Israel Ready to Strike Iran's Nuclear Facilities

Insider report from Newsmax.com ^ | 7-18-04

[M. Peach]

Too many Washington sources are telling us this, so it may be imminent.

Israel is set to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, fearing that the Islamic regime will use atomic weapons on the Jewish state.

Israel has long assumed the right of pre-emption -- that is, the right to attack and even make war with Arab states that are developing nuclear weapons.

"They are ready to go," a top former American diplomat with close ties to Israel tells a source close to NewsMax.

There have been mutterings that time is short and Israel will do to Iran what it did to Iraq in 1981.

During that year, Israeli bombers struck Iraq's Osirak nuclear power plant -- and in seconds destroyed Iraq's ability make nuclear bombs. Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin came under fierce criticism worldwide, but at home he became a hero to his people.

Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, no doubt shares Begin's determination that "never again" will a Holocaust be perpetrated against the Jewish people.

Stopping Iran's nuclear program has always been at the top of Israel's "to-do" list.

Before Sept. 11, 2001 there were scattered reports that Israel was preparing to strike Iranian targets.

Clearly, Iran today is much more advanced in its weapons program.

One source told NewsMax that Israel is not sure it can destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with aerial bombing alone and may need to use special ops forces on the ground.

Others suggest that Israel will deploy one of its submarines to the Persian Gulf and fire cruise missiles at key targets.

The U.S. believes that Iran has pursued a nuclear weapon for the past 18 years. In recent years, the Iranians have given only lip service to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Israel does not believe that oil-rich Iran is interested in building a peaceful atomic program solely for domestic energy needs.

And Israel has become frustrated with the U.N.'s inability to get Iran to comply. Last week, Israeli officials were miffed after the head of the IAEA, Mohammed Elbaradei visited Israel and demanded that Israel give up its nuclear arsenal.

An attack by Israel is fraught with worries.

How would Iran retaliate? Could the attack spark a regional war -- or worse?

And could the U.S., an ally of Israel, become a target as well?

An Israeli attack before November may present other problems -- and impact President Bush's re-election effort.

One Washington security expert suggested the Iranians might simply blockade the Straits of Hormuz and cut the world off from Middle Eastern oil for a short period.

A more likely scenario would be Iran using biological and chemical weapons against Israel.

[M. Peach]

I could not find the direct link- as this came from an e-mail from Newsmax

[dc-zoo]

I'll believe it when the crap hits the fan.

[M. Peach]

And what crap it will be. Eventually, it will all blow over...

[Stopislamnow]

"One Washington security expert suggested the Iranians might simply blockade the Straits of Hormuz and cut the world off from Middle Eastern oil for a short period.

A more likely scenario would be Iran using biological and chemical weapons against Israel."

The blockade would never happen. Not in an election year.


If they do chem/bio Israel, I think the major population centers in Iran will be re-named "hot zone's" for a long, long time.

[Dec31,1999]

Glad to hear it! Now who is going to take care of N. Korea? And then Pakistan?

Time is of essence!

[M. Peach]

I see Sharon as more of a hawk than Begin. Surely he won't allow Iran that type of leverage. What other options are there? Iran surely realizes that if they block Hormuz - we will definitely get involved.

I don't think Iran will retaliate - just like Iraq did not.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

If Israel doesn't have the courage to whack Arafat, they won't do this, either.

I hope Israel does it, then says to Bush, "Okay, we took care of Iran's nuclear program. Why don't you step up and deal with North Korea?"

[EternalVigilance]

And could the U.S., an ally of Israel, become a target as well?

We're already a target.

The mullahs have preached hatred and bloodlust against us all along.

They are the source-point for the ideology that drives Islamo-fascism.

Perhaps they should target the top thousand mullahs on the day they target the nuke facilities.

Hard to say which of the two targets' destruction would contribute to peace the most.

[Southack]

"One Washington security expert suggested the Iranians might simply blockade the Straits of Hormuz and cut the world off from Middle Eastern oil for a short period.

A more likely scenario would be Iran using biological and chemical weapons against Israel."

Newsmax is so full of crap. Iran doesn't have the sea or air power to blockade a bathtub, much less the world's oil.

Moreover, without nukes of their own, Iran can't do squat to Israel...lest Iran be destroyed by Israel's 200+ nukes.

Oh, and if Israel is going to take out Iran's reactors, the smart money would be just after Sharon pulls out of Gaza (because he'll need to shore up his right wing support at home at that point). Like I said, Newsmax is completely full of crap.

10 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Captain Rhino]

>>One Washington security expert suggested the Iranians might simply blockade the Straits of Hormuz and cut the world off from Middle Eastern oil for a short period.<<

With a significant amount of the United States Navy and Air Force present in the Persian Gulf region, the lifespan of Iranian forces attempting to block the Straits of Hormuz would be very short and exciting. Would provide a good pretext for direct action against the mullahs.

The trick for the Israelis is how to execute the missions without getting intercepted enroute by those same forces. Or perhaps cooperate? That would be an interesting photo - heavily armed Israeli attack jets and fighter escorts tanking from USAF KC-10s.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Yeah, I hope Iran does try to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. It'll provide our submarine fleet some good target practice.

[Norman Arbuthnot]

Now who is going to take care of N. Korea? And then Pakistan?

Well, it maybe time to call upon the U.S. Navy.

One boomer stationed off each country can neutralize the threat.

[Stopislamnow]

If Sharon/Israel allow Iran to get nukes, it's all over. Fini, end of Israel. The only safe place for a jew to live will be the United States, as the entire State of Israel will cease to exist. Irans leaders are insane.

I really hope Sharon is hawkish enough. Israel will be nuked once one of these nutjob arab/muzzie states get a bomb.

[OKSooner]

This makes sense, but of course there's a minor editorial error in the article. Iran is a fundamentalist muslim nation and is sworn to the destruction of Israel, but Iran is not an arab nation. Iran is predominantly persian. Moot issue of course, in the context of the muslim war against Israel, but it's still careless editing on the part of Newsmax.

[M. Peach]

One wonders how long we can stem the flow. Eventually, I see two ultimate scenarios for the planet earth - and let me know if you disagree.

#1. Terrorists or warring nations will destroy or nearly annihilate the human race either through nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The proliferation of technology and everyone's access to it make it inevitable.

#2. In our efforts to protect ourselves, we will need to monitor as closely as possible everyone on earth through surveillance technology. Everytime terrorists attack, more measures will be implemented until every possible loophole is closed. The Orwellian era prevails.

Can you think of any other ultimate outcome?

[EGPWS]

There have been mutterings that time is short and Israel will do to Iran what it did to Iraq in 1981.

And refuse Iran the right to support it's people with energy which is so needed?

Gosh, it's not like Iran has any energy alternatives. /s

IMHO, it is likely that strikes will happen and rightfully so.

[Sola Veritas]

Disclaimer - I am not a war monger.

I find myself hoping that Israel will do a preemptive strike on Iran just like it did to Iraq. Actually, the U.S. should do this, but we cannot because president Bush has been hamstrung over taking preemptive action against Iraq - which - in may opinion - was the right thing to do. I think the preemptive strike doctrine of the Bush administration is exactly how this country should conduct its foreign affairs with "hostile" countries. Israel has been doing this for a long time.

The hard truth is that the middle east will never be "pacified" until all strongholds of radical Islamists are destroyed and turned into western like democracies.

That means Iran, Syria, Jordan(?) will all need to fall. It is also time to make it clear to moderate Islamic states like Saudia Arabia, Yemen, etc. that they must crush the radicals in their countries or be considered as subject to overthrow also.

I am not talking about setting up a colonial American Empire. I just want to see western like democracies. That is the only "secular" thing I think will be remotely succesful over there.

[EGPWS]

Can you think of any other ultimate outcome?

I can.

Preemptive action, will guarantee this scenario to be stifled before a massive loss of human life should even be considered.

[M. Peach]

"The hard truth is that the middle east will never be "pacified" until all strongholds of radical Islamists are destroyed and turned into western like democracies."

And right you are - This is exactly the main reason why we went into Iraq. - hopefully spreading Democracy to the other Muslim countries.

Ultimately - this is the best way to fight Islamc terrorisim. Get the Muslim democratic nations to stop it.

[EGPWS]

I think the preemptive strike doctrine of the Bush administration is exactly how this country should conduct its foreign affairs with "hostile" countries. Israel has been doing this for a long time.

To quote Paul Nitze, "Peace Through Strength".

[sc2_ct]

Don't Iran and Egypt have a mutual defense pact? If so, the Egyptians do have a strong naval fleet that could form a blocade, since it is unlikely that Oman or the UAE would have the balls to step up to the Egyptians. Pakistan, while willing to save their own ass by being somewhat helpful against Afghanistan would also be highly unlikely to stand against Egypt. That would leave us having to take out the Egyptian fleet. Just my $.02 on an unlikely scenario. I think Iran would fall from internal pressures before being able to do much in the way of retaliation. Seeing the nuke facility taken, with US tropps on the eastern and western borders would likely be an event that would increase the urgency on the part of the student movement to overthrow the mullahs.

[M. Peach]

Yes - preemptive action now may stop terrorism for the time being - but in the future you can be assured there will be other conflicts - and the WMD will be even more prevalent and accessible.

Which leads back to my initial premise. Planet earth will become either number 1 or number 2 (no pun intended).

[dc-zoo]

If it happens.. it happens. Not much use in crowing about it until it does.

[knak]

Israel's plans for Iran strikes

[maquiladora]

This is taken from a Sunday Times story posted here last night:

Here.

[Petronski]

When the stakes are this high, and the relative morality of the causes is equally clear, monging a bit of war is not such a bad thing.

[M. Peach]

"If it happens.. it happens. Not much use in crowing about it until it does."

Except possibly be prepared for such an event.

[kcar]

Hope they do this right during the Democratic National Convention. Go Israel!

[zarf]

More fine analysis from NewsMax.BS

NewsMax is an embarrassment.

[dc-zoo]

We should already be prepared for such events. If not, we really are screwed.

[COBOL2Java]

Alouette have you seen this one?

[sd-joe]

Yes

[True Capitalist]

Don't Iran and Egypt have a mutual defense pact?

They may, but Egypt would likely assume the role of passive protester when they realize the U.S. has Israel's back.

[Optimist]

I'm surprised Israel hasn't struck before now

[Optimist]

Newsmax (Debka USA)

[Boundless]

> The trick for the Israelis is how to execute the
> missions without getting intercepted enroute ...

That's why this is an exercise in "message sending" by
the Bush admin. Israel could not pull this off without
the coalition forces pretending to not detect them,

The message to Iran is: don't wait until the US election
to find out if you'll be dealing with a terrorist-friendly
admin in Washington. Comply with the UN now.

> ... heavily armed Israeli attack jets and fighter
> escorts tanking from USAF KC-10s.

Do IAF strike a/c have in-air refueling probes?
Theoretically, the geographic size of Israel doesn't
require that capability.

As a logistical matter, can Israel actually pull off

such a strike without an intemediate base somewhere?

[Dec31,1999]

Unfortunately, not really. We either have to take over the world and keep a close watch on it or die.

Well, not exactly. We don't have to actually take over the world, as in occupation, but we have to make sure that states with radical agendas do not reappear, after we take out Syria, N.Korea, Pakistan, Saudi, Iran, etc.

[Optimist]

We should already be prepared for such events. If not, we really are screwed.

And John F'n Kerry manages to skip intel briefings.....

conclusion: If F'n Kerry wins we REALLY are screwed.

[Cableguy]

If they are going to do it, they better do it soon. The longer they wait, the more underground the facilities will be. Israel also needs to do it before the election, as it will probably help Bush.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Can you think of any other ultimate outcome?***


Yes, I can thing of another...


"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.


"And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." - Luke 12

[Robe]

The IDF just took possession of 4-6 KC135's ( I think they were 135 could have bee KC10s) about 3 weeks ago, and yup their new I-16s have a midair refueling capacity

[Boundless]

> Newsmax (Debka USA)

Actually, even Debka isn't headlining this right now,
which further supports arguments for either
the "not true" position, or
the "sabre rattling" position, but
NOT the "imminent attack" position.

If Israel really were planning an imminent strike, they'd
probably cancel it based on this publicity. Normally, we
only hear about major Israeli moves after they have
concluded.

[Boundless]

> The IDF just took possession of 4-6 KC135's ...

Is this their first air-to-air refueling capability?

If not (and they've have existing capability), then that
bolsters the threat.

But if they are just getting started in "relief tube"
missions, I doubt if they could conduct one right away
(unless they've been seriously training at some US
facility for some time).

[sc2_ct]

They may, but Egypt would likely assume the role of passive protester when they realize the U.S. has Israel's back. Or they may wait until they think the US is too involved in Iran and take a shot at Israel. They've been building their military at a break-neck pace for years -- it would only make sense that they would take the opportunity of us being involved in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to try to take out Israel as they've already tried to do several times.

[MinorityRepublican]

Preemptive action, will guarantee this scenario to be stifled before a massive loss of human life should even be considered.

Perhaps, that will postpone only the inevitable?

[Indie]

I wish they'd hurry up and do it then.

[monkeywrench]

"Don't Iran and Egypt have a mutual defense pact?"

http://www.afpc.org/crm/crm402.htm

"China Reform Monitor No. 402, August 20, 2001 American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, D.C.

China claims breakthrough on "super-powerful" laser; Iran lauds Tehran-Moscow-Beijing "strategic partnership" Editor: Al Santoli

August 13

"In Tehran, Iran's Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani stated that "strategic" Iran-Russia-China cooperation can serve as a weight against the US and the West and will "alter international conditions," reports the Islamic Republic of Iran Network [IRNA]. Meeting with the new Russian ambassador to Iran, Alexander Maryasov, Rafsanjani said Iran and Russia should not let the US undermine Tehran-Moscow "strategic" cooperation, and called for the creation of an organization for cooperation among Caspian Sea states. Ambassador Maryasov said that Iran and Russia should not allow any foreign country [US and West] to find a pretext for presence in the Caspian Sea region."

[Captain Rhino]

>>Do IAF strike a/c have in-air refueling probes?
Theoretically, the geographic size of Israel doesn't
require that capability.

As a logistical matter, can Israel actually pull off
such a strike without an intemediate base somewhere?<<

No intermediate base required as long as you can refuel. Overflight rights are nice but not absolutely necessary as the U.S. found out in the Libya raid. (Thank you very much FRANCE!!)

Don't know for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if the IDF did have aerial refueling capability.

IIRC, the Osirus(sp) raid into Iraq was about at the limit of the range of their then fighter bomber fleet. The Entebee raid was conducted without any offensive air support at all. Hard to believe the IDF would permit that situation to persist. Without aerial refueling capability, I don't think the present generation of IDF offensive aircraft are any longer legged.

Offensively, being able to tank while aloft allows for extended missions (a pretty good option to have if you have promised to attack ANY Arab nation that threatens you). Defensively, it allows for better management of CAP sorties over your own territory. As long as the internal plumbing is there, a fixed external probe could be mounted and removed from fighters and strike aircraft as needed. Ditto for covert KC-130s which could function as C-130s cargo haulers until the fuselage tank and refueling pods are installed and connected to the internal plumbing of the refueling system. Of course, you can also use buddy refueling using underwing tank pods as well.

Air-to-air refueling is a complex ballet of on-time arrivals, on-station activities, and departures and that is hard to do without practice. Now the question is how and where do you practice without giving lots of good intel (via radar tracking of activity) concerning intentions to the surrounding Arab nations? Hmmm...Any big IDF exchange visits of the US scheduled for any time soon?

All that training is fine but I personally favor the sea-launched cruise missle option over the air strike route because: 1) by any route (far northeast, northeast, directly east, southeast, or far south east) the strike and support packages violate way too many nations' airspace (Yeah, like they'd agree if Israel just asked.), 2) it directly challenges the United States to ignore mission execution in the face of all the deployed US assets in the region (Whoa! How did that happen? Truthfully (wink, wink), I didn't notice it was happening until just now! ), and 3) it is just too far (especially if you try to avoid flying over Saudia Arabia by going down the Gulf of Suez, rounding the pennisula, then flying up through the Straits of Hormuz and up the length of Iran...no, no it's just too far).

Better to convert a cargo ship (or two) to deck fire cruise missiles brought up from it's cargo holds. Covertly sail west out of the Med, round the Cape and approach Iran from the south. Much less telegraphing of the blow. In fact, it could be on station, well, now. Be sure to escort with with subs. Properly timed, cruise missile strikes would not only take out the facilities but also catch the leadership that came to view the damage.

Oh, and take the nukes just in case Israel wants to make a really, really big point.

[Salvey]

Disclaimer - I am not a war monger

No need for a disclaimer. Yours was a terrific, insightful post.

[Boundless]

> Better to convert a cargo ship (or two) to deck
> fire cruise missiles brought up from it's cargo holds.

Does Israel own any cruise missles?

And unfortunately conventionally-armed CMs always leave
identifiable parts lying around. What do the
"Made In ..." plates say on IS CMs?

The geography suggests to me that it's more likely that
Israel would find a third nation to launch or stage from
(even just temporarily friendly, someone equally nervous
about Iran). The a/c could even be boated there.