Posted: 9/11/2008 8:21:05 AM EDT
|
Israel may soon be left with no realistic option to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and no time to find another solution. The United States has turned down Israeli requests for military assistance in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. This will hamper the tiny Jewish state in facing off alone against the much larger Islamic Republic which is equipped with some of the latest military technology from Russia. As compensation, the U.S. has agreed to bolster Israel’s missile defense system. Israel would not be allowed to refuel its military planes in Iraq, or even use Iraqi airspace for a flyover on the way to Iran. Even if Israeli jets were to reach Iran, they might not be able to carry powerful enough bombs to do the job. The U.S. has refused to supply Israel with equipment such as bunker-buster bombs critical in destroying heavily fortified nuclear installations. Israeli officials have been in talks with their American counterparts for several months over specific requests for military assistance, and U.S.reticence over an Israeli strike has led American military and diplomatic officials to decide against supporting what they see as Israel’s growing commitment to an attack on Iran. Among the requests most critical for a successful Israeli solo strike on Iran is the ability to use Iraqi air fields as a refueling point for Israel’s fighter-bomber fleet that would be used in the attack. The dropping of guided bombs on targets as small and sensitive as a nuclear reactor requires the precision and agility that could be likely achieved only by a very low-altitude release. The distance between Israel and Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr is over 800 miles. A large bomber aircraft would have the fuel range for such a non-stop round-trip flight from Israel. However, the necessity of a low-altitude approach to the target, combined with the heavier aircraft’s low speed and maneuverability and lack of sufficient armaments such as rockets or cannon, would render it extremely vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire or attacking Iranian jets. Last December, Russia installed one of its latest anti-aircraft missile networks in the hostile Islamic Republic. Such operations are therefore usually performed with supersonic fighter-bomber aircraft, such as the F-15s and F-16s used in the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor and last year’s bombing of the nascent Syrian reactors. However, these aircraft do not have the fuel range to safely make a trip to Iran and back without refueling. Unless the Israeli planes would be able to refuel somewhere along the way – American-occupied Iraq being the only viable choice – a bombing run on Iran would likely become a suicide mission. Even if Israeli pilots volunteered for a kamikaze mission, the expense of the aircraft, in addition to the risk of Iran obtaining the Israeli-modified jets – some of the most advanced in the world – even in partially destroyed condition, would make it unlikely that Israel’s Defense Ministry would approve of such an attack. Israeli aircraft would not need to actually land in Iraq to refuel, as it is common practice to refuel in the air using long-range air tankers. However, the tankers that the Israeli Air Force currently has are outdated, making it difficult to coordinate refueling for such a long-distance mission. To address this concern, Israel reportedly requested the more modern Boeing 767-based refueling tankers, but the U.S. has also rejected this request, as reported several weeks ago by Israel’s Channel 10 television. Even if the Israeli jets were able to be refueled in the air by long-range air tankers, a mission to Iran would require an overflight of Iraq, the only country that would possibly be willing to allow Israeli aircraft in its airspace. A glance at El-Al passenger flight routes from an in-flight magazine illustrates this clearly: Flights en route to Asia and the Far East, normally represented by graceful curves for non-Israeli airlines, suddenly become sharp turns northward or southward in order avoid flying over Middle Eastern countries. However, the United States has apparently refused to authorize Israel to fly over Iraq as well, and according to one report, American officials told their Israeli counterparts to ask permission from the Iraqi prime minister themselves. It is very unlikely that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki would volunteer to allow Israel to use his country’s airspace without pressure from the U.S., since such a move would antagonize many Arab countries in the region. In an apparent attempt to compensate for its unwillingness to assist Israel’s needs for an Iran strike, the U.S. has offered to deliver an advanced radar warning system, to be installed in the Negev and manned by a permanent U.S. staff working alongside Israeli military personnel. The Pentagon has apparently placed the order already. Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Russian state-owned company building Iran’s Bushehr reactor announced last week that the construction of the reactor will reach a state of “no return” by early 2009. While a better radar system promises to greatly enhance Israel’s ability to detect a long-range aerial attack from Iran, Israel may soon be left with no realistic option to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and no time to find another solution. |
|
That's a nice cover story. I look for an attack on Iran sometime shortly after the U.S. presidential election is over. It will be led by Israel and will be supported by the U.S. whether we acknowledge the fact or not. We simply cannot allow a nuclear Iran and everyone knows it. |
|
After the build-up of Iran into a galactic super power, Israel will probably attack Iran. But don't forget, there is also Lebanon*. I'm not sure it much matters which 'enemy' Israel attacks first just so Israel attacks someone and keeps the dollars flowing in. No matter who Israel attacks, next there must be another enemy threatening Israel. It has always been so. Only continual war and threats of war allow the Socialist utopia that is Israel to survive financially. 5sub *As Lebanon kicked the IDF's butt last time, Lebanon may not be such an inviting target. |
Really? This is how it stacks up for Hezbollah, you decide if it was worth provoking Israel. Net Gains Samir Kantar 199 bodies of Lenanese & Arab fighters *Maher Kourami *Mohammed Srour *Hussein Suleiman * Prisoners from 2006 war. Net Losses 1200 civilians dead, 400 of them under 13 4,400 cililians injured, 700 permanently 1,000,000 people displaced from their homes 125,000 housing units damaged or destroyed 250 Hezbollah fighters killed 80% of some southern villages destroyed 38,850,951 square meters contaminated by cluster bombs 20 killed by remaining cluster bombs, 5 were children 188 injured by cluster bombs, 47 were children $5 billion in economic damages $15 billion inlong term costs to the economy $64 million clean up of 12,000 tons of oil 91 bridges destroyed Northern Ghajar reoccupied The continual brain drain of Lebanon |
I wonder how proud this makes the citizens of Israel ?? Especially I wonder how proud the average citizens are of killed children. BUT OG, if this pleases you then certainly Israel has no need of US military help in attacking Iran. 5sub But if the Muslims do turn off the oil because of an Israeli attack on Iran............ .
And congratulations on also killing 250 war fighters. |
How many children and civilians do you suppose the US has killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? It never ceases to amaze me the moral standards Israel is held to when it defends itself. Quit worrying about oil as the "Muslims" are not about to cut it off. They love money as much if not more than you do. |
I have no idea.
I expect the government of Israel to adhere to no moral standard.
The Muslims have cut off the oil previously. 1) Also, are these Muslims mindless animals who only desire to die for their religion ?? Or 2) Are these Muslims capitalist who "love money as much if not more than you (I) do" ?? Would seem reasonable to ask you (plural) pick one and stay with it. 5sub |
|
But to whom is Iran a threat ?? How old were you in 1979? Have you read a newspaper since then? Your question is absurd if you have any knowledge of the history of the Iranian regime or have followed the antics of their leaders. They are a threat to the people of Iran and the world at large. In fairness I will answer my own questions. In 1979 I was 20 and in the military. I remember Desert One. I remember CINC Jimmy Carter. I remember our hostages. Yes I read the newspapers of the world daily. Research the Iraq/Iran war. Look for the blogs of the Iranian people that can get their signal out. There are hard core crazies running that country and they are about to be nuclear capable. Death to America has been the chant there for almost 30 years now. It is painted on buildings. It is part of the culture. I know people that are from Iran and escaped. Our fight is not with the people but with the leadership. The people are so repressed that internal resistance is not effective. They need our help. |
Almost 10
Twice...........maybe even more.
While I read the Daily Worker but not daily.
Yes.
Nukem ?? 5sub |
Of course the answer to that is not one or the other, as you would have everyone choose. The truth lies in the middle. There are both types. What is the mix? 10/90? 5/95? 20/80? 10/90 seems to be about right in my experience, although that is rather limited. The problem lies in when that 10% take power and control in an effort to further that agenda- as we saw in Afghanistan (where I get my 10/90 estimate from) because the rest are apathetic. if you just want to make money, you stay away from politics to a good degree, and pretty so that 10% who actively tries suddenly is making policy. For a good example here, look at the environmental movement. Hardcore greenies are maybe 10% of the population here, yet we keep getting very, very restrictive environmental regs because that 10% is vocal, organized, and dedicated to the agenda. |
You are correct of course. But it is not that *I* would have everyone choose black or white it is that I see a preponderance of black or white presented. Seldom to never do I see gray (the middle presented). Mostly I see a desire to turn Iran into a "glass* parking lot". Maybe silly of me but I put those who would nuke 60,000,000 men, women and children into the: "Believes animals group". Maybe can try: Are these fundamentalist mindless money-loving Capitalist animals ?? 5sub (I still don't get this parking lot bidness. Who will park there ? Will this lot be attended or fully automated ?? Valet parking available ?? Separate camel lots..........maybe something like that camel lot that Jack Kennedy ran ??) Edited to add: I've just not seen a bidness plan that shows converting Iran into a glass (green or otherwise) parking lot would be even marginally profitable to the United States or to the oil importing countries as a whole. In fact, I see the inverse. An attack on Iran will drive up oil prices and, with semi-permanent removal of Iranian oil from the world market, I would expect oil prices to remain very high. *Some of our more artistic minded members specify: 'Green glass parking lot.' |
Seems sorta related:
5sub abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=5785986&page=2 |