Israeli AF May Attack Iran Without 3rd Country Overflight Problems

[leveymg]

Israeli jets can attack Iran without overflying any third country. Look at a map of the region. This explains how it may happen.



IAF F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers fly south from bases near Elat Airport in Southern-most Israel out the Gulf of Aqaba and straight down the middle of the Red Sea (1100 nm.) The Red Sea exits at the Gulf of Aden into the Arabian Sea where, over international waters, these planes are refueled by IAF tanker aircraft (yes, they have them), and then proceed northeast another 900 nm until they turn 90 degrees left, flying into Iran near the entrance to the Persian Gulf at the Straights of Hormuz. From there, it's a straight line to the nuclear reactor at Bushehr 300 nm northwest up the Iranian coast and on to other targets in Iran.

Approached from the Arabian Sea, IAF F-15s can strike anywhere within Iran, while the shorter-range F-16s can hit targets in the southern half of the country before they have to turn around and fly back out to meet circling Israeli Air Force air tankers, fill up again, before returning to bases in Israel.

Not an easy mission, but not outside the technical abilities of the Israelis. Everyone will feign surprise, particularly in Washington. Aside from Iran, no one can complain about encroachment into their airspace, and Iran will have a hard time justifying to the world any decision to attack U.S. or third country installations in the region on the basis that Israel received de facto overflight rights.

This makes it almost too tempting for Sharon to resist. Because we armed Israel with 600 bunker busters and a whole lot of other guided munitions (not to mention the aircraft to deliver them to targets in Iran), of course, Iran would blame the U.S. for all the Iranian citizens who are going to be killed by such an attack. Therefore, Iran may decide to launch its missiles and chemical and biological weapons at US targets in the region anyway.

Such an eventuality would likely signal a wider war with massive casualties.


:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[brainshrub]

1. Or they could just put Israeli stickers on US fighters.

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. You mean

they have done that already?

[atreides1]

2. And as soon as they take off

A little bird will tell the Iranians, and guess what will be waiting for the Israelis when they finally make landfall?

I'm sure that there are Iranians inside of Israel, and that they look just like any other Palestinian to the Israelis.

Between the Saudis and the Egyptians, the Iranians will be warned. Both do have radar for their own defense, and unless the Israelis plan to fly all the way out to the Gulf of Aden at wave top level,
their aircraft will be detected.

And let us not forget that we also trained and armed the Saudis as well, and the possible next ruler of Saudi Arabia is well liked by
the Islamist.

So, no I don't think it will be a cake walk for the Israelis, they might reach some of their targets, but I think the Iranians will make them pay for it.

[lenidog]

5. The safe money is still on the Israelis

Pilot for pilot the Israelis probably have the best air force on the planets. Their pilots train incessantly, their planes are well maintained and rank doesn't matter when leading a mission in the IAF. The most experienced pilots lead a mission no matter what their rank. None of this can be said for the Iranians. If the Israelis do attack, they will be able to accomplish their missions and go home with minimal casualties.

[radfringe]

16. cakewalk or not

it'll set off another invasion by General Yeee-haawww

using the WMD/nuke/terra scare as was done with Iraq is not an option for the bushies -- people aren't going to buy into that lie again

but if Israel attacks Iran and Iran retailiates -- then we have to go and help defend Israel -- the "minor" fact that Israel attacked first will be downplayed and spun to appear that Israel had to attack first to defend itself from possible attack -- the old pre-emptive strike bush*t

[jpak]

3. Yup

Israel has three KC-707 and five KC-130 tankers (this assumes the US won't refuel IAF aircraft over the Arabian Sea or provide AWACS support).

The attacking aircraft might also be observed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Yemen (who could potentially warn the Iranians of the impending attack).

The numbers of attacking aircraft would have to be small and there would be a problem recovering downed pilots, but they could still severely damage the Bushehr reactor.

As the date for initial fueling of the Bushehr reactor approaches, the Iranians might be expected to be more vigilant in securing their airspace (a reduction in the potential for surprise).

The Israeli Navy could also attack the the vessels transporting nuclear fuel at-sea as well.

But, even if they pulled it off, the Iranians have stated quite clearly that an attack by Israel would be considered an attack by the US.

and the shit would hit the fan...

[punpirate]

10. If they pulled it off...

... is a phrase pregnant with import. The range of heavily-loaded aircraft is quite different than their ferry range with drop-tanks, and the F-15s would likely require two refuelings on the out leg in order to have sufficient fuel to return to the Arabian sea after the mission. F-16s would likely require four to reach the same point. Part of the reason for this would be the requirement for significant low-level flying over Iran to avoid radar detection while heavily loaded.

Since the reactor at Bushehr is a large commercial reactor unlike the much smaller Iraqi Osirak reactor, it would require more planes to destroy it and its support structure. Given the payload of fighters, I would guess it would take a dozen F-16s and a dozen F-15s, minimum, and that would not allow any missions in the interior of the country at the same time. The Israelis used eight F-16s and several more F-15s for escort just for the Osirak mission.

The maximum transfer load of a KC-135 (with the turbofan upgrade) is 200,000 lbs. If the Israelis are still using older turbojet models, it would be slightly less than that. If the Israels were seeking maximum payload, but kept CFTs for fuel, the F-15s would require 22K lbs of fuel, twice, just to return to the Arabian Sea, and fully armed F-16s (with drop tanks) would require 13K lbs, four times. That's a total of about 1.1 million pounds of fuel required just to get the planes to safety and about 1.7 million pounds of fuel for them to return to Israel.

Each KC-130 is capable of carrying, in overload mode, 87K lbs, but that includes its fuel as well, and the fully-loaded burn rate is about 6000 lbs/hr. At a cruising speed of 300 knots, it would take about seven hours to reach a safe area over the Arabian Sea, and seven hours back (at a reduced burn rate of perhaps 3500 lbs/hr with its fuel load gone), for an effective transfer rate per plane of about 20K lbs.

So, the refueling capacity of the IAF is about 700K pounds of fuel for a mission likely to require 1.7 million pounds of fuel, going around Saudi Arabia over water and back.

And, yes, the Israeli Navy probably could attack the ship carrying fuel rods. But, those fuel rods are coming on a Russian ship. How kindly do you think the Russians would take to Israel torpedoing one of their freighters? I don't think even the most zealous of Israelis would chance a Russian retaliation.

Which brings up the matter of Iran's major partner in this reactor being the Russians. They stand to make quite a bit of very necessary cash on this deal, and they won't think well of Israel messing it up.

That's why US assistance is almost guaranteed in any mission the Israelis might entertain that involves aircraft. They can't go it alone, even if it means the US looking the other way while Israeli jets cross through Iraqi air space.

But, the maximum range for a Jericho-2B missile is just about the distance from Tel Aviv to Bushehr. If the Israelis have militarized the Shavit SLV launcher, then range to Bushehr or to areas around Teheran isn't an issue.

[jpak]

11. It would take only a few aircraft to destroy the reactor

If recall correctly, the Israeli F-16's that took out the Osirak reactor used plain old Mk-82's - not the "bunker-busters" and other guided munitions they have access to today.

It would take just one to penetrate the reactor containment and destroy the reactor - just one - and they are quite capable of penetrating thick reinforced concrete.

A six F-15I strike package could have a very reasonable probability of penetrating Iranian airspace (Iranian air defenses are practically nonexistent thanks to the arms embargo) and completing the mission. This is well within their refueling capability even if they took the Long Way Around.

And then there's always Plan B.

The Chimp and Sharon give the Jordanians an offer they can't refuse.

The US establishes a secure air corridor over Iraq (with refueling and AWACS support) and lets the IAF do its work.

The Chimp and Sharon remain mum on their collaboration and/or lie like hell about it.

Mission Accomplished...(but the shit would still hit the fan)...

Also, the Israelis have taken great risks in the past to protect themselves.

How would the Russians react if one of there ships was attacked/boarded by Israeli naval forces????

Probably the same way the US reacted when Israeli aircraft strafed the USS Liberty in 1967 (or when Saddam "accidentally" attacked the USS Stark in 1987)...

[punpirate]

13. Maybe...

... but, as I say, there's a large difference in the size of the reactors, from Osirak to Bushehr (Osirak estimated to be in the range of 60-70 megawatts, Bushehr about 1000 megawatts). The intent in the Osirak raid was to destroy it sufficiently to deter the Iraqis from rebuilding it. If the same intention applies to Bushehr, it would take a good deal more than a few bunker busters to accomplish that task. Simply breaching the containment would cause damage, but not enough that it couldn't be rebuilt.

I doubt seriously that six F-15s could do the damage desired, and that assumes that all six arrive at the target. With Israeli aircraft flying over 2500 nm to reach that target, someone is going to notice, so a relative lack of air defense radar (and that air defense has been improved somewhat through sales by the Chinese) isn't really a factor if there's enough lead time to have interceptors over the target, and there would be enough lead time--one-way, heavily-loaded, it's still close to five hours to target at cruise and with refueling time, and there's little reason to believe that what serviceable planes Iran has would not be on constant alert these days.

Iran can probably put seventy-five interceptors at its base in Bushehr if it diverts some planes from northern airfields. Its air force isn't nearly what it was when the Shah was in power, but most estimates put serviceable interceptors at about 150, between F-4s, F-5s, F-14s, Mirage F1s and some Soviet aircraft. Beyond that, it does have Hawks and SA-2s at Bushehr, so there's SAMs to be considered, as well.

Six planes just isn't going to do it, I don't think.

Cheers.

[BillZBubb]

4. The US would know of the attack pretty early on.

From our significant radar assets in the region. What would we do? Not only did we supply the Israeli's with the means, but we would also have known it was going down. It would be very hard for the US to claim blamelessness. Nobody would buy it.

[Ian David]

6. Here's how Israel did it to Iraq in 1981, “Operation Opera"

<snip>



Logistics

The Israelis had to remove some of the F-16s' fuel tanks to make room for the heavy munitions necessary for the attack. They also needed to assign F-15s to guard the bombers in case there was need to engage the Iraqis. The mission was aborted once and the date of the attack was rescheduled for the next month. On June 7, 1981, fourteen F-15s and F-16s flew off the runway of Etzion Air Force base in the Negev, flying over Jordanian, Saudi, and Iraqi airspace, to attack the French-built Iraqi nuclear reactor.

King Hussein of Jordan was vacationing in Aqaba during the attack. Seeing the planes pass over his head, he immediately notified the Iraqis to warn them that they may be the targets of an Israeli attack. It appears that Iraq never got the message as communic

<snip>

The destruction of the reactor helped numerous countries besides Israel. Had Iraq obtained nuclear weapons they might have been able to achieve regional hegemony. Ten years after the attack, the American government noted this. In June 1991, during a visit to Israel after the Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney gave Major General David Ivry, then commander of the Israeli Air Force, a satellite photograph of the destroyed reactor. On the photograph, Cheney wrote, “For General David Ivri, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi Nuclear Program in 1981, which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.”



More:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/osirak1.html

See also:

Slideshow:
http://www.alisrael.com/tamuz/

Also:

As fighting between Iran and Iraq raged, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor being built near Baghdad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/israeli_bombing.stm

[Zynx]

7. This is logistical BS of a high order

If Israel tried this, they would lose every single one of the aircraft they sent out due to crash landing from lack of gas. That's how far it is outside of ACTUAL technical and logistical capabilities.

Even if the numbers worked - which they don't - the Israeli flight would be picked up by the Egyptians and the Saudis and the Iranians would promptly get several hours of warning.

[Lexingtonian]

8. nope

Sovereignty over airspace extends out over the oceans/seas. The minimum internationally is a 12 mile zone or half the distance to the next country, if less than 24 miles apart. The U.S. even asserted a 200 mile one during the Cold War- Russian bombers would give things a buzz every now and then.

Israeli planes can't even get down the Gulf of Akaba without violating Egyptian or Saudi airspace. Flying Israeli tanker planes to the Arabian Sea is out of the question. All the plans that are somewhat viable involve flying over Jordan and Iraq, or perhaps Turkey and Iraq.

I wouldn't buy into the talk- it has to be all bluster. The Iranians are pretty technically informed and capable, and they will have better hidden duplicate isotope separation equipment, dummy uranium shipments for satellites to track, and so on.

Middle Eastern political games have so many moving parts and bad faith actors that it's hard to figure out most of them- but it's likewise for the people in them, so it's always wisest to think that all the complicated and picturesque plans and threats that are thrown out there are distractions and the main players are looking for small, very basic, fairly easy changes.

I think Sharon is doing some mix of bluster and bluff, intended to drive the Americans and Europeans to slow down Iran's nuclear weapons development. Similarly with containing Syria- the very passive rule of the second Assad regime seems to be a massive relief to Israel, really, so the snarling dog approach is being toned down.

And Sharon is doing this, and getting Euro/American cooperation, probably because he needs the threats posed by Syria and Iran out of the picture for his domestic game. It takes power out of the Israeli far Right's selfpity/violence politics and confidence out of Palestinian militants. It allows the rearrangement of affairs in the Gaza Strip- definitive settlement of the political problem posed by it- and reduces the complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian problem by a good chunk, say 30%. And as an achievement and concession, settling the Gaza Strip problem eases the next step- negotiating the West Bank partition.

So it's a lot of huey and dust flying, all to manage an internal problem and make a certain (if limited) kind of real progress. To my interpretation. The enormous mountain groans, a massive crack opens in its side, and a little mouse emerges as the grandiose result of the whole. But that's how real progress takes place in the region.

[leveymg]

12. I wish I could agree with you were it not for two important facts.

The Aqaba and Red Sea are "international waterways". The UN Law of the Sea Treaty of 1980. Second, Haaretz reported last year that that Bush had agreed to "certain strategic understandings" that concessions on Gaza and a partial pull-back of settlements in the West Bank would open the door to the Osirak Option in Iran. You have the priorities in that latter agreement backward.

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4083&

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://forum.johnkerry.com/index.php?showtopic=81004&hl=

BUSH'S NEXT WAR GOES NUCLEAR:
If W Is Reelected, Sharon Gets A Green Light to Attack Iran's Nuclear Plants


WASHINGTON - Sept. 25. The Bush Administration urged the members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to approve an October 31 deadline on Iran for compliance or face sanctions at the UN Security Council. Bush lost that vote. Had the motion passed, that would have started the countdown to an Israel-Iran war just days before the November 2nd elections.

Restrained by western nations on the IAEA, neoconservatives in Washington and their allies in Ariel Sharon's Likud government have had to forego the "October surprise", an attack on Iranian nuclear installations on the eve of the U.S. presidential election. Nevertheless, events already in motion indicate that a pause before World War IV could last only weeks, if George W. Bush gains a second term.

Iran's nuclear program has long been in the crosshairs. In a February 5, 2002 interview with Sharon, The Times of London wrote that according to Sharon, "Iran is the center of 'world terror,' and as soon as an Iraq conflict is concluded, will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do list' . . . He sees Iran as 'behind terror all around the world' and a direct threat to Israel."

Two-and-a-half years later, political and military preparations for an attack are complete, and the operation is reportedly ready to go. The July 18, 2004 issue of The Jerusalem Post reported, "Israel has completed military rehearsals for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear power facility at Bushehr, Israeli officials told the London-based Sunday Times." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1090121780879&p=1078027574121>

Training by the Israeli military for a combined commando and air strike against Iran has been ongoing for more than a year. In early 2004, planning papers were approved by Sharon. A classified document on the Iranian threat, entitled "The Strategic Future of Israel," advocates military action against "countries which develop nuclear weapons" and describes Iran as a "suicide nation" and recommends "targeted killings" of members of the country's elite, including its leading nuclear scientists. The Jerusalem Post article on July 18 seemingly laid out the specific conditions that would trigger an attack:

"Such a strike is likely if Russia supplies Iran with fuel rods for enriching uranium. The rods, currently stored at a Russian port, are expected to be delivered late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

"An Israeli defense source in Tel Aviv, who confirmed that the military rehearsals had taken place, told the paper: 'Israel will on no account permit Iranian reactors - especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help - to go critical.'"

<SNIP>

On August 13 2003, The Washington Post reported a full-court press on Bush to support Sharon's plans for a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations. Post writer Jim Hoagland described a "grim warning from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to President Bush that Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than U.S. intelligence believes . . ." U.S. intelligence had estimated Iran would need four years to process sufficient weapons grade material. Hoagland wrote:

"Sharon dramatized his forecast by bringing Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, a three-star army officer who serves as his military secretary, to a meeting with Bush in the Oval Office two weeks ago, U.S. and Israeli sources tell me. Galant showered a worried-looking Bush with photographs and charts from a thick dossier on Iran's covert program."

At that time of their last meeting in Washington on April 14, the two are reported to have again discussed the Iranian nuclear program, and Israeli plans to eliminate it through a preemptive strike on Iranian infrastructure and key personnel. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=126843&contrassID=2&subcontrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 [br />
On April 22, "Bush told Republican congressional leaders during a meeting at the White House that it was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a major attack on the United States before the election, according to a congressional aide. The leaders were struck by Bush's definitiveness and gravity, the aide said..." (Washington Post, April 22, 2004).

Sharon's war counsel with Bush had its intended effect. On May 6, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 398 in a 376-3 vote, calling on the U.S. government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." A similar resolution, if passed by the Senate, would hand the launch button to Bush.

On June 1, the U.S. Dept. of Defense announced plans to approve sales of $319 million worth of guided munitions to Israel. Most of this will be covered by U.S. foreign aid to Israel. On September 21, the Israelis acknowledged that shipment would include 500 "bunker buster" bombs, suitable for use against Iranian underground nuclear facilities and command centers. According to Reuters, Israel already possesses a more limited stockpile of F-15 launched GBU-27 or GBU-28 bombs, guided by lasers or satellites that can penetrate up to 30 feet of earth and concrete. http://www.iranexpert.com/2004/israel21september.htm>

On Wednesday, June 2, Sharon told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he and President George Bush agreed to a series of "strategic understandings" concerning Israel's posture in the Middle East. Sharon said the understandings offered by the Bush administration called for the prime minister to pledge to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. Reports state that the committees understood that Israel received a green light to finalize preparations for a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear targets. http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_04/8099.html >

[democracyindanger]

9. Um...Gulf of Aqaba

is only 7 to 15 miles wide, and is claimed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Israel was given a 5 mile long shoreline after the 1967 war. And since airspace includes that above territorial waters, you're kinda talking out of your butt.

[leveymg]

14. Yes, Gulf of Aqaba - Int'l Waterway since 1958

Aqaba, Gulf of
Related: Oceans, Continents, and Polar Regions

northeastern arm of the Red Sea, 118 mi (190 km) long and 10 to 15 mi (16.1 to 24.1 km) wide, between the Sinai and Arabian peninsulas; a part of the Great Rift Valley. The gulf, which is entered through the Straits of Tiran, has played a major role in the tensions and wars between Israel and the Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) bordering it. Aqaba, with the Israeli port of Elat at its head, was Israel's only accessible waterway to E Africa, Asia, and Australia when Egypt closed the Suez Canal between 1967 to 1975. The Gulf of Aqaba was blockaded by the Arabs from 1949 to 1956 and again in 1967, despite the fact that it was declared (1958) an international waterway by the United Nations. In the wake of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Israel occupied the Sinai and hence strategic points along the Straits of Tiran to insure open passage of its shipping. As a result of the Camp David Accords of 1978, and the ensuing Egypt-Israel peace treaty (1979), Israel withdrew from its positions on the Straits of Tiran. The Gulf of Aqaba played a major role in the Iran-Iraq War throughout the 1980s, when it became a vital supply port for Iraq via Jordan. Later, with the imposition of international sanctions against Iraq and the ensuing Persian Gulf War (1991), the Gulf of Aqaba served as an important blockade point for coalition forces against goods bound for Iraq.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/aqaba-g1u.asp

Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2005.

Please eat your hat.


:hi: