Isreal's capability to destory Iran's Nuclear facalities

enfant terrible

Do Isreal currently have the weapons or are they relying on the US to supply them?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-01/u-s-should-give-israel-bunker-buster-bombs-policy-group-says.html

"We know for a fact - or as near a fact as possible - that you will not be able to stop this program with air strikes. There continues to be a whole lot of hysterical posturing about this. In the meantime, it keeps backing the Iranians into a corner," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-iran-nuclear-strike-idUSTRE80B0WM20120112

Is it an impossible to achieve attack for the Israelies?

savagecabbages

Given good enough intelligence on facilities, Israel can certainly strike at said facilities using submarine launched cruise missiles, provided the submarine was in position in the Gulf. Not sure of the practicality of this. Airstrikes would be more difficult if based out of Israel, with several other countries in the way...

They did manage to knock Iraqs nuclear power(weapons ) programme out in 1981 with airstrikes, but Iran could conceivably be twice as far to travel, not to mention all the travelling over the other countries land ruling out aerial refueling...

Manic Moran

I don't think airstrikes alone will be sufficient to cause irreperable practical or political damage to halt an Iranian program. They need the reliability that can be obtained only by putting boots on the ground, which means a very substantial amount of airlift in and out.

NTM

OS119

savagecabbages wrote: »

They did manage to knock Iraqs nuclear power(weapons ) programme out in 1981 with airstrikes, but Iran could conceivably be twice as far to travel, not to mention all the travelling over the other countries land ruling out aerial refueling...

i'd be hugely careful about believing that, for instance, the Saudi's would be apopleptic with rage and indignation if the Israeli's crossed their airspace to attack Iran's nuclear programme. i'm sure they'd make some kind of protest, possibly even appear a bit peeved on the TV, but in reality they wouldn't stand in the Israeli's way, and they certainly wouldn't warn Tehran that the Israeli's were on their way.

infact the only state that would pose a problem for the Israeli's would be Iraq - everyone else in the Gulf would say 'oh, the Israeli's hit the Iranians did they? how awful. now, whats for breakfast..?'.

that said, as MM says, the Iranian nuclear programe is too widespread and dug in too deep for a single series of Israeli airstrikes to close it down completely - they can take lumps out of it, delay it, and force the Iranians to spread it out even further - making it less efficient and more costly, but i doubt that they can stop it.

Fratton Fred

The way Iranian nuclear scientists keep having "unfortunate accidents", air strikes won't be necessary.

constantg

they'd need cruise missiles or an airstrike with ground penetrating ordnance.

a commando raid? weeeeeeeeeeeeeeell that's gonna be really hairy like. you'd need dozens of commandoes; its not that they don't have the guys, but some of these plants are very big and very heavily guarded. Bushehr is by the sea so insertion there could be by sub and exfil by sub. But take some of the other places a few hundred miles inland and then you've issues..


i mean you can parachute in but how're you getting home? Airlift is out. Drive out is out. Melt into background and slowly exfil through civillian means???

krissovo

Israel are tenacious and cunning with their tactics so it can never be ruled out. Lets face it they have plenty of skilled operators who armed with little more than a commando knife and motivation could do plenty of damage to the program. It could be as simple as a few well placed suitcase devices will put Iran back years and leave an element of doubt if it was a industrial accident or a preemptive strike. Historically some previous Israeli missions defy logic but have certainly succeeded.

The challenge they have is the Iranian unknown capability. Iran has been showing off some serious military hardware in recent years that has analysts wondering if it will perform like western equivalents. The recent drone loss in Iran is intriguing as was it or was it not shot down.

freddiek

hopefully civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, but thats probably unlikely with the Israelis involved..

constantg

krissovo wrote: »

Israel are tenacious and cunning with their tactics so it can never be ruled out. Lets face it they have plenty of skilled operators who armed with little more than a commando knife and motivation could do plenty of damage to the program. It could be as simple as a few well placed suitcase devices will put Iran back years and leave an element of doubt if it was a industrial accident or a preemptive strike. Historically some previous Israeli missions defy logic but have certainly succeeded.

The challenge they have is the Iranian unknown capability. Iran has been showing off some serious military hardware in recent years that has analysts wondering if it will perform like western equivalents. The recent drone loss in Iran is intriguing as was it or was it not shot down.

True, but there have been reports (can't back it up ok) before that Israeli fighter bombers were flying sorties into the Med out a rough distance equivalent to the Iranian coast and back again to get used to the distance element at least

bwatson

constantg wrote: »

they'd need cruise missiles or an airstrike with ground penetrating ordnance.

From what I have read, the most likely method the Israelis would employ would be to simply unleash strike after strike until they eventually "burrow" their way down to the underground facilities and expose them.

Are they capable? Of course, they have successfully conducted air strikes on nuclear facilities of a middle eastern nation with what are percieved to be better air defences than the Iranians have (Syria). This also shows they have the bottle to carry out such an attack.

They are certainly capable and they have a history of carrying out such operations if they deem them necessary. I don't think they will carry out an attack in the summer but I wouldn't be shocked if they did.

savagecabbages

OS119 wrote: »

i'd be hugely careful about believing that, for instance, the Saudi's would be apopleptic with rage and indignation if the Israeli's crossed their airspace to attack Iran's nuclear programme. i'm sure they'd make some kind of protest, possibly even appear a bit peeved on the TV, but in reality they wouldn't stand in the Israeli's way, and they certainly wouldn't warn Tehran that the Israeli's were on their way.

You'd be careful about believing that they took out Iraqs nuclear programme, or that airstrikes could work?
In reality airstrikes are extremely impractical with the distances involved, and the fact that you'd have to transit Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi or Saudi airspace to even reach Iran which is 25 times the size of Ireland, and certainly has its infrastructure well dispersed around the country...

Submarine launched cruise missiles would be the only certain way of hitting the facilities, but you'd have to know exactly where everything is, and I'm not up to speed on Israels ability to perform comprehensive cruise missile strikes from its subs.

In any case, as mentioned a strike would only serve to halt temporarily or delay the nuclear programme, rather than stop it completely. And if you try something once, you don't get to do it again...

OS119

savagecabbages wrote: »

You'd be careful about believing that they took out Iraqs nuclear programme, or that airstrikes could work?
In reality airstrikes are extremely impractical with the distances involved, and the fact that you'd have to transit Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi or Saudi airspace to even reach Iran which is 25 times the size of Ireland, and certainly has its infrastructure well dispersed around the country...

sorry, i meant that no Gulf country bar the Iraqis - and only then depending on who you talk to - would find the loss of Irans nuclear programme to be an occasion for grief. most would find it an occasion to send Valentines cards to the Israeli government.

airstrikes are entirely plausable - its about 1000miles from Bersheba to Bushir (where a significant portion of the programme appears to be), flying through Jordan and the down the Iraqi/Saudi border to the gulf. thats well within the capability of the Israeli's F-15I's - especially if either Jordan or KSA could be persuaded not to notice the tankers floating around in their airspace...

Submarine launched cruise missiles are more problematic - put simply they aren't heavy enough and don't hit things hard enough to do the 'bunker busting' role. fine for hitting surface facilities, wrecking ports and airbases, but they tend not to penetrate steel and concrete like GBU-28's do.

enfant terrible

Would the US hand over the Boeing's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) to the Israelies to do the dirty work for them?

It says it is designed for delivery by B-2 Stealth bombers, could Israel modify it for one of its aircrafts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-iran-nuclear-strike-idUSTRE80B0WM20120112

savagecabbages

Agreed the Arab world wont exactly be weeping at the prospect of the Persians not going nuclear...

And I dont know where the Iranian facilities are located in Iran, just looking at the country as a whole and saying a non-refueled F15e couldn't make it to 'any point in Iran' and back. The thought of Arab states allowing Israeli refueling over their airspace is too good to be true...

I was more looking in terms of Israels ability to strike any part of Iran, at any time through whatever means, and sub launched cruise missiles out of the gulf would allow them to achieve this. Their effectiveness against hardened bunkers I'm no expert on.

Then again they could lob a few nuclear tipped IRBMs, but thats a discussion for another thread/day!

How do we thing Iran would retaliate to such a strike? I'm thinking LOADS of missiles back at Israel would be the only realistic response, if any...

OS119

enfant terrible wrote: »

Would the US hand over the Boeing's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) to the Israelies to do the dirty work for them?

It says it is designed for delivery by B-2 Stealth bombers, could Israel modify it for one of its aircrafts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-iran-nuclear-strike-idUSTRE80B0WM20120112

no, its about 5 times the weight that any Israeli combat aircraft could carry.

pylons - the bits you attach weapons or other stores to - are rated for certain weights according to the strength of the bit of aircraft they themselves are attached to. so, for example, a centreline pylon for an F-15I is rated to about 6000lb. that is the greatest weight the frame will carry without just tearing off and leaving a gaping and expensive hole in the aircraft.

the weapon of choice for the Israelis is almost certainly the GBU-28, a 5000lb laser guided free fall bomb.

enfant terrible

OS119 wrote: »

no, its about 5 times the weight that any Israeli combat aircraft could carry.

pylons - the bits you attach weapons or other stores to - are rated for certain weights according to the strength of the bit of aircraft they themselves are attached to. so, for example, a centreline pylon for an F-15I is rated to about 6000lb. that is the greatest weight the frame will carry without just tearing off and leaving a gaping and expensive hole in the aircraft.

the weapon of choice for the Israelis is almost certainly the GBU-28, a 5000lb laser guided free fall bomb.

What's the point of the US developing the MOP if Israel can't use it, it seems unlikely they would attack Iran directly themselves.

They even seem to be in a rush to improve it.

"The Journal also reports that, "The decision to ask now for more money to develop the weapon was directly related to efforts by the U.S. military's Central Command to prepare military options against Iran as quickly as possible." And thus much the same as with the retrofitting of the USS Ponce, the Pentagon has decided to sidestep the normal budgetary request process in seeking additional funds for the MOP. As Journal notes, “The Pentagon deems the MOP upgrades to be a matter of some urgency.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=28953

Border-Rat

Iran has stated it considers the USA and Israel to be one and the same, where if one attacks, they'll retaliate against both. Israel will only attack Iran for this reason.

OS119

enfant terrible wrote: »

What's the point of the US developing the MOP if Israel can't use it, it seems unlikely they would attack Iran directly themselves....

astonishing as it may seem to some people, not quite everything the US does is purely for the benefit of Israel, and furthermore Iran is not the sole reason for the existance of the US military.

enfant terrible

OS119 wrote: »

astonishing as it may seem to some people, not quite everything the US does is purely for the benefit of Israel, and furthermore Iran is not the sole reason for the existance of the US military.

What do you think they're developing the MOP for, deployment in Ireland?

They seem to be in a rush too, wonder why.

"The decision to ask now for more money to develop the weapon was directly related to efforts by the U.S. military's Central Command to prepare military options against Iran as quickly as possible." And thus much the same as with the retrofitting of the USS Ponce, the Pentagon has decided to sidestep the normal budgetary request process in seeking additional funds for the MOP. As Journal notes, “The Pentagon deems the MOP upgrades to be a matter of some urgency.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=28953

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577187420287098692.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-29/news/30675215_1_centrifuges-massive-ordnance-penetrator-gbu-28

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/us-making-more-powerful-bunkerbuster-to-hit-iran-report/957115.html

http://rt.com/news/american-super-conventional-bomb-951/

OS119

enfant terrible wrote: »

What do you think they're developing the MOP for, deployment in Ireland?

They seem to be in a rush too, wonder why....

do you believe that Iran is the only country that US believes it may face that has invested in very hardened passive defensive measures for its critical military facilities?

do you believe that the US is not looking askance at, for instance, Pakistans nuclear capability, or North Koreas nuclear capability?

i'm not sure you could say thay are in that much of a rush - the current, much more widely used penetrator, the GBU-28 was developed during the Gulf War of 1991. the USAF sawed the barrels off some 8'' artillery peices, filled them with explosive and then glued a Paveway laser guidence system onto the front of the barrel. it went from fag-packet idea to being dropped by F-111's over Iraq in 2 weeks.

thats a rush, a couple of years is not a rush.

constantg

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=B%C5%ABshehr,+Bushehr,+Iran&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=28.921631,50.932617&spn=21.713909,43.286133&sll=24.44715,38.583984&sspn=44.426376,120.058594&oq=bushe&hnear=B%C5%ABshehr,+Bushehr,+Iran&t=m&z=5


that's a fair bit of the world to fly over.....

SLBM cruise missiles or IRBMs i reckon, personally. Maybe a commando mission to 'paint' the target, probably more assassinations.

savagecabbages

constantg wrote: »

SLBM cruise missiles or IRBMs i reckon, personally. Maybe a commando mission to 'paint' the target, probably more assassinations.

Another topic I'm ignorant of is ICBM/IRBM, are these exclusively nuclear tipped, or are there conventional types available?

I'm guessing its all nuclear, considering the massive speeds involved and the difficulty in achieving pinpoint accuracy...

OS119

savagecabbages wrote: »

Another topic I'm ignorant of is ICBM/IRBM, are these exclusively nuclear tipped, or are there conventional types available?

I'm guessing its all nuclear, considering the massive speeds involved and the difficulty in achieving pinpoint accuracy...

as far as i'm aware all western IRBM and ICBM's are armed with nuclear warheads. that said, there has been a lot of talk about the 'sub-strategic' role that these systems can undertake - for instance the UK has mentioned that some of its Trident D5 missiles are armed with a single warheard - rather that the normal 8 - and that that warhead is set at less than 1kt blast yeild (making it about 1/15th of the power of the Hiroshima bomb), and the possibility that such a weapon could be used with a conventional war (for instance as a 'bunker-buster' or point target basher, for something like an airfeild or port, or indeed an invasion fleet....). there was also some talk about the efficacy of a ton of concrete hitting something at mach twenty five...

spank_inferno

I reckon the "phoney war" ie: magnet bomb / covert killings will continue for some time.

I just don't think Israel has the capacity to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme, only hinder it temporarily.

johngalway

It would be really interesting to know how many boots, if any, are already on the ground. Meaning have the Israeli's or others successfully infiltrated the Iranian Nuclear programme with their own people. Of course, there's no way of knowing that right now, or any time soon.

Wasn't there some cyber warfare going on, or some type of programme put into Iranian systems?

The assassinations I'd agree will continue.

constantg

savagecabbages wrote: »

Another topic I'm ignorant of is ICBM/IRBM, are these exclusively nuclear tipped, or are there conventional types available?

I'm guessing its all nuclear, considering the massive speeds involved and the difficulty in achieving pinpoint accuracy...

IRBMs and ICBMs can be used as conventionally armed missiles as far as i know. Usually with a nice chunk of TNT or Octol or semtex or whatever they use in them these days

Be like Nutella

From what I've read, at this point I don't think any air strike campaign 'alone' by either the US or Israel or both combined could end Irans Nuclear Weapons program IF they actually have one in full fling at present.

The main issues are:

The number of targets previously thought necessary to destroy were maybe achievable – something like 50-100 targets… that’s what was being bandied about originally… before Iran had got to 20% enrichment and started moving sht all over the place and building all sorts of undergournd stuff etc..

However over the last few years that estimate has (publicly) multiplied to the point where the number of aircraft required, ordnance necessary and the scale of support of such an operation has knocked the idea right out of reality.

Blatant Problems include:

· The route planes would take i.e. big air space permission issues... even/especially over Iraq.
· Carrier vs Land Base support? The distances involved include major refueling issues and a very drawn out complicated and very complex schedule of sorties... prob all from carrier groups in the gulf.
· The scale of the potential operation is now considered outside of any level which could be SOLD to any of the relevent parties involved... EU /UN /US Public etc etc
· And would by the mere fact it would be a drawn out affair and include A LOT of planes etc would GUARANTEE 'unacceptable' losses, downed planes etc

And finally when all is said and done - the whole thing WOULD NOT BE WORTH doing....because all the experts agree... and I'm not just bandying that about... read the white papers theyre all saying the same thing...even the feckin AEI is in agreement here... it (a massive drawn out fantastical air-strike campaign) would just push the date of Iran becoming a Bona Fide Nuclear Power down the road, maybe, at a push, 6 years... which doesn't sound too bad in a way but alas... the concensus is: It just wouldn't be worth it.

FECK THE AIR-STRIKE OPTION - WHY DON'T THEY JUST INVADE IRAN?

Well the BROOKINGS INSTITUTE did a report on all that.. if anyone's interested it's pretty much THE REPORT on all this stuff... and it breaks down Military options for the US and then does the Pro's and Con's... fairly well written easy to understand white paper.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy.aspx

Here's some quotes to give ya feel for their opinions (these lads are not just some profs or thinks tank republicans or democrats we're talking ex admin guys, ex military, ex cia mid east analysts, game theorists etc etc)

"
Disadvantages:
......costly in a whole variety of ways. Iran is
arguably a more complex, convoluted, and
conflict-ridden society than either Iraq or
Afghanistan. But like Iraq, it would be too
important to be cast aside after deposing
the regime and razing all its nuclear and
terrorist-support facilities. The invasion itself
would be large and costly, but the effort
needed to occupy, secure, and then build a
new Iranian state—one capable of governing
the country effectively without falling
into chaos or inciting new anti-Americanism—
would be far more so. Even if Washington
has learned all of the lessons of Iraq
and Afghanistan and handles an invasion
of Iran in a much better fashion, this option
would cost tens—if not hundreds—of billions
of dollars a year for five to ten years.....................

and it goes on from there to say things like....

"
It would require the commitment of the
better part of U.S. ground forces for several
years, and could necessitate a much greater
commitment and expansion of American
ground forces than at any time since the
Second World War. It might even require
the institution of partial conscription for
some period of time and would divert badly
needed assets away from both Iraq and
Afghanistan.Hundreds or possibly thousands
of American military personnel
would die in the invasion itself.....

"
Moreover, an invasion of Iran has the potential
to damage the longer-term strategic
interests of the United States. Such an invasion
could well redefine America’s position
in the international order in a particularly
deleterious manner. Especially given that
such a war would probably have less support
than the invasion of Iraq, and would be
undertaken by an administration other than
that of George W. Bush, it would likely loom
far larger than the Iraq War in the thinking
of other people and governments. It could
well settle the debate over whether the United
States is an aggressive, unilateralist imperial
power or a mostly benign and uniquely
unselfish hegemon. Americans have always
seen themselves as the latter, and there are
many people around the world who still
view the United States that way despite the
events of 2001-2008—in large part because
some agree that there were justifications for
the war in Iraq, and others simply blame
American actions on an aberrant administration.
An invasion of Iran could eliminate
the lingering basis for that support and
profoundly alter global perspectives on the
United States, which over time would inevitably
translate into commensurate shifts in
policy against this country.

___________________________________

I haven't made my mind up whether Iran is really out to become a nuclear power or not yet... but then again I only know as much as the US and the IAEA and that's fcuk all... there is absolutely no CIA intelligence network in Iran... they burned the whole thing by mistake some years ago when a laptop was found with all kinds of sht on it and that was that... and that's been publicly admitted to. So most of what we've been hearing is based on conjecture not too disimilar to the crap before Iraq but anyway all that's neither here nor there the question is COULD THE US OR ISRAEL OR BOTH - KNOCK OUT IRANS NUCLEAR CAPABILITY/DEVELOPMENT?
NO THEY COULD NOT AND WILL NOT... at least not in the air-strike-only scenario...
· too large,
· too difficult,
· too much collateral damage,
· too expensive,
· too many planes,
· too many logistical challenges,
· no international support,
· unassailable legal barriers,
HUGE poorly understood risks to the stability of the general region including the possibility of beginning massive region wide war and unacceptable loss of US planes over a very drawn out period of sorties all of which could force a full scale invasion option anyway... which I'm not saying I want... but if we're being logical here then... it is in fact the only option available even theoretically which could actually prevent Iran from getting to the Bomb IF thats what Iran wants.... which it may do I don't know...and neither does anyone... either way they are certainly being successful in making fukin eejits out of the Americans in all this crap...

OS119

Be like Nutella wrote: »

would just push the date of Iran becoming a Bona Fide Nuclear Power down the road, maybe, at a push, 6 years... which doesn't sound too bad in a way but alas... the concensus is: It just wouldn't be worth it...

thats the view of this particular think-tank, not neccesarily the view of the Israelis, or indeed of the US Government.

pushing the programme back 6 years is still pushing the programme back 6 years - even a full invasion by the best part of 1 million US soldiers, followed by an occupation and nation building is still only really a 'knock-back' operation. at some point the US will leave, the then Iranian government will be able to make its own decisions and it'll have the oil money to develop whatever capability it desires.

the US could well decide that undertaking a 'push-back' air campaign every 5 years or so is an acceptable policy until something better comes along - particularly if the two alternatives are (1) a nuclear armed Iran, and (2) a full scale invasion, occupation, and to acheive it, conscription.

policy is rarely choosing the best out of a series of attractive options - its almost always choosing the least worst out of a series of dire options, and knowing that the least worst of the options only looks that way because it hasn't been fully thought through.

Be like Nutella

Here's a Power Point on it if anyone's interested.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0623_iran/0623_iran_ppt.pdf

tac foley

The way Iran is headed right now, it could well end up getting all the nuclear warheads it could possibly want.

Trouble is, they'd actually be going off at the time...

tac

Be like Nutella

OS119 wrote: »

thats the view of this particular think-tank, not neccesarily the view of the Israelis, or indeed of the US Government.

pushing the programme back 6 years is still pushing the programme back 6 years - even a full invasion by the best part of 1 million US soldiers, followed by an occupation and nation building is still only really a 'knock-back' operation. at some point the US will leave, the then Iranian government will be able to make its own decisions and it'll have the oil money to develop whatever capability it desires.

the US could well decide that undertaking a 'push-back' air campaign every 5 years or so is an acceptable policy until something better comes along - particularly if the two alternatives are (1) a nuclear armed Iran, and (2) a full scale invasion, occupation, and to acheive it, conscription.

policy is rarely choosing the best out of a series of attractive options - its almost always choosing the least worst out of a series of dire options, and knowing that the least worst of the options only looks that way because it hasn't been fully thought through.

Of the approx 5000 active policy advising think tanks in the world today 2000 are in the US... and of that 2000 who all have lots to say and are trying to be heard... Brookings is ranked the no.1 and at its level along with a few of the other larger older think tanks it surpasses being 'one of many think tanks' and is considered a policy former i.e. Obama and his guys will have looked to this report above any other out there as standard routine in creating their game plan... his various military, intelligence advisors would have one view and then they'd amalgamate the best reports available from the think tanks.. that's what they're for.. and that's how policy is formed especially when it comes to diplomacy and international relations which is the very reason the original think tanks like Chatham House formed.

US policy has been INFORMED by basically 3 think tanks for most of the last 50 years.
The AEI
Brookings
The Heritage Foundation

That doesn't mean they always do what these guys say... I'm not saying that.. what I'm saying is that the MOST QUALIFIED work for these think tanks and the MOST READ reports come from inside these think tanks THEREFORE this report by Brookings on the US options vis a vis Iran should be taken seriously in its estimates, facts, opinions and assertions.

They specifically say that to repeat a bombing campaign every x number of years to push Irans Nuclear Ambitions back is NOT AN OPTION.

They specifically say that an Israeli strike would serve almost no purpose whatsoever and just pose irresponsible risk to the situation and wider region.

Their opinion on an air-strike only option is that basically it's just not worth doing.

Their opinion on a full scale invasion is that although militarily possible it would cost too much money, time, international political capital and lives... in that order.

That's their opinion and they're welcome to it... personally I tend to agree having spent the last years reading about these issues and keeping up on things as much as possible.

Are there bombs JDAMS etc etc that can with a few hits take out deep facilities? yes sure... wouldn't be easy though but would be possible with multiple multiple hits... that would be the central issue... then expanding from that point...you'd only need to repeat that concept on 500 targets including surpressing an entire AAA network...and to do so you'd need bases... but they don't have access to bases in the right places.... hence they'd run the whole thing off carriers... possibly as many as 3 ... and where are you going to station these? in the constrained waters of the gulf and strait? right... and how long would it take to complete... estimates are as high as 2 months solid bombing... who's going to mandate this? How do you get past the legal barriers? If ANYONE helped you with bases, air space etc etc.. Iran would instantly declare war with that country. It's Sabre rattling at this stage... Israel can't stop Iran getting to the bomb IF that's what theyre doing... which there is absolutely no proof at all anywhere at all...at all...at all... not even a crappy fake laptop has done it...

There is only one rational option left.. only one way for the US to influence this thing and that is with its already in-play 'Containment 2' option. Which is basically a merging of the long time existing Carter Doctrine (which says don't mess with our oil supply yadayada) and standard containment policy truman doctrine tweaked for the mid east.. which basically tries to slow down their race to the bomb (we'll assume) by using diplomacy and sanctions (God knows how that works) while hopefully NOT POLARISING THE ENTIRE IRANIAN PEOPLE AGAINST YOU FOREVER which is just so blatantly counter -productive it's comical as it strengthens what was/is a weakened regime on the cusp of reform (not uprising).

Israeli politics and US politics are so connected... and this is election year in the states... the Israeli lobby in Washington is doing a lot of sabre rattling as is the republicans in an effort to energise it's very unmotivated base to get behind their very unlikeable Romney on a platform of security security security as they can't bank on an economic platform with the economy currently healing in Obama's favour so... all this sabre rattling about Israeli air strikes and Romney and Santorum all saying they'll deffo bomb bomb bomb Iran is a big pile of piss... the chance to air strike the 'alleged nuclear program of Iran' back enough years to make it worth while was at least 1 year ago and is now out of sight... but the US doesn't want to look stupid with China et al watching so pretends it still has teeth in this debate...when in fact all it can do is illegally fcuk with Irans economy to try and get the Iranian people to kick up sh1t.

Be like Nutella

hahahaha I like that one tac

while we're at it

OS119

Be like Nutella wrote: »

...THEREFORE this report by Brookings on the US options vis a vis Iran should be taken seriously in its estimates, facts, opinions and assertions....

i'm sure it is taken seriously - but you don't get my point: the judgements you talk about are political judgements, they are subjective. what one intelligent, informed person believes to be 'worth it', another intelligent, informed person may not - and vice versa.

the think-tanks also have the luxury of deciding that all options are too hard, including doing nothing - but the US president doesn't have that luxury, he has to do something, whether thats actually something, or nothing, but he will have to choose a course of action. so while the think tank says 'all options are equally sh1t', Obama says 'yeah, thanks for that, very helpful - i still have to choose one'.

Obama is subject to factors the think-tank doesn't need to worry about - domestic politics for one, but also that Israel may not agree with this report and tell him that they're going anyway. in that situation, Obama has very little choice but to either a) go with them, imperfect as it may be, b) not go with them and try to stay silent on whether he approves or disapproves, or c) not go with them and then criticise them. all of which are appalling options, and while he does get to choose which one he goes for, he doesn't get to not choose one.

think tank reports are useful, but they are different to government in that government will eventually have to decide on a course of action, whereas think tanks don't. government analysis all leads to 'what are we going to do?', think tank analysis is centered around 'what are the options, and what are the pro's and cons of each option?' - think tanks can bring out an inconclusive report, government always has to come up with a policy. these may be some of the same people, but they have different objectives when they first put pen to paper, and therefore are likely to come to different conclusions.

Be like Nutella

agree

thecommietommy

" US believes Iran not trying to build nuclear bomb - A highly classified US intelligence assessment circulated among policymakers early last year largely affirms the view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Iran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003. "
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4194307,00.html

Interesting news and from an Israeli newspaper at that.

Be like Nutella

How Israel might strike at Iran - BBC


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643

the_syco

http://www.military.com/news/article/source-israel-wont-warn-us-before-iran-strike.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=8

Source: Israel Won't Warn US Before Iran Strike

WASHINGTON -- Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions.

But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel's frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, they became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran.

But as Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger has said:

"We have to learn from North Korea. All those (peace) talks and stalling and they developed a nuclear weapon," he said. "We are going to send a message, enough is enough, the stalling is over. ... All options are on the table."

If anything, that's one reason why Israel may think sanctions are pointless, and to just strike at Iran before it can make a bomb.

Be like Nutella

Yes but I just don't think anyone thinks at this stage that they can stop Iran from getting to a bomb if that's what they want to do. Israel may strike but I don't think they will because I think they are a rational actor nothwithstanding all the media hype, and if they do they'll be risking a lot more than they might gain.
The Target set is too large and too far away. Israel would need to hit upwards of 10/15 large nuclear development sites some of which are buried and would require either a large number of bunker buster sorties or a much much larger number of burrowing sorties. The bombs they would have to use are so heavy their fighters can only carry one or two each and their fuel tanker planes are too few in number to allow such an operation to be carried out swiftly.

There are basic limiting factors in play which fortunately does not make the airstrike option worth it especially if all it may achieve is either pushing Iran back a couple years OR even driving Iran to rush towards the bomb with a massively motivated national effort... both of which make the option a poor one.... although maybe not when you consider the situation black and white as some do and the media seems to sometimes push which is: Iran is deffo going for the bomb... will have it very soon...and then will deffo press the red button immediately wiping Israel off of some map... which is just not even remotely the case under any circumstances.

IMO reason will triumph... nobody will do anything...Iran will halt any possibly existing military aspect to its nuclear development... the IAEA will be allowed in eventually and Iran will successfully develop Nuclear power and its economy will improve and its government will reform gradually and nobodys children will turn to ash on their swings a la T2.... but then again I am an optimist !

Be like Nutella

Too many sites > 23 requiring multiple hits.

mpg problems - sites are 1000 miles away

Can refuel mid air etc but Israel has only 8 or 10 tankers for this.

Buried sites need bunker busting bombs

"The Israeli inventory numbers 55 bunker buster bombs. They are Guided Bomb Unit 28 (GBU-28), 5,000-pound (2,268 kg) laser guided bunker buster bombs nicknamed "Deep Throat" designed to penetrate hardened targets located deep underground."

Bunker busters require very accurate intel on target sites..... can't afford to miss.

and the targets are just allllll over the shop.... ahem ...very dispersed.

OS119

Be like Nutella wrote: »

...Too many sites > 23 requiring multiple hits....

not 23. that list includes two uranium mines - do they really need to be hit at the same time, or at all, in order to put a crimp in the nuclear programe?

some/most of the sites in that list are facilities that provide the theoretical reseach neccessary for a nuclear weapon, or the most basic building blocks of the programme - Iran is passed that stage, so those targets don't need to be hit, or would be a waste of time hitting, in order to put the programme back 6 months, or a year, or two years.

Israel, if its looking to stop the programme in its tracks for a certain period of time - which is the pragmatic option, rather than attempting to scour Iran of any capability to even think about having a nuclear/radiological weapon ever, for all eternity - only needs to degrade/destroy the apex of that programe - the bits that enrich the urananium and then fabricate the weapon, and the bits that take a fabricatred, weaponised device and turn it into a fabricated, weaponised device that Iran can put into Israeli territory.

its still not easy, but Israel does not need to destroy the whole programme in one fell swoop in order to stop Iran having a nuclear weapons capability in 1, 2, 5 years etc...

secondopinion

Iran won't use a nuclear device against Israel. It wants one to act as a deterrent against US and Israeli threats.

It can't be stopped now from obtaining one unless there is an invasion by The US or a nuclear attack by The US and/or Israel. Either would solve the problem. A nuclear strike would not be acceptable to The US people at the moment. The casualties involved in invading Iran would not be acceptable to The US people at the moment. The only option likely to succeed in both the short and long term would be a nuclear strike by Israel. Does Israel feel inclined to take this step, if the only alternative is a nuclear armed Iran?

Be like Nutella

In the parameters of 'Iran is deffo after the Bomb in a big way' I actually agree... a Nuke strike by Israel would do it.... but it's so unlikely that it can be ruled out almost completely.

I reckon if you asked the top 100 heads of militaries in the world at least 96 would tell you it's so unlikely as to be ruled out... just as they would say a full US invasion of Iran (incl regime change and years of security and nation building) is so unlikely as to be ruled out.

Anyone disagree?

Be like Nutella

Excerpt from a report titled: Israeli strike on Iran CSIS report 2009

Military and Political Consequences of an

Israeli Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

Iran‘s Nuclear Program

• The more an Israeli threat to the survival of the regime in Iran, the more Iran will be
determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

•Increase Iran’s long term resolve to develop a nuclear deterrent program. Could be

the beginning rather than the end of such a program. Iran could start an accelerated

program in building its own nuclear weapons. It could also covert it’s dispersed

facilities into a full weapons development program and be brought online in a very

short period of time.

Iran and the IAEA

• Iran would withdraw from the NPT based on the argument that it needs to acquire

nuclear weapons to deter any further aggression by Israel and the U.S.

Iranian response against Israel

• Immediate retaliation using its ballistic missiles on Israel. Multiple launches of
Shahab-3 including the possibility of CBR warheads against Tel Aviv, Israeli military
and civilian centers, and Israeli suspected nuclear weapons sites.

• Using proxy groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas to attack Israel proper with suicide

bombings, covert CBR attacks, and rocket attacks from southern Lebanon.

Regional Security

• Give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism.

• Destabilizing Iraq through the Shia against US occupation, further arming insurgency
groups when possible.

• Support and upgrade Taliban capabilities in Afghanistan.

• Increase the threat of asymmetric attacks against American interests and allies in
the region, especially against countries that host the US military such as Qatar and
Bahrain.

• Target U.S. and Western shipping in the Gulf, and possibly attempt to interrupt the

flow of oil through the Gulf.


It is possible that Israel will carry out a strike against Iranian Nuclear Facilities, if the U.S. does not, with the
objective of either destroying the program or delaying it for some years. The success of the Strike Mission will
be measured by how much of the Enrichment program has it destroyed, or the number of years it has delayed
Iranian acquisition of enough Uranium or Plutonium from the Arak reactor to build a nuclear bomb.
• The U.S. would certainly be perceived as being a part of the conspiracy and having assisted and given Israel the
green light, whether it did or had no part in it whatsoever. This would undermine the U.S. objectives in increasing
stability in the region and bringing about a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It will also harm for a very
long period of time relations between the U.S. and it‘s close regional allies.
• Arab States have become extremely frustrated with the U.S. and the West double standard when addressing the
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East. Arab countries will not condone any attack on
Iran under the pretext that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, whilst Israel has some 200 to 300 nuclear
weapons, and the delivery means using the Jericho missiles. In addition to Israel still occupying the West Bank and
the Syrian Golan Heights.
• It is doubtful that an Israeli strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities would bring Syria into a direct conflict with Israel. Syria
knows very well that alone it‘s military forces are no match to Israel. However, proxy actors such as Hizbullah would
engage Israel in ant-symmetric attacks, with Syrian and Iranian assistance.

OS119

these think tanks are getting worse.

apparently, Iran may stir up trouble in Iraq that causes problems for the US occupation.

is this the Iraq that US troops left year, or is there a different Iraq?

they may also, in the event of an Israeli attack on their nuclear programme, stir up trouble in Afghanistan which would harm the US.

is this the Israel that stole US nuclear and communications secrets, refuses to implement US peace plans - which harms US diplomatic interests, and the Israel that sold the design plans for the F-16 to China. or is this a different Israel that gives the slightest sh1t about how its actions effect the US?

apparently, such a strike - whether carried out by the US or Israel - would deeply offend the US's friends in the Gulf. yeah, i can well imagine the public and private grief in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Quatar, UAE etc. if Irans nuclear programme went up in a puff of smoke.

without wishing to be rude, there are kids in my local primary school who could do a better job than this bunch of clowns.

secondopinion

Be like Nutella wrote: »

In the parameters of 'Iran is deffo after the Bomb in a big way' I actually agree... a Nuke strike by Israel would do it.... but it's so unlikely that it can be ruled out almost completely.

I reckon if you asked the top 100 heads of militaries in the world at least 96 would tell you it's so unlikely as to be ruled out... just as they would say a full US invasion of Iran (incl regime change and years of security and nation building) is so unlikely as to be ruled out.

Anyone disagree?

I think the balance of probability rules out an Israeli nuclear attack, in which case, at some point in the next ten years, Iran will posses a nuclear strike capability. It won't use it against Israel. Israel and Iran will become like India and Pakistan.

On a strategic issue - the days of The US attacking Muslim states will surely be coming to an end.