Posted on 04/25/2009 3:18:27 AM PDT by Fennie
From a strictly Realpolitik point of view, you might want to reconsider your position.
While the safety of Israel does not affect you in any way at all, whether or not Iranian missiles controlled by Islamist religious fanatics have conventional or nuclear warheads affects you, as a European, quite directly.
Drop back a couple of grades and study eighth grade world history...
From his evasiveness in saying anything about himself, do not make the assumption that “Jonny foreigner” is not a Muslim.
Hey, nube, ask the nuke techs at Iraq’s “Osirak” reactor or the crews at the Syrian reactor in 2007 if Israeli strikes on enemy nuke sites are “wishful thinking”...
Drop back a couple of grades and study eighth grade world history...
Yep . With Obama as Commander-in-Chief, it may not be possible at all unless the U.S. Air Force pulls a "Wrong Way Corrigan" and "mistakes" the entire Iranian target set for a bombing range in Arizona.
I have no doubt that Israel will do what needs be done, only the cost will be that much higher.
I'm concerned whether it is even logistically possible for the IDF to accomplish.
It is a very extensive, dispersed and hardened target set.
A sustained air campaign by the U.S. Air Force along the line of "Shock and Awe" (1,700 sorties) could certainly do the job and U.S. airborne forces may have had to secure deeply dug site such as the mountain tunnel sites but the IDF would have to resort to a single air strike. Short of letting the nuclear weapons genie out of the bottle and onto the battlefield for the first time since 1945, the logistics of the operation may simply be more than the IDF can handle.
George W, Bush may have meant well but he was just not up to the job. He won on the battlefield against the Iraqi Army but failed to take the insurgency seriously, allowed to Democrats and the liberal news media to demoralize the Home Front thereby potentially losing the Iraq War when Obama bugs out and he has left a potentially disastrous Iranian problem unresolved.
It is no problem for Israel to go around Iraq.
Source:
http://www.myiwc.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6476.html
How will the aircraft fly from their bases in Israel to a target located 200 miles inside Iran? There are two realistic ways to get there – either through Saudi Arabia or Iraq, possibly even using Jordanian airspace as well. Either route is a one-way trip of about 1200 miles. Even though Turkey and Israel have had a defense agreement since 1996, using Turkish airspace is not likely politically and would require the attacking aircraft to fly over 1000 miles inside Iranian airspace. It is also doubtful that the Israelis would jeopardize operational security by consulting with the Turks.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2913/499/400/iaf-map.jpg
The Saudi Arabia option (red). The strike aircraft depart southern Israel, enter Saudi airspace from the Gulf of ‘Aqabah or Jordan, fly 800 miles of Saudi airspace to the Persian Gulf and then 300 miles into Iran. Although the Israelis traversed Saudi airspace when they attacked the Iraqi facility in 1981, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have since significantly upgraded their air defense capabilities and share information with each other.
Since the Israeli air force does not operate stealth aircraft, there is a reasonable expectation that at some point the aircraft will be detected over Saudi Arabia, either by ground based radar or the AWACS airborne radar platforms. Whether Saudi defenses could - or would - be able to stop the Israelis is uncertain. Perhaps the Saudis would turn a blind eye and claim ignorance - after all, a nuclear-armed Iran is a potential threat to the Kingdom as well.
The Iraq option (blue). The strike aircraft depart southern Israel, cross 300 to 400 miles of Saudi airspace or a combination of Jordanian and Saudi airspace, and enter Iraqi airspace as soon as possible, continue across 500 miles of Iraq to the Persian Gulf and then on to the target. Entering Iran from Iraqi airspace would create too much of political firestorm. As it is, the use of Iraqi airspace will require the cooperation of the United States. Although Iraq is a sovereign nation, its skies are controlled by the American military. That said, allowing Israeli aircraft to ingress from Iraq is likely out of the question.
Either of these options carries the risk that once the actual attack on the facility is made, the viability of the return route is in jeopardy – all forces in the area will be on alert. The planners may opt to go to the target one way and back home via another.
The limiting factor in Israeli planning is the great distance to the target. Can Israel’s fighter-bombers conduct this mission without refueling? Combat radius - the distance an aircraft can fly and return without refueling - is difficult to calculate, and depends on weapons payload, external fuel tanks, mission profile, etc. It is even more difficult when dealing with Israeli aircraft because they will not release performance data on their assets.
The best “guestimate” of the combat radius of the F-15I and F-16I, outfitted with conformal fuel tanks, two external wing tanks and a decent weapons load, is almost 1000 miles. Either of the two possible flight routes above is about 200 miles further than that. To make up for the shortfall, the aircraft could be fitted with an additional external fuel tank, but this will require a reduction in the weapons load. Given the accuracy of the weapons in the Israeli inventory, that might not be problematic. However, if the aircraft are detected and intercepted, the pilots will have to jettison the tanks in order to engage their attackers. Dropping the tanks will prevent the aircraft from reaching their target.
Air refueling. This raises the question of air refueling? This is a limitation for the Israelis. While Israel has a large air force, its focus has been on the Arab countries that surround it. In recent years, it has sought the capability to project power against a target over 1000 miles away. To do this, Israel has acquired five B707 tanker aircraft. However, the tankers would have to refuel the fighters in hostile airspace. The B707 is a large unarmed aircraft and would be very vulnerable to air defenses.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2913/499/400/iaf-refuel.0.jpg
Israeli Air Force B707 and F-15I fighter-bombers
Looking at the two scenarios, air refueling over Saudi Arabia (red route) would be very risky. It would have to be done at low altitude to evade detection and will probably be at night. Using Iraqi airspace (blue route) will be somewhat less difficult as altitude will not be an issue.
Of course, the tankers would have to get to Iraqi airspace and back. The use of Turkish airspace for the tanker aircraft to enter Iraq is probably not an option for the same reasons that it is not an option for the fighters – political sensitivities on the part of the Turks and operational security considerations on the part of the Israelis. Another possibility is American cooperation – allow the Israelis to stage their tankers from an American air base in Iraq. These tankers could fly to Iraq though international airspace around the Arabian Peninsula and over the Persian Gulf. It would be too far for them to return to Israel without landing to refuel, otherwise the Israelis could refuel the fighters over the Gulf.
American participation? There are other possibilities, from allowing Israeli fighters to land and refuel at U.S.-controlled bases in Iraq, to having U.S. Air Force tankers refuel the Israeli aircraft over Iraq. A diplomatic nightmare, maybe, but certainly a military possibility.
damn i was too late :-) i just wanted to post a similar report. But again this report sounds like a lot of serious problems. that´s why is said without US blessing a Israeli airstrike is highly doubtfull if not impossible.
from the report: Since the Israeli air force does not operate stealth aircraft, there is a reasonable expectation that at some point the aircraft will be detected over Saudi Arabia...
They don’t need to get all the way back. There are many ways they can accomplish this. Even a suicide mission or they just need to get to Iran via Saudia and land in emergency in Iraq.
There are two scenarios. After an Israeli attack, Iran either attacks our military forces or they don’t. If Iran doesn’t attack, they discredit themselves in the eyes of fanatic Muslims. If they do, our military follows standing orders and responds. Either way the mullahs lose and Persians, Israelis and the US win. Busheir is an easy target. Once it’s destroyed, Iran has no logical need for the rest of its nuclear facilities unless it wants to build nuclear weapons. That will be irrefutable.
Obozo can either climb on the bandwagon and share in the high fives or look like a fool. He accepted the high fives after the SEALS put an end to the pirate nonsense and his wishy washy BS. He’ll do the same after our military defends itself.
Obozo sees Mr. Rogers ad a model for the world. Sorry Obozo, it doesn’t work that way.
They don’t need to get all the way back. There are many ways they can accomplish this. Even a suicide mission or they just need to get to Iran via Saudia and land in emergency in Iraq.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The post of the day! It is going to be us or them, yet so many people keep on making excuses for Islam.
Problem solved.
Nice plan that sounds logical.
Unfortunately, as von Moltke observed, "No plan ever survives contact with the enemy."
Yes, Iran would get nuked (not only by Israel). The U.S. would do the nuking.
With Iranian missiles still hidden somewhere in the deserts of Iran, the religious fanatics controlling the missiles desire to lash out at the "Crusaders" in revenge before they, too, die..... But, the U.S., on the opposite side of the planet, is still beyond their missile range. .... Only Europe is within range.
So, they lash out at the only "Crusader" targets they can hit before they die: Europe's capitals ..... Paris, London, Berlin.
If Iran ever acquires nuclear warheads for their missiles 5 years down the road, Europe will be in danger.
Do not believe that, merely because you have done a power "no wrong", that such a power will not lash out at you as a result of rational coercion or irrational rage.
Consider the Melian Dialogue before, and then after, my previous quote of it.
"Athenians: For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong." ..... Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, The Melian Dialogue (Book 5, Chapter 17)
"Reinforcements afterwards arriving from Athens in consequence, under the command of Philocrates, son of Demeas, the siege was now pressed vigorously; and some treachery taking place inside, the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves." ..... Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, The Melian Dialogue (Book 5, Chapter 17)
According to the anti-Israel Walter Rodgers, Israel’s defending itself from an Iran determined to wipe it off the face of the earth would threaten the world’s oil supply and endanger Jews around the planet. Better Israel sit there and wait to be nuked first by Iran or by its proxies. Of course, America in the 1960s wouldn’t tolerate the Soviets putting nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba - to which it was almost willing to go nuclear war over. But for the Jews, the rules are always different. So much for the vow “Never Again!”
you have point but you seem to forget that “Europe” (EU in generall) would do every thing they can to prevent an attack on Iran (for simple buisness reasons) So EU might not be a fan of Iran getting nuclear weaopons but on the other side “they” are the one who are pushing the US not to attack Iran. So why threat exactly the people who would do everything (even sacrifice Israels security) to prevent an attack on you? don´t forget EU has much more interesst in a stable Oil flow from Iran to Europe like it has into Israel. (and Iran knows this). Iran might be an enemy of the US and Israel but Iran is not a official enemy of the EU. Iran is to Europe what saudi arabia is to the US. every thing is sacrificed for the flow of the black gold.
How’s DU doing?
Israel???? “Miss”?!?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Perhaps you don’t understand that this is a nation in danger of COMPLETE GENOCIDE.
Bibi won’t “miss”, you can make book on that.
_____________
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!
That way 0bama can retain control of Israel’s military advances and curry the favor of Iran.
____________
He wouldn’t dare!
Gratuitous advice, since it works in ALL directions.
And what the heck does France and the number of iterations it's gone through have to do with the subject at hand? Israel occupies her own Biblical plane.
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.
