Replies

Where did I say Israel didn't have refueling capability? Also, why the acerbic nature in your post? Israel does have refueling capability ...it is just that of the three main ways of ingress into Iran only the one via Iraq is viable followed by the one over Saudi Arabia, and in both cases refueling with fighter escorts is only viable over the Iraqi route, and with even with that it wouldn't be sufficient for F-15s carrying a single GBU-28 each to reach as far as Qom and get back. One option that had been raised was for Sayeret forces to prepare a landing site with fuek bladders in the Iraqi desert for the returning planes.

However you said what I posted was crap - even though I never said Israel couldn't refuel. Maybe its because I said the range of the B2 is intercontinental with refueling, but in-between refueling one can't compare the Spirit with the Eagle. Not one bit.

But hey ...even my other reasons are crap, right? The reason Israel has hit Iran to date using conventional weapons, even though they have been very busy using other means like cyber attacks and targeted killing of Iranian scientists, is not because of my crappy reasons, right? At any given moment Israel could fly F-16s and hit Natanz ...they just 'choose' not to and let the Iranians build nuclear weapon capability, right?

I support Israel as much as you do. Whether or not you think my post is crap the fact still remains that Israel's conventional options are restricted to what I said. I am typing this on my Galaxy, but later in today I will link some articles - one from a military analyst and the other from the US government - that say what I said, just in harsher tones (eg saying an Israeli attack, even if it managed to hit, would not even slow down Iranian nuclear development). I believe the Israelis are some of the best soldiers in the world, and in my last post I said no one does creative like they do. However, the US simply has a much larger choice of military options.