Isreal's capability to destory Iran's Nuclear facalities

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A highly classified US intelligence assessment circulated among policymakers early last year largely affirms the view, originally made in 2007.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.