IAF -- cleared for takeoff [Archive]

webfusion

25th February 2007, 09:30 AM

Despite the routine denials of the Israelis, there are several reports now being circulated which indicate the IAF is being readied for a mission to Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/830309.html
Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel overflying their countries. These Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.

Next week, the UN will once again try to deal with the Iranians diplomatically, but US Sec'y of State Rice is now saying:

"They don't need a reverse gear. They need a stop button," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday."

More and more, things are shaping up for Israel to take on the sole responsibility for putting an end to Iranian centrifuge enrichment program.
Avigdor Leiberman, who is responsible for the plans to bomb Natanz, is on record as saying Israel should now "assassinate Hamas' leadership, ignore the moderate Palestinian president and walk away from international peace efforts." ----- and this IAF mission into Iran would set all that in motion, without a doubt!

Beerina

26th February 2007, 06:34 AM

I wonder how many nursery schools and hospitals are being rapidly constructed on top of the centrifuge compound.

Nobody laughed. Why?

Darth Rotor

26th February 2007, 07:44 AM

Despite the routine denials of the Israelis, there are several reports now being circulated which indicate the IAF is being readied for a mission to Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/830309.html
Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel overflying their countries. These Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.

Avigdor Leiberman, who is responsible for the plans to bomb Natanz, is on record as saying Israel should now "assassinate Hamas' leadership, ignore the moderate Palestinian president and walk away from international peace efforts." ----- and this IAF mission into Iran would set all that in motion, without a doubt!
Look at a map lately?

Saudi and Jordan are significant players in the Airspace game. Are they "in" on this deal? I'll take a wild guess and say no, and also bet the over on Syria not playing.

DR

hgc

26th February 2007, 07:52 AM

Darth Rotor

26th February 2007, 08:03 AM

It's easy for any of Iran's neighbors to want to blunt their nuclear program, but entering into a military alliance with Israel to do it? That sounds a little far-fetched. Not impossible. (Make no mistake, permitting use of airspace for this purpose is a military alliance.)

No, it is not an alliance. It is an expedient. It is a short term collective security measure.

It is not necessarily an alliance.

What is more like an alliance in the offing is the last 10 years of military to military cooperation between Israel and Turkey.

Again, Turkey has a considered interest in Mid East security. Would they let IAF over fly Turkey? I don't think so. Too pluralistic a nation.

Saudi, on the otherhand, is still a bit more of an autocracy than Turkey, and is more likely to be able to pull it off.

I don't see the Maliki government doing anything to allow their airspace to enable this mission, however, since Iraq still has not Air Force of any credible capability, and the US basically controls the airspace over it, the temptation must be great in some planning circles to turn a blind eye and allow for IAF overflight.

Jordan: on board, or not? :(

DR

hgc

26th February 2007, 08:11 AM

No, it is not an alliance. It is an expedient. It is a short term collective security measure.

It is not necessarily an alliance.

What is more like an alliance in the offing is the last 10 years of military to military cooperation between Israel and Turkey.

Again, Turkey has a considered interest in Mid East security. Would they let IAF over fly Turkey? I don't think so. Too pluralistic a nation.

Saudi, on the otherhand, is still a bit more of an autocracy than Turkey, and is more likely to be able to pull it off.

I don't see the Maliki government doing anything to allow their airspace to enable this mission, however, since Iraq still has not Air Force of any credible capability, and the US basically controls the airspace over it, the temptation must be great in some planning circles to turn a blind eye and allow for IAF overflight.

Jordan: on board, or not? :(

DR
Well, it's a judgement call for the application of a meaningful term: alliance. And the perception will be very important for the participants. I have no doubt that those who would topple governments of cooperating partners in Israel's attack on Iran will term it an alliance and will look credible in doing so. If Turkey, a known ally of Israel, wouldn't allow it, that would be even further evidence, ie., "Oman is even more allied with Israel than Turkey for crying out loud!" Bring the Jihad!

Jordan? They've been an Israeli ally since 1970, but the Heshemite regime has a tenuous hold on the country (the principle reason for the Israeli alliance) and must tread carefully.

Darth Rotor

26th February 2007, 10:09 AM

Well, it's a judgement call for the application of a meaningful term: alliance.
Fair enough, I find that term to connote a formal relationship.
And the perception will be very important for the participants.
Yep.
Jordan? They've been an Israeli ally since 1970
Can you support this reasoning? To be "not a sworn enemy" is not the same as being "an ally." As a single data point "against," Jordan retained friendly relations with Iraq during the Gulf War I. (1990-1991) I was of the understanding that their formal deal with Israel post dated Camp David (197, the Egypt deal).

DR

Garrette

26th February 2007, 10:32 AM

I don't think it implausible that the Arab countries whose permission is required would covertly provide it only to publicly denounce the unilateral Israeli aggression once the airstrikes were successful (more loudly if the airstrikes were not).

But in this game of analysis, I'm strictly an amateur.

hgc

26th February 2007, 10:37 AM

Can you support this reasoning? To be "not a sworn enemy" is not the same as being "an ally." As a single data point "against," Jordan retained friendly relations with Iraq during the Gulf War I. (1990-1991) I was of the understanding that their formal deal with Israel post dated Camp David (197, the Egypt deal).
Yes, 1970. Just goes to show how 2 countries can be "sworn enemies" and allies at the same time. That was the year that PLO almost deposed King Hussein and the Heshemite regime. Syria already had tanks over the border into Jordan when Israel threatened them with war if they didn't back off. That's when the Jordanian regime found out where their bread is buttered. Thus the story of how Israel propped up Hussein on his throne and how they were best buddies (along with Hussein's successor Abdullah) ever since, right up to their peace treaty 24 years later and now.

King Hussein publicly backed Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 1991 because he had a very touchy situation in domestic politics. Afterall, a chaotic out-of-control Iraq can't be good for the longevity of the Heshemite regime. This Bush has signed their death warrant with his new-and-improved Iraq, and there's probably nothing Israel can do to save them.

Hutch

26th February 2007, 10:48 AM

All the nations shown are (1) comparatively tiny in population vis-a-vis Iran (2) right across the Gulf and in easy reach and (3) at least for UAE and Qatar, loaded with oil. Lots of reasons for them to worry about a new Persian Empire.

The UAE has a long-standing dispute with Iran regarding some islands in the Gulf (which just happen to be near some prime off-shore driling spots). Anything that would weaken Iran would probably be welcomed by Abu Dhabi.

The old "enemy of my enemy" still works wonders in the Middle East...

ETA--But I still highly doubt any action will take place. Too many risks and unknowns, to much fallout in an area already dangerously unbalanced...

We shall see.

webfusion

26th February 2007, 03:43 PM

hgc

26th February 2007, 04:11 PM

I don't believe that the IAF has any intention of going zooming across Jordan, and the most likely scenario of this mission is to travel along the Red Sea, over water, and only in the past phase at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, would the ability to "cut the corners" over the three countries mentioned in the OP be useful.

See the map:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/374245ba89b53ta655.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/374245ba89b53a655.jpg)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no ****** way. That's one hell of a long way for fighters to travel round trip. And bombers are not going over Iran without escort. If there's a chance of the use of bases in addition to airspace, then we're talking a different game. But then, you can multiply the alliance-with-Israel problem by a factor of 10.

ETA: Could the "bases" be U.S. carriers in the gulf?

webfusion

26th February 2007, 05:05 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no '****** way.

Way.
http://www.yoni.org.il/img/ent_map.jpg

Darth Rotor

26th February 2007, 05:20 PM

I was hesitant about starting a new thread on this subject, since several others already are open, but the news about these Arab nations offering the IAF overflight rights was quite a surprise, and a new wrinkle to the story.

I don't believe that the IAF has any intention of going zooming across Jordan, and the most likely scenario of this mission is to travel along the Red Sea, over water, and only in the past phase at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, would the ability to "cut the corners" over the three countries mentioned in the OP be useful.

See the map:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/374245ba89b53a655.jpg

(originally posted in This other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2289542&postcount=7))

The "corner cutting" seems cherry tomatoe in a 10 quart salad bowl.

You assume, I take it, complicity and cooperation by the US and the Fifth Fleet? If you can assume that, you can presume use of Iraqi airspace.

So, UAE and to a greater extent Qatar are not on the flight path. This is a waste of consideration. If Oman is a player, you still have not answered how the IAF gets past the US Fifth Fleet AAW pickets.

DR

Hutch

26th February 2007, 06:27 PM

If Oman is a player, you still have not answered how the IAF gets past the US Fifth Fleet AAW pickets.

DR

Simple. We let them go.

And the Iranians have radar and intelligence agents...they'll know. And the Shi'a in Iraq will be clued in that the US Military allowed the infidel Israel to bomb and murder fellow Shi'a (propoganda included free of charge).

Which could make for interesting times...that old Chinese curse again.

That said, I really can't see us shooting down IAF jets enroute or informing the Iranians of an attack headed their way, do you?

And I think we'd better think this out again...

hgc

26th February 2007, 07:17 PM

Way.
http://www.yoni.org.il/img/ent_map.jpg
Does "Nairobi" mean anything to you? Where's the Nairobi for the Iran raid? What about the fighter escorts? Do you think Iran today is as easy to fly into as Uganda in 1976?

webfusion

26th February 2007, 08:17 PM

Nairobi?
Of course I'm aware the IAF landed and refueled there while on the return leg of the 1976 Entebbe raid. However, those were lumbering Hercules propeller-aircraft. No such aircraft would have any part in a mission to Natanz.
You keep saying 'fighter escorts' but F-16 and F-15 are fighter-bombers and can be equipped with a mix of weapons as needed for a dual-purpose strategy. The biggest threat they face is the newly-acquired mobile TOR-M1 anti-aircraft batteries that the Russians have delivered.
http://www.trumpetamerica.org/070117ta1532.html

Personally, I would tend to think that the American Aircraft Carrier Task Force that's on-station in the Gulf now would be assigned to the task of dealing with the AA (targeting them as soon as they 'light up'), and providing cover against Iranian fighter interceptors. If asked, the USA could say that their planes on patrol came under fire, and they only responded in self-defense --- right now under the conditions that prevail in the Gulf, that would all seem very plausible.

What you are asking is to have someone here disclose the operational details of a raid to Natanz. The IAF plan itself is classified, and will remain so, even after the centrifuges are demolished. Iran's fanatical leaders will be screaming bloody murder, and everyone will be looking around to try and determine what exactly happened, with fingers pointed in every direction. It is entirely possible that Israel will even deny being behind the "mysterious explosions underground at Natanz" -- perhaps they will just explain it away as an unfortunate "work accident" that happened as a result of careless handling of materials at the site!

November 9, 2006 ---
An explosion destroyed the house of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) leader Talal Abu Safiyah late Thursday in Gaza City, apparently a "work accident" with explosives, Palestinian security officials said.
The security officials said the blast was caused by explosives inside the house.

However, the PFLP said the house was hit by a missile fired from an Israeli F-16 warplane.

The IDF said there was no airstrike.

And so it goes...

The Fool

26th February 2007, 11:59 PM

web
These predictions of airstrikes are starting to become a regular event. What happened to tha last one you said was going to happen?

webfusion

27th February 2007, 05:35 AM

Hey, it's not my fault that the IDF underwent a change in command structure.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/830951.html

rikzilla

27th February 2007, 06:26 AM

I wonder how many nursery schools and hospitals are being rapidly constructed on top of the centrifuge compound.

Nobody laughed. Why?

Because it's usually "BABI MILCK FAKTORI" written in marker on cardboard, then duct-taped to the front door....that's why.

-z

rikzilla

27th February 2007, 06:32 AM

Simple. We let them go.

And the Iranians have radar and intelligence agents...they'll know. And the Shi'a in Iraq will be clued in that the US Military allowed the infidel Israel to bomb and murder fellow Shi'a (propoganda included free of charge).

Which could make for interesting times...that old Chinese curse again.

That said, I really can't see us shooting down IAF jets enroute or informing the Iranians of an attack headed their way, do you?

And I think we'd better think this out again...

...and for what? If they are spectacularly successful they'll set Iran's nuke program back 3 years. Then what?

Airstrikes are great for breaking stuff, but what is really needed is to affect Iranian nuke policy. Airplanes are crappy policy makers.

The mullahs have a lot of internal dissention to deal with now...but after being hit by Israeli jets they'll be united behind their crazy leaders. Is that something we or Israel really want?

-z

hgc

27th February 2007, 06:44 AM

...and for what? If they are spectacularly successful they'll set Iran's nuke program back 3 years. Then what?

Airstrikes are great for breaking stuff, but what is really needed is to affect Iranian nuke policy. Airplanes are crappy policy makers.

The mullahs have a lot of internal dissention to deal with now...but after being hit by Israeli jets they'll be united behind their crazy leaders. Is that something we or Israel really want?

-z
Absolutely not! The Israeli leadership is not half as crazy as Dick Cheney, and they know there's no upside to this hypothetical operation.

hgc

27th February 2007, 08:04 AM

Nairobi?
Of course I'm aware the IAF landed and refueled there while on the return leg of the 1976 Entebbe raid. However, those were lumbering Hercules propeller-aircraft. No such aircraft would have any part in a mission to Natanz.
You keep saying 'fighter escorts' but F-16 and F-15 are fighter-bombers and can be equipped with a mix of weapons as needed for a dual-purpose strategy. The biggest threat they face is the newly-acquired mobile TOR-M1 anti-aircraft batteries that the Russians have delivered.
http://www.trumpetamerica.org/070117ta1532.html

Personally, I would tend to think that the American Aircraft Carrier Task Force that's on-station in the Gulf now would be assigned to the task of dealing with the AA (targeting them as soon as they 'light up'), and providing cover against Iranian fighter interceptors. If asked, the USA could say that their planes on patrol came under fire, and they only responded in self-defense --- right now under the conditions that prevail in the Gulf, that would all seem very plausible.

What you are asking is to have someone here disclose the operational details of a raid to Natanz. The IAF plan itself is classified, and will remain so, even after the centrifuges are demolished. Iran's fanatical leaders will be screaming bloody murder, and everyone will be looking around to try and determine what exactly happened, with fingers pointed in every direction. It is entirely possible that Israel will even deny being behind the "mysterious explosions underground at Natanz" -- perhaps they will just explain it away as an unfortunate "work accident" that happened as a result of careless handling of materials at the site!

And so it goes...
Hey, I'm just trying to figure out why you posted a map of Operation Entebbe in response to my no ****** way when the circumstances for Entebbe (refueling on the ground mid-mission) do not apply in the situation that I'm saying is impossible. The substitution of F-15s or F-16s for C-130s doesn't improve the situation any. You still have a distance to cover far greater than the operational range of either of those aircraft. Even a mission straight across Jordan and Iraq to the targets in Iran is a stretch (or beyond) for a round trip for those planes, considering the fuel needed to fight dogfights.

You brought up the problem of the SAMs, and rightly so. Israel would have to provide radar jamming as well. Other than with ballistic missiles, I don't see how Israel does this without forward bases.

rikzilla

27th February 2007, 08:16 AM

Who amongst us will bell the cat?

I guess the only mouse with access to a stealth bomber and more guts than brains.

-z

hgc

27th February 2007, 08:25 AM

Who amongst us will bell the cat?

I guess the only mouse with access to a stealth bomber and more guts than brains.

-z
You're on to something - 2 key components. Capability and known lunatics in charge.

rikzilla

27th February 2007, 08:42 AM

Here's where we part ways. It simply isn't going to happen. This is because (your BDS aside) there are no "lunatics" in charge of anything more lethal than a non-binding resolution.

-z

hgc

27th February 2007, 08:45 AM

Here's where we part ways. It simply isn't going to happen. This is because (your BDS aside) there are no "lunatics" in charge of anything more lethal than a non-binding resolution.

-z
From your lips to god's ears. Now rik, if and when the Iran operation commences, you come around here having bought into whatever justification has been promulgated, I'm going to be very disappointed in you. I will surely link back to this thread.

webfusion

27th February 2007, 10:09 AM

Airstrikes are great for breaking stuff, but what is really needed is to affect Iranian nuke policy.

and
The Israeli leadership is not half as crazy as Dick Cheney, and they know there's no upside to this hypothetical operation.

Airstrikes would be good for Avigdor Leiberman's policy. Leiberman is probably twice as crazy as Cheney. He is trying to instigate a fanatical & violent response from the Islamic Bloc which will then result in the Palestinian extremists moving ahead to destroy the fragile 'unity plan' ----- Israel is not going to strike Natanz centrifuges to eliminate Iranian nuclear ambitions. Israel is going to strike Natanz because it will inflame the Palestinians and thus allow the IDF to move against Gaza, and try to eliminate HAMAS. The road to Gaza goes through Tehran.
That is Leiberman's goal. Read the last paragraph of my OP again.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

hgc, this distance can be achieved by using mid-air refueling using the IAF's 5 KC-707 Saknayee (Pelican) tankers. These aircraft are operated by Wing 134 Tayeset at Lod.

The Israeli F-15i Ra'am (Thunder) is capable of carrying 4½ tons of fuel in its internal tanks, conformal tanks, and detachable tanks. The armaments it carries (all in all, the plane can carry 11 tons of munitions) are positioned so that there is almost no disruption of the plane's aerodynamic shape - and no impeding of its performance. These factors combine with others to enable the Ra'am to fly to an unprecedented distance, one which was previously attained only by much larger bombers: about 4,450 km. With midair refueling, the range can be extended further.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-15i/F-15I.html

hgc

27th February 2007, 11:25 AM

Israel is not going to strike Natanz centrifuges to eliminate Iranian nuclear ambitions. Israel is going to strike Natanz because it will inflame the Palestinians and thus allow the IDF to move against Gaza, and try to eliminate HAMAS. The road to Gaza goes through Tehran.
That is Leiberman's goal. Read the last paragraph of my OP again.
That's Liberman's goal? That guy is more batsh!t crazy than I had imagined in my worst nightmares. That is the craziest thing I've ever heard in my life or will hear in my next life. If Israel wants to destroy Hamas (another laughable idea) then they just better commence operations in Gaza tomorrow. There's no advantage to starting a war with Iran in order just to achieve that goal.

I'm reminded of a book of 40's era Batman comic strips I used to have. Bruce Wayne is in an insane asylum, and there are a bunch of crazy people who are portrayed as thinking they're someone important, like Napoleon or Batman. I picture a nuthouse of the future, where the crazies all run around in business suits and jowls claiming that they're Joe Liberman - the grand strategic thinker plotting strategy on a chess board where all the pieces are household objects like keychains and combs.

Ziggurat

27th February 2007, 11:43 AM

I picture a nuthouse of the future, where the crazies all run around in business suits and jowls claiming that they're Joe Liberman - the grand strategic thinker plotting strategy on a chess board where all the pieces are household objects like keychains and combs.

Ummm... Avigdor Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman) is a different person than Joe Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman).

hgc

27th February 2007, 11:46 AM

Ummm... Avigdor Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman) is a different person than Joe Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman).
Oops. Well, my rant about Joe Lieberman still stands. :D

As for what Avigdor Lieberman is planning, I don't have much faith right now in webfusion's claim about his Iran attack goals. I'd welcome some evidence or further explanation/argument on that point.

Btw, point well taken, web, on the mid-air refueling capabilities. But does that cover the distance around the Arabian gulf? Either all the way around, or cutting across Oman and UAE?

webfusion

27th February 2007, 12:04 PM

Indeed, Avigdor Lieberman (yes, I've been spelling it wrong) is currently showing in the polls to have more support than any other politician except for Netanyahu to be the next Prime Minister of Israel.

His "Yisrael Beitenu" party was just granted another Ministry (Minister of Tourism) which has many Israelis outraged. Yariv Oppenheimer, of Peace Now, said of
Esterina Tartman (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121671): "Israel should be ashamed of the appointment of a person who openly advocates such racist positions." (Tartman had criticized the appointment of Ralel Majadle as Israel's first Arab cabinet minister.)

She holds the record for most parachute drops by a woman in the IDF, from which she was released at the rank of Major.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/pictures/resized/136-106/19/19820.jpg

Meanwhile, Avigdor Lieberman, who is the Minister for Strategic Threats, has voiced his opinions on Israel Radio:
"We will have to face the Iranians alone. Israel cannot remain with its arms folded, waiting patiently for Iran to develop non-conventional weapons." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121557)

rikzilla

27th February 2007, 12:08 PM

What exactly are you folks smoking, and why are you Bogarting it??? Gimme some so that I can see the blu fairies, chupacabras, and evil jooz too!
Awwww c'mon!!!!

-z

webfusion

27th February 2007, 12:14 PM

evil jooz?

rikzilla

27th February 2007, 12:22 PM

Well you must admit...you guys all getting your Liebermans confused makes this thread read like a drug induced hallucination.

Your take on all this is rather interesting and fanciful web. Please pardon me if I'm a tad skeptical...but that's my thing.... When I read predictions of impending doom it tends to peg my BS detection circuitry and prompt a snarky comment.

-z

rikzilla

27th February 2007, 12:28 PM

Oops. Well, my rant about Joe Lieberman still stands. :D

As for what Avigdor Lieberman is planning, I don't have much faith right now in webfusion's claim about his Iran attack goals. I'd welcome some evidence or further explanation/argument on that point.

Btw, point well taken, web, on the mid-air refueling capabilities. But does that cover the distance around the Arabian gulf? Either all the way around, or cutting across Oman and UAE?

Also you will note that IAF fighters would have to transit US controlled airspace which would mean tactical coordination with US Air Force and/or Navy air assets. It would make us de-facto responsible for the attack. Simply put...it's not going to happen!

-z

Edited to add: Like Garrett I'm only an amateur...but I consider it highly unlikely that the US would find it in our interests to abet such a strike. Perhaps when we finally do pull out of Iraq...or if Iran was proven to have a working nuke on a proven missile pointed at Tel Aviv. Absent that I don't see us wanting to unite the Iranian people behind their mad mullahs. Right now their rule is shaky...why attack them when they may implode on their own??

hgc

27th February 2007, 12:32 PM

Meanwhile, Avigdor Lieberman, who is the Minister for Strategic Threats, has voiced his opinions on Israel Radio:
"We will have to face the Iranians alone. Israel cannot remain with its arms folded, waiting patiently for Iran to develop non-conventional weapons." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121557)
I was more concerned with the idea that A. Lieberman would want to launch against Iran so as to get Hamas in a violent huff so as to have an excuse to go get 'em.

The posturing you quote is to be expected, and doesn't necessarily reflect intent. Not that I doubt that Israel views a nuclear Iran as a grave danger.

webfusion

27th February 2007, 12:51 PM

I consider it highly unlikely that the US would find it in our interests to abet such a strike.

As did Darth Rotor, in an earlier thread about this same subject.

However, Israel often does things without considering the consequences to the USA. If this operation goes ahead, it will be done without prior notice to the US forces, and the IAF pilots can just squawk their way through, and hope for the best.
Hutch answered this very point in Post # 15.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2381218&postcount=15

webfusion

27th February 2007, 09:45 PM

From Egypt, the Arab League Secretary Amr Mousa officially denied that any Arab nation had agreed to allow Israel overflight rights.

UPI is reporting this now:
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/Gulf_countries_No_air_space_for_Israel/20070226-113547-4668r
"These reports are either forged or fabricated," Mousa said.

OK, thanks for dropping by to this thread. Nothing to see here.

rikzilla

28th February 2007, 05:41 AM

Well, they (IAF) did the world (and themselves) a big favor by wiping out Osiraq. However Iran's nuke programs are spread over multiple sites and some are hardened bunkers. It would not be as simple a thing as knocking out one reactor. The IAF will need quite a few more Ilan Ramons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Ramon).

-z

Mycroft

28th February 2007, 08:14 AM

...and for what? If they are spectacularly successful they'll set Iran's nuke program back 3 years. Then what?

Airstrikes are great for breaking stuff, but what is really needed is to affect Iranian nuke policy. Airplanes are crappy policy makers.

The mullahs have a lot of internal dissention to deal with now...but after being hit by Israeli jets they'll be united behind their crazy leaders. Is that something we or Israel really want?

-z

Will they? Or will the dissenters see the air-strike as a natural result of the Mullahs leadership and redouble their efforts?