Israel tried to nuke Iran Jan 7th????

[sophia8]

This was posted on another forum this morning - the poster has so far not responded to requests to give a source:
I guess you may have heard israel is wanting to nuke iran and was going to let bush do it but it appear the recent shift in his popularity wont allow thet just yet and the us need to get the troops into iraq before we can drop nukes. Israel had 3 bombers on the way jan 7 to drop nukes on tehran but were intercepted by USA fighter jets. (My bolding)
Anybody know where he got this story from? I've not been able to find it anywhere.

[BPSCG]

Anybody know where he got this story from? I've not been able to find it anywhere.I'll go with, "The voices between his ears."

[Darth Rotor]

This was posted on another forum this morning - the poster has so far not responded to requests to give a source:
(My bolding)
Anybody know where he got this story from? I've not been able to find it anywhere.
If this event occurred --I tend to agree with BPSCG on the odds of it being a fantasy -- the likelihood of a USAF intercept, escort, and return to Israel of IAF aircraft is likely classified Secret or above. The chances that anyone in the US or IAF leaking this, given how few people would be in the loop, strikes me as lower than the likelihood of the alleged Israeli mission being other than pure rumor.

Not zero, but close enough to it.

Thinking through the penetration of airspace over Jordan and Iraq, and possible AWACS, EW, Air Controllers (USAF still does the bulk of Air Traffic Control over Iraq) watchstanders, and Fighters on patrol, I'd guess that at most 30 people would know. I don't know how to parse that process on the Jordanian side, or if there are sufficient gaps in their airspace management for the IAF to exploit.

Again, hypothetically speaking, when USAF Fighters returned to base and debriefed with the intelligence officer on their mission, and their CO, I'd guess a "zip lip" order would have been in place already.

Another problem is, looking at a map, the airspace of nations who the USAF doesn't do the Air Traffic Control for. I don't see the Turks looking on such a mission kindly, at all, through their airspace.

DR

[webfusion]

The IAF would not undertake a mission to drop nukes on Tehran.
The Israelis are aiming for NATANZ and ISFAHAN, which are sites of interest.

Report of Jan 7th :
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/07/18344810.php

[Darth Rotor]

The IAF would not undertake a mission to drop nukes on Tehran.

The Israelis are aiming for NATANZ and ISFAHAN, which are sites of interest.

Report of Jan 7th :
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/07/18344810.php
Well, I am glad that's cleared up. :rolleyes:

The US spent some 40 years working through contingency plans and alerts for attacking the Soviet Union.

It never attacked.

Methinks the sensational press forgets little details like that.

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
("If you wish for peace, prepare for war.")

DR

[hgc]

Well, I am glad that's cleared up. :rolleyes:

The US spent some 40 years working through contingency plans and alerts for attacking the Soviet Union.

It never attacked.

Methinks the sensational press forgets little details like that.

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
("If you wish for peace, prepare for war.")

DR
True. It would be harder for Israel to reach sites in Iran today than it was for them to reach Baghdad in 1981 -- apart from the difficulty of the much greater distance to travel. For starters, Israel now has friendly relations with Jordan, which was not the case (nominally) then, and would be less likely to use their airspace sans permission. Then there's the case of Iraqi airspace, which today is controlled by the US, but in any case that's another non-involved country to be dealt with. The clear alternative is Israel's ally Turkey. I don't see it, given that Turkey - a route they could use only with permission - has to live next Iran, along with other concerns for them.

[webfusion]

The route of IAF pilots to Iran would be exclusively over water, not overflying any other country's airspace.

This is the planned mission: (map link)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/374245ba89b53a655.jpg

Air refueling would, of course, be a requirement.
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4019/thumbs/IAF_F-16I_Sufa_refueling_with_KC-135_Israel.jpg

[Darth Rotor]

The route of IAF pilots to Iran would be exclusively over water, not overflying any other country's airspace.

This is the planned mission:
http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3846
That's funny. Big hand, little map, and a one way suicide mission. What is Hebrew for Kamikaze? Zealot? Macabee?

I am not going to ask for your source. You can't tell me, and he most likely doesn't exist.

The track you suggest is an interesting speculation for a fighter that has no need to actually burn jet fuel while on a mission, nor to evade detection at two choke points, and one or two US CV groups, and their AAW pickets, along the way.

There are a couple of tactical issues that you might want to consider, armchair general.

1. Tankers, and tanker orbits.

Do you presume that the USAF will tank your strike mission? The Saudis? The Omanis?

2. The last two legs.

All of that battlespace is covered by US warships, and aircraft, by radar. Are the Omanis in on this game?

Is your tactical assumption that the US will simply look away?

Did you measure the number of nautical miles to be flown?

Have you ever done mission planning for an airstrike?

Thanks for the entertainment. I looked at your map, and came up (in my head) with two routes that cut about a third off of your proposal, both of which are as likely to succeed, indeed more likely due to not running out of gas near southern Oman.

ETA: Ah, thanks for you edit, your tankers are one of a variety of OPSEC problems with that mission.

That mission requires surprise, or it won't work.

What works is if the Saudis are cut in on the deal, and your boys tank over Saudi. Not implausible, also keeps the Americans in the dark.

Risk: the Saudis cock that up.

DR

[webfusion]

Is your tactical assumption that the US will simply look away?

Yes.

Saudis also.
(Saudi AWACS would, by implication, be part of the 'electronic fence' that the IAF jet jockeys would have to cross)

BTW >>>> in response to the OP, the source for the purported Jan. 7th "incident" seems to be William Thomas.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/190107nukestrike.htm

[Darth Rotor]

Yes.

Saudis also.
(Saudi AWACS would, by implication, be part of the 'electronic fence' that the IAF jet jockeys would have to cross)

BTW >>>> in response to the OP, the source for the purported Jan. 7th "incident" seems to be William Thomas.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/190107nukestrike.htm
Oh, wonderful, Prison Planet. At least we have a sense of what's involved here. :p

Web, let me throw you a bone here.

If I were to advise President Bush, I'd tell him, if this plan is begun, to let the Israeli jets get to the last leg that you diagrammed, and then have the US Navy shoot them down over the Persian Gulf just as they approached the Iranian 12 mile limit.

That event would make big wampum in the Muslim world, who happen to still have a lot of oil, and with Iran -- someone who we have to deal with -- to not only show even handedness and stop an incident that could cause escalation, but also to show that no matter who you are, if you try to screw with us, we will bloody well kill you. I think that message is being diluted in all of the garment rending over the mess in Iraq.

Do you catch my drift, Web? If Pres Bush won't do that, he's not looking after US national interests, and deserves impeachment. Israel striking Iran is a lose-lose situation. It is an idea that makes Plan XVII seem brilliant, and homeopathy a Nobel Prize winner.

Three dead IAF pilots is worth stopping a regional war. I say that as a pilot who deeply respects the professionalism and skill of the IAF.

DR

[rikzilla]

A nuclear preemptive attack on Iran (if done with some smarts) would be a sub launched cruise missile targeting one of their nuclear research sites. The warhead should be composed of material born in old Soviet reactors.

Iranian scientists play with bomb...they go boom in a tragic accident. Iranian nuke program falls back by about 5 or ten years....

Either that or Israel waits till a US withdrawal and then only has to thwart Syrian and Iraqi air defenses....

-z

[Darth Rotor]

A nuclear preemptive attack on Iran (if done with some smarts) would be a sub launched cruise missile targeting one of their nuclear research sites. The warhead should be composed of material born in old Soviet reactors.

Iranian scientists play with bomb...they go boom in a tragic accident. Iranian nuke program falls back by about 5 or ten years....

Either that or Israel waits till a US withdrawal and then only has to thwart Syrian and Iraqi air defenses....

-z
Interesting idea.

A cruise missile is a subsonic weapon. If you note the recent point defense missiles Russian sold to Iran, such a weapon is exactly what that IAD method is aimed at defeating. For a Cruise missile to effectively deliver a nuclear payload to Iran, a significant anti Radar EW operation, or at the very least a spoofing, would need to be undertaken to blind the eyes of Iran's surveillance radar and force the Point Defense system to do it all in the end game. Even so, for modern SAM's, a sub sonic missile tends to be a very hittable target.

Cruise missiles can be shot down. IIRC, a number of them, Tomahawks, were shot down in the 1991 PG war, memory fuzzy.

DR

[sophia8]

According to the original report (http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Israeli_Nuclear_Strike_On_Iran.htm), two anonymous sources provided the information.
Also contradicting military aviation experts and IAF cover stories, this source revealed that the intended targets on July (sic)7th were not aimed at turning Iran’s five heavily defended nuclear reactors into as many Chernobyls. Nor could the Israeli attackers expect to hit Iran’s hundreds of widely dispersed nuclear research facilities. Instead, the January 7 mission objective was to pre-empt Teheran’s ability to attack Israel by eliminating Iran’s “Command and Control”—the religious leadership holding the “go codes” required to launch an Iranian attack on Israel.

“This cuts off the head of the snake and makes response impossible,” my source said. “Decapitating” the country’s top leaders is possible, he went on, because they tend to feel safer by congregating. “Iranians are so untrusting of the communications networks and methodologies most other people use, they don’t use the Internet,” he asserted. “They use the ‘sneaker net’ to walk the message over.”
Why do I get the feeling that somebody is trying to up the paranoia quota in the Middle East?

[Darth Rotor]

According to the original report (http://www.willthomas.net/Convergence/Weekly/Israeli_Nuclear_Strike_On_Iran.htm), two anonymous sources provided the information.

Why do I get the feeling that somebody is trying to up the paranoia quota in the Middle East?
Having noted how effective the decapitation strike was in Iraq, this postulated strike is risible.

DR

[rikzilla]

Interesting idea.

A cruise missile is a subsonic weapon. If you note the recent point defense missiles Russian sold to Iran, such a weapon is exactly what that IAD method is aimed at defeating. For a Cruise missile to effectively deliver a nuclear payload to Iran, a significant anti Radar EW operation, or at the very least a spoofing, would need to be undertaken to blind the eyes of Iran's surveillance radar and force the Point Defense system to do it all in the end game. Even so, for modern SAM's, a sub sonic missile tends to be a very hittable target.

Cruise missiles can be shot down. IIRC, a number of them, Tomahawks, were shot down in the 1991 PG war, memory fuzzy.

DR

Still a better idea than that circuitous air route on that map....

Also the T-hawks can get real low to defeat radar based air defenses and TFR their way to target. Sure they are vulnerable to ground fire but those shoot downs represent a very tiny percentage of weapons fired. You need some luck to take one of those things down with ground fire...but yeah it's possible and even a small possibility would preclude trying that with a live nuke aboard.

Honestly the IAF need to acquire a B2 or two....then one night...BOOM...and that would be untraceable except for the fact that the USAF has the only capability to do it....

-z

[Kerberos]

A nuclear preemptive attack on Iran (if done with some smarts) would be a sub launched cruise missile targeting one of their nuclear research sites. The warhead should be composed of material born in old Soviet reactors.

Iranian scientists play with bomb...they go boom in a tragic accident. Iranian nuke program falls back by about 5 or ten years....

Either that or Israel waits till a US withdrawal and then only has to thwart Syrian and Iraqi air defenses....

-z
There's IMO a number of issues with that:

1) To the best of my knowledge no nuclear bomb has ever detonated by accident. So if it suddenly happened people might wonder.

2) Does Israel have access to the same kind of nuclear material as the Iranians are using?

3) Could such a missile be detected? If a missile is seen hitting the Iranian nuclear facility 1 second before it goes up in smoke. Well, you don't need to be Sherlock Homes to figure out what happened.

4) Would a Nuclear hit from a missile look the same as the accidental detonation of a bomb on the ground? Possibly, but I'm not sure.

5) How many people are there on an Israeli submarine? The risk of a secret being blown increases with the number of people who know it, and you do not want something like that coming out.

In summery I am extremely sceptical that something like that could be done.

[steverino]

What is Hebrew for Kamikaze? DR

Begging your Jewish wife for oral.

[geni]

There's IMO a number of issues with that:

1) To the best of my knowledge no nuclear bomb has ever detonated by accident. So if it suddenly happened people might wonder.

Not quite true


2) Does Israel have access to the same kind of nuclear material as the Iranians are using?


They could.


3) Could such a missile be detected? If a missile is seen hitting the Iranian nuclear facility 1 second before it goes up in smoke. Well, you don't need to be Sherlock Homes to figure out what happened.


If the US missed it I would be supprised.


4) Would a Nuclear hit from a missile look the same as the accidental detonation of a bomb on the ground? Possibly, but I'm not sure.


No. All acidents so far have resulted in a fizzle. The weapons Iran are likely building have little chance of acidental detonation (indeed other than some rather odd britsh weapons I don't know of any weapons that had even half a chance of acidental full detination).


5) How many people are there on an Israeli submarine? The risk of a secret being blown increases with the number of people who know it, and you do not want something like that coming out.


Historicaly submarine crew have been pretty good keeping things quite.

[Darth Rotor]

Begging your Jewish wife for oral.
You win. Beer through the nose. Didn't see that one coming.

*cleans up*

DR

[Darth Rotor]

There's IMO a number of issues with that:

1) To the best of my knowledge no nuclear bomb has ever detonated by accident. So if it suddenly happened people might wonder.

2) Does Israel have access to the same kind of nuclear material as the Iranians are using?

3) Could such a missile be detected? If a missile is seen hitting the Iranian nuclear facility 1 second before it goes up in smoke. Well, you don't need to be Sherlock Homes to figure out what happened.

4) Would a Nuclear hit from a missile look the same as the accidental detonation of a bomb on the ground? Possibly, but I'm not sure.

5) How many people are there on an Israeli submarine? The risk of a secret being blown increases with the number of people who know it, and you do not want something like that coming out.

In summery I am extremely sceptical that something like that could be done.
If one of the Israeli Navy's Dolphin Class submarines were to begin at a naval base in the Red Sea, and rendezvous with a refueller in the gulf of Aden, there would be a chance to get the sub into the Gulf by careful penetration of the Straights of Hormuz. The risk is the US detects it as part of routine ASW patrolling. If Washington is not in on the plan, issues might arise. Or, might not.

The targeting (given the fixed targets) would be easy. Guidance likewise not too hard. I am pretty sure Tomahawks have only been tech transfered to UK. Israel has Harpoon, which are less than 100nm range. Then again, there could have been a secret arms deal to pass Tomahawks to Israel, which IMO is a very bad idea.

Point defense missile systems are designed to take out low flyers. A cruise missile is a low flyer. The Tor 1 is not "just ground fire."

Once the flaming datum happens (missiles emerging from the sea) the Dolphin is exposed for what it is. How does it get out of the Persian Gulf? Does it? Do the Israelis write it off, scuttle it at the bottom, and the crew either die on board or exfiltrate by small boat? The idea here is to have a merchant ship pre arranged to be near a certain position, for the sailors on small boats/dinghies float to in the dark after the sub is scuttled in the hopes of erasing a smoking gun. That is a huge OPSEC problem, no matter how you slice it, unless Saudi is in on the deal. Even then, the mission security can be blown by modest amounts of carelessness.

High risk on the back end, particularly at the political level. The flaming datum initiates a massive ASW operatio in the Persian Gulf. I would guess the Straights of Hormuz get sealed by Iran, immediately upon arrival of the strike, as a reaction: mines and all.

Those lads aren't going home.

DR

[Kerberos]

Not quite true

Educate me.

[fuelair]

Israel tried to nuke Iran Jan 7th????

Obviously not - Iran isn't glowing ......yet.

[Ziggurat]

Israel has Harpoon, which are less than 100nm range.

For a moment I read that as nanometers instead of nautical miles. :blush: