IAF -- cleared for takeoff

[webfusion]

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]

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

Nobody laughed. Why?

 

[Darth Rotor]

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]

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.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/374245ba89b53a655.jpg

(originally posted in This other thread)

 

[hgc]

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/374245ba89b53ta655.jpg

I'm going to go out on a limb and say no effing 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]

Round Trip

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

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

 

[Darth Rotor]

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/374245ba89b53a655.jpg

(originally posted in This other thread)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[rikzilla]

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