Preemptive thoughts

[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]

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.

I would suggest that there is a material difference between Israeli possession of nuclear weapons and a possible situation that would arise should Iran develop such weapons. Prime Minister Olmert isn't threatening to wipe nations off the map. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in addition to his regular denials of the Holocaust, has made such threats against Israel.

Also, I do not believe the implicit argument you make of an equal right to nuclear weapons is a sound one when it comes to international peace and security. Such a proposition would entail increased risk of nuclear accidents, elevated risk of proliferation, and genuine dangers associated from rogue states having access to such weapons.​

 

[Summerwind]

I would suggest that there is a material difference between Israeli possession of nuclear weapons and a possible situation that would arise should Iran develop such weapons. Prime Minister Olmert isn't threatening to wipe nations off the map. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in addition to his regular denials of the Holocaust, has made such threats against Israel.

Also, I do not believe the implicit argument you make of an equal right to nuclear weapons is a sound one when it comes to international peace and security. Such a proposition would entail increased risk of nuclear accidents, elevated risk of proliferation, and genuine dangers associated from rogue states having access to such weapons.​

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]

So I'm guessing you see no problem with Isreal having the only nukes in the immediate region? I think that is just wrong.

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

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 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.

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.

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?

 

[Summerwind]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ****.

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.

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]

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?

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).

 

[DeeJayH]

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

 

[DivineComedy]

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

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]

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 ****.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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? :roll:

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]

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? :roll:

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.

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]

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 :mrgreen: . 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. :2razz:

 

[Slainte]

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).

Well this is basically my point, the US is capable of a massive, sustained bombing campaing of dozens, maybe hundreds of sites involved in the Iranian nuclear project and yet there still seems to be a lack of confidence in Washington that such a campaign would deal the 'knock out' blow they'd need to make it worthwhile. Israel can't to anything comparable to that, yet they still think they can harm the Iranian project? I don't think they can and I think they know that in Israel and Iran.

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.

Sure, but there's probably still a lot of civilians seeing how this is still a "civilian" project. You can't exactly blame the Iranians for vetting staff for a nuclear project, indeed it would be grossly irresponsible of them not too. Maybe a lot of those scientists really think they're just working on a way to power their homes too...

Israel would consider a 3 year setback as a success.

Well I wouldn't.

Iran would almost certainly continue their project with added vigour in the event of such an attack, they'd probably develop new ways to defend against such attacks and they damn sure wouldn't let any IAEA observers hang around. Israel can't bomb Iran every 3 years indefinetly, especially since each attack will probably bring worse consequences for them.

 

[Voidwar]

Good Post Tashah.

However, a tip to the Israelis, would be leave the oil infrastructure out of it or you will piss off great white father.

 

[donsutherland1]

Good Post Tashah.

However, a tip to the Israelis, would be leave the oil infrastructure out of it or you will piss off great white father.

Israel almost certainly would not waste time and ammunition attacking Iran's oil infrastructure. On the other hand, Iran would likely seek to target the region's oil infrastructure in a bid to inflict substantial damage on the world's economies should its nuclear facilities be attacked.

The Los Angeles Times reported:

The commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard said the government might shut down vital oil lanes through the Persian Gulf if the country were attacked by the United States or Israel, according to a newspaper report Saturday.

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari warned that if there were any confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, Tehran would try to damage Western economies by targeting oil...

 

[Volker]

Very nice and realistic commentary, Tashah.

Not really, she kinda forgot that Israel is within the Iranian rocket range and Iran can produce new rockets almost all the time. This should be an important detail for people with "preemptive" pipe dreams.

 

[Tashah]

Not really, she kinda forgot that Israel is within the Iranian rocket range and Iran can produce new rockets almost all the time. This should be an important detail for people with "preemptive" pipe dreams.

I forgot nothing. You must have missed this line Herr Volker...

The Iranians would certainly respond by firing Sahab-3 missiles at Israel.

But I did neglect to mention another preemption avenue. The UAV. The IAF is the best in the world with drone technology and experience. As a matter of fact, drone flight time exceeds that of all other IAF aircraft combined.

The IAF has UAVs with the range to reach Iran and return home. These drones have the capacity to carry a munitions payload of 2000-3000 pounds. They are very difficult to detect and almost immune from counter-measures. The IAF could easily implement UAVs around the clock and for as long as necessary.