Is Israel on Deadline? or Who will Control Iraqi Airspace in 2012?
by Bruce Webb
A little over a year ago I put up the following map from Cordesman and Toukan’s Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities
A year later and this issue is back in the headlines and specifically in association with the publication by the uber-Likudnik Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in the Atlantic tomorrow called The Point of No Return which essentially argues that the U.S. should bomb Iran and start a third mid-East war basically to save Israel the trouble of doing it itself. So maybe it is time to revisit Cordesman-Toukan in light of the current withdrawal schedule from Iraq.
In the article Cordesman and Toukan provide a comprehensive breakdown of both Israeli and Iranian missile capabilities and of the respective capabilities of Israel to launch an air attack and Iran to defend against one. Which makes it a useful read all on its own. But I want to highlight the above map that shows the three possible attack routes given the limitations of Israeli air ranges. Some things of note. In each case Israel would need in-air refueling both on the way in and on the way out, meaning that they would have to stage their KC-135’s over the strike routes for some period of time, and all three of the strike routes require transiting Iraqi air space as well as either Saudi, Syrian or Turkish skies. Leaving for comments the question of whether either Turkey (given the recent Gaza embargo sea clash) or Saudi Arabia would look the other way and not even challenge the refueling effort, will the U.S. retain enough air assets in Iraq after mid-2011 to support an air-refueling effort on behalf of Israel or to provide safe havens for returning Israeli fighter bombers that might sustain damage?
The United States has formally controlled at least Northern and Southern Iraqi airspace since the first Gulf War via the No-Fly Zones. I surmise, though don’t know for sure, that that control will lapse upon U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, or that if there is a residual U.S. air presence that it will at least on paper be subject to Iraqi government approval. Which leads to the question in the title of the post, the whole premise of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran relies on at least tacit assistance by the U.S. and either Saudi Arabia or Turkey and given the refueling constraints outlined by Cordesman and Toukan almost certainly active assistance at least on the way out, because once those bombs start dropping nobody is going to be able to pretend nothing is going on.
So is time running out for Israel? Is that why we are getting the big push by Goldberg and others? Because they know that any such attack without full US control of Iraqi air space falls from the realm of improbable to impossible?
Bruce,
I have been following Jeffrey Goldberg writings closely, and he is closer to Labor than Likud on most issues. Thus to call him an “uber-Likudnik” means that you are either not familiar with Goldberg’s writings or, more likely, want to caricaturize him. Either way, this subtracts from the credibility of your opinions.
Bruce,
Do you seriously think that the US will not continue controlling Iraqi airspace long after any formal handover date?
Bruce,
Some thoughts.
First the central route would not fly through Syrian Airspace as depicted. No point. Jordan has no ability to interfere with an Israeli stike (in or out). Syria could be a nuisance. The north and south routes both would rely even more heavily on refueling, even staging if necessary, to make the targets. The Suadi’s will definitely look the other way and announce a computer virus grounded their air force. They won’t lift a finger.
The targets on the map are just a subset of what would get hit – which BTW makes a central route a better choice also.
The israeli’s have no long range bombers and thus, even with fuel tanks will need refueling. They only have 5 KC-707 tankers, not enough for something this big. And this would be a 1-wave strike. A sustained campaign would require direct and very public US assistance, so the IAF gets one shot.
The US will have roughly 50,000 troops in Iraq well past 2011, probably indefinitely (see Germany & Japan for previous examples). The US is still the primary defender of Iraqi terrritorial integrity at least for the foreseeable future. The Iraqi Army is getting pretty good at counter -insurgency but doesn’t yet have the ability it did when it invaded Kuwait 20 years ago. To my knowledge Iraq has no Air Force yet and no SAMs, basically the Isreali’s could fly through unoppossed – except by the US. And this will not change for years (well past 2011).
So everything comes down to fuel (logistics as usual is the limfac). Options are many, good/obtainable options few. Forward staging the strike force into a Turkish or Iraqi (i.e US) controlled base cannot be kept quiet in the age of cell/sat phones. Really all that’s left is to get gas from the USAF tankers. Which means President Obama would have to sign off on the attack. As would a strike-stage base – return to Israel profile (deep strikers get the Israeli tankers on the way in, entire force lands in a US controlled Iraqi airfield, gases up and goes home).
Do you think Obama would sign off on it? (I don’t)
As for the question, Who controls Iraqi Airspace in 2012? Answer: The US.
Islam will change
Were Israel and the US to do this, there is nothing we (the “US”) could do to prevent that part of the world from wiping, rightfully so, Israel from the map. As prophesized, drive them into the sea.
I say go ahead on ‘er – let ’em have their little apocalypse, let ’em kill each other off and their common dog, the jew/christian/muslim dog of abraham, sort ’em out. What’s to lose? Seriously – we’re up to our asses in two wars already on Israel’s behalf, chicken-shit wars we’re not even sure we can let alone will bring the kids home from; with the exception of the elite international bankers the world economy in the outhouse for the next fifty or a hundred years; and that’s only if we can survive the northern hemisphere on fire and and chunks of ice the size of Vermont breaking off Greenland and raising sea levels twenty or so meters – what’s to lose. Get it over with, and let the rest of us can get on with life.
Israelis should cut a deal with Saudi Arabia & Kuwait, and completely by-pass any negotiation with Obama. After his previous stated position, it seems clear the United States under Obama is willing to let Iran go as far as they want.
When the War in Iraq began, Saudi Arabia’s main complaint was that the Shia would control Iraq, and open the door to Iran controlling the region. Iran makes them nervous. It is clearly in their best interest to ensure Iran does not control the region.
An intermidiate base in both Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, along with their tankers could make a realistic attack on Iran possible.
I am not aware that Labor ever advocating starting WWIII by nuclear bombing Iran. I neither know nor care about Goldberg’s views on social democracy, he seems to have Bibi’s back so close as to invite accusations of activities subject to severe sanctions per Leviticus. Pushing wars on Iraq and now Iran in the sole interest of Israel makes him pretty uber-Likudnik to me.
I mean I can see joining the JDF to be some front line combat soldier, but an American signing up to become a fricking prison guard for Palestinians?
I don’t know. Got sources? We largely ran the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones out of Prince Bandar Air Base in Saudi Arabia and Incirlik in Turkey and did so under UN Mandate. Will we have the same access and diplomatic cover after 2012? Or will we actually maintain control of Baghdad International and Balad? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/balad-ab.htm
That is why the post was in the form of two questions. You tell me.
Thanks Buff.
I would just say that Jordan and Israel have diplomatic relations and certain military cooperation agreements, and that the former not only has a huge Palestinian population with a history of unrest but inevitably will be key to any solution to Israel’s own two-state problem. Which is probably why Cordesman and Toukan having Jordan being detoured around.
As to Saudi Arabia the belief that they will look the other way while Iran is hit with a nuclear strike given their own issues with a Shi’ite minority plus huge exposure to any kind of Iranian interdiction of the Persian Gulf seems far fetched to me. Once again reasoned arguments and sources always welcome, while a straight assertion not so much for.
And finally as to your final conclusion I would have to agree 100%. Goldberg and all the rest of the sabre rattlers who are claiming that Israel could just do this and tell the US to fuck off until the first wave went through are talking out their asses. C-T do an interesting analysis of what it would take to even get the attack wave on target, to say nothing of getting them back. Oops 200% of Israeli refueling capability.
Plus the Turks are NOT going to be granting basing facilities to Israel, and were not likely to even before the Gaza flotilla incident. The last thing Turkey needs is for Iran to unleash its own substantial Kurdish population on Turkey and/or start sending more support to Iraqi based Turkish Kurds.
Why would Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait agree to any of that? The Neo-Cons seem somehow convinced that regional rivalries somehow magically translate to support for regional war. Kuwait was not particularly happy to be occupied by Iraq, it is significantly more exposed to takeover by Iran in the event Kuwait facilitated some attack. As for Saudi Arabia, probably millions of Iranians have at one point or another done a Haj to the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina and each country has a record of being exploited by the west, Iran by Anglo-Iranian Oil (now BP) and Saudi Arabia by ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Company). The idea that Iran and Saudi Arabia are really more wary of each other than of the West seems kind of far-fetched. After all they seem to have no problem collaborating through OPEC. http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/25.htm
Besides if I was in the ruling class in Saudi Arabia I would be just a little pissed at the unleashing of the campaign against “Islamo-Fascicm” by US Likudniks and their fundamentalist Christian allies on FOX and elsewhere. Maybe if the JDL thinks they can cut a deal with Saudi Arabia for logistical help bombing Iran they maybe, kinda, sorta shouldn’t have started by attacking the building of a Muslim community center in Manhattan?
TB there is no reason to put ‘elite international bankers’ in italics. If you want to play the Rothschild/Shylock card go for it, you know that we know where you are going with that. The same place people have been going for centuries now.
and a few more responses:
“The targets on the map are just a subset of what would get hit – which BTW makes a central route a better choice also.”
Maybe a subset of what the U.S. would hit if and when, but Israel doesn’t have enough planes to saturate much more than those three, if that.
“The Suadi’s will definitely look the other way and announce a computer virus grounded their air force.”
Saudi Defense Minister: ‘Sorry Ayatollah Khamenei, an infidel dog/er virus ate our homework and not only grounded our air force but disabled our entire surface to air defense system’
I am not sure that dog will hunt. Allowing the JDF’s air force to transit your air space unmolested would be an rightly taken as an act of war. And do we really expect the Saudis to shut down Mecca to keep foreign suicide bombers from entering their country?
I read the Goldberg-propaganda article. I recall the meeting held in Jordan a few months ago with the concerned parties ( Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Hamas / Helzbollah ) to elaborate on a counter-strategy in case of an israeli strike. I also remember the Iranian president saying at some point if this were to happen, they would retaliate by invading Iraq…
Bruce,
Balad AB will stay under US control. Also, I beleive, we will hold onto H2 and a base who’s name escapes me in the Kurdish areas. Balad is the biggy since its big enough to take the big transports and has a huge medical facility (which treats Iraqi’s and all the Allies).
We will also have considerable air forces in Kuwait, Incirlik, and Qatar. Plus carriers and the big bombers at Diego & Thumrait. Basically we have controlled the ME airspace since GW I…
Islam will change
Bruce I wouldn’t limit the Saudi/Iran issue to a “regional rivalry”. Don’t forget it is a serious religous rivalry, an ethnic rivalry and a cultural rivalry. We’re not talking about North Korea vs. South Korea where the two sides are essentially cousins. Also remember that the KSA had no qualms (despite your belief of brotherhood due to Western expoitation) about inviting in the US when Iraq was threatening KSA after the invasion of Kuwait. The KSA leadership has two motivations: survival of the royal family and money. Ever seen the KSA Minister of Defense’s place in Aspen? I doubt he has a vacation home in say…Qom. My point is that KSA has more to lose from a hegemonic Iran than an agressively defensive Israel. They may even be closer to US/Israel in most areas than they are to Iran.
Bruce,
I missed the part where you talked nuc strike. If your talking that type of hit the Israeli’s can easily do it with their tanker assets. All they would need is the US to look the other way. But I do not think the Israeli’s are anywere close to going that route. That takes things to a different level.
Conventional attack was what I was talking about. Saturation bombing is no longer required. The Israeli’s can easy get 60-80 1000lb- 2000lb JDAMs over the targets. Assumming a double tap that’s 30-40 targets. With effiecient routing they can probably get 10-15 more on top with a shoot-look-shoot strategy. Most of the targets need a precision, high yield and/or penetrator weapon. They have plenty.
They do need to hit a larger target base – these three areas won’t slow them up too much.
I disagree about Jordon. They can scream bloody murder but can’t stop the strike. If your going to bomb Iran, a peace deal with the Palistianians is not anywhere in the cards in the short-medium term anyway. The Jordanian government is more worried about a Palistian revolt against THEM.
And I know too many people who have trained/flown with the Saudi’s. My impression is the Sauds will look they other way or make a big deal of mobilization once the IAF is safely back home. I have an old story from a 20 year long friend who flew AWACS there. 2 Saudi F-15s had just taken off when two Iranian fighters flew over Saudi soil and when sent to intercept, immediately declared emergency fuel and returned to their bases. (US F-15s chased them away) The Saud’s won’t lift a figure. YMMV…
I agree 100% with the Turks not going to help a bit and may be actively hostile – and they are good. So I don’t see them going North. Too risky.
But it all requires Pres. Obama to sign off on it. You can’t transit Iraqi Airpsace and not tangle with the USAF – and the return trip would face everyone…including Patriot batteries on the ground etc etc. They have to have Obama’s permission.
And I don’t see that happening.
Islam will change
Bruce isn’t that the IDF? Not JDF…
One note on teh Suadi Air Force. I assume teh strike will go at night. The Sauds wouldn’t be able to respond in time and even get jets in the air. And none of the Islamic Air Forces in the ME (other than Turkey) as any ability to fight at night. Most have a hard time flying at night…they are sort of a joke.
Jimi and Bruce,
A lot wrong here. First the easy one. Iran can’t aly a finger on Kuwait. I beleive we have a US armored brigade sitting there backed by more Air Power than Iran could muster. Kuwait is safe from Iran. But the idea they will let the IAF fly in a refuel is just as equally nuts. (and would also require Obama permission. We have at least 2 Patriot batteries and a squadron at those Kuwaiti Airfields. We own their airpsace also.
As for eth Sauds. They want stability above all else. No way they will intentionally rock the boat like this. The Saud family ruthlessly crushes all dissent and has no problem with violence to keep the country under their thumb. They may ignore a flyover, but sure as heck won’t help the Israeli’s…
And again, the US controls the airspace (de facto if not de jure). Not going to happen without Obama…
Islam will change
Iran invading Iraq. Wow I can think of nothing that wouldn’t set the ME on fire more than that (after an Israeli strike) – short of a nuke into Tel Aviv
Rangel would have been proved correct, we should have started a draft two years ago.
At least unemployment would go down…(that’ sarcasm)
Islam will change
October surprise? Why were Netanyahou and Barak here in recent weeks? Agreements? Final planning? Dunno, just wondering.
Yep. I guess Bibi’s recent insistence on a “Jewish State’ instead of ‘the State of Israel’ led me astray.
Sources? Particularly as to Balad? If all US forces are supposed to be out of Iraq by mid 2011 does that somehow not include the 25000 people that Balad housed at its peak? Do we actually have some Status of Forces agreement equivalent to those that apply to Germany and Japan?
Buff are you really going to take out a hardened, largely underground facility with a single JDAM? And how does ‘shoot-look-shoot’ work when all you can see from the air is some mountain top?
I find it hard to believe that we still have an armored brigade in Kuwait given the manpower requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we do someone should be cashiered, who exactly is it defending against? A little Googling shows a Signal Co and a Transport Bn and a headquarters unit for forward support.
Bruce,
All US forces will not and are not planned to be out of Iraq in mid-2011. Obama mentioned that again in a speech two weeks ago. He stated we will have roughly 50,000 still there. Just the bulk (but not all) of the combat troops will be gone. If you truely beleive we will be out of Iraq in 2011 you have not been paying attention.
And yes we have a SOFA with Iraq.
What made you beleive we were going to be out of Iraq in 2011???
Islam will change
Bruce,
Not one, but you would be surprised at what we can do. And yes the deep bunkers are invulnerable to anything short of a nuke. All the JDAMs in the world will only stop things for as long is it takes to dig them out – 5-7 days tops.
If Israel goes the nuc route it would be better off in a counter-value attack. take Iran out for a few decades…tehran, Qum, etc. And that’s not going to happen.
Islam will change
Well I would suggest a hell of a lot more Iranians have been to Saudi Arabia than North Koreans to South Korea or even from South Korea to N. Korea. And Iran is significantly multi-ethnic, including a reasonably large Arab population, and some of those ethnic groups are Sunni by sect and maybe not so Persian by culture.
Nor do I see Saudi Arabia’s willingness to admit the US armed forces in light of a mostly secular Iraqi leadership deciding to invade Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia to translate to what from SA’s position would be an unprovoked attack on Iran that in turn unleashed terror attacks from Saudi Arabia’s shi’ite minority.
And exactly how has Iran expressed its hegemonic desires in the last few centuries? I mean Darius and Xerxes have been dead for about 2500 years now.
Iran wouldn’t have to invade Iraq. Sending a 100 Revolutionary Guards across the borders each monthwith money and instructions to recruit suicide bombers would make the withdrawal process (assuming it was even allowed to proceed as opposed to reinserting combat troops) pretty hellish.
The British PM was here too. Maybe to plot retaking Canada by force and splitting its timber and gold and shale oil assets with the U.S. I dunno either. But talk about over reading.
Bruce, dunno bout Canada, but there sure feels to be something brewing in the ME.
An agreement signed by a guy named Bush? Or did I miss the ‘Flyboy Exception’?
The next section is the bitterest pill George Bush was forced to swallow in the entire agreement. It too is worth reproducing here in full. Here is Article 24 — “Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq.”
Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:
1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.
4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.
5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present.
Has this been superceded? When, where and how?
Yes it is called ‘tea’. And in Turkey ‘coffee’. Everywhere you go in the ME someone is brewing one or the other.
The word you are lookng for is ‘stewing’, a pretty good description for Likud and friends as they see the bombing window increasingly closing. Nice work pissing off the Turks Bibi!!! Oops there went the Northern route.
Let’s get realistic about any of the countries in the Gulf assistng the Israelis in any way to stage a strike against Iran. All of those countries depend on their being able to ship their crude oil out of Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. None of these countries would have any way to hide their complicity in supporting such a strike. Once the Iranians learn who was involved in assisting the attack, the Iranians can move readily to savage every tanker identified with moving cargo from that country and any other country which comes to their assistance. The economic stranglehold the Iranians could exert will squelch any idea in this direction from blossoming any further than being a casual thought about potential scenarios.
Unfortunately, the Iranians are Shi’a and don’t approve of suicide bombers, so I don’t know what prompted your comment. The suicide bombers we see in Iraq have traditionally come from the small number of al Qaeda in Iraq, who would be Sunni. What the Iranians could do is to provide assistance with increasing the number and lethality of IEDs along transportation routes. Of course, why would a Shi’a dominated government in Iraq support the Israelis anyway?
Iran will be bombed only because such is necessary politically for the President and the President is desperate and calculating enough to do it. There is no indication that Obama is. The unknowns vastly outnumber the knowns about what will come after. From a minor diplomatic kerluffel ot WWIII.
Worth reading on the topic, just published:
Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran Part II The Military Road Map
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20584
Just an outside opinion, for what it’s worth. This is one crazy thread. I take AB to be a site with contributors who have reasonable knowledge regarding economics. Global politics, especially in the general area of crazy war mongering ass holes, is another subject, and AB contributors seem out of place there. Of course there are a group of AB commentors who seem right at home in such fanciful discussion. Dan, it lowers the bar of intellectual interchange. It invites all forms of speculation, most of which is based upon ideological screed. It even encourages readers to accept the notion that an unprovoked attack on Iran, or any other country, is actually a reasonable subject for discussion. I don’t think so.
You guys need to stick with economics. Some of you know little enough about that subject, but you can do less harm in that area, Discussions on the legitimacy of bombing Iran sound like a Fox News seminar for dumb asses with an ideological ax to grind. Those in favor of such an attack please, do us all a favor and fall on a sword.
Jack, How refreshing, as I concur your thoughts too.
Well I’ll defer on the suicide bombers. But Iranian ‘living wave’ tactics in the Iran-Iraq War hardly suggest a fundamental resistance to martyrdom operations as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack
And though Hezbollah may have backed off such attacks in recent years, their use of suicide bombers in the 1980s equally shows that this particular Shi’ia Iranian client is at least theoretically open to them. Or was.
Even the facility at Natanz is too close to Qom for my comfort and the reported new one is even closer. I wouldn’t count on some religious opposition to suicide bombing to carry the day if we happen to irradiate some of the holy cities. People react differently to what they perceive as existential threats.
Thank you for that piece of sanity.
Unfortunately U.S. Neo-cons seem immune to anything but magical thinking.
Is there any evidence that bombing Iran is actually popular? Except among people who will never vote for Obama to start with?
And I don’t think that any bombing campaign would be rejected as a ‘minor diplomatic kerluffel’. That certainly wasn’t our reaction to 9/11, and no matter that there were no actual state actors behind that attack (except maybe some factions in Saudi Arabian palaces)
Jack it was a slow day. And Golberg’s article was definitely in the news and a subject of wide discussion. And obviously any kind of attack would have blowback in all kinds of ways, including those effecting world trade. Nor do I see other econoblogs systematically avoiding such issues.
As to the editorial position of the blog, Dan has been suggesting that is might spread some from the strictly technocratic to the more explicitly political.
In any event everyone has a scroll bar, and comments are always optional, nobody has to click on the link.
I wouldn’t disagree with your assessment of the Iranians liberality with accepting casualties during the Iran-Iraq War. On the other hand, what’s your take on the recklessness with which Torpedo 8 attacked the Kido Butai at Midway? Some of the Japanese commanders were pretty shaken to find that the Americans were willing to sacrifice an entire attack group on what was clearly a hopeless mission. I guess being considered “suicidal” depends on which side of the mirror you’re sitting. Besides, the Iranians options on addressing any perceived allies of Israel are much more damaging than sending assets to Iraq which could be deployed much more profitably to Lebanon or Jordan.
We’ve always suffered the ravings of the ArmChair Generals, Chicken Hawks all. Easy to sit in the comfort of one’s den, livingroom or Starbuck’s and argue over the fine details of thousands of other people’s lives. If you’re in favor of the “good fight” get yourself a gun and head on over to Afghanistan. if you fully understand the insanity of this arguement then tell those that don’t to shut up, shape up and ship out. Stop asking others to give their lives for someone else’s stupidity whether it be in Iraq, Iran, Arghanistan or else where. Buffy St Marie said it well enough about 40 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv9Oy7XoJJA
Bruce,
Just another piece of info: Israel’s ‘new’ drone, ISI’s ‘Heron’ has a flight autonomy of 30 hours and could thus reach Iran directly. From the El Pais article, they can be ‘customized’ at will…
Well from my side of the mirror the sacrifice of trained naval aviators attacking capital vessels or for that matter Army Rangers climbing a cliff at D-Day just seems different than clearing mine-fields by charging unarmed teens across them en-masse. Leaving that aside, it is just that in light of the latter it is hard to accept a blanket claim of ‘Shi’ism doesn’t approve of suicide bombers’.
Well links are good. We have the IAI Heron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Heron
and the newly released Heron TP aka the Aitan.
Per the link the older Heron has an air range of 350 km or 217 miles which would give you good coverage of Jordan and Lebanon and at least Southern Syria but would barely get you to far Western Iraq. Plus with a top speed of 207km/h or 113 knots it really doesn’t have the speed to be a penetrator bomber (I really doubt that Iranian air defense is THAT bad) and with a total payload of 250 kg which would have to include the bomb and sensor/targeting equipment and given the tradeoff’s between range, speed, payload and ceiling, its ability to deliver a major blow to hardened target seems a little, okay a whole lot dicey. And once again this assumes the U.S. is going to allow what is the end a ‘low and slow’ plane through Iraqi airspace.
I can’t get the Eitan to work but even assuming it double the capability in all three categories I can’t see it reaching targets in West Central iran without pretty open staging and refueling provisions by the US. I have on other sites seen fantasies about daisy chaining herons with one refueling the other but it is pretty hard to see how this would work more than a few hundred miles out, even if they had the capability of doing drone to drone refueling, you would need dozens of very expensive aircraft refueling each other so they could refuel another with all of them getting back to base.
I see all this as an elaborate bluff to get the U.S. to go first with some plausible cover about them just forestalling an Israeli air attack. I wasn’t a military pilot, i was a surface sailor working with missiles and that decades ago, and if Buff or ilsm feels like chiming in here then fine. But on my reading of the Cordesman-Toukan Report linked this is nothing more than a Neo-Con fantasy identical in form with the one that has Israeli launching a cruise missile attack via their Dolphin subs. Well sorry the same issues come up in slightly altered form, delivering an accurate and effective payload at more than maximum range of you combined delivery system/weapon. I know Israel has some of the most talented engineers and scientists in the world, but unless they have discovered some method for getting around the laws of physics and aeronautics I am not biting.
Ah the Eitan link came up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Eitan
Pretty impressive: 8 times the payload and 20 times the range (but of course with all of the tradeoff’s involved between the two) of the Heron. No speed specified maybe it is still classified, but the picture supplied by the BBC Report suggests neither stealth nor speed. Nor did Israel disclose the size of the “fleet” of planes delivered in Feb 2010, but on general principles it seems unlikely to be in the double digit range. And it is hard to see Israel expending $1 bn or more on a one-time, one-way raid. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8527268.stm
I am afraid this whole topic is fraught with magical thinking.
“I am afraid this whole topic is fraught with magical thinking.” Bruce
Magical?? A rather low key and inoffensive way to describe the ravings of fools and malcontents. There must be a plan afoot to provide Iran with the justification to act out in fear of the lunatic fringe that enjoys speculating on the possible outcomes of an impossible geo-political argument. So aside from being a bit of a tyrant himself, what has the Iranian leadership done to justify these insane plans which are being attributed to both the Isrealis and our current administration? Exactly what rationale is there for pre-emptive war number three which may lead to WWIII? Bruce, you may mean well by airing the issue, but you’re also fanning the embers and providing an outlet for expressions of mad men.
I am watching Wolf Blitzer and NSC advisor discussing exactly this topic on CNN right now at 3:10 Pacific. I doubt they picked this up from my blog post.
I an not he guy stirring he lot.
That may be so, the media is doing its best to create what they are presenting as a valid argument and all oars row the same boat and propell it yet faster. There are not two valid sides to this discussion any more so than there are two valid sides to the so called argument over “nonjudicial killings.” That’s a nice term for murder, and an unprovoked attack on Iran is no more judicial or judicious.
Gareth Porter discusses the same Goldberg article over at Counterpunch (an appropriate locale), but doesn’t entertain a real argument. He points out the odd lot nature of the concept as presented by Goldberg and references Isreali sources for its invalidity. See:
http://counterpunch.org/porter08132010.html. My point is that this is not a debate. Such proposals should be damned for the harm that they do and for the illegitimacy of their conclusions. In short, Goldberg is a provocator and a propagandist. identify him as such and leave it be. There is no legitimacy to his point. It is no less than madness. Give him the keys to a large aircraft and let him fly to Iran and carry out his mission, as he describes it.
8 or 6 planes as opposed to thousands sacrificed, Who are you kidding? Strategic error as opposed to intent? You would have been better to pick Hamburger Hill. Iranians were cannon fodder for the Iraquis. At least we brought our dead out when we retreated.
USMC Sgt E5
68-71
I’m wondering why so many people assume that Israel has to attack Iran by air or by submarine/cruise missle? Given decades of history wouldn’t it make more sense for Israel to have a few suitcase nukes or at least CBW or massive HE charges already in place at key locations around Iran and the rest of the ME just in case. That’s easily within Mossad’s capability. Similarly, wouldn’t it make sense for Iran to have a few chemical/biological weapons, if not its own suitcase nukes courtesy of, oh, I don’t know, maybe Pakistan or Russia, already in place in a few key Israeli and US cities?
I’m sure there are other plausible alternative scenarios – just saying its funny how we’re all focusing on air strikes in the case of Israel, or on Iran’s inability to project military power all the way to the US.
Well, it was 15 planes, but the number isn’t what matters. It’s the mindset. What clearly makes some people soil their trousers is that they find they’re confronting an enemy who is willing to take whatever casualties are considered necessary. One can slough off such opponents as suicidal, but I believe that attitude says more about the person deriding the opponent than the opponent.