Posted on 06/18/2007 1:07:54 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Barring a "catastrophic development," reports Middle East Newsline, George W. Bush has decided not to attack Iran. An administration source explains that Washington deems Iran's cooperation "needed for a withdrawal [of US forces] from Iraq."
If correct, this implies that the Jewish state stands alone against a regime that threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" and is building the nuclear weapons to do so. Israeli leaders are hinting that their patience is running out; Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz just warned that "diplomatic efforts should bear results by the end of 2007."
Top secret analyses from intelligence agencies normally reply to such a question. But talented outsiders, using open sources, can also try their hand. Whitney Raas and Austin Long studied this problem at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published their impressive analysis, "Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities," in the journal International Security.
RAAS AND LONG focus exclusively on feasibility, not political desirability or strategic ramifications: Were the Israeli national command to decide to damage the Iranian infrastructure, could its forces accomplish this mission? The authors consider five components of a successful strike:
Intelligence: To impede the production of fissile material requires incapacitating only three facilities of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In ascending order of importance, these are: the heavy water plant and plutonium production reactors under construction at Arak, a uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, and a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. Destroying the Natanz facility in particular, they note, "is critical to impeding Iran's progress toward nuclearization."
Ordinance: To damage all three facilities with reasonable confidence requires - given their size, their being underground, the weapons available to the Israeli forces, and other factors - 24 5,000-lb. weapons and 24 2,000-lb. weapons.
Platforms: Noting the "odd amalgamation of technologies" available to the Iranians and the limitations of their fighter planes and ground defenses to stand up to the hi-tech Israeli air force, Raas-Long calculate that the IDF needs a relatively small strike package of 25 F-15Is and 25 F-16Is.
Routes: Israeli jets can reach their targets via three paths: Turkey to the north, Jordan and Iraq in the middle, or Saudi Arabia to the south. In terms of fuel and cargo, the distances in all three cases are manageable.
Defense forces: Rather than predict the outcome of an Israeli-Iranian confrontation, the authors calculate, for the operation to succeed, how many out of the 50 Israeli planes would have to reach their three targets. They figure 24 planes must reach Natanz, six Isfahan, and five Arak, or 35 all together. Turned around, that means the Iranian defenders minimally must stop 16 of 50 planes, or one-third of the strike force. The authors consider this attrition rate "considerable" for Natanz and "almost unimaginable" for the other two targets.
In all, Raas-Long find that the relentless modernization of Israel's air force gives it "the capability to destroy even well-hardened targets in Iran with some degree of confidence." Comparing an Iranian operation to Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, which was a complete success, they find this one "would appear to be no more risky" than the earlier one.
THE GREAT question mark hanging over the operation, one which the authors do not speculate about, is whether any of the Turkish, Jordanian, American or Saudi governments would acquiesce to Israeli penetration of their air spaces. (Iraq, recall, is under American control). Unless the Israelis win advance permission to cross these territories, their jets might have to fight their way to Iran. More than any other factor, this one imperils the entire project. (The IDF could reduce this problem by flying along borders, for example, the Turkey-Syria one, permitting both countries en route to claim Israeli planes were in the other fellow's air space.)
Raas-Long imply, but do not state, that the IDF could reach Kharg Island, through which over 90 percent of Iranian oil is exported, heavily damaging the Iranian economy.
That Israeli forces have "a reasonable chance of success" to unilaterally destroy key Iranian nuclear facilities could help deter Teheran from proceeding with its weapon program. The Raas-Long study, therefore, makes a diplomatic deal more likely. Its results deserve the widest possible dissemination.
The writer, director of the Middle East Forum, taught for two years at the US Naval War College. www.DanielPipes.org
Yes, they can take out Iranian nukes, but a lot more than that needs to be done - it should be a strategic, not a tactical, strike for nuke sites alone and, so, it should not be Israel’s job.
Also, Israel will, probably, have her hands full defending her borders from “neighbors” acting as Iranian proxies until Iran is “done”...
Well, if you suggest they are waiting for us, good luck. We are paralysed.
Raas-Long imply, but do not state, that the IDF could reach Kharg Island, through which over 90 percent of Iranian oil is exported, heavily damaging the Iranian economy.
yitbos
This is a job we should be doing. And we should turn the entire Iranian air force and navy into submarines while we’re at it.
Israel needs a fleet of B-52 bombers.
This, too, shall come to pass.
One thing to remember about GW, he has not backed down when it comes to "The Axis of Evil."
Some things take a little longer than others. He also said the next president will inherit the WOT. It will be a long process.
FDR needed four terms (Hitler came to power in '33) and, then, Truman had to finish the job.
yitbos
If israel can’t then God will , God will not let a nuclear warhead hit his city of jerusalem that would total bibical prophecy and the endtimes teachings.
Yes. It will come to pass one way or another.
George W. Bush has decided not to attack Iran.
Another in the growing list of non accomplishments that will establish this Presidents legacy.
It may not be just an air attack alone, Google what else they have that can "get close" to Iran..
With all the BS the Dem’s would give us for a request for “Block” upgrades, it is a shame via executive order GWB couldn’t just give Israel some B-1’s in mothballs and let them design and develop upgrades and do their magic to these birds....
This is not the Israel of old. It’s doubtful if Israel has the will or resources to attack Iran. Iran probably has tactical nuclear weapons now that it has obtained from China or N. Korea.
Iran is ready to fire missiles at Israel at the slightest provocation. The U. S. would immediately be dragged into the war
Our Founding Fathers admonished us to “avoid foreign entanglements” for a good reason.
No it wouldn't. In fact it percipitates end time prophacy.
Not so. The terrorist war is being conducted by Islamic/Muslim countries. Terrorism is used because that is always the tactic available to the weaker nation.
The war is really against civilization. The only way we can survive is to recognize this fact.
...and, I’d suggest.....a goodly number of the soon-to-be-retired F117’s.
IMO, the USAF/USN would have no choice but to followup the IAF strikes. If we didn’t the Iranian’s will be throwing ballistic missiles all over the region, not just at Israel. The Navy will have some interesting moments trying to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.