Preemptive thoughts - Page 2

DeeJayH · 06-29-08, 11:53 AM

Israel has a year to stop Iran bomb, warns ex-spy - Telegraph

DivineComedy · 06-29-08, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

The alarmism over Iran and Almajinedad (sp?) is complete poppy cock.

Nonsense is equating Israeli support for terror with Iranian.

This will be done over our troop's dead bodies, and Obama will be left at the UN fighting off the inevitable resolutions against Israeli "aggression."

(34)

Diogenes · 06-29-08, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

I accept it, as you should do with the realities that I presented to you. The alarmism over Iran and Almajinedad (sp?) is complete poppy cock.

Not at all. He is the nominal head of state, and his threats should be taken seriously. Unless perhaps you have some evidence that he is a mere clown, a monkey who has slipped the leash of his masters when he makes those threats...

Slainte · 06-29-08, 12:23 PM

From what I've heard in the media over the past few years plenty of top people within the Bush admin and the Pentagon are themselves sceptical about the ability of the US to land a proper "knock out" blow to the Iranian nuclear project from the air. When you consider just how much larger and more advanced the US airforce is when compared to the IAF particularly in regards to the huge strategic bombers the US would undoubtedly use in such a mission, I start to think if the US isn't very confident of its ability how can the Israelis be?

The absolute worse thing that could happen from an Israeli persepctive is a botched raid that kills hundreds, maybe thouands of Iranian civillians but fails to damage the key parts of the Iranian nuclear installations buried deep underground. Then you'd have all the short term chaos an unprovoked attack would generate, plus a much increased chance of Iran becoming extremely aggressive once it completes it's nuclear project and the playing field gets leveled. For an Israeli strike to be considered a "success" it would have to set the Iranian project back at least 10 years, now I don't know the in's and outs of the entire project but I'm not sure an attack on just a few of the facilities would do that, might put them back 1, 2 maybe 3 years, but not long enough to seriously alter the changing balance of power in the Middle East.

FWIW, I don't think there will be any such attack, this stuff is mainly for domestic Israeli consumption. Iran is more concerned about being isolated economically and diplomatically by the US and her allies and battling for influence in Iraq, I don't think they treat these Israeli threats very seriously at all.

Tashah · 06-29-08, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slainte

From what I've heard in the media over the past few years plenty of top people within the Bush admin and the Pentagon are themselves sceptical about the ability of the US to land a proper "knock out" blow to the Iranian nuclear project from the air. When you consider just how much larger and more advanced the US airforce is when compared to the IAF particularly in regards to the huge strategic bombers the US would undoubtedly use in such a mission, I start to think if the US isn't very confident of its ability how can the Israelis be?

With a huge weapons inventory and aircraft carriers, any US preemptive strike on Iran would be both wide and sustained. The US would have sufficient time to analyze BDA and strike targets two or even three times if necessary. An IAF operation would be quite different. In and out as quickly as possible and with all munitions expended (Winchester).

Beyond that, you are not thinking in the loop. You are analyzing this from an exterior and removed position. The powers that be are very aware that nothing in this is guaranteed. But even a partial success would be considered better than playing ostrich.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slainte

The absolute worse thing that could happen from an Israeli persepctive is a botched raid that kills hundreds, maybe thouands of Iranian civillians but fails to damage the key parts of the Iranian nuclear installations buried deep underground.

Ordinary Iranian “civilians” are forbidden access to the state reservations that host critical nuclear facilities. Everyone within has been vetted by the state and the military.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slainte

Then you'd have all the short term chaos an unprovoked attack would generate, plus a much increased chance of Iran becoming extremely aggressive once it completes it's nuclear project and the playing field gets leveled. For an Israeli strike to be considered a "success" it would have to set the Iranian project back at least 10 years, now I don't know the in's and outs of the entire project but I'm not sure an attack on just a few of the facilities would do that, might put them back 1, 2 maybe 3 years, but not long enough to seriously alter the changing balance of power in the Middle East.

Israel would consider a 3 year setback as a success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slainte

FWIW, I don't think there will be any such attack, this stuff is mainly for domestic Israeli consumption. Iran is more concerned about being isolated economically and diplomatically by the US and her allies and battling for influence in Iraq, I don't think they treat these Israeli threats very seriously at all.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it is all theater. But then again, perhaps Iraq and Syria also thought likewise.

Anyway, this is more of a nuts and bolts type of thread rather than a political dissection or a morality play. As recently as a few months ago, I didn't believe that the IAF could orchestrate and complete such an attack. As I delve ever deeper into it though, I am reluctantly beginning to change my viewpoint.

donsutherland1 · 06-29-08, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

He didn't say he wanted to wipeout Israel, he said he wanted it off the map, I think that is different.

He made an implicit threat to wipe Israel off the map. He stated, "Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise." On the surface, this might seem like a hateful but passive opinion.

However, if one examines the rest of his speech, he implies an active role for Iran as Ayatollah Khomenei made Israel a target of the Islamic Revolution to which Ahmadinejad has committed himself throughout his career, as well as a duty for all Islamic nations to play an active role in that process. Some excerpts:

When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?

...our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America...

In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight...

The Islamic people cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world...

Source of speech and quotes: Memri.org

Given the context of Ahmadinejad's remarks, it is not suprising that he was condemned by numerous leaders worldwide, even a senior Palestinian leader, for his extremism. That extremism is driven, in part, by a radical messianic pursuit. For example, The Telegraph reported:

Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace...

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

The issue of Mr. Ahmadinejad's messianic vision and his belief that he can be an instrument in helping bring it to fruition via influencing the "divine timetable," highlights the magnitude of the risk entailed by Iran's obtaining or developing nuclear weapons. It also provides invaluable context for Mr. Ahmadinejad's intent in suggesting that Israel must be eliminated.

bub · 06-29-08, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

With a huge weapons inventory and aircraft carriers, any US preemptive strike on Iran would be both wide and sustained. The US would have sufficient time to analyze BDA and strike targets two or even three times if necessary. An IAF operation would be quite different. In and out as quickly as possible and with all munitions expended (Winchester).

Beyond that, you are not thinking in the loop. You are analyzing this from an exterior and removed position. The powers that be are very aware that nothing in this is guaranteed. But even a partial success would be considered better than playing ostrich.

Ordinary Iranian “civilians” are forbidden access to the state reservations that host critical nuclear facilities. Everyone within has been vetted by the state and the military.

Israel would consider a 3 year setback as a success.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it is all theater. But then again, perhaps Iraq and Syria also thought likewise.

Anyway, this is more of a nuts and bolts type of thread rather than a political dissection or a morality play. As recently as a few months ago, I didn't believe that the IAF could orchestrate and complete such an attack. As I delve ever deeper into it though, I am reluctantly beginning to change my viewpoint.

You have localised the plants where they are building their nukes? I believed they had plenty of them and that they were well hidden.

But let's admit the IAF can destroy all of them and delay the building of the nukes for 3 years. So what? Is that a long term solution? Won't it make the things even worse?

Don't you believe that it will make the Iranians swallow more easily Amajinedjad's propaganda about "zionist agressors"? As what you plan is an unprovoked attack, you are going to look like the evil Jews supported by those evil Westerners who want to control the M/E.

That is going to give a lot of arguments to Amadinedjad, the Iranians are going to be more united and support him more, and instead of staying at power a few more years and then let its country democratize slowly (there are many moderate Iranians), you are going to give a lot of credit to the radical ones and they will stay much longer in the governent.

Diogenes · 06-29-08, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

Don't you believe that it will make the Iranians swallow more easily Amajinedjad's propaganda about "zionist agressors"?

Can it get any easier? Do you really expect Israel (or any other country in the world) to seriously worry about the sensitivities of the Iranian street?

Quote:

As what you plan is an unprovoked attack, you are going to look like the evil Jews supported by those evil Westerners who want to control the M/E.

Perhaps you think the raid on Osirak and the more recent one on Syria were unprovoked also? Not everyone shares that opinion.

bub · 06-29-08, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Can it get any easier? Do you really expect Israel (or any other country in the world) to seriously worry about the sensitivities of the Iranian street?

You should.

If they don't support Ahmadinejad anymore, he'll be removed. That's simple.
And if the IAF bombs the plants, not only it won't prevent Iran from getting nukes anyway, but also Ahmadinejad's propaganda about "evil Israelis" will be legitimized, and that would really be a bad thing for Israel.

Just my point of view.

Quote:

Perhaps you think the raid on Osirak and the more recent one on Syria were unprovoked also? Not everyone shares that opinion.

That's true

WI Crippler · 06-29-08, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

The IAF does have a limited capability to refuel attack craft in flight. If my math is correct, such an operation would lie on the very edge of doability. That is why IAF rescue helicopters (SAR) are also participating in the training missions.

There is yet another component that is critical in this and that is overflight permissions. Israel wound never have been able to do the Entebbe raid without the assistence of Kenya. The way I see it, these overflight permissions would have to be obtained from Turkey and the United States for the refueling to occur and to obtain the proper IFF codes. Turkey and Israel already cooperate very closely in both intelligence operations and joint military excercises. I believe that Jordan would not interfere with such an IAF operation. The wild card here would most likely be the US (in regards to Iraqi airspace).

When I read this thread, I took a looksie at a map, and figured that if you got to get the IAF all over Iran in one shot, thats alot of flight hours to get in country, drop bombs on target, confirm your strike and get back home. Mid-air refueling capacity is going to play a large role in just having the gas to do it, and then you have to factor in fatigue on the return trip. I would say its pushing the limits, and would only be considered if the threat was felt to be imminent.

Yeah, and pilots do tend to be a little pushy about their IFF codes during combat

. During the invasion of Iraq, I had to issue, track, collect, and destroy the manual/oral codes that the aircrew take with them, in case of a mode 4 failure. Plus handling the loaded codes. Its not fun having to tell your CO that he can't take the plane because of a simple code error, but the Patriot batteries at the edge of the base make for a good reminder.