Jay Chladek Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Conventional strike implies one thing, but just remember the IAF is known for being innovative. Osirak required a two tier strike at minimum with the first strike planes opening up a hole in the reactor dome and the second group laying their eggs right through the hole to destroy the reactor itself. It was a matter of timing to know when the launch the raid as they had to launch it when the reactor was practically ready, yet before it got fueled to avoid an environmental disaster. They likely know the challenges better than we think they do. It could be something as simple as not necessarily attacking the facilities themselves, but attacking some sort of support facility that produces a required raw ingredient, or taking out a convoy trying to move hardware and doing it when the most damage can be done. There is more to it than just flinging a bomb at a target. While I would say the odds of pulling this off are astronomical, I wouldn't count the IAF out just yet. Other thing to keep in mind is Israel and Iran prior to the Shah's removal were pretty tight (including exchange tours with their pilots and military officers, some of which trained side by side in the states) and there are still likely some secret contacts among individuals while the governments are hostile to one another (heck, Mossad seems to be able to target Iran's scientists with relative impunity it seems). Back then, Arabs and Persians hated one another and that goes back thousands of years. So Israel at least had a very good understanding of Iran's pre-revolution weapons capabilities and training. These days, there is still a bit of that Arab Persian hatred, but most Arab nations don't entirely know if they want to trust Israel enough to help their side either due to the need to keep face and not seem weak to their people (that is what got Anwar Saddat killed after the Camp David accords). You can bet that Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations are REALLY looking towards their neighbor to the east because they know that Iran would target them next once Israel is out of the picture. Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Double post sorry Edited February 29, 2012 by Exhausted Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) What if the Saudis did it? What if it was carried out by B-2s from a Saudi or Omani corridor? Hell, even if they came in over Iraqi arispace carrying bunker busters theres a great chance they could evade detection. The stealth eagles or possible F-22s could provide a great deal of protectiom to them. That is unless there is an existing computer flaw Iran could exploit again. What about a blockade, provokation, and justification of an attack on Iran? Why leave it up to Israel? The Americans could do it infinitely better. Between military intervention in Syria or Iran right now for regime overthrow, what is more worth our time.?I know its an election year here, but maybe in the second term. Also, Russia and China seem to still be ideological enemies to the west, and it's demonstrated by their blocking of UN resolutions pertaining to the problems in the region. Is there a chance of a secret Korean pact that would increase northern activity above the DMZ if Iran is provoked? These are the questions I have. Edited February 29, 2012 by Exhausted Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Good point but a strategy like this takes time and if you believe the reports on the Iranians progress, time is running pretty short. I don't envy Israel, they are in a tough position. A 100% effective strike would be a longshot but the alternative isn't much better. Personally, I think they might be better at this juncture by continuing the present course of sabotage to push back the schedule and hope that at some point in the semi-near future, the current regime is replaced. Either by revolution or by a more moderate leader coming to power through peaceful means. Keep in mind that at one point, these two countries actually had some level of cooperation. Anyway, to get back to the military side of the discussion, if they do opt to strike, I think we are going to see some very interesting cyber-war techniques being employed. Reports on the Iranian nuclear program basically all agree that they remain about 5 years away from producing a nuclear weapon.... that's the same as the NIE in 2007. They are progressing on the ability to produce large quantities of nuclear materials, through their civilian nuclear programs. I suspect they might get to a point where they obtain a sufficient technical and precursor physical capability to produce a bomb, but never get to that point (further along than Japan, but not as advanced as India after 1974.) Conventional strike implies one thing, but just remember the IAF is known for being innovative. Osirak required a two tier strike at minimum with the first strike planes opening up a hole in the reactor dome and the second group laying their eggs right through the hole to destroy the reactor itself. It was a matter of timing to know when the launch the raid as they had to launch it when the reactor was practically ready, yet before it got fueled to avoid an environmental disaster. If there is an innovation I suspect it will be something more than utilizing bombs in that way. I suspect it will include some aspect of the industrial sabotage that US and/or Israel has been carrying out. IT has been fairly effective and broad based. Stuxnet was particularly brilliant as was exploiting their supply chain and substituting substandard parts that damaged other equipment. It may now include targeted assassinations of key personnel. They likely know the challenges better than we think they do. It could be something as simple as not necessarily attacking the facilities themselves, but attacking some sort of support facility that produces a required raw ingredient, or taking out a convoy trying to move hardware and doing it when the most damage can be done. There is more to it than just flinging a bomb at a target. While I would say the odds of pulling this off are astronomical, I wouldn't count the IAF out just yet. The problem is that Iran's civilian nuclear complex is so large, its difficult to see how they can easily take it down. And the Iranians are trying to complete a fuel cycle, meaning they have different approaches to obtaining weapons grade materials.. Link to post Share on other sites
phasephantomphixer Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 Virtually no chance of that in a thread like this. I'm surprised this thread wasn't immediately locked down or better, deleted. Yes, the thread has wandered from my initial intent. What issue did you find with my question Dave? I was looking for opinion on Iranian challenge to such a raid aircraft wise. If they get enough warning, can they make an effective intercept, or could the advantage of the latest strike aircraft prevail? Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Williams Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Yes, the thread has wandered from my initial intent. What issue did you find with my question Dave? I was looking for opinion on Iranian challenge to such a raid aircraft wise. If they get enough warning, can they make an effective intercept, or could the advantage of the latest strike aircraft prevail? The original question and intent are fine. It's just that I believe a topic dealing with Israel attacking Iran is going to delve into politics no matter what because it's such a hot current issue. Just the nature of the subject, unfortunately. Edited February 29, 2012 by Dave Williams Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Reports on the Iranian nuclear program basically all agree that they remain about 5 years away from producing a nuclear weapon.... that's the same as the NIE in 2007. They are progressing on the ability to produce large quantities of nuclear materials, through their civilian nuclear programs. I suspect they might get to a point where they obtain a sufficient technical and precursor physical capability to produce a bomb, but never get to that point (further along than Japan, but not as advanced as India after 1974.) Correct. When I said that time was running short, I wasn't referring to the time before Iran has a functional weapon, I was referring to the point in time when Iran's program is so dispersed and hardened that no amount of military action can stop it. That day is much closer or (as has been discussed above), may already be here. With regard to the comments from another poster that this thread should be proactively locked down or deleted, I find that to be silly. If you are that upset over a thread, just ignore it. You don't have to be posting (whining) about the need to lock it down. So far, this thread has been informative and has yet to devolve into a p***ing contest. Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Williams Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Correct. When I said that time was running short, I wasn't referring to the time before Iran has a functional weapon, I was referring to the point in time when Iran's program is so dispersed and hardened that no amount of military action can stop it. That day is much closer or (as has been discussed above), may already be here. With regard to the comments from another poster that this thread should be proactively locked down or deleted, I find that to be silly. If you are that upset over a thread, just ignore it. You don't have to be posting (whining) about the need to lock it down. So far, this thread has been informative and has yet to devolve into a p***ing contest. This forum either has a no politics policy or it does not. This thread is violating this policy and is allow to exist by the mods. I feel that gives people the right to feel that they are allowed to violate the policies of this board and leads to resentment when some get their threads pulled and others do not. If you have rules, enforce them and enforce them consistently. If you are going to do that, then don't bother having rules. And BTW, 11bee, if you don't like my posting (whining if you call it), you don't have to read them. Link to post Share on other sites
terrysumner Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Warning was given.... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts