Israel’s Big Bluff on Iran: You Just Have to Ignore Physics and Geography
Which though not stated so baldly is the clear conclusion of the following: Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman:
Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development.
The authors outline three different attack routes the Israelis could use, each having its own set of political and military problems, but the real missing piece is the refueling. Theoretically Israel might barely have the range to get its planes on target but not to recover them. In fact it appears that a successful raid would depend on refueling the planes on the way in and again on the way out. Which would not only require just about 2X Israel’s actual aerial refueling capacity, but would have those planes staging for hours and hours in either Turkish, U.S. controlled Iraqi, or Saudi Arabian air space. And while Turkey and the U.S. might not relish a one on one attack on the actual Israeli strike force, and perhaps Saudi Arabia wouldn’t even attempt it, it would be hard to plausibly ignore those Israeli KC-135s doing figure eights in your airspace waiting for those F-15s and F-16s on the way in AND on the way out.
And since someone is bound to bring them up, similar limits apply to an Eitan drone or Dolphin submarine led attack, Israel doesn’t have the combination of numbers, range, and deliverable payload to get the job done. Not without the active assistance of the U.S. at a minimum as to refueling and emergency air fields, but likely with actual strike assistance as well.
If any of our commenter/military aviators can point me to or supply themselves a convincing refutation of Toukan and Cordesman then I am certainly willing to reconsider, but on my reading it just can’t be done. Unless Israel bluffs the U.S. into doing it for them.
Bruce and rdan,
I believe we discussed this last year sometime. I don’t know how to search the archives to find the discussion but I’m willing to betyou can! 🙂
But the bottom line hasn’t changed at all and Bruce you are correct. They don’t have the reach without some external support (US or someone else). On top of that even if there strikes were 100% successful, destroying all the critical hard-to-import items and killing the people involved with the project, at best you would push teh project back a decade or so. In the meantime you would have pissed everyone off and made damn sure that next time the Iranian facilities would be untouchable short of a nuke.
But considering the Wikileaks documents they might get help from someone other than the US as long as their was some plausible deniability…seems a lot of Iran’s neighbors arn’t happy about an Iranian nuke either.
Islam will change
Crazy thinking…
What if some day the key facilities “accidentally’ blew up like Chernobyl, accidentally because Israeli special forces introduced sabotage and maybe a few backpack nukes.
Crazy I know.
Strategic bombing was inconclusive in dealing with German war production in 1944 and 45.
A max effort bombing would do little than make the Iranians look like suffering martyrs.
If the Israelis can pull this off refueling with 707’s with much more mileage than the US KC 135 then the USAF and Navy needs no new airplanes of any rating for a few more decades.
What is the strategic object, delay Iran nuclear challenge to Israel or make headlines?
Only the headlines has any chance for succeeding.
Bibby Netanyahu is a tough guy!
Bruce poo-poo’d it when I brought it up during the last discussion but given the Wikileaks documents, and assuming they are accurate, I think Israel might get some help from unexpected places.
If Israel or the US are serious then they nuke Tehran. I am being only half facetious.
Let me step back first. Having an operable weapon is far different than having one that is small enough to be deliverable and highly reliable. Those two stipulations complicate the equation by several orders of magnitude. Having some contraption that is a working nuke is actually a seperate issue than having one that can be delivered and then actually work. Iran has no B29 to deliver a 9000 pound bomb. A missle? Well if you have one with enough payload the warhead must still be compact and able to withstand the forces invovled. People pass over this stuff like it’s nothing. Then it has to hit the right spot. Not blow up on the pad or land off Gaza. Then the warhead has to work. Well eve if it does, then Iran is destroyed in a counter strike. Another 5000 years dreaming of Persian glory.
Truth be told that is what some want. To destroy Shite Perians. Who are themselves increasing the likelyhood by having a nuclear program. They don’t have a friend in the world. Tomorrow we could nuke their major cities and there would not be any significant consequense. None. It’s only a moral roadblock. I fully expect Tehran will be the first next city to see a mushroom cloud.
Thousands of sorties will not destroy their nuclear program. Set it back, yes. Destroy no, and then you have a war with cascading unpredictable consequenses. Something beyond dumb. If Isreal or we get the guts for a final solution so be it. All this armchair generalship about attack tactics is a circle jerk.
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/07/joe-biden-map-office-is-calling.html
complete with nifty map
And introducing a nasty computer worm is one thing, full scale bombing of a few dozen or hundred sites while having to neutralize the entire Iranian air defense system something different. I don’t doubt that the CIA alternates between assisting Mossad and looking the other way as convenient and if the US intended up complicit is some assassinations of Iranian nuclear engineeers it wouldn’t surprise me a bit. But can we keep the U.S. Air Force out of this?
You might want to check the proximity of Natanz and the new reported nuclear facility to the holy city of Qom. We had better hope that on the day that ‘accident’ occurs that the prevailing winds are not blowing to the northwest. Because there are a lot of Shi’ites in Iraq, and their spiritual leader Sistani is ethnically Iranian and probably would not be pleased to see the city he was trained in become radioactive.
As long as we don’t fall into either one of the twin fallacies of the Fly Boys: one, that there really is such a thing as a surgical strike delivered from the air, and two that the way to win hearts and minds is to blow the crap out of as many urban based ‘strategic’ targets as possible.
In the end I don’t much care what Mossad does, that is between them and Iran, I just don’t want to half the blood of a few hundred thousand to several million Iranians on American hands. Even if such an attack would actually achieve an end of a permanent halt to Iranian nuclear activities. Which no one thinks it would. If North Korea can go nuclear any country can, and certainly any resource rich country can, the basic physics behind a uranium or plutionium bomb just not being that hard, you actually being able to pick up the principals by reading any number of 50’s era science fiction stories-put enough weapons grade material in close enough proximity and it goes BOOM. The trick being to not be there at the time.
As long as that help doesn’t come in the form of American B-1 and B-52 bombers and a few hundred ship launched cruise missiles I am not sure I care much if Israel makes a dumb move with or without outside help. We can not let the decision of whether the U.S. goes to war be in the hands of an Israeli war cabinet.
For a number of years, I did a lot of work that got used by agencies like the USAF and NavAir. In the process, I learned to think hardware – planes, ships, etc. – simply as items that run on software. If I was leader of a country that just lost a bunch of centrifuges to a computer virus, I might be wondering whether any nukes I built might have accidents too. If I was leader of a country that had released Stuxnet, I assume at this point I’d have people polishing up Stuxnet 2.0, designed to control some vital aspect of a nuclear weapon, or at least some vital aspect of the delivery process of such weapons.
If I remember corectly, the Wash ington Post last year had an article about how the Saudis would support any Israeli action against Iran to prevent an arms race.
As other commenters have pointed out, there are a number of options open to the Israelis. As to bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, who says the pilots and planes have to come back?
Bruce,
That was a different discussion from the one I was thinking about. You will notice I wasn’t involved in the thread at all. The Guest-101 guy is seriously challenged with ability to combat plan a strike and was quite delusional at times. I was surprised you kept up being so nice.
Anyway, as someone who actually worked on the Iran strike plans back in the day, it ain’t gonna happen. STRs idea about espianage and sabatoge are far more likely. Industrial ‘accidents’ do happen you know!
Islam will change
Bruce,
Just curious. What brought this up? The article is two years old. So what got your interest going again?
And could you really think Obama would authorize US involvement (even low level help)?
Islam will change
“Strategic bombing was inconclusive in dealing with German war production in 1944 and 45.”
Please talk to WWII veterans before making this statement… Thanks. Just look at U-Boat production, actual war material distribution, German Oil production…especially in Romania….
Part of the reason of strategic bombing is the concept of total war… Strike deep into the heart of the population to let the enemy civilian know how futile it is to resist and follow their leader to the bitter end…
Germans practically run to the US en mass at end of WWII.
If their national goal is total annilation of your nation, you love ones, your principles, your freedom, then certain choices needs to be made. A strategic war is basically at this point a lessor of two evils. There is no such thing as political correctness when someone already fired a shot and tries kill you…
Hopefully, an understanding can be reached just like in the cold war between the USSR and USA. A balance… Until oneside collaspe from within…
Spectre of war will be the most intense for the next two years… US still controls the Iraqi airspace as well as the airbases that are essential for any kind of Isreal attack into Iran.
As for possible war scenarios, yes there are on paper three routes into Iran. Who says Isreal cannot land an strike force in Iraqi airbases, and/or adhoc “hidden” temporary airstrip, “hidden” forward comand posts, sam sites, etc… setup by special forces with US turning a blind eye towards such incursion? This kind of attack don’t have to worry about the intial ferry range, allowing maximum tacticle/shock flexibility. The only difficult part will be rescue missions, orderly withdraw from battle… The tankers can be flown with escort to meet the return force….
Any attack by Isreal will be a surprise, when people in war colleges and public insitution on warfare can only speculate on publically availible data… Whatever we thought about, the Iranians will also prepare for those contigencies.
Even the US have prepared in a “uncoventional way” Just google the modified trident nuclear submarine and count how many cruise missle just one of these boats carry… They will be very useful against the chinese, and just to think about the Iranians…
The attack by Isreal will be anything but conventional… We armchair generals tends to read “Janes” aircraft and come up with solutions based on yesterdays war…LOL
Pax,
“Germans practically run to the US en mass at end of WWII.”
A few and the one I know fought on the eastern front as did all those who worked for the USAF and Army in Germany in the 70″s.
Check out the strategic bombing study commissioned at the end of WW II. Also check the dates when the Ruhr “pocket” was separated from the Reich by the US Army.
Army strategy showed a great urgency to invest the Ruhr industrial area because the bombing was not progressing.
As to starving Germans in 1945, and 1946, what happened to them they were overrun during planting season and the Red Army, who preferred Germans straving took the bread basket in the Eastern sector.
Oil was an issue however synthetic fuels and underground factories countered much of the impercise bombing.
A more material impact of the bombing may have been the troops, ammunition and 88 and other calibers diverted from the groud troops in the fronts.
I never heard my Uncles praising the Air Corps.
“If their national goal is total annilation of your nation,….”
I will que up “Dr Stangelove” to relate this this.
I agree.
Israel is not going to throw away its entire Air Force to delay Iran for a year or two. And a successful attack would require every plane they have (plus some air tankers they don’t).
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/16/you/#more
This post. The context was the Goldberg Atlantic article six months ago where he argued that there just was no other choice and that since the U.S. could do it better it should take the job over from the Israelis. But it turns out the Israelis aren’t quite on board after all, something we learned from public remarks by the retiring head of Mossad a week ago:
Last week, the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, gave a series of exit interviews to the press; he’ll be leaving his post shortly. His key point: The Iranian nuclear threat is far from ripe. Israel and the international community still have plenty to do to undermine it. A military assault is not the right solution.
“For “it would make the Iranian people rally around the regime, would make Israeli-American relations extremely difficult and could result in a war, in which the Israeli home front will be bombed by thousands of rockets and missiles from Iran, Lebanon and Gaza. The IDF would find it very difficult to achieve a decisive victory in such a war.” Disinformation? Perhaps, but not a great way to prepare a population for a shower of missiles. And Dagan has been publicly joined in this position by outgoing Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin.
The further context was the relative success of the Stuxnet worm which seems to have achieved the same order of delay that bombing would have.
Any U.S. assistance on the way in or the way out will be considered, and rightly under International Law a declaration of war by the U.S.
And every Shi’ite in Iraq is potentially an ally of co-religionists in Iran, or at a minimum willing to pass along some information if they see Israeli’s setting up any kind of bases.
As to pubiically available data, we have excellent information on what Israel has, in large part because much of it is purchased overseas. But as noted they can be as “unconventional” as they want and still not accomplish repeal of the laws of physics, or bring those targets to places where they can be targeted conveniently.
And Cordesman at least would seem to have excellent sources on this kind of stuff, and I think the CSIS library is stocked with more than back issues of Jane’s Fighting Ships.
It’s really not about capabilities, the US/Isreal can project their power if neccessary. Sadam Hussein was bombed by the Isreal back when they were building a nuclear plant.
Isreal is probably trying to topple the regime from within. Either through elimination/denial of information/technology, and/or brain drain through less than normally acceptable means…
But timeing, preparation, planning, and execution of conventional warfare will be very very different. Iraq, Iran, the US, and most Gulf State countries will probably be involved oneway or another should shooting occurs. What kind of Iranian response, political and/or military can be very unpredictable? Can this be used to topple the current regime? Or will it strengthen it? Will it really setback their nuclear capabilities? WWW III? It will be very interesting to see..
Saddam’s nuke plant was a hell of a lot closer to Israel.
That is the ‘geography’ thing in the title of the post.
Bruce/Pax,
Nothing here interesting.
I stopped reading these kind of novels about 15 years ago. About the time I decided militarism is very bad.
There are other options than bankrupting the nation for the war profiteers.
Leave this stuff to Tom Clancy.
Not my idea of interesting, Pax. I am persuaded by ilsm’s arguments that the war business in this country is way out of hand. It would be one thing, I suppose, if we actually acquired whole countries and all their resources and proceeded to exploit them and their people in the time-honored British fashion. In exchange for their political autonomy, the South Indians received English and trains that ran on time. Shakespeare and mass transit–not a bad deal.
One way or another, if we are prompted to bomb Iran, thus disabling its oil production, isn’t that a very dumb thing to do? How ’bout we invade and occupy Mexico, with its significant oil resources all in productive condition first? We could drill the hell out of their part of the Gulf and the oil companies could employ thousands of new American citizens or at least citizens of a vast, new “protectorate” or territory and we’d get all that new tax revenue. Not interested? Didn’t think so.
Bruce glad to see a righteous lefty, who has qualms about the US Pentagon and state department being used as the Likud party playthings, dragging out into subject out into the open.
Even more preposterous than Israel attacking Iran’s atomic energy infratstructure, this is in the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533695.html
The Price of Power.
Robert Kagan ceased being an analyst or historian long ago and is now a humbug merchant forking for a neo-con/PNAC rag.
Indeed, no serious analyst would argue that the Weekly Standard’s definition of security and massive war profitteering is not worth bankrupting the US.
Militarists might as well, the lefties are competing to bankrupt the US.
Worse the DoD linked to this in the “Early Brid” which is bcome a neocon agitprop machine. Funded by Sec Gates’ staff public affairs folks.
ilsm will not change (only goes to weekly standard when DoD links it.)
Buff as a spokeman for the likud party who is actively attempting to foment a civilizational war between Islam and the West, I imagine you are quite satisfied with the Christmas bombings of Coptic churches in Egypt. How are you going to spin the assertion by the Egyption foreign minister that the bombings were an act of the mossad?
So not only must Islam change, but all Christians must be driven out of the middle east as well. It’s a good thing you are buff, because for most people betraying ones country would be a heavy burden to bear.
Franklin Roosevelt decided to rearm American in the 1930s, and since that time the US had not demobilized it’s military capabilities. This strategic decision had been carried on by subsequent American Administrations.
Many people blogging here might not remember the era of civil drills conducted for possible air raid, nuclear war… The nature of the threat have change but duty for national security will never change.
ilsm made his points… He definitely have his ideas on WWII history and the Current standoff between Iran and the Western World. War is very unpredictable and generally should be avoided at all cost. No plan survives contact with the enemy…
What a country needs and what a person’s personal political viewpoints/agenda can be pointedly different. If you look at recent past presidents, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagon, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. All have the “same” look after about two years of presidency… They all look ten year older… The weight of defending the US nation as a whole despite our differences must be carried on regardless…
The Cold War ended well for the west. But now new challengers arises… Like I said Isreal/US can project their power if needed. Geography is more of a challenge than an true obstacle. The outcome can be anyone’s guess. Will we allow “tyrants” to rise to power as in Germany, or we allow a dictatorship to reach a balance of power as in “Cold War” and wait for the dictatorship to disintegrate from within? There are so many permutations of possibility. The US will still need to have the strategic means to engage each of these challenges…Peaceful solution included…
Thanks Bruce,
Just wondering since i hadn’t seen anything to really bring it up. I’m more worried about a potential blow-up on the Isreali-Lebanon border than anyone bombing Iran.
I thought the Stuxnet worm was a neat way to throw a wrench into the works. I surprised they don’t keep there computers off the grid since that is the really only way to stop these things (or maybe they did and an Israeli James Bond got it in).
Islam will change
cursed,
???
Did you read what I posted here? Or do you have me mixed up with Pax, becuase your comment doesn’t make sense…
Islam will chnage
Israel will HAVE to use nukes in the first place. As I recall, the plans were to ‘soften up’ the areas bombed with the GBT ‘Bunker Busters (20,000 lbs)…..crater depth from these would be sixty feet. THEN, tactical nukes-to take out the centrifuge arrays under Natanz.
Nukes or not if you can’t get planes on target without sacrificing your whole air force it just ain’t going to happen.
And bunker busters of the size you suggest would seem to make the fuel problem that much harder. Maybe Buff could discuss the fuel load/bomb payload/range tradeoff. When it comes to logistics there is rarely anything like a free lunch or an unlimited plate at the buffet. It is not what you have in the inventory, it is getting that whatever delivered at the point of attack. That pesky law of physics thing.