Israel threatens strikes on Iranian nuclear targets

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1292472003

ISRAEL has warned that it is prepared to take unilateral military action against Iran if the international community fails to stop any development of nuclear weapons at the country’s atomic energy facilities.

As the International Atomic Energy Agency prepares to meet again this week to discuss the situation in Iran, Israel has told Washington it is prepared to act alone and launch a strike similar to its attack on Iraq in 1981 when its air force bombed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad.

In an apparent attempt to increase pressure on the IAEA and United Nations to limit the development of Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel’s defence minister Shaul Mofaz has made what sources have described as a warning of "unprecedented severity".

At the time of the Iraq attack, Israel defended its actions, claiming it had dealt a devastating blow to Saddam Hussein’s goal of developing nuclear weapons. Israel views Iran in much the same way as it did Saddam’s Iraq.

more

[madrchsod]

1. well then, why do we need

to be in the middle east when we can let israel blow the shit out of countries we don`t like? saves us alot of time and money. plus we don`t have to spill america blood over there..sounds like a good idea...

[pinniped]

6. In due time...

BULLshyt's oil comes first.

[mbperrin]

2. So WHY didn't they blow up Saddam?

You'd think all those billions we spent to build all those weapons factories there would get us some return!

[Jim Sagle]

8. If we'd let Israel invade Iraq, how would we steal the oil?

:shrug:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. So nice they continue as a stabilizing force in the ME...

</sarcasm off>

[teryang]

4. "It had the intent"

Once upon a time, you may have entertained the notion, so I am going to attack you now.

Israel cannot attack Iran without a great deal of cooperation from American Armed Forces. Why even pretend that these threats come from Israel? This is brinkmanship of the worst kind.

[incontrovertible]

7. uh, yeah it can

"Israel cannot attack Iran without a great deal of cooperation from American Armed Forces."

Absurd. Do you know anything about the Israeli military? They've fought off the entire Arab world, twice, and once took a fifth of Egypt while they were at it. What is it you'd think they'd need from us? Military hardware? They've got it in droves. Expert combat flight crews? The Israeli Air Force is the only one on the planet that American counterparts could legitimately fear. They could wipe the map of Syria, Iran, and every other petty fiefdom in the ME without once picking up the hotline to D.C. (except as a courtesy), and without once arming a nuclear weapon.

The only reason Israel doesn't roll over its neighborhood is out of consideration for the U.S.. We'd prefer not to have another oil embargo arising from the fact that Arab armies suck.

[NickB79]

9. Long-term, Israel has no way to "roll over it's neighborhood"

In the short term, yes, they could probably take on most of the ME and win, considering their significant military advantages. But then what? You must look at the big picture here, months or years ahead. They don't have even close to the manpower to occupy and hold that territory, and will have made even greater enemies of those living in the countries around them. Israel is incapable of calling up most of its reserves for long duration because, since virtually their entire population is part of the military, the loss of those workers would cripple their economy within weeks of war. Right now Israel is fighting a relatively small group of terrorists, most of whom are from the local area of Palestine and Lebanon. What happens when the people of the ME see their countries invaded by Israel? Israel would see retalitory terrorist attacks beyond anything they've seen so far. Then, you'd have to wonder, what would happen in those countries who's governments were toppled by the invasion? More than likely, they'd be replaced by fundamentalist Islamic ones just like we're concerned about occurring in Iraq. Ones even less willing to work with Israel for peace. It would look scarily like the situation the US is in now; we rolled in thinking we could use our great technological skills to win, but now we're barely holding the ground due to lack of troops.

[incontrovertible]

13. long term?

Just as happened in 74, Israel's neighbors would be considerably more concerned with rebuilding their wrecked civilizations than with mustering another ill-equiped armed force from the ranks of their shellshocked and thoroughly defeated populace.

Israel would not need to occupy its neighbors. It would need only to neutralize their military forces. This, it could do - easily. When the next armed force builds up on its borders, it would do so again.

My point was, and remains, that Israel needs no help, nor any permission, from the United States, to pulverize any Iranian nuclear facility.

[NickB79]

20. Israel's primary threat isn't conventional military forces anymore

Just as the US's primary threat in Iraq isn't Saddam's conventional military anymore. I think the similiarities would be striking. The primary threat would be from retaliatory terrorist attacks, not conventional military forces. I agreed with you, Israel would destroy conventional Arab militaries, as we have seen in previous wars. But Israel has had a less-than-stellar track record of stopping terrorism and guerrilla attacks. An Israeli strike into neighboring Arab states would only intensify these attacks and rally more people to the terrorist's cause. The people of the neighboring states are not stupid; they have seen what happened the last few times they tried to take on Israel in a conventional war, and they are learning from their past mistakes. Did the "thoroughly defeated populace" of the 74 war ensure no more attacks on Israeli citizens, just as the "shock and awe" of US power stopped attacks on US soldiers? No. If anything, it seems to have enflamed the people of the region to kill more Israeli civilians (and US soldiers).

And again, how do you prevent your neighbors from becoming fundamentalist Islamic states even more hell-bent on killing you after you've destroyed their civilizations and not occupied their territories? True, they would not have the capacity to attack you head-on with a military assault, but they would become breeding grounds for terrorists.

[teryang]

10. Bullshit

I am a trained air threat analyst. You don't know what you are talking about. They can only get to Iran with our cooperation. If they go there, it is because we are aiding and abetting their effort.

There is a virtual wall of American air power between them and Iraq. They can't get to Iran unless we let them. Look at a map. US airpower controls from Kenya all the way to the Black Sea.

The distances are huge. They need to cruise at altitude and refuel and they need AWACS support. To stop them we wouldn't even need to shoot down their attack aircraft, just their tankers. They'd run out of fuel before they reached the targets. They'd be sitting ducks. The irony of it is that we will probably provide that support and even refuel and perhaps arm their aircraft (in Iraq). I'm sure it has been planned already.

[incontrovertible]

12. so, your definition of "help"

would be to refrain from attacking the supply convoys and spearheads of our ally? Well, sure, I suppose that's valid, but it boils down to:

"Sir, an Israeli attack wing is en route on coordinates to the Iranian nuclear facility. Shall we intercept?"

"No."

If it's your theory that it's all a shadow play and that the U.S. doesn't have the sack to bomb Israel's targets for them, so they're our proxy, then, fine - that's your theory. Think they'd need our cooperation to launch a missile from one of their submarines? Would our failing to erect a THAD umbrella over Iran equate to our cooperation with Israel?

[teryang]

15. No my definition of help is providing them

...with safe passage through airspace which their aircraft cannot pass though without our consent and tacit support. Israeli airpower can't get to Iran without violating someones territorial airspace. All such airspace is as a matter of fact under American control. To allow such an attack is to support it. But I venture to say the support won't be passive. The tactical problems for such a long range attack are such that the Israelis would want active support such as rendevous points and vectors for long range tanking and even American tanker support.

Another distinct possibility is that the aircraft would fly the first leg into Iraq, land and arm at American air bases and even fly multiple sorties from American bases. Another would be for unmarked or mismarked American air power to actually conduct the attack and for both countries to say the Israelis did it. This is not too likely though, there would be outrage in the unlikely event that any American aircrew were shot down or accidentally crashed.

I think any cruise missile attacks would be hampered by the low PK of limited payloads on hardened sites. Such attacks would involve American targeting support but would have a much lower probability of success than air strikes. Could you imagine the atmosphere in the task group CIC if cruise missile launches from unknown sources were observed in theater? This too would have to be pre-approved by American national command authority. I'm sure the two nations militaries will coordinate these activities.

[incontrovertible]

16. interesting points

Have to say I welcome your detailed analysis.

"Could you imagine the atmosphere in the task group CIC if cruise missile launches from unknown sources were observed in theater?"

Well, if I were in the CIC, I'd probably assume they'd pretty much have to be Israeli in origin. I don't doubt, however, that an unannounced SLBM salvo from the Israelis in-theater would meet with a VERY unhappy reaction from US CIC, and could result in a very bad day for a certain Israeli submarine crew.

[Capt_Nemo]

31. Without knowing they cannot make that assumption

I suppose the 3 KILO's from Iran are not armed with missiles like
those in India and China, but one never knows. Russians also have
this nasty habit of trailing the CVBGs with SSGNs, so if I were
in the CIC and not knowing of anything taking place I would assume
NOTHING.

[BlackFrancis]

52. horseshit

The IDF is strained to the max on ground troops right now to beat down Palestinians. They would be scraping up septuagenarian reservists if they ever had to make real on their belicose rhetoric toward Syria at the moment much less Iran and it's 70 million inhabitants.

[bemildred]

19. I was wondering how the new F-16Is would affect the problem?

They are supposed to have 1500Km range and be able to
reach Iran and Libya. Not that much was my guess, range is
not the central problem(?), but I did consider that it might
provide a better cover for the operation.

[Capt_Nemo]

29. That depends on what one understands by range

I doubt very much that the F-16Is can bomb Iran AND return
safely to base (that means having some fuel reserves) without
refueling. It is not in the Arabian peninsula anymore, and it is
not what is on the Conformal Fuselage Tanks that will give the
F-16I that extra mileage over the standard Falcon (a.k.a. "lawn dart").

[incontrovertible]

5. good

Iran can have nuclear breeders after the pro-Western student movement topples the theofascist regime. Until then, when one is stupid enough to paint a giant target on oneself and scream "bomb me before I bomb you," one gets what one gets.

Three Israeli bunkerbusters now, or 100,000 dead on a tactical nuclear battlefield ten years from now. Easy choice. My apologies that Christian fundamentalists tend to like Israel - I know that's such a damn dealbreaker around here.

[Capt_Nemo]

30. No the dealbreaker is the expasionist Likud agenda

as fascist as anything you might find in the ME nowadays.

on edit: that's why Gianfranco Fini is Sharon's best buddy.

[dai]

33. No...

It makes do difference whether the reformers or hard-liners are running Iran, Israel would not allow them to produce nukes.

From the article:
Mofaz set out his government’s position last week during a visit to the United States stating that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession".

The position is based on the imperialist idea that Iranians, and all Muslims, are inferior and cannot be trusted.

Furthermore, these testosterone drenched threats serve only to hinder Iran's reform movement, which neither the American or Israeli right cares much about.

[LivingInTheBubble]

41. You want to attack iran because they have WMDs ?

even though both they and the UN say they dont?

This sounds really familiar!

Iran has a bigger population than israel so I think the greater life saving operation in your hypothetical mystery world would be to take out israels military?
After all they are the offending party painting a giant target on them selves saying "BOMB ME BEFORE I BOMB YOU" and they really are officially saying they will bomb someone.

If they are stupid enough to do that they deserve what they get.

[MrSoundAndVision]

11. so Israel seeks and escalation...

why, I wonder? It's not antiSemitic to ponder the very important interrogative "why" I hope.

[bemildred]

17. I was thinking its to pressure the IAEA,

which has been refusing to "get tough" with Iran
like Uncle Sugar wants. I don't personally think, if
I was going to attack Iran, I would be trying to get
them on full alert first.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. Looks like Israel thinks we're dragging our heels on attacking Iran....

...I guess they thought Lil' Lord Faunteroy needed a fire lit where he sits, instead of playing drinking games with Queenie.

The NeoCons and the Israelis...what a team! :grr:

[IndianaGreen]

18. Let the Israelis shed their blood for a change on the altar of imperialism

instead of expecting America do their dirty little work for them. What is it to us to have one shitty little country in the Middle East bomb another one?

US should get out of the Middle East altogether. Left alone, the people in that troubled region will face two choices: peace or death! I am betting that once the US stops interfering and cuts off the money and arms supply to the region, Israel included, that the people will choose peace and get rid of their leaders that want war.

[fshrink]

22. Six planes with US satellite support and that's it.

[drdon326]

26. So funny.....

That "shitty little country" called Israel is the same place

you said a few months ago you would consider moving to.

unbelieveable, Indy...

Union sends her best.

[lumpy]

28. Thanks for expressing my very thoughts, IG

Let them make the choice. Never wise to interfere or take sides in a bad marriage or a messy divorce.

[thebigidea]

21. Little Israel must maintain its nuclear advantage

Only Little Israel can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Oh, my.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Kick

:kick:

[Selwynn]

24. I'm beginning to believe that Israeli government despises peace...

It seems like they look for any an all opporutnities to attack and threaten that comes their way - all in the name of "defense."

[IndianaGreen]

25. Israel has her own share of neocons

and neocons are all racist and imperialists whether they sing the Star Spangled Banner or the HaTikva.

[Malva Zebrina]

27. As someone upthread asked

why? Why does Israel think it need to pre-emptively attack Iran? Nukes? The world has been living with the nuke threat since the US dropped a couple of them on Japan and so far, no country has seem fit to drop another one,--instead the world and it's richest , biggest countries, play a little game of chess. I agree with Teryang and thank her for her analysis--this has the smell of the US all over it. Israel is just the messenger who is willing to look like the insane one in a very troubled region. The US, after all, cannot use the nuke excuse to invade Iran because they have let North Korea go full steam ahead and indeed have been skunked by NOrth Korea on that. Bush still is doing nothing about North Korea.

[Cato1]

32. The problem for Israel...

...is that Iranians know very well what happened to a certain Iraqi nuclear facility in the 80s. Iran's nuclear assets are in densely populated areas and several stories underground. There's no way Israel can strike them without inflicting significant collateral damage.

[45th Med]

34. And Iran has a way to strike back.....

in the form of the SS-22 Sunburn and SS-25/26 Switchblade.

[Malva Zebrina]

37. Issat so?

I did not know that. LOL, that even makes it more obvious that this is just a bluff on the part of the Israeli's. Or, the Us--and I suspect the latter--it seems more and more obvious there is some sort of a game going on here, while North Korea is happily going forward with it's programl

[mantis49]

47. The prospect of inflicting....

collateral damage hasn't stopped them before.

[newyawker99]

50. Hi mantis49!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wuushew]

35. Israel could strike Iran with its new F-15I and F-16I fighters

I calculated the most direct route from Israel to three likely targets...Arak,Nantaz and Bushehr.

N32 40 E035 11 Ramat David Airbase

BUSHEHR (IRAN) Latitude = 28º59'N Longitude = 050º49'E Distance from Israel = 835 miles

Nantanz (Iran) Latitude 33 31 N Longitude 51 54 E Distance from Israel = 841 miles

Arak (Iran) Latitude 34 05 N Longitude 49 42 E Distance from Israel = 732 miles




-snip-

The Ra'am is capable of carrying 4½ tons of fuel in its internal tanks, conformal tanks, and detachable tanks. The armaments it carries are positioned so that there is almost no disruption of the plane's aerodynamic shape - and no impeding of its performance. These factors combine with others to enable the Ra'am to fly to an unprecedented distance, one which was previously attained only by much larger bombers: about 4,450 km. With midair refueling, the range can be extended further.
The Ra'am is capable of carrying a very wide range of weapons. It is equipped with a 6 barrelled Vulcan 20 mm. cannon, and can carry different kinds of air-to-air missiles for self defence. Since its primary function is the attack of quality targets, the Ra'am is designed to carry various types guided missiles and bombs, as well as iron bombs. All in all, the plane can carry 11 tons of munitions.




-snip-

With the arrival of the 102 F-16Is, Israel will have a total of 362 of the jets – the largest fleet in any country in the world behind the United States. The F-16s are the backbone of the IAF, but these new "I" models will give added punch to the long-range capabilities of the IAF and will complement the squadron of F-15Is Israel received in the end of the 1990s.

The Air Force has nicknamed the F-16I as "Sufa," or thunderstorm. It has a 820 non-refueling radius of operation.

[Capt_Nemo]

46. 4450 Km is ferry range (so it's 2200 to go and 2200 back)

Besides the "usefull load" in that condition is small: All the
"wet points" are occupied by tanks and the fuel load is maximum.

The figure cited for the F-16I of 820 nm is much more accurate.
anyway it would be risky to strike near the tactical range limit
without refueling at least one time.

It's not hard to imagine, in that instance, a pilot having to bail
out over Syria or Jordan...

[The Stranger]

36. I suppose the U.S. and Israel cannot let another country of brown people

have the bomb. Worse that they might not be Christians or Jews. Amazing, the racial and ethnic implications that underlie all of this.

It seems that the Bush racists and the Jewish Supremacists in Israel simply must bomb them -- any form of communication of any kind that does not involve missles and death is simply out of the question.

It is far easier to kill when you don't regard the persons you are killing has human, and that is the insidious bane of bigotry.

[jiacinto]

39. please

That is such BS.

[Lurking Dem]

40. Yes, G-d knows there are no brown Jews.

Talk about the "insidious bane of bigotry."

[LivingInTheBubble]

42. What would happen if

you wrote the word god?

[Lurking Dem]

44. Absolutely nothing.

[mmm]

43. You are wrong...

regardless of actual skin color, Americans regard
Jews as white and Mid Eastern Muslims as brown.
The mass of Americans have very little interest in the welfare of Muslims and even less interest in proffering sincere dialogue
in the name of a settled and equitable peace.

[Lurking Dem]

45. Tell that to the Iranian Jews here.

They'd beg to differ with you.

[s33]

49. Iranians arent 'brown' or 'arab'

Iranians are white,caucasians by definition.The fact that they were conquered by arabs and converted to Islam doesnt make them brown.Go to the stormfront message boards and prepare to be surprised by the number of Iranians there.You do know what the word 'Iran' means in English right?Essentially,Iran is a white country ruled by an arab minority.The only people in the world who think of Iranians as non-white are Americans,this has always puzzled me.

[newyawker99]

51. Hi s33!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[goforit]

38. Got to get rid of Busher, eh?.....Just to protect Poppy?

LOL!!!!

How much time and money and lives to cover up their crimes!

Absurd!

[ElementaryPenguin]

48. Perfectly legal according to Chimpy's preemption attack policy!

The ideal prescription for WWIII!!!!

[Loonman]

53. Let 'em

Maybe someone will nuke Israel in retaliation.