Posted on 07/16/2006 2:14:14 PM PDT by Jameison
Last night, we posted Steven den Beste's interesting email, which agreed with Paul's observation that ti would be desirable for Israel to attack Iran, but questioned whether it is logistically feasible for Israel to do so. Paul responded in an update earlier today, and we received an enormous number of emails from readers who had comments on Israel's strategic capabilities, as well as more unorthodox suggestions as to how an attack might be carried out. We can't begin to quote them all but here are a few.
Froggy Ruminations proposes a plan:
If Israel decides to go after Iran, then that means they will have already begun to go at it with Syria beforehand. They might run a SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) package east through Syria as a feint to hit Damascus (which would be a target rich environment anyway) and pull through some heavy airlift assets (C-130s etc) and choose a remote airfield in eastern Syria and seize it Ranger style. If their SEAD is effective, they could set up shop at this airfield, bring in fuel and ammo and mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iranian targets at will. Most of Syria's military forces will be on the other side of the country and if they attempt to go after their FOB, the IAF could hammer them in transit. Besides, the IDF could destroy all roads leading to said airfield, and mine the shit out of the hinterland effectively creating an island out of their new base. Not a simple plan to execute to be sure, but one that could put them in striking distance of Iranian nuke sites. If they could pull off Entebbe in the 1970s, they could do this now. Jim Johnson rejects den Beste's main premise:
Israel currently has at least 50 F-16Is and over 25 F-15Is all of which are capable of striking Iran with some ease with the use of external conformal fuel fuel tanks. They can do so without even significantly penetrating Iraqi air space if that is an issue. Both aircraft were purchased with Iran in mind - with some joking about the "I" standing for Iran. Both aircraft have a range, fully loaded, of over 2000 km which places virtually all the publicly mentioned high value Iranian targets within range including Tehran. There is even enough margin to allow some loiter time over the targets. The likely ordinance would be the BTU-28 which was purchased in quantity from the US as recently as last year and was designed to be deep earth penetrating. Whether they can penetrate deeply enough to collapse the Iranian structures is not available in the public literature - if known at all. Both aircraft are capable of carrying the BTU-28. And if the need truly arises they can allocate aircraft for one way missions in a number of ways without losing the pilots although these would likely be nuclear missions. Cruise missiles, conventionally armed, are likely to be of limited value directly against hard targets although they could be very useful in pinning down any Iranian attempt to intercept a bombing mission. Most likely though, the Iranians will have very little available to effectively oppose an attack of the type Israel can launch.
It should be kept in mind that an attack of this sort does not have to be a one shot attack - and likely won't be. There will be plenty of time to reload and fire again. *** If the Israeli's can add 3-5 years to the Iranian nuclear program on a static basis that is well worth it - particularly if they extract high additional costs and since they can always do it again.
Other readers suggested a variety of ways in which Israel might effectively strike Iran. John Arcari notes that Iran's dependence on foreign refining capacity is a key weakness:
Israel, or the USA need to be very careful about an attack on Iran, because millions of the Iranian people like Americans, and would overthrow their present government if we just stepped forward and helped them. So, we do not want to devastate the country at large. The weak link in the Iranian economy is an internal shortage of oil to gasoline refining capability. Iran, actually imports huge amounts of gasoline to sustain its economy. My plan is, forget the Nuke problem for the moment, forget the country infrastructure, and forget causing enormous pain to the general population. Here's how! You destroy all oil to gasoline refining capacity, along with destroying the all ability to pump oil in Iran. Actually, this ends the story. These two actions render the country bankrupt overnight, but leave the general population whole to get rid of the present government post haste. Let Iran spend all its money rebuilding that which allows the country to function.
Van Laskey suggests attacking Syria and putting Iran in the position of coming to it's client's defense:
Saddam's chemical arsenal is likely hidden in Syria's Bekaa Valley which is also home to Hezbollah terrorists. *** Iran has stated that Israel attacking Syria will draw them into the conflict. Israel should strike at Bekaa and draw Iran in. Call their bluff. Their army is untested & hasn't fought a war in twenty five years. Its air capability is probably far weaker then the IAF. Its "navy" would be sunk in the first hour. Attack Syria's Bekaa and force Iran to make the first move. Eliminating the cancer in Bekaa is a bonus. And a number of readers came up with more limited and creative ways of striking at Iran, the most elaborate (some would say far-fetched) of which came from Dafydd ab Hugh
Unless they are going to take out the nuke facilities, there is no point in it.
The U.S. has floating air bases called aircraft carriers.
Instead of using the State Dept. failed policies, we should be using our multi-billion dollar navy to pound the Iranian
people into submission.
you are right. all those multibillion dollar weapons are useless without the will to use them. we have every right to strike iran, they are openly threatening us.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Especially the part about Israel attacking the Bekaa Valley. Iranian aircraft would have to fly over/near Iraq, which would give us the opportunity/right/necessity to shoot them down.
DO it with cruise missiles aimed at the monkey man and mad mullahs. Strike the serpents head....( not James Carville)
It would cut of the revenue responsible for funding the nuclear program.
Both aircraft were purchased with Iran in mind - with some joking about the "I" standing for Iran.
That's what I'm thinking, too. Iran foolishly backed Syria. They're going to have to put up or shutup, and putting up means losing their entire airforce and navy; shutting up means they backed (bowed) down to Israel and the US--not a pretty option for the tough Muslim bully on the block.
....to pound the lunatic clerics and leadership to death, would be more appropriate, I believe..
I still believe that a large portion of the young educated Persians feel imprisoned and threatened by the current lunatics in charge...
Semper Fi
I think there are only 7 perhaps nine refineries in Iran. They produce 60 % of the gasoline. Eliminating 3 would take out 25 or 30 %. The second trip could eliminate half the gas production. Eliminating the imports from india by diplomacy and Iran is in big trouble quickly.
We need to pound Syria and Iran. As to $5 gas......... Hit every military target possible. Leave them their oil so they'll have to keep selling it to rebuild their country.
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=159565&D=2006-07-16&HC=4
(via Rantburg)
Another Iran Alternative
(original opinion)
The world is hypnotized by the modern American way of combat.
Precision munitions that strike military targets with minimal collateral damage. A "civilized" means of war.
However we should not forget that it is not the only way to wage war. And that another option exists for Israel if they are to attack Iran. The Dresden option.
All agree that the Iranians have gone to great lengths to protect their nuclear and missile programs. What they have not done is to protect their people.
Teheran is an urbane and sophisticated city, which is deeply divided in its support for the Iranian government. The city of Qom, on the other hand, it the power base of the mullahs, the training center for legions of Imams who sustain their theocracy.
So I propose this consideration: with all the conventional horror it can muster, Israel *not* waste its resources attacking facilities buried deeply under rock. Instead, that it reduce the city of Qom. Wipe it from the face of the Earth. That it leave not a single living thing. Firebombing.
No orphaned children or weeping widows. Just scorched earth and rubble, left behind with conventional weapons. An entire city, blasted to oblivion.
Then entreat the Iranian people for peace. Not their government, but go directly to their people. Ask them if this is what they crave for their nation. Tell them, that with Israel's nuclear weapons, they could do to every city in Iran what they did to Qom, and no one could stop them. A single Jew could wipe out their entire nation.
Then say to them the truth, that their government has said it is willing that all of them should die in this way. And if they wish it, then indeed they shall die. But if they do not wish to die, then they must replace their government with another that does not wish for them to die in fire.
And they must do it now. Because their government has offered their lives, their souls, and their nation, not to Allah, but to Satan. And very soon, unless they act now, Satan is coming to collect them all.
By 'monkey man' you mean the hairy little madman who is running Iran?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.