penetrating. Whether they can penetrate deeply enough to collapse the Iranian structures is not available in the public literature - if known at all. Both aircraft are capable of carrying the BTU-28.
And if the need truly arises they can allocate aircraft for one way missions in a number of ways without losing the pilots although these would likely be nuclear missions. Cruise missiles, conventionally armed, are likely to be of limited value directly against hard targets although they could be very useful in pinning down any Iranian attempt to intercept a bombing mission. Most likely though, the Iranians will have very little available to effectively oppose an attack of the type Israel can launch.
It should be kept in mind that an attack of this sort does not have to be a one shot attack - and likely won't be. There will be plenty of time to reload and fire again. *** If the Israeli's can add 3-5 years to the Iranian nuclear program on a static basis that is well worth it - particularly if they extract high additional costs and since they can always do it again.
Other readers suggested a variety of ways in which Israel might effectively strike Iran. John Arcari notes that Iran's dependence on foreign refining capacity is a key weakness:
Israel, or the USA need to be very careful about an attack on Iran, because millions of the Iranian people like Americans, and would overthrow their present government if we just stepped forward and helped them. So, we do not want to devastate the country at large. The weak link in the Iranian economy is an internal shortage of oil to gasoline refining capability. Iran, actually imports huge amounts of gasoline to sustain its economy.
My plan is, forget the Nuke problem for the moment, forget the country infrastructure, and forget causing enormous pain to the general population. Here's how! You destroy all oil to gasoline refining capacity, along with destroying the all ability to pump oil in Iran. Actually, this ends the story. These two actions render the country bankrupt overnight, but leave the general population whole to get rid of the present government post haste. Let Iran spend all its money rebuilding that which allows the country to function.
Van Laskey suggests attacking Syria and putting Iran in the position of coming to it's client's defense:
Thanks to all who replied.Saddam's chemical arsenal is likely hidden in Syria's Bekaa Valley which is also home to Hezbollah terrorists. *** Iran has stated that Israel attacking Syria will draw them into the conflict. Israel should strike at Bekaa and draw Iran in. Call their bluff. Their army is untested & hasn't fought a war in twenty five years. Its air capability is probably far weaker then the IAF. Its "navy" would be sunk in the first hour. Attack Syria's Bekaa and force Iran to make the first move. Eliminating the cancer in Bekaa is a bonus.
And a number of readers came up with more limited and creative ways of striking at Iran, the most elaborate (some would say far-fetched) of which came from Dafydd ab Hugh.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Obviously I don't know much about military matters, but I'd be surprised in the extreme if Israel, a nation built on strategic planning, hadn't developed the ability to strike Iran and strike it hard.
Once they'd done that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Iran retaliated in part by striking American assets in the region. Game on.
What I am really wondering about is whether Iran is trying to get Israel to attack. Do they think that there are benefits to be had from an Israeli attack on Iran? Would that lead to more support for the Iranian government? I am asking because I am having a hard time understanding motivations behind some of Iran's recent actions. It really seems to me that Iran is trying its best to get a major conflict started.
Seems like it to me, too. With a fruitcake like A-jad in charge, you really can't predict or understand their calculus. He sincerely believes that it is his job to sow enough chaos for the Twelth Imam to reveal himself and return to usher in Islam's new Golden Age.
When you're dealing with an apocalytic visionary, there really is no telling WHAT he's thinking, or what he'll do next.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Game on.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
They just simply haven't the material capability to take out that many targets that far away from home. The country's always living on a knife-edge, it hasn't really developed much beyond a capability to defend itself against geographically immediate threats.
Indeed. Whatever Israel does at that point will be something of a sideshow.Once they'd done that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Iran retaliated in part by striking American assets in the region. Game on.
I really hope that things dont get to that point. I do wonder if Israel has got a fairly good plan for hitting Iran. I was pretty much convinced that they were going to try something last summer, the motivation to do so now has only increased.
"The Israeli Air Force received the first two of 25 F-15I Ra’am (Thunder) aircraft, the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, in January 1998, and as of early 2004 had an inventory of 25 aircraft. According to the Israeli Air Force, this aircraft has a range of 4,450 km, which equates to a combat radius of 2,225 km. Deliveries of the F-16I Sufa (Storm) began in early 2004. This heavily modified aircraft, with massive conformal fuel tanks, has a reported combat radius of 2,100 km. Probable strike targets such as Bushehr and Esfahan lie about 1,500 km from Israel. "
"On 21 September 2004 Israel acknowledged that it was buying 500 BLU-109 bunker-buster bombs, which could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The bombs, which can penetrate more than 7 feet of reinforced concrete, are part of a $319 million package of air-launched bombs being sold to Israel under America's military aid program."
What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos?
The ones in the casinos are serious.
Simplistic in the extreme.
Can you imagine how carrying several BLU-109s will limit their range? Will increase their vulnerability?
The targets in Iran are widely dispersed and often hardened beyond just 7 feet of concrete.
I agree, and that's just the technical aspects. What, are we going to just ignore the heavily-laden Israeli bombers coming across denied airspace, right over the top of our guys? Doubt it.
Diplomatically, this is about as tough a problem as even getting the ordnance to the right spot and dealing an effective hit. As a matter o fact, given the diplomat's job and the mission planner's, I think I'd rather have the latter; not nearly as much overtime involved.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
If they had a little help from an American KC-135 in the skies over Iraq, Israel would be able to fly it's own fighters into Iran and strike any essential sites for nuke production.
bluesman,
you're putting too much emphasis on a-jad. remember, khatami the reformist didn't have much power; the one saving grace a-jad has got is simply on MOST things, he is an ally of the ayatollah. the real power in iran has always belonged in two places: the ayatollahs and the people.Seems like it to me, too. With a fruitcake like A-jad in charge, you really can't predict or understand their calculus. He sincerely believes that it is his job to sow enough chaos for the Twelth Imam to reveal himself and return to usher in Islam's new Golden Age.
of these two power centers, as we've seen, most recently in the "destroy israel" comments, even the ayatollah himself is nervous about such talk. in fact, he forced a-jad to back down on those comments. like i said before, the ayatollahs have a marvelous sense of self-preservation.
as for the people? a-jad is supported by the poorer classes, but again, the middle-upper classes restrain him. the latter, being largely comfortable where they are, want nuclear power, as do the rest of the population (in both senses of the term), but they are a good deal less desirous of a confrontation with the west. and as they hold the purse-strings for such a war, well...
i do not view a war with iran as being inevitable at this stage. in the end, despite the sometime-irrationality of a-jad, he still follows two masters, both of which are VERY rational. and a-jad won't be around forever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: