• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

People are starting to get fed up with Israel's behavior and our administration is picking up on that. Israel had carte-blanche for far too long and abused it horribly. And no, I'm not talking about the flotilla nonsense, that was just the lastest and most public example of a several-year trend.

Israel's behaviour??? And what behaviour is that? And what people are getting fed up? Our "administration" is wanting to send 400 million dollars to the Gaza strip yet Israel is supposed to be our ally. What kind of fool logic is that? For some inane reason, some think that Israel should just shut-up, take it, be led like lambs to the slaughter. The last time that happened, Jews were led right into the gas chambers. They have the right to defend themselves and I don't think it's too much to ask that the allies they do have aren't back-biting them every chance (Obama) gets. :shock:
 
People are starting to get fed up with Israel's behavior and our administration is picking up on that. Israel had carte-blanche for far too long and abused it horribly. And no, I'm not talking about the flotilla nonsense, that was just the lastest and most public example of a several-year trend.

Nothing more than veiled academic codes for anti-semitism.

International and internal politics continue to render this situation difficult but war is war and rockets flying across your border tends to justify Israeli actions in response, but let me ask you this... Is it because the Israelis haven't negotiated themselves out of existence of because the neighboring Arab governments have exploited the conditions of the Palestinians as means of distracting their people?.
 
The Saudi's might, but would Obama allow it? Or would he order US Aircraft to intercept them?

That would depend on whether you believe the messiah to be Muslim or whether you believe him to be Christian.
 
The distance is a problem that was already solved.
During operation Cast Lead (AKA, 2009 Gaza war) Israel has sent jets all the way to Sudan to bomb a convoy that was smuggling weapons to Hamas in Gaza.
The length between Israel and Sudan and Israel and Iran is pretty close.

It is not a comparable situation. Iran is much better defended that the Sudan, which has a huge impact on range. Once in Iran, aircraft will be unable to fly at cruising altitude and descend to a low level, which decreases range. Extra munitions and fuel will be needed for SEAD and maintaing air superiority. The targets attacked will be hardened, requiring extremely heavy specialized munitions that further decrease range. It is also unlikely Israel can hit every target at once, meaning Iran will have time to marshal its defenses. If you combine all those factors together, the range issue becomes a serious problem.
 
A nuclear Iran isn't just a power play against Israel, but to the rest of the Middle East, as well.

According to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations this shouldn't happen, but nor should Turkey pick a side.. you know.. according to Huntington.
 
That would depend on whether you believe the messiah to be Muslim or whether you believe him to be Christian.

Actually, that's not what I would base it on, rather his behavior.
 

Saudi Arabia: We will not give Israel air corridor for Iran strike - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Earlier Saturday, the Times reported that Saudi Arabia has practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems to allow Israeli warplanes passage on their way to attack Iran's nuclear installations, adding that the Saudis have allocated a narrow corridor of airspace in the north of the country.

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi envoy to the U.K. speaking to the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, denied that report, saying such a move "would be against the policy adopted and followed by the Kingdom."

According to Asharq al-Awsat report, bin Nawaf reiterated the Saudi Arabia's rejection of any violation of its territories or airspace, adding that it would be "illogical to allow the Israeli occupying force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace."
 
Posted this in a different thread with the same title, so here it is again...

Israel could conduct an attack if they wanted to without the use of Saudi air space anyway. The Southern route would be the least risk in terms of the operational, but the highest in terms of political risks. Ultimately the best route would be one over Syria (and potentially Turkey or Iraq for a small fraction) which would pose a moderate operational risk, but low political risk.

Israel has no peace treaty with Syria, there is basically no Syrian aircraft presence on the northern border, and Israel's EW capabilities could in all likelihood render the Syrian air defense network useless without actually firing a shot.

Of course if Israel wanted to as well, they could bag an air raid all together and launch a ballistic missile attack with the Jericho III, and avoid political liabilities from the use of air space, but possibily end up with a less certain outcome in terms of site destruction.
 
I would be willing to bet that the Times article is the truth and that the Saudis want to look publicly like they are not supporting the Jew in any way. The Haaretz article is probably what they want out there publicly but someone who was suppose to keep quiet opened there mouth. I also wouldnt think the Israelis would want the Iranians to know whether they had flyover permission either so as to not let the Iranians know where the hell the attack is coming from.
 
Israel has no peace treaty with Syria, there is basically no Syrian aircraft presence on the northern border, and Israel's EW capabilities could in all likelihood render the Syrian air defense network useless without actually firing a shot.

Flying over Syrian isn't possible. Israel may have a better airforce, but they still couldn't expect to fight their way through Syrian airspace without expending fuel or munitions, attack targets in Iran, than fight all the way back to home. Tanker aircraft required for such a mission would be sitting ducks over Syrian air space.


Of course if Israel wanted to as well, they could bag an air raid all together and launch a ballistic missile attack with the Jericho III, and avoid political liabilities from the use of air space, but possibily end up with a less certain outcome in terms of site destruction.

Jericho missiles have an estimated payload of around 2500 pounds, which is unlikely to be enough to destroy Iran's hardened facilities without a nuclear warhead.
 
Flying over Syrian isn't possible. Israel may have a better airforce, but they still couldn't expect to fight their way through Syrian airspace without expending fuel or munitions, attack targets in Iran, than fight all the way back to home. Tanker aircraft required for such a mission would be sitting ducks over Syrian air space.

They won't have to "fight their way through Syrian airspace." As I pointed out, Israel's EW capability, added to the complete lack of Syrian aircraft on the Northern border would effectively mean Israel could fly over Syria without even being spotted by Syrian air defense systems.

In terms of refueling, there are multiple options to extend the range (by quite a bit) of the F-15E without the use of a refueling tanker. All of this ignores however, that Syria would most likely not even spot an Israel tanker if Israel conducted the mission properly.

Jericho missiles have an estimated payload of around 2500 pounds, which is unlikely to be enough to destroy Iran's hardened facilities without a nuclear warhead.

Depends on the site, and you have to understand that you can serevely cripple a site without actually destroying it, which still completes your goal of delaying a nuclear Iran.
 
Flying over Syrian isn't possible. Israel may have a better airforce, but they still couldn't expect to fight their way through Syrian airspace without expending fuel or munitions, attack targets in Iran, than fight all the way back to home. Tanker aircraft required for such a mission would be sitting ducks over Syrian air space.
They couldn't expect to fight their way through Syrian airspace because there shouldn't be any fight.
There was no fight in 2008 when Israeli jets have taken out the Syrian nuclear reactor.
 
EW is not some Star Trek cloaking ability. It gets overrated by a lot by people whop do not understand it. There are a number of ways to find aircraft despite EW.
 
EW is not some Star Trek cloaking ability. It gets overrated by a lot by people whop do not understand it. There are a number of ways to find aircraft despite EW.

Yes there are, but luckily the Syrian's have proven incapable of doing such a thing.
 
Last edited:
As for, the Jews having the same bomb making capabilities plus, the necessary guidance systems..... I'd be willing to bet that they just have about the same thing we do if not better
 
I would be willing to bet that the Times article is the truth and that the Saudis want to look publicly like they are not supporting the Jew in any way. The Haaretz article is probably what they want out there publicly but someone who was suppose to keep quiet opened there mouth. I also wouldnt think the Israelis would want the Iranians to know whether they had flyover permission either so as to not let the Iranians know where the hell the attack is coming from.
^ this
the saudis cannot afford to publicly be seen as acquiescing to israel's desire for air space to make the run on iran
that would incite unrest in the moslem world, as it would enable jewish israel to strike islamic iran
make no mistake, osama bin forgotten is the George Washington of the disenfranchised moslems of that region. he could not be seen as tolerating his cousins aiding a jewish strike on an islamic nation

that said, the iraqi war has been nothing but a cluster**** for the saudi rulers
sunni dominated iraq created a buffer for the saudis. that a shia led iraq is now well within the iranian orbit must make the house of saud uneasy

the creation of a nuclear weapons capability by iran could noticbly upset the dominence of saudi arabi in the region ... which would be the saudis rationale for unofficially looking for nothing and seeing nothing as the israeli airforce flew overhead in a misguided effort to take out iran's nuclear facilities
 
Iran has been at odds at Saudi Arabia in the past and they definitely have an extremely adversarial relationship. No lost love there

Saudi Arabia has it in their 2 faced backstabbing minds that because they have cooperated with the west in the past, they're a potential target.
 
They won't have to "fight their way through Syrian airspace." As I pointed out, Israel's EW capability, added to the complete lack of Syrian aircraft on the Northern border would effectively mean Israel could fly over Syria without even being spotted by Syrian air defense systems.

EW is not a cloaking device. Its possible for Israel to avoid detection by using terrain following flight and a small number of aircraft. However, they cannot fly at cruising altitude with a large fleet and a tanker aircraft. The distances involve require a range optimized flight path making stealth nearly impossible. Even hypothetically assuming they made it across undetected, they would give away their presence once they attacked Iran, making it unavoidable they would be attacked on the way back.

Depends on the site, and you have to understand that you can serevely cripple a site without actually destroying it, which still completes your goal of delaying a nuclear Iran.

With a seriously hardened site, like a facility inside a mountain, you aren't going to do even minimal damage.

In terms of refueling, there are multiple options to extend the range (by quite a bit) of the F-15E without the use of a refueling tanker.

Like what? You can either carry more fuel with external tanks or with a tanker aircraft, but that is it.

All of this ignores however, that Syria would most likely not even spot an Israel tanker if Israel conducted the mission properly.

True, but that is because Israel wouldn't fly over Syria if they were conducting the mission properly.
 
I would guess because the Saudis are used to being the top dog in the Middle East and in recent years Iran has tried to challenge them.

Perhaps it's because Iran is trying to take over all of the Arabian peninsula through the use of terrorism and infiltration by Hezbollah. Ask Lebanon.
 
Perhaps it's because Iran is trying to take over all of the Arabian peninsula through the use of terrorism and infiltration by Hezbollah. Ask Lebanon.

Lebanon isn't on the Arabian peninsula. Plus don't the Saudi's also fund terrorism abroad as well?
 
They couldn't expect to fight their way through Syrian airspace because there shouldn't be any fight.
There was no fight in 2008 when Israeli jets have taken out the Syrian nuclear reactor.

Israel managed to perform a single strike on one unreinforced base using 8 aircraft. That is not comparable to flying across the entire nation at cruising altitude carrying bunker busting munitions, attacking bases in Iran, and then coming back.
 
EW is not a cloaking device. Its possible for Israel to avoid detection by using terrain following flight and a small number of aircraft. However, they cannot fly at cruising altitude with a large fleet and a tanker aircraft. The distances involve require a range optimized flight path making stealth nearly impossible. Even hypothetically assuming they made it across undetected, they would give away their presence once they attacked Iran, making it unavoidable they would be attacked on the way back.

I agree EW is not a fantastic cloaking device that would make such a mission a breeze, but the Syrian's have already proven incapable of detecting Israel aircraft using such techniques, as with the 2007 Israeli raid into Syria. Not to say this would not be more involved, as it obviously would be, but it is doable against a very limited Syrian defense threat.

They might get hit on the way back, but they might not. Syria would still have to scramble fighters from bases that are not really along the Northern route to intercept. Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't, if I was an Israeli policy maker seriously considering the airstrike option, it is a risk I would take.

With a seriously hardened site, like a facility inside a mountain, you aren't going to do even minimal damage.

True, but with such a site even an airstrike would not be all that effective either.

Like what? You can either carry more fuel with external tanks or with a tanker aircraft, but that is it.

Tankers would be the best option, but in their absence, or limited availability (since Israel is thought to not have enough to conduct this raid anyway), you have other options:

1) An in flight refueling (IFR) probe could be incorporated into the F-15E to give the aircraft the capability to refuel from drogue configured tankers.
2) Buddy Refueling between F-15Es that can be packaged in an external tank or CFT. This would be useful in an emergency situation when Strike Missions are in Egress from the target area.
3) Larger External Tanks (Dropped Tanks). These tanks would have a fuel capacity of 800 gallons compared to the standard 610 gallons. The F-15E‘s mission radius would then be increased by about 10%.
4) Additional Internal Fuel added to the outer wing of the F-15E. This would increase the mission radius by 2%
5) Larger Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs). The F-15E could still carry the air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons and external pods as well as the fuel tanks. This would increase the mission radius by 5%.

Different a bit for the F-16's, but you get the general idea. Perhaps I should have been a little more clear in my initial statement that "it could be done without a tanker" since this is more or less that, just in a different form.

True, but that is because Israel wouldn't fly over Syria if they were conducting the mission properly.

Any other route poses to large of a political risk in my opinion. I could be wrong on that, but that is what I think.
 
Israel managed to perform a single strike on one unreinforced base using 8 aircraft. That is not comparable to flying across the entire nation at cruising altitude carrying bunker busting munitions, attacking bases in Iran, and then coming back.

Well actually that expresses the freedom of movement Israeli jets can practice in the Syrian airspace next to the Israeli-Syrian border.
Besides that Israel wouldn't have to fly though the entire Syrian nation, but simply cross it through its northern border.
 
By the way, I've just recalled that the plane that took down the arms-smuggling convoy in Sudan during the 2008-2009 Gaza War was actually Israel's best UAV, the Eitan. (An improved Heron UAV)

Its range is 4603+ miles, according to Wikipedia.
Meaning it could easily reach Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Eitan
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom