Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 1/2/2007 1:04:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2007 1:04:54 PM EST by Headlice]
www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1061


The appointment of Israel’s new deputy PM raises fears of a new catastrophe, says robert fox


The Middle East is abuzz with ugly rumours. One of them is so dire - and comes from sources in so many capital cities - that it has to be taken seriously.

The suggestion is that the Israeli government has served notice on the White House that it must take pre-emptive action against Iran's sites of nuclear weapons development - or Israel will go it alone and do the job itself. Israel has apparently given Bush a deadline of six months.

The pressure on the Americans - if it is true - comes with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman, one of the hardest of all hard-liners, as Israel's new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, under the new coalition with his party, Yisrael Beytenu.

One reason why the rumour is being taken seriously is that it coincides with another strong rumour - that the Iranian regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad has ordered Iran's nuclear programme to be accelerated. According to sources, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade material is galloping ahead, and Iran could have its own deployable nuclear warheads within four years.

Given Ahmadinejad's wild rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map (though the translation of these remarks is now acknowledged to be somewhat fuzzy), Israel's hawks argue there is no time to lose. Former Prime Minister, and Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, for whom Lieberman once worked as chief of staff, has argued strenuously for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Lieberman, more hawkish than many hawks, was born in Moldova in 1958 and now leads a powerful group of Israeli immigrants from Russia and the former Soviet Union. He criticised Ariel Sharon when, during negotiations with the Palestinians, he ordered some settlements to close. He outraged moderate Jewish Israeli opinion this summer when he suggested that ArabIsraelis elected to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, should be executed if they had held talks with Hamas members of the Palestinian authority.

Even the New York Times, known for its strong support for Israel, warned in an editorial a week ago that Lieberman was "the wrong partner" in an Israeli coalition. His inclusion, the paper argued, made any arrangement with the Palestinians difficult, if not impossible. "Creating new obstacles to peace with the Palestinians is the last thing Israel needs after the Lebanon fiasco."

Strategic analysts have noticed anti-Iran noises coming from the beleaguered White House, too. "It's the same sort of language we heard in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq," one Washington insider told me. A London correspondent favoured by the Bush-Blair circle said, "It's clear that Bush will not dream of leaving office under the suspicion that he allowed Iran to get nuclear weapons on his watch. He will act, and will feel uninhibited after the mid-term elections."

The practicalities of bombing Iran's nuclear

installations are quite another thing, according to serious analysts. Israel lacks the capability to hit in one blow all the places where weaponry is being developed; planes would need mid-air refuelling that only the Americans could provide; and some centres of nuclear energy production - Bushir, Natanz and Tehran itself - are heavily populated. Civilian casualties would be high.

There is an even more compelling reason why realists like General John Abizaid, US commander for the region, and former Secretary of State James Baker are counselling the hawks in Israel as well as Washington to cool it.

Not only would a pre-emptive strike on Iran miss more than it hit - it would invite immediate and devastating retaliation. The Revolutionary Guards could launch a global terrorist campaign and the Iranian Air Force could bomb the offshore gas installations stretching along the Gulf from Qatar. That would knock out 15 per cent of the world's natural gas supply at a stroke.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:09:48 PM EST
In an interview 6 months ago Bush said , quote , Letting Iran become a nuclear
power is not an option , I will not let it happen.

and I believe him on this , how it will play out who knows.

Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:10:36 PM EST
I don't think they're going to do crap.

Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:18:24 PM EST
They have been planning this for years. I will put money on that they will bomb the piss out of Iran. They did it before, in Iraq. They have purchased experimental weapons designed for destroying armored underground targets (very large bombs for very hard targets). And they have re-vamped their strike aircraft, the F16 with extra gas tanks for long range flights to say... Iran. Where the hell else would long range Israeli aircraft go?
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:20:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2007 1:23:14 PM EST by 325AIR]
www.yikers.com/video_bomb_iran_song.html



(funny song but it's made by dirty hippies)
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:20:52 PM EST
I'd prefer they do it instead of us, personally.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:24:31 PM EST
Avigdor Lieberman is a nutjob rascist. Do a search, you will see that this guy is a freak, not a mere 'hardliner'. The fact that he is in the governement shows that the Izzies are over run by their own brand of religous nutjob and fruitcake.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:25:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
I'd prefer they do it instead of us, personally.


Me too
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:26:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
I'd prefer they do it instead of us, personally.


Me too


Trust me, they will, with hardware we sold them... hmmmm...
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:26:53 PM EST
If they want to take care of Iran, fine by me. Saves U.S. lives and $$$.

Nuke 'em; for all I care.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:29:18 PM EST
They've been 'gearing up' for this ever since they acquired the F-16i and F-15i variants. They each have increased fueling capacity and the ability to annihilate the Bushehr complex with maybe one aerial refueling - which they both can also do.
They can pretty much strike all their neighbor-enemy arab capitals with these planes, while their shorter-range assets protect the home front.

It's been 25yrs since the Israelis splashed Saddam's reactor. They've certainly had teh same thing in mind for Iran since '79.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:33:33 PM EST

Turn 'em loose. It's time to quit fucking around with these fucking savages. Start prepping for five dollar plus fuel prices and all of the severe effects of this on the worlds economy. That said, turn 'em loose, we can't afford NOT to.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:35:31 PM EST
They have done it before - so I don't think that there is much "gearing up" to do. I'm sure they know exactly where they going. Its more a question of triggering events and perceived risk.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:36:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:37:14 PM EST
the funny thing is that even liberal commentators respond 'I sure hope so' to this quesiton...
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:39:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:43:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By NME:
I don't think they're going to do crap.



Damn right they won't, and it appears 6 months is 3 months too long. We won't, and they won't do a damn thing unless Bibi gets back in there. Olmert doesn't have the stomach for it.

HH
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 1:48:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2007 1:52:10 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
In an interview 6 months ago Bush said , quote , Letting Iran become a nuclear
power is not an option , I will not let it happen.

and I believe him on this , how it will play out who knows.



The problem is that they lack the range and airspace clearance to bomb Iran effectively...

Israel is not going to be able overfly -- much less do air-air refueling over -- Syria, and due to the problems it would cause for us they won't be allowed to do it over Iraq either....

Do they even have A2ARF capability?

Plus Iran has built their nuke facilities to withstand air attack - we're probably the only force that could touch them (even if Israel used the nuclear option, they would not be able to hit the hardened underground facilities)...

And these facilities are dispersed, not stuck in one central location like Osirak...

Iraq was easy, Iran will be harder....

Now, if it could be arranged for Iran to have a major nuclear 'accident' that would possibly make China, Russia, and maybe even the Iranian people themselves realize the 'hazards' of further development, that might work a bit better...

If they do it, the USN had better be prepared to keep the Persian Gulf open...
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 2:20:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By oulufinn:
Turn 'em loose. It's time to quit fucking around with these fucking savages. Start prepping for five dollar plus fuel prices and all of the severe effects of this on the worlds economy. That said, turn 'em loose, we can't afford NOT to.


Agreed... We can pay a little now, or a lot more later.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 3:05:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2007 3:06:32 PM EST by TheOtherDave]

Originally Posted By ar15_rifleman:
www.defense-update.com/images/F-16I-2.jpg



Yep, and even without the extra fuel I don't think Israel would mind losing a few planes due to not enough fuel to make it back. Pilots can punch out on their way back. Which is a hell of a lot better option than our B52 crews going to Russia had.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 3:12:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By NME:
I don't think they're going to do crap.


I agree........but I hope we're both wrong.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 5:27:53 PM EST
Israel bombed an Iranian nuclear plant before completion some years ago. They can deliver if they have to.

But I would truly hope we'd nuke Iran first. But with the cut and run weenies in charge of both houses of the legislature that is not likely to happen.

I wish Israel the best of luck and

LIGHT 'EM UP!!!
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 5:47:14 PM EST
I wish them well since i hear iran has a few of these now.

www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:43:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
In an interview 6 months ago Bush said , quote , Letting Iran become a nuclear
power is not an option , I will not let it happen.

and I believe him on this , how it will play out who knows.



The problem is that they lack the range and airspace clearance to bomb Iran effectively...

Israel is not going to be able overfly -- much less do air-air refueling over -- Syria, and due to the problems it would cause for us they won't be allowed to do it over Iraq either....

Do they even have A2ARF capability?

Plus Iran has built their nuke facilities to withstand air attack - we're probably the only force that could touch them (even if Israel used the nuclear option, they would not be able to hit the hardened underground facilities)...

And these facilities are dispersed, not stuck in one central location like Osirak...

Iraq was easy, Iran will be harder....

Now, if it could be arranged for Iran to have a major nuclear 'accident' that would possibly make China, Russia, and maybe even the Iranian people themselves realize the 'hazards' of further development, that might work a bit better...

If they do it, the USN had better be prepared to keep the Persian Gulf open...
All the classic - and wrong - arguments against.

The range issue is resolved by the F-16i and F-15i.

Yes, they have aerial refueling capability.

They can fly over any shitbird arab country they choose to, at any time of their choosing - AND the Saudi, sonsabitches that they are, would just as readily look the other way while Israel bombs the crap out of their main Shia/Persian rivals. Iran's as much a threat to the House of Saud as they are to Israel.

And it doesn't matter how distributed they are or how deeply bunkered. The location of their gas-enrichment faciltiy is known and every bunker has a door / elevator / railroad track.
And that f'n reactor containment building isn't going anywhere.

Israel has JDAMs. They have the range. Most importantly they have the NEED to stop nuclear bomb production by Iran. The Iranian mullahs, their previous leader Rafsanjani, and the current nutjob Ahmedwhatever have all plainly stated their intent to nuke Israel the very moment they are able to. Israel MUST strike.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:44:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
Israel bombed an Iranian nuclear plant before completion some years ago. They can deliver if they have to.

But I would truly hope we'd nuke Iran first. But with the cut and run weenies in charge of both houses of the legislature that is not likely to happen.

I wish Israel the best of luck and

LIGHT 'EM UP!!!
It was Iraq's / Saddam's nuclear plant, and for the same reasons.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:50:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Orygunxj:
I wish them well since i hear iran has a few of these now.

www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
whooptif'ndo. Everyone proclaimed Syria to be 'unassailable' by air before '67 and '73, with SAM sites all over. Israel mopped them up in a couple days, both times. Including Syria's air force. Iran will be no different.

Israel will have to put EVERYTHING they have in the air, to guard against an attack by Syria, Saudis, every other pissant arab neighbor. Their strike package for Iran will get the job done, whatever the losses. And I fully expect them to shithammer the storage bunkers in the Bekaa (Syria) where Saddam's WMD were trucked in Mar/Apr 03. And most likely spike Syria's runways the same way the struck Lebanon's last August.
It's an all or nothing play. And no matter how muddled and liberal most of Israel's government is, they still make hard decisions when they have to because for them it really is nothing less than a matter of life or death.
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 7:52:36 PM EST
Who's to say we wouldn't lend a hand behind the scenes with the new asymetric payload capability of the B-2 to carry a single large penetrator in one of it's payload bays? We could have 10 B-2s hitting targets in Iran during an 'Isreali' strike flying out of Whitman or Diego Garcia and no one would be the wiser that we were involved but would actually allow the Iranian deeply burried hardened facilities to be hit.


I'm just saying, in any event something has to be done, even if that something is Isreal playing their ace in the hole that happens to be made of Uranium 235 and Lithium-6 Deuteride...
Link Posted: 1/2/2007 8:19:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2007 8:20:12 PM EST by Special-K]
Since when has the NY Times been pro-Israel?

What about the the capability of Izzy subs to assist in such a strike or recovery of downed/ditched pilots?



-K
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 5:00:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
If they want to take care of Iran, fine by me. Saves U.S. lives and $$$.

Nuke 'em; for all I care.


yup.............
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 7:53:01 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By Vibulenus:
height=8
Originally Posted By Orygunxj:
I wish them well since i hear iran has a few of these now.

www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
whooptif'ndo. Everyone proclaimed Syria to be 'unassailable' by air before '67 and '73, with SAM sites all over. Israel mopped them up in a couple days, both times. Including Syria's air force. Iran will be no different.

Israel will have to put EVERYTHING they have in the air, to guard against an attack by Syria, Saudis, every other pissant arab neighbor. Their strike package for Iran will get the job done, whatever the losses. And I fully expect them to shithammer the storage bunkers in the Bekaa (Syria) where Saddam's WMD were trucked in Mar/Apr 03. And most likely spike Syria's runways the same way the struck Lebanon's last August.
It's an all or nothing play. And no matter how muddled and liberal most of Israel's government is, they still make hard decisions when they have to because for them it really is nothing less than a matter of life or death.


Im not saying they are unassailable but i am saying that this piece of equipment is a very able piece.And depending on how many of these Iran has could make takeing the targets out extremely hard.But i hope and pray that isreal is able to do this for i fear there is no other option.
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:12:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mxpatriot51:
If they want to take care of Iran, fine by me. Saves U.S. lives and $$$.

Nuke 'em; for all I care.


Enduring bases in Iraq
Bases in Afghanistan
And our Allies history of not tolerating threats
Way I see it.
israel does an ocirek style raid on multiple targets in Iran.
Iran declares war on israel.
As Israels ally. We enjoin them with army on the ground and a ferrying point for their troops and resupply demands.
Look for an additional 100-200k reinforcement of Iraq and afghanistan in the next year.
It will work out well politically, to start this campaign in spring of 2008.
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:14:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By NME:
I don't think they're going to do crap.



Yep. Unfortunately, neither of us will do a fucking thing.
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:20:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/3/2007 8:23:51 PM EST by glockguy40]
According to Bibi... Israel is attempting engage in a propaganda effort PR campaign to get us to do it for them. Israel doesn't have the capability to do it and they know it. That is why he highlights the fact that Israel must attain the ability "to protect their citizens" bomb iran. Unfortunately, they can't develop a strategic bomber wing and the ability to loiter their aircraft over a target area so far from home, in less than 5 years- what it would take to have the capability to stop Iran.


Iran can still be stopped
binyamin netanyahu, THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 1, 2007

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467638061&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It is possible to prevent the political and security landslide. Iran can still be stopped.

The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is rapidly leading Israel to a political and security downfall while Iran is racing towards achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

While Iran's leaders are busy denying the Holocaust, they also continue to announce their intentions of wiping the State of Israel off the map. Israel is like a bus speeding towards an abyss. The bus driver is tired and helpless.

Let's examine recent developments, which all have one common denominator: weak leadership.

# Hizbullah and Hamas are rapidly arming themselves thanks to the Israeli government's decision to refrain from taking action against them. Since the cease-fire was declared, dozens of Kassam rockets have been fired at the western Negev. The government continues not to react.

# Recently, the US secretary of defense said he was unable to rule out a possibility that Iran would launch a nuclear attack against Israel. He also noted that the US would take against Iran only as a last resort. These words raise doubts as to American intentions to bring Teheran's nuclear race to a halt. These words are not to be taken lightly.

# The Baker-Hamilton Report recommends that the US engage in talks with Iran and Syria in an attempt to reach a solution to the Iraqi problem. Although the report does not reflect the Bush Administration's policy towards Iran, it encourages a fundamental change of direction in American policy: from isolation to negotiation.

# The Baker-Hamilton Report also argues that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a condition to stabilizing the rest of the Middle East's core problems. Here we find an attempt to create affinity: If Israel was to carry out concessions and territorial withdrawals, the Iranian and Iraqi problems would be solved. In reality, the situation is the complete opposite: If the problem of Iran, which Ismail Haniyeh defines as "the strategic backbone of Hamas", were solved, it would be easier to treat the conflict with the Palestinians.

What can be learned from these bleak developments? What is the connection between them?

Weakness invites pressure.

The weakness of the Olmert government only expedites the decline of Israel's stature, both in the Middle East and around the world.

If the Israeli government accepts the ongoing firing of Kassams at its cities, why shouldn't the world?

If Olmert's government reacts limply to Iran's statements about its intentions to destroy Israel, why should we expect the world to act against them?

Baker and Hamilton described the current mood in their report: "The majority of the political establishment in Israel has grown tired of a continuous state of a nation at war."

What can we say about such words when even Olmert himself said similar things during an address he gave last year in the US: "We are tired of fighting. We are tired of being heroes. Tired of winning. Tired of beating our enemies."

When even Israel's leadership sends out a message of fatigue and weakness, why should we be surprised that the world agrees?

The main principle which we should follow is this: The key to promising the existence of Israel is developing strength. When one lives in a harsh environment, one must be strong. Israel must invest in building its strength as quickly as possible. I shall develop this point later on.

In the meantime, we must focus on one urgent task: to curb the security and political downfall and bring Iran to a halt.

This mission is possible, but it demands action on parallel shores:

The diplomatic and PR effort: We must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front focusing first and foremost on the US. The goal being to encourage President Bush to take up his specific promises not to allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make it clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the US and the entire world, not only Israel. We must make it clear that it is in the utmost interest of the free world to prevent fundamental Islamic regimes from building an atom bomb.

The independent defense effort: Simultaneously, and with no connection to our efforts overseas, Israel must make every necessary step that would enable it to independently protect its citizens. The government must subjugate all national efforts to this higher cause. It must instruct the IDF, security branches, intelligence agencies and the bodies charged with protecting the home front to take immediate action to remove the existential threat Israel faces.

I recommend that each and every morning, the prime minister personally ensures that these actions are carried out accordingly. He should not let go for even a split second. No one else should take over his authority or assume the responsibility.

During his last visit to Washington, Mr. Olmert announced that this will be his policy, and good he did. However, words require action. In reality, the government is directionless and has no leadership. While Iran is steadily progressing with its nuclear plan, the Israeli government is busy creating media 'agendas' (i.e. changing the system of government) or dangerous plans, as the one Mr. Olmert presented in Sdeh Boker in which he laid out his agenda for territorial concessions.

The time has come for the Israeli government to put our existence in its utmost priority. If it does so, I guarantee that both my party members and myself will give our full support in preparation against the Iranian threat, as we did in the Lebanon war.

If the government does not come to its senses immediately, Mr. Olmert must make way for another leadership that would guarantee both our existence and our future.

The blog was translated from Binyamin Netanyahu's website.
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:27:29 PM EST
From my thread here:


Geopolitical Diary: Israel's Options Against Iran
January 03, 2007 02 46 GMT

www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=282465

The Institute for National Strategic Studies, a Tel Aviv-based think tank with strong ties to the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, released its annual report on Tuesday, saying Israel is technically capable of independently carrying out military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.

Israel undoubtedly has been displeased by the manner in which Washington has mishandled Iraq, while Iran has used the situation to reinforce the perception of U.S. weakness and advance its agenda of becoming a nuclear powerhouse in the region, placing it in competition with Israel. With the United States currently lacking any solid options to contain Iran via a political resolution in Iraq, there has been intense speculation over the possibility that Israel might have to get its hands dirty and take military action against Iran -- with or without U.S. cooperation.

Israel's patience might be wearing thin, but an Israeli strike against Iran in the coming year is still unlikely. The Iranians have learned well from the pre-emptive Israeli airstrikes against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 that effectively squashed former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's development of the country's nuclear weapons. Whereas Iraq concentrated its facilities at Osirak, the Iranians have strategically spread out their nuclear sites, several of which can only be penetrated using tactical nuclear bunker buster bombs. Even using these weapons in a sustained air campaign, the Israelis' ability to wipe out Iran's widely dispersed nuclear capability in a first-strike offensive is questionable.

Nonetheless, the Israelis do have an interest in halting Iran's expansion of power and setting back the Iranian nuclear program. This idea would be privately welcomed in much of the Arab world, particularly in Saudi Arabia, which would gladly let the Israelis take the heat for containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and putting a lid on the expanding Shiite power in the region. If anything can get the Saudis and the Israelis to sit down together and talk, it's Iran.

But in Israel's current state of military and political paralysis -- a result of the 2006 summer conflict with Hezbollah -- military action against Iran is not at the top of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's to-do list. Israel recognizes the downside to launching a unilateral attack against Iran. If the military option is to be used, Israel sees the value in having U.S. forces that are well-positioned in Iraq to help carry out the attacks. The problem is that the United States simply cannot risk engaging Iran militarily while Iraq is hanging by a thread. And a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran at a time when the United States is in a severely weakened position in Iraq would further undermine U.S. capability in the region, and place Israel in a more vulnerable position vis-a-vis Iran and its proxies there. The political arrangements Washington has painstakingly attempted in Baghdad would unravel if Iran were to hold the United States complicit in Israel's actions, and Tehran would not hesitate to up its militant assets in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories in order to strike at Israeli and U.S. targets.

The Israelis have a small window of four to five years before Iran develops a weaponized nuclear program. With these considerations in mind, Israel must prioritize the various threats against its national security. For Israel to seriously consider a military option against Iran down the road, it will have to first deal with the pending issue of neutralizing Iran's main proxy on Israel's northern border: Hezbollah. Part of the Israeli decision to engage Hezbollah in a full-scale conflict in 2006 likely involved the need to degrade the group's military capabilities and deprive Iran of one of its key assets in the region. Though that plan did not pan out, Israel is bound to revisit the issue in the coming year.
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:30:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/3/2007 8:43:08 PM EST by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By Vibulenus:
They've been 'gearing up' for this ever since they acquired the F-16i and F-15i variants. They each have increased fueling capacity and the ability to annihilate the Bushehr complex with maybe one aerial refueling - which they both can also do.
They can pretty much strike all their neighbor-enemy arab capitals with these planes, while their shorter-range assets protect the home front.

It's been 25yrs since the Israelis splashed Saddam's reactor. They've certainly had teh same thing in mind for Iran since '79.


The Bushehr reactor is not the proliferation concern. Light water reactors are very poor at producing weapons grade plutonium, that is why we agreed to let Russia keep building it and why we agreed to give the North Koreans two of them.

The concern is their heavy water reactor they are building at Arak and their uranium enrich facility they have built at Natanz, along with whatever other sites that function in a similar capacity.
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:37:33 PM EST

... Even the New York Times, known for its strong support for Israel ...

Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:38:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Vibulenus:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
In an interview 6 months ago Bush said , quote , Letting Iran become a nuclear
power is not an option , I will not let it happen.

and I believe him on this , how it will play out who knows.



The problem is that they lack the range and airspace clearance to bomb Iran effectively...

Israel is not going to be able overfly -- much less do air-air refueling over -- Syria, and due to the problems it would cause for us they won't be allowed to do it over Iraq either....

Do they even have A2ARF capability?

Plus Iran has built their nuke facilities to withstand air attack - we're probably the only force that could touch them (even if Israel used the nuclear option, they would not be able to hit the hardened underground facilities)...

And these facilities are dispersed, not stuck in one central location like Osirak...

Iraq was easy, Iran will be harder....

Now, if it could be arranged for Iran to have a major nuclear 'accident' that would possibly make China, Russia, and maybe even the Iranian people themselves realize the 'hazards' of further development, that might work a bit better...

If they do it, the USN had better be prepared to keep the Persian Gulf open...
All the classic - and wrong - arguments against.

The range issue is resolved by the F-16i and F-15i.

Yes, they have aerial refueling capability.

They can fly over any shitbird arab country they choose to, at any time of their choosing - AND the Saudi, sonsabitches that they are, would just as readily look the other way while Israel bombs the crap out of their main Shia/Persian rivals. Iran's as much a threat to the House of Saud as they are to Israel.

And it doesn't matter how distributed they are or how deeply bunkered. The location of their gas-enrichment faciltiy is known and every bunker has a door / elevator / railroad track.
And that f'n reactor containment building isn't going anywhere.

Israel has JDAMs. They have the range. Most importantly they have the NEED to stop nuclear bomb production by Iran. The Iranian mullahs, their previous leader Rafsanjani, and the current nutjob Ahmedwhatever have all plainly stated their intent to nuke Israel the very moment they are able to. Israel MUST strike.


You are very wrong about their capabilities. They cannot do it on their own. Click on the link and see for yourself.

francona.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-israels-air-strike-options.html
Link Posted: 1/3/2007 8:40:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Vibulenus:

Originally Posted By Orygunxj:
I wish them well since i hear iran has a few of these now.

www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
whooptif'ndo. Everyone proclaimed Syria to be 'unassailable' by air before '67 and '73, with SAM sites all over. Israel mopped them up in a couple days, both times. Including Syria's air force. Iran will be no different.

Israel will have to put EVERYTHING they have in the air, to guard against an attack by Syria, Saudis, every other pissant arab neighbor. Their strike package for Iran will get the job done, whatever the losses. And I fully expect them to shithammer the storage bunkers in the Bekaa (Syria) where Saddam's WMD were trucked in Mar/Apr 03. And most likely spike Syria's runways the same way the struck Lebanon's last August.
It's an all or nothing play. And no matter how muddled and liberal most of Israel's government is, they still make hard decisions when they have to because for them it really is nothing less than a matter of life or death.


Can I borrow your Rose color glasses? mine seem to be broken.
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 4:39:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/4/2007 4:43:02 AM EST by Headlice]
So what is with our government wanting a troop buildup in Iraq? Could this preclude something bigger and Iraq is the cover story?

ETA: Will Bush let Iran get the bomb on his watch or deal with them before his term is up? I tend to think that Bush is a man of conviction and the thought of Iran getting the bomb when he could have stopped it is bugging him in the back of his mind.
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 4:59:27 AM EST
The IDF lacks the ability to do this on it's own, it has @ 50 aircraft with the range, (and even they would only be carrying a light load), and lacks the SEAD/AWACS/A2A Refulling assets to carry it off. Iran has scatterered it's nuclear facilities right across Iran and dug them in deep, real deep, they've had NK contractors digging in like moles for the last two years. At best the IDF could destroy one or two installations but 98% would still remain.

Realistically, the only people with the ability to mount a sustained air assault on the Iranian WMD infrastructure is the USA/UK. Both got together in the Summer of 2006 and wargammed this option.

It would have to be a combined TLAM/PGM campaign over a period of up to a week to make a serious impact.

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 5:17:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By ar15_rifleman:
www.defense-update.com/images/F-16I-2.jpg


Fuggin' A!
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 5:28:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
The IDF lacks the ability to do this on it's own, it has @ 50 aircraft with the range, (and even they would only be carrying a light load), and lacks the SEAD/AWACS/A2A Refulling assets to carry it off. Iran has scatterered it's nuclear facilities right across Iran and dug them in deep, real deep, they've had NK contractors digging in like moles for the last two years. At best the IDF could destroy one or two installations but 98% would still remain.

Realistically, the only people with the ability to mount a sustained air assault on the Iranian WMD infrastructure is the USA/UK. Both got together in the Summer of 2006 and wargammed this option.

It would have to be a combined TLAM/PGM campaign over a period of up to a week to make a serious impact.

ANdy


And we'd still have to go in afterwards on the ground...

If the military option is going to be exercised, the only way to ensure destruction of the whole thing will involve Combat Engineers, alot of explosives, and the main-line (heavy armored) combat forces to get them there....

Air power can help 'kick the door in'...

But you've still go to drive your tanks thru once it's open....
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 5:38:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By vito113:
The IDF lacks the ability to do this on it's own, it has @ 50 aircraft with the range, (and even they would only be carrying a light load), and lacks the SEAD/AWACS/A2A Refulling assets to carry it off. Iran has scatterered it's nuclear facilities right across Iran and dug them in deep, real deep, they've had NK contractors digging in like moles for the last two years. At best the IDF could destroy one or two installations but 98% would still remain.

Realistically, the only people with the ability to mount a sustained air assault on the Iranian WMD infrastructure is the USA/UK. Both got together in the Summer of 2006 and wargammed this option.

It would have to be a combined TLAM/PGM campaign over a period of up to a week to make a serious impact.

ANdy


And we'd still have to go in afterwards on the ground...

If the military option is going to be exercised, the only way to ensure destruction of the whole thing will involve Combat Engineers, alot of explosives, and the main-line (heavy armored) combat forces to get them there....

Air power can help 'kick the door in'...

But you've still go to drive your tanks thru once it's open....



The 'Chiefs' reckoned an attack would only buy time… about two, maybe five years tops.

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 5:43:04 AM EST
I bet the Ethiopians grow B2s and bomb Iran themselves...
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 5:46:13 AM EST
i just wanted to say something that looked cool on the internet and use a bunch of periods......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 5:47:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/4/2007 5:47:59 AM EST by deimos]

Originally Posted By falaholic1:
i just wanted to say something that looked cool on the internet and use a bunch of periods.......


Hey! I just used 3!
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 6:21:33 AM EST



And it doesn't matter how distributed they are or how deeply bunkered. The location of their gas-enrichment faciltiy is known and every bunker has a door / elevator / railroad track.
And that f'n reactor containment building isn't going anywhere.

Israel has JDAMs. They have the range. Most importantly they have the NEED to stop nuclear bomb production by Iran. The Iranian mullahs, their previous leader Rafsanjani, and the current nutjob Ahmedwhatever have all plainly stated their intent to nuke Israel the very moment they are able to. Israel MUST strike.


I disagree. Israel would have to hit every major Iranian nuclear facility simultaneously, and with a massive aerial bombardment that is in no way guaranteed to fully suspend or even significantly slow down development. Osirak was one target six hundred miles from Israel and not hardened in any way. Iran learned from Iraq's humiliation and not only spread their facilities, but hardened them in a way that denies the ability of a few JDAMs to penetrate and destroy them.

Though the gas centrifuge facility at Natanz would probably be the main focus of attack, clearly Iran has decentralized its operations to allow concurrent enrichment.

Bombing Iranian facilities would probably only set them back a year or two (not nearly enough time to be really useful) and also provide a convienent pretext for retaliation, whether that means terrorist attacks, closing the Persian Gulf (which the USN would have a MONSTER of a time fighting against), or a surprise nuking of Tel Aviv a few years down the road.

I don't think Iran has any sort of first-strike policy against Israel. It would mean the end of Iran. However, Ahmadinejad's saber rattling is likely designed to provoke the Israelis into a very public, very strategically ineffective first strike, giving Iran a wide range of options to pursue thereafter.

My two cents

SO
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 8:55:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By SpecialOperator:

I don't think Iran has any sort of first-strike policy against Israel. It would mean the end of Iran. However, Ahmadinejad's saber rattling is likely designed to provoke the Israelis into a very public, very strategically ineffective first strike, giving Iran a wide range of options to pursue thereafter.

My two cents

SO


I concur…

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/4/2007 11:36:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
At best the IDF could destroy one or two installations but 98% would still remain.

ANdy


that's exactly the problem with the airstrike-only model: it isn't a fight-ender. if they could be assured of taking out the vast majority of iran's capabilities, the political fallout would be manageable. but if israel takes its shot and misses, they're in a world of hurt politically.

IMO, a non-nuclear israeli strike is not a viable option, and a nuclear strike would be slow suicide.
Top Top