U.S. Army report: Israel can't stop Iran nukes

World Tribune ^ | December 5, 2005

[PerConPat]

Any thoughts on what might be the reaction among those Shiites in Iraq that are close to Iran?

If the Iraqi Shia Muslims object too strenuously to a US strike against their Iranian brothers and sisters, I would think that the Sunni elements within Iraq could be easily induced to provide a reminder of America's value to the Shiite community of Saddam's former fiefdom. It's called hardball; and except for the Kurds, I don't spend much time worrying about the rest of the Iraqi population- they will work things out.

[Steelerfan]

Thanks.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Where there's a will, there's a way!

[mcshot]

I like the way you think.


mc

[Androcles]

You mean the boats of Cherbourg? That was a magnificent moment for Israeli pride....

[Androcles]

Let's hope for the best...

Wise counsel (As long as we prepare for the worst, just in case... as the Israelis have much experience in doing!)

[mcshot]

Are you messin with our sheep son?

mc ;>)

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

I agree.

Even the USA could not take out Iran's nuke assets for the reason you mentioned. The nation is too large, the assets are too spread out, and they are underground. Tactical nukes would be the only way.

There are scattered reports that Israel has nuke-tipped sub-launched cruise missiles (SLCM). In 2000, it was reported one was tested with a whopping range of 1500 km. It is doubtful they have a fully tested force of these, and it is not tested extensively. It would seem that Israel would have made the decision long ago that nuke-tipped SLCMs are the way to go since they could put three subs in the Persian Gulf with nuke-tipped missiles if they ever felt Iran was ready to pull the trigger on them. The range to Iran with fighters has always been a known problem, and that is why they are testing SLCMs.

If they use the subs, they range is not a problem--assuming they do have the SLCMs (of course, going nuclear creates "problems").

Folks, this is getting serious. If Iran gets nukes, other M.E. nations will want them also. We will also move beyond nuke development into missile and ABM arms races. Iran has the same problem hitting Israel that Israel has hitting Iran--range. This is why the next "crisis" will be an arms race involving missiles (or SLCMs).

[ecomcon]

But there is nothing for Iran in wasting Israel.

There is Islamic glory in the wasting of Israel.

[antihannityguy]

Sorry but Osirak was heavily defended, although the Iraqis were at dinner at the start of the attak. There were numerous Surface to Air Missiles such as SA-7s and SA-6s there was also a lot of AAA.

[antihannityguy]

Exactly everyone is thinking Air Power is the only option. They showed their exactly commando force in Entebbe and they have had a lot of time to practice and come up with plans.

[M. Espinola]

Well stated.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Brom said Iranian nuclear assets are located between 1,500 and 1,700 kilometers from Israel. The report expressed doubts whether such Israeli allies as India and Turkey would allow Israel to launch a military strike from their territory. "This means that the Israeli attack aircraft would have to take off from air bases in Israel, fly 1,500-1,700 kilometers to the targets, destroy them, and then fly back 1,500-1,700 kilometers," the report said...The report said the F-15I has an operational radius of 1,270 kilometers. The F-16I has an operational radius of 2,100 kilometers while that of the F-16C/D is 925 kilometers. But the report said the real operational radius was shorter because the planes would have to fly at low altitude to avoid radar detection. Brom said the Israeli aircraft could avoid Iranian air defense but would be detected.

I guess this report didn't fathom that perhaps Israel would be willing to sacrifice a fighter or three to disable Iran's nuclear program, the greatest near threat to their existence? Only need a 1-way and partway back trip, with either a rescue unit deployed to wherever they ditch, or a sea ditch within range of coincidentally nearby friendly ships. Or even just a kamikazi team that would live forever in Israeli lore.

[JasonC]

What a pansy reason. Nobody is going to impeach anybody, least of all a Republican congress. Bush is not up for re-election anyway. We have unity of command for the sake of "energy in the executive" (Hamilton) precisely because the founders understood direct democracy is no way to stand up to enemy tyrants. To hell with opinion. You do whatever objective analysis says is in the best interests of the United States, hang the consequences.

[JasonC]

It is a pretty story but it is bumcomb. I'll watch, you'll watch, the world will watch, and if watching is all the United States does, Iran will get nuclear weapons.

[marron]

You do whatever objective analysis says is in the best interests of the United States, hang the consequences.

Hey, I'm with you. Now we just need you and about 300 others like you in congress, and we can get this show on the road.

Seriously, we have to do something. I fear we will do nothing and just hope Israel will do it, so we can condemn her publicly while we applaud her privately. You can see from the tone of most of the posts on this thread that everyone hopes Israel will do the dirty work, because almost everyone knows what would happen politically if we do it.

But the fact remains that while Israel is well capable of handling any fight anywhere within reach of her territory, we are best suited for the kind of long-reach bombing campaign it would take to shut Iran down.

But such a thing will mean war beyond what we have done in Iraq, and our politicos are losing their will to keep even this going as elections draw near. We are winning in Iraq, it has gone masterfully in my view, and our pols are losing their nerve.

Bush hasn't, he's still determined to take it right to the end. But almost no Democrats are with him, and an increasing number of Repubs are losing their nerve. Launching a new operation into a new country is almost guaranteed to spook our pols into paralysis, they aren't the bravest people out there.

Our best chance is after the 2006 elections, if Bush is able to hold his base together in Congress and the Senate.

Iran is vulnerable; it is a collection of regions, each with its own ethnic nationality, each which has at one time or another dreamed of independence. We should be making plans to take Iran apart at the seams, but that is going to take some very steady nerves. After Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, I don't see that kind of nerve out there.

[Sabramerican]

After Bush...., I don't see that kind of nerve out there.

I don't see that Bush has the nerve.

Giuliani- and only Giuliani- might?

[JasonC]

It doesn't take much nerve. The only opposition to any of it is from traitorous idiots. Why give them the time of day? They are toothless. They write angry leading editorials but that is all. You do it, you present the result, and stand by it. Not complicated.

[Tommyjo]

The aircraft flew in full Israeli markings. There is a lot of myth about the raid and that is one of them. These were F-15 and F-16s and neither Iran or Iraq operated them. There was no need to paint them up in any other national markings.

[Tommyjo]

Those B-52s are covered by the START treaty. Heavy strategic bombers are still inspected by inspectors from the Russian Federation and US on each others territory. The US giving Israel B-52s just ain't gonna happen!