View Full Version : US officials: Israeli attack on Iran requires 100 planes
Very interesting article.
"In New York Times article, military analysts describe hurdles Israel will face if it decides to strike nuclear sites. 'It ain’t going to be that easy,' one of them says"
"According to the report, Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task."
Read the entire article, some very good points made but the bottom line is that alone, Israel simply does not have the capabilities...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4192055,00.html
H
mark46th
02-20-2012, 09:26
I wonder what makes people think Israel has to use air strikes to accomplish this mission. A few smart, motivated and dedicated people could probably do it... MOO
I would like to see the math that led to the 100 planes declaration. I wonder if it could be done with 50 with twice the time, or if 100 is a no shit limit based on METT-T. As far as overflight rights, I doubt that would be an issue, all of Iran's neighbors are scared to death and want Israel or the US to strike.
.........Read the entire article, some very good points made but the bottom line is that alone, Israel simply does not have the capabilities...............
Yeah, that's just what Idi Amin thought.
The Reaper
02-20-2012, 10:32
As an Army guy, my knowledge of this is limited, but the following points occur to me. This op is going to be radically different from the previous strikes on Osirak and the Syrian reactor. Huge difference between attacking your neighbor, and someone across the city.
There is an old saying about striking not with a half-hearted blow. If we are going to war, make it worth it so that we do not merely irritate our opponent and have to do this again in three or four years.
Step One is going to have to be suppression of enemy air defenses. That will require quite a few planes to accomplish. If it were me, I would want a joint cruise missile and air delivered ordnance strike package, perhaps coordinated with SOF missions. This SEAD may also require boots on the ground to assist. These nuclear targets and supporting infrastructure are not all in one unprotected, surface-level basket. There are a lot of hardened deeply buried targets which are well defended and scattered across a lot of territory. You will need multiple SEAD, EW, Strike, CAP, SAR, tanker and possibly ground packages to successfully accomplish this mission.
They are also going to need EW platforms to jam enemy electronic defenses.
IMHO, they are going to have to have tanker support to get there, accomplish the mission, and return, since I do not see any area countries alllowing them to land and refuel. I don't think the Israelis have the tankers to support the strike packages required.
Next, this job is going to require a cap of fighters to defend the bomb carriers. More planes, and more tankers to support them.
They are going to need AWACS or the equivalent, before, during, and after the mission.
You are going to have to have SAR resources. That means rotary wing and a way to get them there and back.
Finally, this mission will require pinpoint delivery of some very specialized ordnance. This is going to require pilot skills, which the Izzies may have, but also weapons that have the ability to attack hardened deeply buried targets. If they do not have the latest versions of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and a system to carry them, there are several targets that will not be able to be touched directly. Our AF has only a few of these in the inventory, and I do not think the Israelis have a platform that can deliver them. This might also require ground parties to conduct pre-strike reconaissance, especially of the mobile assets that you are targeting. Can you get them in and out without airlift? Maybe.
If you are the Israelis, are you going to conduct a high-profile offensive operation that many miles from home with the majority of your AF involved? Obviously, that would be a great time for one (or more) of the unfriendly neighbors to conduct a few strikes of their own. You have to run a cap, or at least retain sufficient resources at home to defend and perhaps deliver weapons to other targets. You have to mobilize your entire AF to do all of this, and given the flight time to the target, that would be a helluva signature in advance. This is going to involve either shooting your way through several countries' airspace, or getting permission. Either is going to involve substantial risk of compromise. A force which has friendly relations with Iraq, Kuwait, or Saudi, or launching from the Persian Gulf does not, however.
Frankly, running this op with only 100 planes flying out of Israel strikes me as inadequate and unlikely.
IMHO, the Israelis cannot pull this off without significant assistance. I wonder who that could be?
I believe that we can accomplish this mission. The real questions are whether we have the balls and can live with the consequences. The worse Obama's poll number and the closer we get to the election, the more likely this becomes. Wag the dog, take credit for any successes, blame the failures on someone else.
TR
As an Army guy, my knowledge of this is limited, but the following points occur to me. This op is going to be radically different from the previous strikes on Osirak and the Syrian reactor. Huge difference between attacking your neighbor, and someone across the city.
There is an old saying about striking not with a half-hearted blow. If we are going to war, make it worth it so that we do not merely irritate our opponent and have to do this again in three or four years.
Step One is going to have to be suppression of enemy air defenses. That will require quite a few planes to accomplish. If it were me, I would want a joint cruise missile and air delivered ordnance strike package. This may also require boots on the ground to assist.
They are going to need EW platforms to jam enemy electronic defenses.
IMHO, they are going to have to have tanker support to get there, accomplish the mission, and return, since I do not see any area countries alllowing them to land and refuel. I don't think the Israelis have the tankers to support the strike packages required.
Next, this job is going to require a cap of fighters to defend the bomb carriers. More planes, and more tankers to support them.
They are going to need AWACS or the equivalent, before, during, and after the mission.
You are going to have to have SAR resources. That means rotary wing and a way to get them there and back.
Finally, this mission will require pinpoint delivery of some very specialized ordnance. This is going to require pilot skills, which the Izzies may have, but also weapons that have the ability to attack hardened deeply buried targets. If they do not have the latest versions of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and a system to carry them, there are several targets that will not be able to be touched directly. Our AF has only a few of these in the inventory, and I do not think the Israelis have a platform that can deliver them. This might also require ground parties to conduct pre-strike reconaissance, especially of the mobile assets that you are targeting. Can you get them in and out without airlift? Maybe.
If you are the Israelis, are you going to conduct a high-profile offensive operation that many miles from home with the majority of your AF involved? Obviously, that would be a great time for one (or more) of the unfriendly neighbors to conduct a few strikes of their own. You have to run a cap, or at least retain sufficient resources at home to defend and perhaps deliver weapons to other targets. You have to mobilize your entire AF to do all of this, and given the flight time to the target, that would be a helluva signature in advance.
Frankly, running this op with only 100 planes strikes me as inadequate.
IMHO, the Israelis cannot pull this off without significant assistance. I wonder who that could be?
TR
I liked the points you have made sir,I have two questions:
1)So can Israel tackle Iran alone?
2)If they do opt for Air Strikes will they need assistance from the Carrier Battle Groups of the US Navy?
Regards.
The Reaper
02-20-2012, 10:54
I liked the points you have made sir,I have two questions:
1)So can Israel tackle Iran alone?
2)If they do opt for Air Strikes will they need assistance from the Carrier Battle Groups of the US Navy?
Regards.
1. Sure, if the mission statement is limited enough and they can figure out how to get there, refuel, and get home.
2. That depends on what we wish to accomplish.
What is the mission statement for this op?
TR
...........You are going to have to have SAR resources. That means rotary wing and a way to get them there and back........
Very few countries have spare pilots out in the hallway and I'm sure Israel does not have many, if any, spares.
But SAR is not a must have for the operation if you feel your country is at risk.
I think that one would be chalked up in the very, very, very nice to have side of the board.
The problem is that the administration does not get the only vote on the issue. If the Israelis decide that it is important enough, they will do it alone. The Iranians have already said that they will retaliate against the US if Israel does this. We have asked the Isrealis not to do anything without talking to us first, but they are losing patience, and the Iranian nuclear program is only months away from being invulnerable to non-nuclear attack.
Obama may get drug into this like or not.
My guess is we/they are going to think outside the box, e.g. Stuxnet, at least I hope so. If the Israelis genuinely believe this to be an existential threat then everything will come out of the box: a full cyberwar assault on all of Iran's SCADA systems--both infrastructure and dedicated military, deployment of HPM EMP weapons, and the covers pulled off of every EW and embedded human asset available.
But I also wouldn't be surprised to wake up to pictures of radioactive smoke pouring out of tunnels in Natanz and Iran claiming it's all a successful test, praise Allah, of their blast doors, move along, nothing to see here.
There's an awful lot of what sounds like plausible deniability going on by us and the Europeans and the Israelis are talking too much about an airstrike. Seems like a head fake to me.
If they go, it will be the first integrated, next-generation assault and will be the template for future inter-state conflicts. But as they say, beware programmers holding screwdrivers, so what do I know.
Have the Israelis "borrowed" any Harriers?
A couple of freighters could carry helicopters, harriers and enough supplies for a FARP should they decide to "rent" a coastal airbase near the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea.
Make it a week long holiday.
Might be expensive - but maybe less than one of Moochelle's vacations...
Have the Israelis "borrowed" any Harriers?
A couple of freighters could carry helicopters, harriers and enough supplies for a FARP should they decide to "rent" a coastal airbase near the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea.
Make it a week long holiday.
Might be expensive - but maybe less than one of Moochelle's vacations...
Easier said than done.
MOO: I concur with TR here. This isn't Osirak, there are too many locations to park homing devices next to, and who knows, maybe the Iranians are smart enough to leave the AA radar on during dinner; a "we are serious" hit against Natanz alone isn't going to do it. Then again, Israel has the "chutzpah" to do things that some won't even dream of, time will tell.
Stuxnet is a true piece of work, and Israel is quite capable of pulling something like that off again, however, it would have to be sufficiently able to cripple Iran's nuclear program permanently, a near impossible task for a cyber warfare alone*. IMHO: Some way or another, the US is going to end up in, or over Iran, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia.
*As pessimistic as I am about this country's(and any country's, for that matter) disaster recovery and continuity abilities within technology, most systems are fragmented enough that striking a catastrophic blow is still practically impossible, for now. That said, government mandated operating systems and software do make it easier as you now have standardized target, i.e. China's GreenBow etc. I would not be surprised if Iran has something along those lines...
Why do the Israelis need to do anything other than mount some sort of highly visible strike? The Israelis know if they can get the Iranians to fire on US forces as proclaimed, America will go in and do the real job for them. At that point Zero can claim "self defense, surely a regime which would attack US forces unprovoked can't be allowed nukes", even the Libs can't say a thing, and he rides this "tough guy who got UBL and defended us from Iran vibe" all the way to re-election.
The Israelis are very good at looking out for the Israelis, A populist like Obama is emminently predictable, The rub of course is any US servicemen caught in Iranian attacks who pay the price for political expediency.
Frankly, "Alf" over in Iran wants this outcome too, his goal is to stay in power. He knows if he "chirps" too much he will share Saddam's fate. He should be quite willing to give up nuclear power for longevity. Eventually democratic opposition movements in Iran may force him out if left to flourish. What "Alf" needs is a unifying external threat to focus Iranian attention on for the next decade.
So my jaded $.02 all the players involved want the US to take out these sites.
ECUPirate09
02-20-2012, 16:21
The worse Obama's poll number and the closer we get to the election, the more likely this becomes.
One professor here at ECU, whose expertise is in elections and campaigning, believed President Obama would launch some sort of strike against Iran no later than October. His reasoning being that it would appease/gather support from the Israel Lobby and help in his re-election.
Another professor (Politics of Terrorism), believed Israel would launch a military strike on Iran before May, and if there isn't one, there won't be one for an extended period of time. I sent her the link to the article and asked her if it changed her opinion.
Eventually democratic opposition movements in Iran may force him out if left to flourish. What "Alf" needs is a unifying external threat to focus Iranian attention on for the next decade.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/bruce_bueno_de_mesquita_predicts_iran_s_future.htm l
This is from 2009, so some of this person's thoughts might not be pertinent to the discussion today. Seems as though he thinks Iran will move towards democracy and "Alf" won't hold power for much longer (relatively).
Personally, I don't trust math and computers to tell me what humans will do. :rolleyes:
twistedsquid
02-20-2012, 16:48
israel's 98% success rate in military operations, profound sense of self determination and indifference to international scrutiny and approval will win the day...the nation has the political will and emotional buy in needed to endure...my belief is that the israeli's have developed contingencies for any conceivebale development...the us will be holding them off with a whip and a chair...just like desert storm...
We just happen to have the most anti-Israel president since its creation, right when they would need us the most.
If Iran retaliates against the U.S. over Israel, aren't they asking for the U.S. to retaliate back?
Yes, and that might be part of the Israeli strategic calculus to compensate for a lack of military capability. The Israelis essentially have the ability to launch US forces against Iran, abliet at a great cost to US/Israel relations.
The Reaper
02-20-2012, 17:14
Someone want to tell me what the objective of a strike would be?
Give me a mission statement.
TR
The Reaper
02-20-2012, 17:24
US or Israeli?
scooter:
What would the objectives of a military strike on Iran be?
Let's start with the strategic objectives for whoever is likely to participate in this party.
Diplomatic?
Informational?
Military?
Economic?
Then provide the purpose, mission, end state, and risk.
TR
scooter:
What would the objectives of a military strike on Iran be?
Let's start with the strategic objectives for whoever is likely to participate in this party.
Diplomatic?
Informational?
Military?
Economic?
Then provide the purpose, mission, end state, and risk.
TR
Those are the key questions before planning any party and until they are laid out everything else is fantasy and speculation.
The Reaper
02-20-2012, 18:38
Objective- Military
Purpose- eliminate Iran's current or future ability posses and use nuclear weapons.
Mission- Destroy nuclear production and current nuclear stockpiles if any
End State- Iran has no more nuclear material or the ability to produce nuclear material capable of producing nuclear weapons.
Risk- Very high could start WW-III and trigger a nuclear exchange between major world powers.
I nor do a majority of the people on the board have enough intel on where how etc Iran is producing and where it is being done at IMHO. The question is does the US and or Israeli have enough knowledge to get it all? Lets face it there are no good choices on this problem just bad and worse.
Have we exhausted our Diplomatic, Informational, and Economic options already?
TR
GratefulCitizen
02-20-2012, 19:21
There are still some economic tools.
Step 1: Through some money printing and supply restriction (need some cooperation from the Saudis), run up the price of oil for a few months.
Step 2: Wait for Iran to start contracting in currencies other than the dollar (they start doing that on March 20).
Step 3: Once the contracting starts, tighten up the money supply and open the supply spigots (need some cooperation for the Saudis, again) which drives down dollar-denominated oil and undercuts their sales.
Bit of a convoluted way to punch them in the wallet, but it might work.
Bad economy and a young population makes ripe ground for starting revolutions.
Would decapitation of the current and second-string regime leadership be an effective option as opposed to going after the nuclear targets?
mark46th
02-20-2012, 20:17
The last thing Obama and the Dems want is $6-$8 a gallon gas. They will do everything they can to avoid a military confrontation, at least until after November 2012....
Do you think that eliminating the US President and all principle cabinet members would lead to the total collapse of the US Government along with all of its policies and strategic goals?
Do you think that eliminating the US President and all principle cabinet members would lead to the total collapse of the US Government along with all of its policies and strategic goals?
I'm willing to give it a try with regards to our current set of clowns.
I'm willing to give it a try with regards to our current set of clowns.
That was a rhetorical question designed to provoke thought on the idea of decapitation as it pertains to the Iranian question.
If you want to advocate the murder of the President and the heads of the Executive Branch you can go elsewhere, there is no place here for that here. There are many people both in and out of uniform that disagree with the policies of the current administration. If you don't like them, vote.
Go somewhere else and babble about killing the President, and have fun at your Secret Service Interview.
That was a rhetorical question designed to provoke thought on the idea of decapitation as it pertains to the Iranian question.
If you want to advocate the murder of the President and the heads of the Executive Branch you can go elsewhere, there is no place here for that here. There are many people both in and out of uniform that disagree with the policies of the current administration. If you don't like them, vote.
Go somewhere else and babble about killing the President, and have fun at your Secret Service Interview.
Yours was a good rhetorical question. And your response to my "babble" was also babble. Unless you seriously think that what I said constitutes advocacy of murder, then you should consider misconstruing your "rhetorical" question.
I may have misread or misunderstood your comment and responded harshly. If thats the case....sorry.
I would just caution against any statements (joking or not) that can further feed into the narrative of the right wing military verteran whack job out to perpetuate violence against the government. If I over-reacted, my bad.
Would decapitation of the current and second-string regime leadership be an effective option as opposed to going after the nuclear targets?
That one's always a proverbial crap shoot - and especially in that part of the world - although the 1:6 odds with craps are far better than what you're proposing. Think about it...seriously.
Richard :munchin
TR:
Sir, the description you provide in the air assault is the play book used quite effectively in the Desert Storm Air Campaign. To a "T". It required, as you mention, incredible air assets both in skill and number.
A mission we and our allies are familiar with and capable of doing. If I might add that the distances used for carrier (and some ground) flight missions were short and sweet. Tanker stations were placed at just about the right locations to ensure a chance at a landing or two after burning thousands of gallons on station or over target.
Given the added distance, this IMO would require longer mission flight times (pushing pilots and equipment and crews) and additionally might require a second point for refueling, and hence additional missions for security (CAP or other) for the added stations, and time spent refueling in, out, or both.
I will have to give more thought on your questions about mission statement, sir, as I am not at all familiar with the geo/political climate in Iran. I have heard that with Iran cutting off oil to Japan and the U.K. that gas prices will be going much, much higher. The Iranians have been squeezed with many years of sanctions, hardly effective in my opinion.
Here in the US, if gas prices are to continue to edge up again past $4 or even past $6 I think that might be a form of sanction imposed upon us here stateside.
I do feel I would wish to know more of Iran's military capabilities, training, equipment, numbers, readiness, morale, and so on. Kind of a Sun Tzu approach that I'm sure those closer to the situation than I are already taking into account, sir.
v/r
Sarski
Roguish Lawyer
02-20-2012, 21:57
Gas where I live is almost $5.
I know what you're gonna say . . .
To add, sir, one way around some of these extended flight operations might be to launch out of forward bases in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait...
The Reaper
02-20-2012, 22:01
To add, sir, one way around some of these extended flight operations might be to launch out of forward bases in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait...
The Israelis?
We have not signed on to this, yet, AFAIK.
TR
The Israelis?
We have not signed on to this, yet, AFAIK.
TR
Well, sir, yes the Israelis, but I'm certain we won't be far behind. Or at least providing support/intel/runways, as always.
Here's the 'Big Picture'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHUUBc35oA8
And as far as the IDF goes, they've been working on - among other things - their extended range capabilities for decades. They play their national defense cards close to their chests but we'll act surprised, anyway, whenever they do something we claim we knew nothing about - it's how the game is played. ;)
In polls:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-big-government-biggest-threat-usa/252361
http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21566/
And then there's :eek:...usw.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I may have misread or misunderstood your comment and responded harshly. If thats the case....sorry.
I would just caution against any statements (joking or not) that can further feed into the narrative of the right wing military verteran whack job out to perpetuate violence against the government. If I over-reacted, my bad.
No worry's. We hit the line and you made sure I didn't cross it. Thanks.
The genii is not going back into the bottle. We lived for a long time with the Soviet nuclear threat. Then the Chinese. The world has survived and we currently still have détente. But they may be ready and willing to pounce should they see opportunity. We now have Korea and Pakistan in the mix who are very unstable and dangerous. Iran is certainly looking to join that group.
The nuclear question. They don't have one yet, but they will. They don't have a delivery method, but they will.
Current methods being contemplated (diplomacy, sanctions, military strikes) can only delay the inevitable. Short term methods at best.
Several reasons for this. We cannot hurt them enough to make them stop. And many of these techniques are only going to goad those in Iran pushing for nuclear weapons even more. Sanctions have either been ineffective or goaded them into war (Japan, WW2). UW is a long term proposition and we've seen the American public and their politicians don't have the stomach for anything that "takes too long".
We need to convince them they don't need a nuclear program - like we did to Qadhafi. Or if they don't get the hint, then like Saddam.
Short term methods may buy time for longer term methods to get up to speed and employed. Someone around here is using an excellent quote: Diplomacy - the art of saying `Nice doggie' 'til you can find a stick. - Wynn Catlin.
The only method to really stop this program long term is utilization of all forms of diplomacy. A strong united diplomatic front by all superpowers and regional governments to convince them it is not worth their time (lives). Strong punishing sanctions. Credible UW efforts at regime change. The occasional military strike (the only gas refinery, oil smuggling activities, decapitation, SEAD). Failing that, then invasion.
Not an easy wicket to sticket. But like the old man says, until there is a mission statement - this is just fantasy football.
Who says they will not give it to a suicide bomber and it gets detonated in a harbor or major city somewhere in the world including the US.
That does seem to be the current modus operandi. I'm told that it takes a few years of refinement to make nuclear weapon small enough to to be missile launchable, let alone man portable. But that does not preclude them from doing as you say. A real possibility, I agree.
I only think they will do that if there really is anything to this 12th Imam business. Otherwise they will use their nukes as bargaining chips.
Lets hope we can change their minds.
Someone want to tell me what the objective of a strike would be?
Give me a mission statement.
TR
Sir
It is not possible to stop their nuclear program. The purpose would be to at best, set i back, or at least slow it down. As MR2 stated. they will have nuclear capabilities as well as a delivery method. It's too late to stop it. This could have been stopped years ago, but as usual, the world didn't believe that was their goal.
Economic sanctions simply do not work in the ME, it's a Western approach. We've seen this in almost all the ME conflicts. The reason for this is simple: Most of the ME country leadership simply does not care about their people, only about their clinging onto power.
Iran is a perfect example: The West waved the oil sanctions flag and one day later Iran gave the West the finger and said: "we're not selling Oil to EU countries anymore and will push oil prices up so screw your sanctions." By pushing oil up they will gain the income that they will lose should sanctions be imposed in 2 or 3 months.
Should Israel or anyone attack Iran? That is another debate and i'm not certain an attack by Israel is the answer. Nor am i certain that we have the capabilities to attack, defend the home-front as well as deal will retaliation on multiple fronts without suffering major civilian casualties. Another point to consider is Israel using Nuclear weapons. Modern Israel was forged from the ashes of the holocaust but this is also a curse in a sense; Israel could never initiate a nuclear attack as in Israel's eyes, that would equate to genocide so nukes would only be used in defense - in which case half of Israel would already be a parking lot.
Are people in Israel concerned? Concerned yes, but only slightly more than usual. Worried, no, life goes on. It's not on everyone's mind 24/7 at all.
Hoepoe
That one's always a proverbial crap shoot - and especially in that part of the world - although the 1:6 odds with craps are far better than what you're proposing. Think about it...seriously.
Richard :munchin
I do not know enough detail about the overall political picture in Iran beyond the current leadership to seriously propose anything.
I asked my question because I read about a restive Iranian population that does not necessarily support their government.
Realizing that such an attack could unify the population against the United States or Israel, I had wondered if such an attack would create a leadership vacuum that would allow the resistance groups to gain traction and perhaps allow a more moderate government to step in.
I have tried to think of something that would have a higher probability of success than attacking the hardened underground facilities, be unexpected, and accomplish more than simply serve as a stalling tactic.
I figured an attack on the Nuke facilities would likely tick off the Iranian people anyway, especially with the current Theocracy likely using it as political propaganda to whip the population up. Basically, if the US or Israelis are going to have to do something, why not go big?
You gents have made it clear that the blowback would exceed the benefit of removing the theocracy that is in place.
Thank you for the replies. I have said it before. Whatever the subject is, you guys know far more about it than I do. I always learn a lot from this site. By asking what seems like a dumb question to you, I learn.
Dozer523
02-21-2012, 06:41
There are still some economic tools.
Step 1: Through some money printing and supply restriction (need some cooperation from the Saudis), run up the price of oil for a few months.We are not going to hurt an oil producer by running the price of oil UP. In our world there s always going to be a buyer. Oil is the Oxygen of economy. Besides, the Iranians have a willing, well-heeled buyer in the Chinese; and if the western economies are hurt all the better for Pei King. The damage to the US and struggling European economies caused by prohibitive oil prices would be more devastating then the OPEC oil embargo.
Want to hurt an oil producer? You have to make oil cheap.
Like the Saudi did in the 80's to punish Russia for Afghanistan.
ECUPirate09
02-21-2012, 08:35
...
Want to hurt an oil producer? You have to make oil cheap.
Like the Saudi did in the 80's to punish Russia for Afghanistan.
Any chance they would do the same nowadays?
Any chance they would do the same nowadays?
There is a chance, considering the increased demand now that Iran is not shipping oil to the EU could make up for the lost profit[1]. The side benefit would be a short to medium term economic boost in the US and EU fueled by cheap oil. It is sort of a win-win, but it comes at the expense of the Saudi oil profits, which they are probably loath to share, even if it can punish Iran, they would rather we do it militarily. That way, there is no skin off their backs, and if anything, increased demand to fuel a war machine would be a windfall for them, all while stretching the military resources of the US and Israel, which they hate anyway.
[1[]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166870499947012.html
GratefulCitizen
02-21-2012, 12:16
We are not going to hurt an oil producer by running the price of oil UP. In our world there s always going to be a buyer. Oil is the Oxygen of economy. Besides, the Iranians have a willing, well-heeled buyer in the Chinese; and if the western economies are hurt all the better for Pei King. The damage to the US and struggling European economies caused by prohibitive oil prices would be more devastating then the OPEC oil embargo.
Want to hurt an oil producer? You have to make oil cheap.
Like the Saudi did in the 80's to punish Russia for Afghanistan.
That's step 3.
The purpose in running it up short-term is to take advantage of market volatility (pushes it down further when it goes down) and create uncertainty for Iran's would-be trading partners who choose to trade oil in currencies other than the dollar (keeps them isolated).
Keeping the dollar monopoly on the oil trade is significant.
It doesn't have to be small or missile launch size even. I'm not going to get into specifics but just think outside the box a bit.
Well of course. It could be truck sized, hidden in a load of XXXXXXX XXXXXX to bypass most sensors and driven into most anyplace.
Tactician I am not, however I got to believe that it would not be just air power that would be used in a potential strike.
Also, any strike would I believe cause the chess players to start making bold/er moves.
Objective, I believe would be to try and destabilize the current regime.
Purpose. The nukes as mentioned are almost a forgone conclusion, but interrupting production long enough might enable a more political approach to work for a different "regime".
Mission. Launch strikes (a thousand cuts), utilizing air power, long range missiles (we know Israel has done many training runs for this), human assets jumping off from Kurdish territory and also using both Kurds, and Iranian opposition.
End State would allow the international community to huff and puff their innocence, while condemning Israel. Iran's power structure might be drastically changed, or leave it in a state that would allow Saudi et al to enter the picture to "help" out or to push the current regime over the edge.
Risk. Hizbollah launching missile strikes, Syria might want to divert attention at this time (or even use diversion to start this whole ruckus). Turkey might even decide it is a good time to push the Syrian solution to conclusion.
As Hoepoe said, the Israeli public will suffer quite a bit, but if the punch is big and hard enough, in the ME that speaks volumes, it might make them (enemies) think twice before they strike.
Take that idea in another direction. One of Israel’s many strengths are abilities to run covert ops. How about an escalating campaign that includes, cyber warfare, assassination, and sabotage not limited to the nuclear program, no reason to exclude Iran's petroleum infrastructure... Add the threat of an Israeli strike to put the needed teeth into sanctions...which would always be an option left to them.
While the US makes a show of disapproval to a military option all the while attempting to ratchet up sanctions.
Israel has been working on a Second Strike capability (Plan C) for a while, I have no doubt they have it by now, but I also have no doubt they have had a plan A and B to precede C....
GratefulCitizen
03-21-2012, 19:43
We are not going to hurt an oil producer by running the price of oil UP. In our world there s always going to be a buyer. Oil is the Oxygen of economy. Besides, the Iranians have a willing, well-heeled buyer in the Chinese; and if the western economies are hurt all the better for Pei King. The damage to the US and struggling European economies caused by prohibitive oil prices would be more devastating then the OPEC oil embargo.
Want to hurt an oil producer? You have to make oil cheap.
Like the Saudi did in the 80's to punish Russia for Afghanistan.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/946929ee-71e5-11e1-8497-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_mideast/feed//product#axzz1pnyxo6JV
If the link doesn't go through, you can google: The price that launched a wall of ships.
Interesting timing for the Saudis to be turning up the spigot.
A little over a month ago, they were cutting production.
Also, sanctions were "waived" for certain countries...so they can buy oil in dollars.
http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/03/20/clinton-names-iran-sanctions-waiver-recipients/
All of this is occuring around March 20 (Iran's oil bourse...).
Doubt it's all a coincidence.
Keeping oil priced in dollars helps maintain this nation's hegemony.
GratefulCitizen
04-07-2012, 12:17
The "attack" on Iran is continuing.
Now their tankers are having trouble getting insured.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2012/04/05/242233.htm
A few more punches to the wallet.
The "attack" on Iran is continuing.
Now their tankers are having trouble getting insured.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2012/04/05/242233.htm
A few more punches to the wallet.
No doubt sanctions are hurting them. The bunker busting bombs we sold Israel can only be delivered by a B-52 type plane. Type of plane Israel doesn't have. I got this from Time Magazine, interesting if true. Why buy the bomb without the delivery system.