Posted on 12/21/2007 3:30:05 PM PST by DBCJR
I'm confident that you have no information on which to support this assertion. What is "drop the hammer"? It would take thousands of bombs and even then they could not get at all the deep underground facilities. I see no pattern of preparation for such a massive attack not do I see a way to complete the job without boots on the ground. Perhaps wishful thinking on your part but I see no evidence that this will happen as you claim.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
There is much in the way of wet-blanket talk regarding any attack on Iran.
We have been treated to Ahmadinejad saying Israel cannot do it. We have no end of the annointed experts pronouncing it an impossibly complex task. We have the flaunting of the so-wonderful Russian systems defending.
And yet 3,000 centrifuges are down that truck ramp shown in various photos.
Perhaps there will be something unfortunate occuring at just the one site.
So what that there is a lot of earth and concrete over the centrifuges if they cannot be accessed.
As with the Syrian attack, it will be a fact.
Talk is cheap, op-eds in the NYT and hot air on Aljazeera are nothing compared to some bombs.
How did Israel get into Syria when it was protected by those Russian systems.
Something might happen, and nothing would be said.
For after all to squeal like a little pig shows how vulnerable you are, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The whistling past the graveyard continues.
If by "invade" you mean send in some special forces for a few raids here and there, then I agree. But "invade" as in sending in tens or hundreds of thousands of troops - it isn't necessary to do this to throw their nuke program back 10 years and to destroy a lot of Iran's planes, ships, intelligence sites, etc. Air power doesn't occupy territory well at all, but it sure does destroy stuff.
I know very well what the IAF did in September - but doing it right next door ain’t quite the same as doing it 3 countries away. They’ll have to fly over at least:
1) Turkey and Iran; or
2) Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and Iran; or
3) Syria and/or Jordan, Iraq and Iran.
I have no doubt that once over Iran, Israel can do a magnificent job - but they have to get there first, and presumeably the pilots would like to get back alive (and Israel wouldn’t exactly like to leave a lot of evidence or hostages behind).
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Saudis don't want a nuclear armed Iran on their doorsteps anymore than Israel does.
After all, the biggest prize in the Sunni/Shia internecine conflict is Mecca, not Jerusalem.
Dropping PGMs from a cargo/tanker aircraft will work - the bombs/missiles don’t give a damn how they get there, and they’ll work the same once targetted and dropped/lit off.
The problem is how Israel could get one (or several) honking big aircraft over Iran. That’s even more difficult than getting F-15s or F-16s there.
“I am in favor of not invading Iran (which is what it would take) but working to covertly help rebels within Iran take it over from within.”
Sort of like the communist sympathizer democrats have been doing it in this country for the past 50 years.
I have no doubt at all that Israel could, if needed, effectively destroy Arab and Iranian culture pretty much everywhere (except in Londonistan and Detroit, since they wouldn't take out those cities).
BUT
We're talking about something a little less drastic than nuking a bunch of cities and starting WW3.
After all, the biggest prize in the Sunni/Shia internecine conflict is Mecca, not Jerusalem.
Do you think that the Saudi regime would survive that kind of cooperation with the JOOOOOOZ? I don't. The SOBs wouldn't even shake hands or be photographed with the Israeli FM at Annapolis, for fear of what that would do to internal stability...and you think that they'll let dozens of bomb-laden Israel aircraft over their territory?
They way it's playing out now, electing the right one will result in only hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I think Isreal has bunker bomb busters so it would not suprise me to say the least if they end up using them. Just an honest opinion.
Oh they’ll rant and rave about the “violation of their airspace”, but they’ll let it happen. I heard unconfirmed reports months ago that they have already agreed.
And since the Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuke plant which went undetected by the Syrian air defense system, the Saudis now have perfect cover to say “We didn’t know about it until after the Israelis passeed”.
Unlike Syria, Saudi Arabia has AWACs aircraft (4, I believe). There's no excuse for them not seeing F-15s and F-16s, even if they can't shoot them down. Thus, there's no excuse for not calling fellow Moslems in Iran and telling them "The Jooooos and coming, the Jooooos and coming!" Failure to do that will spell doom for the Saudi government.
I will be happy and pleasantly surprised to be wrong about this.
You are assuming that they always have an AWAC in the air. A straight line shot (depending on where the Israelis stage) would cross Jordan, the extreme Northwest tip of Saudi, and then Iraq.
All the Saudis need is plausible deniability. And who is going to complain? After all, the Iranians aren’t Arabs and they aren’t Sunnis.
Since the beginning I've said that we should go in and destroy Iran, for the sake of our own interests and to save the world from a general Mideast war that will involve nukes being tossed around. If Israeli planes transit over Iraq, then we'll be blamed as if we did it ourselves...therefore, we might as well do it ourselves.
My "Saudi option" for the Israelis has them transitting over SA, then the Gulf, then into Iran. This avoids Iraq altogether (though adding considerable miles, perhaps making it impossible, aside from the political problems), thereby avoiding the problem of direct US involvement. My Saudi option is only one of three ways in for Israel - the 3rd being via Turkey (also implausible, IMHO). But because of the extra miles and the political problems, I don't think that it'll happen.
Frankly, I don't know why in Hell we don't just do it - first of all, it is a large part of the reason that we went into Iraq in the first place, to be right next to the would-be nuclear madmen in Iran. 2nd, we have far more of the means to do it than Israel (just with the Navy and AF, no ground troops required except some special forces). 3rd, we are FAR closer and would have far more of the element of surprise. 4th, we are to Iran's west, east (via Pakistan), south (Navy and Diego Garcia) and north (Afghanistan). We've literally got them surrounded - do you think that is an accident? 5th, and finally, destroying Iran's nuclear program and most of its significant military and intelligence infrastructure will send a message to the world, friend and enemy alike: The US isn't a paper tiger - we stand by our friends, stand up against our enemies and stand against again allowing a madman or a mad regime to plunge the world into war.
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.