Will Israel pre-emptively strike Iran?

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
S
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10528

snipped from the above.

President Ahmadinejad would do well to study the derivation of 1967's Six Day War. The Israelis do not always follow a logical and reasonable path in the perception of their own best interests. Preemption is considered essential to their survival, and it most certainly will be the case if Iran continues a nuclear weaponized belligerency.
Click to expand...
 
Funny you should bring this up again ---- I started a thread on this exact subject in April of 2005, it ran for 25 posts, and that was it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37922
"Target: NATANZ"


The answer to your OP question -- 'yes' the IAF is already prepared for the mission. The only thing (the ONLY THING) preventing the IAF pilots from going ahead immediately is the USA has balked at providing the required squawk codes (IFF) for the Gulf airspace. Without having those "friendly" identifiers, the Israelis cannot fly into that US-controlled zone.
 
Last edited:
webfusion said:
The only thing (the ONLY THING) preventing the IAF pilots from going ahead immediately is the USA has balked at providing the required squawk codes (IFF) for the Gulf airspace. Without having those "friendly" identifiers, the Israelis cannot fly into that US-controlled zone.
Click to expand...

And there you have The Great Conundrum and the proof that old Bismarck (IIRC, it might have been Metternicht) was right when he said that Nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests.

It may very well be that it is in Israels' Permanaent Interest (i.e., in it's long-term survival as a nation) to attack Irans' program before it can reach fruition. And given that Arab leaders are not all that excited about the Persians getting the Bomb (that history also goes back centuries) Isreal may feel that any damage to it's political status would be short-lived.

But is it in the United States best Permanent interests to aid/abet in this attack? Given that the Arab/Persian states still can exert great control over the oil market, the increased hostility in the Muslim world to the US as Israel is perceived as a "puppet" doing the will of the US (and perhaps a shift in Mideast states towards China as a balance to American power), the increase to the terror threat, instability in Iraq (the Shiites being supported by Iran will not react well), and perhaps the collapse of the long-term US goal of building a democratic and peaceful Mideast. All to neutralize a currently non-existant threat that may well be countered by technology countermeasures and YAD (Your Assured Destruction).

To put it baldly; It is Israels Permanent Interest that they continue to survive as a Nation State into the indefinite future; But is it in the United States Permanent Interest that Israels' survival subsumes US long-term interests?

And that is why history keeps getting written. It is providng to be a most interesting decade--at least, as the Chinese define "Interesting".

IMHO as always.
 
Last edited:
Quick follow-up:

Operation Active Endeavor (NATO forces) will include Israeli participation (as part of the "Mediterranean Dialogue" initiaitive).
This news was announced by NATO Deputy Secretary General Alessandro Minuto-Rizzo in a speech he presented in Israel last week.

"Israeli liaison officers will be assigned to the NATO command structure (in Naples) at the operational and tactical level and through the participation of military personnel and assets," he said.

Minuto-Rizzo added:
Iran's suspected military nuclear program and threats against Israel are a cause of concern for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Israel is "not isolated" on this issue
 
Hutch --- you are a military expert, so I'll ask you this:

After Israel completes a long-range mission into Iran, and makes mincemeat out of their centrifuges (they, after all, are the only reasonable targets) ---- can the USA plausibly deny involvement? After all, how many people even know what IFF refers to? How many people would recognize a squawk from a squeek? All fingers would point to Israel, sure, but how many fingers would point to the USA merely because they released to the IAF the IFF designators? What say you?
 
firecoins, are you basing your monosyllabic reply on the statements of well-briefed IDF officers, such as Maj.-Gens. (ret.) Eitan Ben-Eliahu, (former commander of the Israeli air force), IAF Maj.-Gen. (res.) Nechemia Dagan, and Yitzhak Ben-Israel (former head of the IDF's weapons-development program), who all have stated their understandings that the mission is indeed doable?


Doable, but difficult. That is what makes the IAF an outstanding Air Force -- performing the "impossible"!
IAF aircraft would have to fly 1,500-1,700 kilometers to the targets in Iran, destroy them, and then fly back the same distance, without violating the airspace of Arab nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The round-about over-water route into the Gulf would entail at least two mid-air refuelings, which could be problematic, since Israel's tanker 707s are very vulnerable to attack. The large fighter-bomber task force would also need support aircraft for electronic countermeasures, communication and rescue operations.
 
On Friday, in Jerusalem, a ceremony was held at Yad V'Shem, in appreciation of the $25-Million donation made by Sheldon G. Adelson (CEO of the Sands Casino Corp.) ---- the keynote speaker, PM Ehud Olmert, noted:
  • On these very days we hear voices which echo those that started to spread across the world in the 1930s. It is the first time (in the 21st Century -- webfusion) that a leader of a very big and important nation openly and publicly declares that an aim of his nation is to wipe the State of Israel off the map.

The prime minister's speech came as Iran publicly announced that it had doubled its capability to enrich uranium by injecting gas into a second network of centrifuges.

Adelson's Israeli-born wife Miriam also spoke, and recounted how her own childhood and young adult life was shadowed by the death of nearly all her parent's family in the Holocaust.

"I didn't think it can happen again. My feeling today is that it can happen again," she said.
 
webfusion said:
The answer to your OP question -- 'yes' the IAF is already prepared for the mission. The only thing (the ONLY THING) preventing the IAF pilots from going ahead immediately is the USA has balked at providing the required squawk codes (IFF) for the Gulf airspace. Without having those "friendly" identifiers, the Israelis cannot fly into that US-controlled zone.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely true.

The Israelis already have their own IFF codes, which are known to the US, on their aircraft and would be immediately identified. They don't need "friendly" identifiers. What they could use is an assurance from the US that they won't be shot down. And they may just decide to go ahead and attack without such an assurance from us and force us to make an on-the-spot decision whether or not to stop them.
 
webfusion said:
Hutch --- you are a military expert, so I'll ask you this:

After Israel completes a long-range mission into Iran, and makes mincemeat out of their centrifuges (they, after all, are the only reasonable targets) ---- can the USA plausibly deny involvement? After all, how many people even know what IFF refers to? How many people would recognize a squawk from a squeek? All fingers would point to Israel, sure, but how many fingers would point to the USA merely because they released to the IAF the IFF designators? What say you?
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are being sarcastic (I'm very bad on discerning sarcasm) or complimentary (not so hot on that either), but I am not a military expert--but I have read a book or two and followed the discussions here quite a bit.

As for what I say, if Israel carries out the mission, even if the US does nothing to support it and roundly condemns it, we'll still be seen as being to blame, as being the "enabler" of the rogue state Israel (NOT MY WORDS OR OPINION, but what will get said in Arab--and other--capitals and on the street).

And that is why (IMHO) that the US is still struggling on what our Permanent Interests are in this case.

And regarding LukeT:

[The Israelis already have their own IFF codes, which are known to the US, on their aircraft and would be immediately identified. They don't need "friendly" identifiers. What they could use is an assurance from the US that they won't be shot down. And they may just decide to go ahead and attack without such an assurance from us and force us to make an on-the-spot decision whether or not to stop them.
Click to expand...

I concur with Luke on the IFF, because I know we sell them IFF. what I do not know is if we have sold Israel the technology to tinker with and change the IFF codes. Or if the IAF have reversed engineered them.

I do not think the US would shoot down an Israeli aircraft in any circumstance. But what if a damaged IAF plane requested an emergency landing at a US Base in Iraq? Wouldn't you just love to be the commander on the spot for that call? :confused: :boxedin:

edited several times to clarify.
 
webfusion said:
Luke-T, this is interesting, I didn't know that.


This goes even more into the realm of 'plausible deniability' should the IAF fly into the Gulf. The US-led forces certainly would not interfere, and could later say, "as far as we knew, it was a recon flight"

(see: IAF overflights of Lebanon and operations off the coast)
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=qw1162156325870B265
Click to expand...
For as long as the US owns the airspace over Iraq, which it still effectively does thanks to the glacial pace of rebuilding an Iraqi Air Force and Air Defence infrastructure, IAF missions through that airspace contain a risk: risk that the US will not only say no, but will force the IAF assets into a "squawk or die moment." I expect the latter. Web, there are tens of thousands of USN, USAF, USMC, and US Army professionals who, active, reserve, or retired, are intimately familiar with IFF, squawk or die, and are mineable by anyone in the media for credible answers to that question.

If anyone in US DoD chooses to turn a blind eye to an IAF strike mission over Iran, the US is openly inviting WW III to open up, with a massive political liability on the first move. That plays into the hands of

Iran
China
Russia

Alienates India
Alienates Pakistan

Giftwraps political points to any and every Islamist faction, national or extra-national

Pisses off most NATO governments.

Pisses off Malaysia and Indonesia

Stupid. Worse than stupid, negligent.

An immense loss in the PR and media war, which is a critical piece of modern geopolitical power.

BMD is a better line of thinking.

Hutch: IFF is controlled by Crypto. The hardware is inconsequential, the crypto for Mode IV is the critical element. If you have the hardware, you can make your own crypto. That doesn't mean it would match US crypto, which would mean that a mode IV interrogation would not identify one has being "friendly." (recall two Blackhawks over Northern Iraq who got shot down.) The key question is: has another Jonathan Pollard sort successfully infiltrated US crypto processes and set up IAF with valid Mode IV? Unknown

Squawk or die. That's the RoE I would suggest in this case, in the airspace over Iraq.

Here's a curveball: Turkey lets IAF over fly Turkey and then bomb Iran. Not likely, but who'd expect that? Surprise attack includes "not what I expected."

DR
 
Last edited:
webfusion said:
Hutch --- you are a military expert, so I'll ask you this:

After Israel completes a long-range mission into Iran, and makes mincemeat out of their centrifuges (they, after all, are the only reasonable targets) ---- can the USA plausibly deny involvement? After all, how many people even know what IFF refers to? How many people would recognize a squawk from a squeek? All fingers would point to Israel, sure, but how many fingers would point to the USA merely because they released to the IAF the IFF designators? What say you?
Click to expand...

After about 30 seconds of media coverage? yeah I think it is safe to say that US involvement would be noted (the next question being who would care that we care about upseting?).
 
Hutch said:
I concur with Luke on the IFF, because I know we sell them IFF. what I do not know is if we have sold Israel the technology to tinker with and change the IFF codes. Or if the IAF have reversed engineered them.
Click to expand...

Changing the IFF codes might confuse things for a few minutes, but any military commander on the scene who is on the ball will know it is a masquerade pretty quickly, and the Israelis would actually be in more danger of being shot down once the gig was up, since the commander won't know who they are and he may just decide to shoot them down. The Israelis might get away with it on the inbound, but when they come back, things would get hairy.

But what is working in the Israelis' favor is our Rules of Engagement. They'd be smarter to leave their IFF codes clearly identifying them as Israeli. The decision on whether to shoot them down is a political decision and would probably have to be made back in D.C. and not by the on-scene commander, and that could take a while.

I do not think the US would shoot down an Israeli aircraft in any circumstance. But what if a damaged IAF plane requested an emergency landing at a US Base in Iraq? Wouldn't you just love to be the commander on the spot for that call? :confused: :boxedin:
Click to expand...

The Israeli pilots would proably be briefed that if they are damaged, they are on their own. Bail out, and walk home.
 
So, what if there was a "hole" left over Iraq, that the Isralies serendipitously took advantage of, with the US scrambling planes to intercept, but alas too late? And on the return, the Isralie pilots surrendered?

I mean, mistakes can happen, right? Or would that be too obvious?
 
Badger said:
I mean, mistakes can happen, right? Or would that be too obvious?
Click to expand...
Given the US responsibility as "occupying power" in Iraq, and its influence in the region, and its obligations to local allies to try and keep things stable, not unstable, that excuse will not wash with much of anyone, and could be called by a competent attorney "negligence."

DR
 
Hutch, I was being complimentary. Your views often seem to be backed with a firm grasp of military doctrines and terminology, not to mention that your avatar is cool. Anyway, I think you're right, the USA would be seen as the 'enabler' and I also happen to think the POTUS could not care less. He'll just get up in front of the cameras, and say what has to be said:

"Israel defended herself against this credible threat. Good job."

American public opinion, across a wide spectrum, always understood Begin's wisdom in 1981.
They will also recognize the wisdom of the Israelis in 2006.
 
IRAN has just gone into war footing ---

BREAKING NEWS:

  • Iran has now placed its armed forces on very high alert. The orders encompass the joint naval units of the military and Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, while the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian army, navy and air force were placed on “yellow” alert, one level short of full war.

    On Sunday, Oct. 29, supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced Iran’s air force chief, Karim Qavami with Brig. Gen. Ahmad Miqani, on the recommendation of the Revolutionary Guards commander.

also:

Warnings have intensified in recent days of impending al Qaeda attacks on the oil fields, oil ports, oil tankers and oil fields of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian oil emirates.

"MALABAR 6" exercise in the Indian Ocean will conclude Nov 5th, and the US-led carrier group (USS Boxer carrier, the USS Bunker Hill guided missile battle cruiser, the guided missile destroyer USS Howard and the USS Benfold, as well as the Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarine Providence and the Canadian guided missile frigate HMCS Ottawa) will then join three other US air carriers with task forces parked opposite Iranian shores, including the USS Enterprise Strike Group, the USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group and the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom