Tashah

The Israel Air Force (IAF) has conducted training missions that mirror the tactical and distance requirements of a preemptive attack on Iran. In the most recent known exercise, over 100 IAF strike aircraft as well as refueling tankers and helicopters struck at imaginary targets in the Mediterranean Sea 1,500 kilometers from home.

There are probably close to 300 facilities in Iran that are either directly or tangentially connected to the Iranian nuclear program. Learning a lesson from the IAF strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, the Iranians have dispersed these facilities all across Iran which is a very large country in the geographic sense. Crunching the distance and targeting numbers, it is apparent to me that the IAF does not have the capability to strike all of these facilities in one attack run, and one surprise attack is all the IAF would have to accomplish the mission. Iranian defensive measures and overfly permissions would be other challenges. I have considered some of these problems.

Iran will shortly begin to protect critical nuclear facilities with highly sophisticated Russian made S-300 air defense systems. What isn't very well known, is that the Syrian nuclear facility recently attacked and destroyed by the IAF was also protected by state-of-the-art Russian defensive systems. Every IAF jet returned to Israel untouched. On the face of it, it seems that the electronic countermeasure systems in IAF attack craft are more sophisticated and successful than the ground based Russian anti-air systems.

What to do about the huge target universe of 300 facilities? Pare it down. To manufacture nuclear WMD, the critical process is the fabrication of the fissile material. Eliminate this cornerstone, and everything else comes to a screeching halt. This avenue suggests targeting only the 3 critical fissile material production facilities at Esfahan, Natanz, and Arak.

Something else is also needed to cripple Iran. In tandem with an attack on the 3 critical nuclear facilities, air strikes should also be directed to destroy Iran's import and export petroleum facilities. Almost the entirety of Iran's national operating fund is derived from the fees it receives from its export of crude oil. Destroy the internal pipeline junctures and the offshore loading platforms where the super-tankers connect, and Iran's economy will be quickly and severely crippled. Despite the fact that Iran is rich in crude oil, gasoline in Iran is rationed due to a lack of internal refining capability. Destroy the few national refineries, and Iranian fuel supplies will be severely interrupted and quickly depleted. These measures would serve to confound and constrict the Iranian regime and to some extent mitigate Iranian-based reprisals against Israel.

The Iranians would certainly respond by firing Sahab-3 missiles at Israel. The IDF already has the Arrow ballistic missile defense system. The C-RAM (Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar) system is about to come online to deal with weapons attacks from Lebanon. Iranian clients Hizb'Allah and Hamas will no doubt attack with rockets and terrorism. A two month battle time-frame at the most.

The above is all doable. Tomorrow if necessary. The Israeli public overwhelmingly supports eliminating any Iranian nuclear threat. They are aware of the stakes involved... in both doing nothing and in launching a preemptive strike on Iran. They are aware that a strike will lead to warfare on many fronts. However, they are also well certain that doing nothing is not a viable option. They will not allow Hizb'Allah and Hamas to wage aggressive warfare against Israel under the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella.

I am convinced that the Arab nations of the ME, although they would castigate Israel publicly, would secretly welcome a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear complex. Despite official bombast, they would not intervene militarily.

IMO, something must give within the next twelve months at the very latest. The UN and IAEA have thus far been ineffective. Iran has rebuffed all monetary carrots offered by the EU. Diplomacy takes a small step forward and then three huge steps back. You can moan and complain till the cows come home about the Israeli nuclear arsenal. But that is not going to change this particular equation one iota. Deal with the current reality instead of what you personally believe the current reality should be. The official Israeli policy is to allow international diplomacy to proceed. But the pace of Iranian progress is far more rapid than the stodgy pace of diplomats.

It is my hope that much in the vein of the North Korean problem, a peaceful solution is still possible and very much desired. But I have no fanciful illusions nor misplaced delusions. Time is running out.

__________________

Summerwind

So I'm guessing you see no problem with Isreal having the only nukes in the immediate region? I think that is just wrong. If Isreal, the US, Pakistan, and India can have them, and I understand that they do, then I see no reason Iran shouldn't have them.

donsutherland1

Very nice and realistic commentary, Tashah.

donsutherland1

Summerwind

He didn't say he wanted to wipeout Israel, he said he wanted it off the map, I think that is different. We wanted USSR off the map and we got it, didn't we? And it hasn't been sooooo bad. SECONDLY, the President in Iran isn't the same as presidents in other countries such as ours, . . .he has no power in regards to military or weapon control. So its equivalent to Cheney opening his mouth and being inflammatory about other countries/folks; actually I'm not even sure he ranks as high as Cheney, but that's because Cheney hasn't stayed within the traditional VP role. But it wouldn't be newsworthy or worth repeating ad nauseum if the facts and fair representation of the situation were revealed. And since he is elected, even though it isn't a position of much power, it does make it difficult for the AliSistani to actually remove him from office. But he has no power in regards to maps or weapons or military.

Diogenes

Excellent analysis, Tashah.

Tashah

I forsaw such an attempt to equate circumstance and pre-addressed it in the OP...

The current reality is that the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea already possess nuclear weapons. South Africa and Libya voluntarily terminated their nuclear WMD programs. The pertinint reality in regards to this thread is that Iran has not been fully transparant about its nuclear programs vis-a-vis its UN/IAEA/NPT obligations.

This thread addresses the feasibility and tactics of a preemptive IAF attack on Iran. It does not address, nor was it intended to address, the legality or morality of such an event. The thread offers a reality strictly from Israel's pov. You can either accept such a reality or ignore it. You can't argue it. It exists.

The United Nations Security Council, the IAEA, the United States, the European Union, and virtually all other countries of the global community disagree with you in this regard.

WI Crippler

Does the IAF not have the in flight tanker capability to hit all those targets and then return, or is it simply a matter of numbers with available aircraft and range as it pertains to crew fatigue?

__________________
"Fatigue makes cowards of us all" - Vincent T. Lombardi.

Summerwind

Pre-addressed or not, it needed to be pointed out clearly, regarding the propaganda relating to this issue


We aren't (nor is Israel in my opinion) transparent about our nuclear programs, why should any country be held to a higher standard than another; and we have been showing quite a bit of aggressive rhetoric ourselves against many other countries, not just Iran, so we are no more "rational" lately than Iran, perhaps even less so.

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.

Consensus doesn't make right (as in correct or fair or reasonable), there have been many wrong consensuses such as slavery, jim crow, japanese interments, women banned from voting, and so many more. Plus consensus is conveniently ignored whenever it didn't/doesn't work for the repubs, for example the Iraq War which had a strong global consensus toward NOT starting that war.

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).