Friday, March 23, 2012
Might Iran Attack Israel?
What if the Iranians decide to attack Israel and blunt the Israeli counterstrike?
A quote from a critic: "I also obviously hold that the Iranian leadership is not so irrational as to start a nuclear war."
This assumption is at the nub of the attack argument, and lies between the sanity of some and the religious ferver of others in Iran’s government. Were I to set odds on the religious fanatics to carry out an audacious attack, it might rise to about 1 in 3. Were the Israelis to set the odds, I conjecture that it would rise to at least 2 in 3, based on their continuing antagonistic posture towards Iran, and their 8 to 7 vote for attack. (This is highly dependent upon the supply of modern missile systems to Iran from Russia over the next few years.)
There are a number of unknown unknowns here, among which is the possibility that Iran is not totally crazy in contemplating nuclear war against Israel, in that they have (or are developing) one or more weapons and one or more tactics that they feel confident can defeat the Israeli counter missile threat for the most part. So I will look at some of these possibilities as best I can, modeling my projections on current weapon developments in Russia in particular, since the Russians have supplied Iran with weapons.
1) Nuclear EMP weapons as an extension of their basic nuke capability. If you have nukes, you have the principal weapon basis for EMP. A few warheads and missiles would be needed, which could take a year or two.
2) A mobile missile system capable of a range of up to 175 km and 85,000 ft at Mach 6, with a homing infrared and laser guidance system. This is based on what the Russians have in service now in the S-300 ABM system and four S-300PMU missiles on a tracked vehicle. They are launched vertically, and guided until acquisition of the target by their homing infrared systems.
The idea of using this ABM weapon is to shoot down the Israeli nuclear missiles during the launch phase from positions just outside of Israel’s borders. We know that Iran has been requesting these advanced missiles for a while now from the Russians. If these tracked systems were to be deployed in Gaza, the Palestinian West Bank, Syria (who already possesses some S-300 systems!) and Lebanon, and perhaps in both Jordan and Egypt, they could cover just about all of the expected Israeli launch sites. Iran could well force this positioning in some cases.
Other S-300 missile systems could be deployed around key Iranian areas to defend against incoming missiles in their terminal phase, just as the Russians have done around Moscow. These missiles would catch the leakers from the EMP and launch phase shots.
3) The naval version is the S-300FM, and it can be vertically launched from destroyers and perhaps frigates, which Iran would have to purchase, which would take a few years to complete. It is unclear whether the S-300 can be or has been adapted to the two existing Iranian frigates, but there doesn’t seem to be any technical reason that they cannot be. A flotilla of 6 to 8 frigates could carry 8 missiles each for a total of possibly 64 missiles in box launchers. It is also possible to mount two of the S-300 box launchers on much smaller vessels, to swarm around in the Gulf. The idea here is to cover as much as possible of the launch areas of the two or three Israeli nuclear missile submarines, again to shoot the missiles down just after launch. (The tactic of shooting these types of missiles in pairs has long been the usual practice, and hit probabilities of .7 to .8 have been achieved against mach 3 missiles.)
4) Continued development of Russian S-300 and S-400 series of missile systems may well show significant improvements in the next few years. Perhaps Iran would share in these developments.
The Iranian scenario, which is easily 3 to 5 years away, would be to lay down an EMP field on Israel, and especially the probable nuclear missile sites, to disrupt the missile guidance systems, then to use the S-300s to hit any missiles that managed to launch anyway, followed by interception of incoming leakers. They would have to accept that some missiles would likely get through and cause massive damage. If the fanatics are in charge, this might well indeed be accepted. Meanwhile, at the proper timing, they launch both nukes and conventional weapons to destroy Israel.
The main conclusion I draw here is that if the Russians actually do supply Iran with large quantities of the S-300 ABM systems and training, say about 500 to 1,000 in some variation, over the next few years, not only does an Israeli air or missile attack on Iran become highly difficult and very costly, the same systems can be used to largely blunt an Israeli missile strike/counterstrike.
This possible procurement unfortunately raises the stakes for Israel once again in the direction of: attack now.
A quote from a critic: "I also obviously hold that the Iranian leadership is not so irrational as to start a nuclear war."
This assumption is at the nub of the attack argument, and lies between the sanity of some and the religious ferver of others in Iran’s government. Were I to set odds on the religious fanatics to carry out an audacious attack, it might rise to about 1 in 3. Were the Israelis to set the odds, I conjecture that it would rise to at least 2 in 3, based on their continuing antagonistic posture towards Iran, and their 8 to 7 vote for attack. (This is highly dependent upon the supply of modern missile systems to Iran from Russia over the next few years.)
There are a number of unknown unknowns here, among which is the possibility that Iran is not totally crazy in contemplating nuclear war against Israel, in that they have (or are developing) one or more weapons and one or more tactics that they feel confident can defeat the Israeli counter missile threat for the most part. So I will look at some of these possibilities as best I can, modeling my projections on current weapon developments in Russia in particular, since the Russians have supplied Iran with weapons.
1) Nuclear EMP weapons as an extension of their basic nuke capability. If you have nukes, you have the principal weapon basis for EMP. A few warheads and missiles would be needed, which could take a year or two.
2) A mobile missile system capable of a range of up to 175 km and 85,000 ft at Mach 6, with a homing infrared and laser guidance system. This is based on what the Russians have in service now in the S-300 ABM system and four S-300PMU missiles on a tracked vehicle. They are launched vertically, and guided until acquisition of the target by their homing infrared systems.
The idea of using this ABM weapon is to shoot down the Israeli nuclear missiles during the launch phase from positions just outside of Israel’s borders. We know that Iran has been requesting these advanced missiles for a while now from the Russians. If these tracked systems were to be deployed in Gaza, the Palestinian West Bank, Syria (who already possesses some S-300 systems!) and Lebanon, and perhaps in both Jordan and Egypt, they could cover just about all of the expected Israeli launch sites. Iran could well force this positioning in some cases.
Other S-300 missile systems could be deployed around key Iranian areas to defend against incoming missiles in their terminal phase, just as the Russians have done around Moscow. These missiles would catch the leakers from the EMP and launch phase shots.
3) The naval version is the S-300FM, and it can be vertically launched from destroyers and perhaps frigates, which Iran would have to purchase, which would take a few years to complete. It is unclear whether the S-300 can be or has been adapted to the two existing Iranian frigates, but there doesn’t seem to be any technical reason that they cannot be. A flotilla of 6 to 8 frigates could carry 8 missiles each for a total of possibly 64 missiles in box launchers. It is also possible to mount two of the S-300 box launchers on much smaller vessels, to swarm around in the Gulf. The idea here is to cover as much as possible of the launch areas of the two or three Israeli nuclear missile submarines, again to shoot the missiles down just after launch. (The tactic of shooting these types of missiles in pairs has long been the usual practice, and hit probabilities of .7 to .8 have been achieved against mach 3 missiles.)
4) Continued development of Russian S-300 and S-400 series of missile systems may well show significant improvements in the next few years. Perhaps Iran would share in these developments.
The Iranian scenario, which is easily 3 to 5 years away, would be to lay down an EMP field on Israel, and especially the probable nuclear missile sites, to disrupt the missile guidance systems, then to use the S-300s to hit any missiles that managed to launch anyway, followed by interception of incoming leakers. They would have to accept that some missiles would likely get through and cause massive damage. If the fanatics are in charge, this might well indeed be accepted. Meanwhile, at the proper timing, they launch both nukes and conventional weapons to destroy Israel.
The main conclusion I draw here is that if the Russians actually do supply Iran with large quantities of the S-300 ABM systems and training, say about 500 to 1,000 in some variation, over the next few years, not only does an Israeli air or missile attack on Iran become highly difficult and very costly, the same systems can be used to largely blunt an Israeli missile strike/counterstrike.
This possible procurement unfortunately raises the stakes for Israel once again in the direction of: attack now.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Obama's Performance
The Public Is Waking Up to the Problems, I Hope! (Edited anew 3/20/12)
Perhaps the public is becoming aware of the specter of war with Iran and her minions real soon now, coupled with the rather two-faced approach of this administration on the plight of Israel. With the national debt topping $15.5T (which bests Bush's spending in 8 years in only 3+ for Obama!), the deficit going to $1.2T+ this year; no budget for 3 years; possible war in the offing with a big price tag if it happens; joblessness at a real 18% not really making big strides at all; a coming tax increase as Bush cuts are ended; and Obamacare coming ever further on line; the impact of Obamacare not well understood and rejected by the people; housing in the doldrums; and financing (possible QE3 again) not perking up; for lack of drilling, $4+ gas prices heading up further with a hard financial impact on people everywhere; the administration touting really hefty cuts to the military and the defense industry just to make things interesting for the job market; and our esteemed Attorney General losing weapons and lying; it is very easy to see how a goodly percentage of the public would be leery of Obama and his czars at this juncture, for the highly negative results both for domestic and foreign reasons. All these issues without going into the seriously flawed progressive ideology and accompanying leftist personnel being installed throughout government's 1,177+ Agencies, and growing!
One expects that by November a rosy picture will have been painted for us to see on all of this. So, watch out for January! Whoever wins will have a terrible mess to cope with, including all of the so-called the roses.
Perhaps the public is becoming aware of the specter of war with Iran and her minions real soon now, coupled with the rather two-faced approach of this administration on the plight of Israel. With the national debt topping $15.5T (which bests Bush's spending in 8 years in only 3+ for Obama!), the deficit going to $1.2T+ this year; no budget for 3 years; possible war in the offing with a big price tag if it happens; joblessness at a real 18% not really making big strides at all; a coming tax increase as Bush cuts are ended; and Obamacare coming ever further on line; the impact of Obamacare not well understood and rejected by the people; housing in the doldrums; and financing (possible QE3 again) not perking up; for lack of drilling, $4+ gas prices heading up further with a hard financial impact on people everywhere; the administration touting really hefty cuts to the military and the defense industry just to make things interesting for the job market; and our esteemed Attorney General losing weapons and lying; it is very easy to see how a goodly percentage of the public would be leery of Obama and his czars at this juncture, for the highly negative results both for domestic and foreign reasons. All these issues without going into the seriously flawed progressive ideology and accompanying leftist personnel being installed throughout government's 1,177+ Agencies, and growing!
One expects that by November a rosy picture will have been painted for us to see on all of this. So, watch out for January! Whoever wins will have a terrible mess to cope with, including all of the so-called the roses.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Jobs, Obama, Obamacare, Taxes, Taxes. National Debt
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions in Perspective
Iran will be attacked soon, and the logic of it is compelling
1. The purpose of their nuclear program is several fold: 1) It provides them with protection against nuclear threats from without; 2) It provides them with the technology to generate electrical power; 3) It give them the ability to threaten the total existence of Israel; 4) it gives them the button to push to annihilate Israel or any enemy in range within a matter of minutes should they so desire; and 5) It allows them to give nuclear weapons away to terrorist groups that might use them against the US.
2. Iran has a considerable armed force that is capable of overrunning any of their adjacent nations, and, coupled with Syria, they could conceivably conquer Iraq, and then attack Israel. Their forces have been augmented by Russian weapons systems for years. They are not far from having nuclear warheads for their long range missiles.
3. Israel’s nuclear weapons capability deters Iran from a frontal assault on Israel, just as they hope to have a nuclear deterrent against an Israeli attack.
4. Iran has considerable support from Syria, their strongest ally, and from both Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as terrorist cells in strategic nations, including the US. Recent events in Egypt have raised the possibility of their support against Israel, the common enemy of all Islam. Even Turkey, which has been a NATO ally of ours for many years, now has an Islamic government that is hostile to Israel. All of Israel’s neighbors have been armed by Iran with very large numbers of missile systems that have been used often against Israel in random attacks.
5. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has bombastically threatened Israel with being wiped off the map with Iran’s nuclear weapons. From a practical standpoint, these threats can be laid to political posturing with no actual threat, or they can be considered to be real once Iran has the bombs to do it, either themselves, or by using a terrorist group to carry it out.
6. At the moment, there would be a nuclear standoff should Iran succeed in making a nuclear weapon, since Israel has the warheads and missiles to retaliate effectively. This would mimic the MAD posture of the US and the USSR that lasted for 60 years.
7. The strategic breakthrough that the development of nuclear EMP weapons brings to the situation is the possibility of immobilizing the armed forces of any nation by one or more air bursts that send high power pulses to the ground that disable electrical and electronics devices and vehicles, all types of missiles and communications of the nation attacked. It is fairly certain that Israel has such weaponry in their arsenal now, and probable that Iran is well on the way to having them. The advantage of such EMP weapons is that they do little or no harm to people but devastating harm to military equipment of all sorts.
8. The threat to Israel is therefore twofold: 1) an EMP attack by Iran that immobilizes their armed forces, thus negating the threat of nuclear or air force retaliation by Israel, followed by; 2) a nuclear bomb attack that destroys their centers of population and industry.
9. The situation from an Israeli point of view then, is that they face total annihilation once Iran acquires the nuclear weaponry suitable to the job, and their own retaliatory capability would be useless, thus completely negating the MAD posture.
10. Israel, then, is preparing to attack Iran once they determine that the “red line” they have established has been crossed by Iran. They must get the first blow in, in order to execute their plan to destroy Iran’s military systems and equipment before Iran does it to them. The Israeli Army, Air Force and Navy are fully capable of destroying Iran’s forces, once they have achieved the shutdown of literally all of Iran’s military hardware, especially their air defenses and missiles that heavily depend upon electronics to operate, including the long range missies of Iran’s developing nuclear retaliatory force. This shutdown can be repeated if needed, as some military equipment may survive or be reactivated after the first attack. The rate of repair is not easy to predict but it would likely be many days of downtime.
11. It cannot be stressed often enough that Israelis are totally fearful of Iran if they acquire the bomb, and they see it as a matter of Israel’s national survival. It is all the more acute when all of the facts about EMP attack are laid out in detail. Thus, resorting to their nuclear EMP capabilities is both logical and necessary for their survival.
12 From this brief summary, it is not hard to predict that Israel will attack Iran soon, perhaps in a matter of months from now in 2012, or almost certainly in 2013.
Iran will be attacked soon, and the logic of it is compelling
1. The purpose of their nuclear program is several fold: 1) It provides them with protection against nuclear threats from without; 2) It provides them with the technology to generate electrical power; 3) It give them the ability to threaten the total existence of Israel; 4) it gives them the button to push to annihilate Israel or any enemy in range within a matter of minutes should they so desire; and 5) It allows them to give nuclear weapons away to terrorist groups that might use them against the US.
2. Iran has a considerable armed force that is capable of overrunning any of their adjacent nations, and, coupled with Syria, they could conceivably conquer Iraq, and then attack Israel. Their forces have been augmented by Russian weapons systems for years. They are not far from having nuclear warheads for their long range missiles.
3. Israel’s nuclear weapons capability deters Iran from a frontal assault on Israel, just as they hope to have a nuclear deterrent against an Israeli attack.
4. Iran has considerable support from Syria, their strongest ally, and from both Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as terrorist cells in strategic nations, including the US. Recent events in Egypt have raised the possibility of their support against Israel, the common enemy of all Islam. Even Turkey, which has been a NATO ally of ours for many years, now has an Islamic government that is hostile to Israel. All of Israel’s neighbors have been armed by Iran with very large numbers of missile systems that have been used often against Israel in random attacks.
5. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has bombastically threatened Israel with being wiped off the map with Iran’s nuclear weapons. From a practical standpoint, these threats can be laid to political posturing with no actual threat, or they can be considered to be real once Iran has the bombs to do it, either themselves, or by using a terrorist group to carry it out.
6. At the moment, there would be a nuclear standoff should Iran succeed in making a nuclear weapon, since Israel has the warheads and missiles to retaliate effectively. This would mimic the MAD posture of the US and the USSR that lasted for 60 years.
7. The strategic breakthrough that the development of nuclear EMP weapons brings to the situation is the possibility of immobilizing the armed forces of any nation by one or more air bursts that send high power pulses to the ground that disable electrical and electronics devices and vehicles, all types of missiles and communications of the nation attacked. It is fairly certain that Israel has such weaponry in their arsenal now, and probable that Iran is well on the way to having them. The advantage of such EMP weapons is that they do little or no harm to people but devastating harm to military equipment of all sorts.
8. The threat to Israel is therefore twofold: 1) an EMP attack by Iran that immobilizes their armed forces, thus negating the threat of nuclear or air force retaliation by Israel, followed by; 2) a nuclear bomb attack that destroys their centers of population and industry.
9. The situation from an Israeli point of view then, is that they face total annihilation once Iran acquires the nuclear weaponry suitable to the job, and their own retaliatory capability would be useless, thus completely negating the MAD posture.
10. Israel, then, is preparing to attack Iran once they determine that the “red line” they have established has been crossed by Iran. They must get the first blow in, in order to execute their plan to destroy Iran’s military systems and equipment before Iran does it to them. The Israeli Army, Air Force and Navy are fully capable of destroying Iran’s forces, once they have achieved the shutdown of literally all of Iran’s military hardware, especially their air defenses and missiles that heavily depend upon electronics to operate, including the long range missies of Iran’s developing nuclear retaliatory force. This shutdown can be repeated if needed, as some military equipment may survive or be reactivated after the first attack. The rate of repair is not easy to predict but it would likely be many days of downtime.
11. It cannot be stressed often enough that Israelis are totally fearful of Iran if they acquire the bomb, and they see it as a matter of Israel’s national survival. It is all the more acute when all of the facts about EMP attack are laid out in detail. Thus, resorting to their nuclear EMP capabilities is both logical and necessary for their survival.
12 From this brief summary, it is not hard to predict that Israel will attack Iran soon, perhaps in a matter of months from now in 2012, or almost certainly in 2013.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Iran Conflict Warms Up
Threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz for oil shipments
We inch ever closer to a final resolution of the Iranian question, fueled by their own threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. At least the US and Israel are talking about where the so-called "Red Line" should be. The Red Line is that technical line Iran may cross in their quest for nuclear weapons, which would precipitate action from either or both Israel and the US. So far, it is reported that while Israel has a well-defined line, the US, especially the Obama administration, is waffling about just where it is and when it could be crossed. The issue is defined by some as: when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is foolhardy nonsense. In order to attack these facilities, the attacker must cross most of Iran, with their rings of anti-aircraft missiles, AAA, and fighter aircraft waiting for them. Further, since such an attack would be an implicit declaration of war, it is obvious that Iran would jump into a war mode and begin retaliations with a considerable armed force, and with allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to execute bombings and shootings. Around the world, cells would activate to terrorize and destroy US and Israeli facilities. Iran would indeed try to close the Strait. Thus, it would be imperative for the attackers on Iran to neutralize or wipe out the Iranian armed forces as far as possible immediately.
It is my prediction that Israel would employ an EMP nuclear weapon or weapons over Iran to knock out virtually all electrical, electronic and vehicular systems wherever found. This would freeze the military almost completely. No missiles, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, radar, or any engine-driven vehicle would be operable for some time, until repaired. This window of paralysis, which would be renewable for perhaps days or a week, would be the entree for Israel's air force and missiles to rain down on every military installation and nuclear facility in Iran with impunity, virtually destroying their capability to fight and to produce nuclear weapons. Special attention would be paid to the missile sites that threaten the Strait, the navy vessels and shore facilities, and any oil vessels belonging to Iran. Their route to Iran from Israel is no longer any difficulty for the US in Iraq since we have largely departed that nation, and the Iraqis are virtually defenseless against air overflights.
It is also my prediction of long standing that Iran would then attack US facilities worldwide using sleeper cells, thus forcing the US to join in the attacks against Iran, and including their allied organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, I believe that common sense dictates that, instead of waiting for the retaliations to begin, we join Israel in the first instance to ensure that Iran is totally disabled militarily, and that the other allied nations and groups on the Iranian side are neutralized quickly too.
Yet another idea I have promoted is for the US, perhaps with allies, and only after we have declared war, to move large tank and troop formations with air cover into the Western and Southern sectors of Iran, daring them to come out and fight us on our terms in a pitched battle. This would accomplish several objectives: 1) It would ensure that we find all of the missile sites threatening the Strait; 2) It would occupy the most prolific oil production sites and sea accesses in Iran, cutting off their sea sources of revenue and supplies; and 3) It would ensure the destruction of the remainder of their army should they dare to come out and fight. With proper handling, the Mullahs would be overturned at this juncture.
We inch ever closer to a final resolution of the Iranian question, fueled by their own threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. At least the US and Israel are talking about where the so-called "Red Line" should be. The Red Line is that technical line Iran may cross in their quest for nuclear weapons, which would precipitate action from either or both Israel and the US. So far, it is reported that while Israel has a well-defined line, the US, especially the Obama administration, is waffling about just where it is and when it could be crossed. The issue is defined by some as: when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is foolhardy nonsense. In order to attack these facilities, the attacker must cross most of Iran, with their rings of anti-aircraft missiles, AAA, and fighter aircraft waiting for them. Further, since such an attack would be an implicit declaration of war, it is obvious that Iran would jump into a war mode and begin retaliations with a considerable armed force, and with allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to execute bombings and shootings. Around the world, cells would activate to terrorize and destroy US and Israeli facilities. Iran would indeed try to close the Strait. Thus, it would be imperative for the attackers on Iran to neutralize or wipe out the Iranian armed forces as far as possible immediately.
It is my prediction that Israel would employ an EMP nuclear weapon or weapons over Iran to knock out virtually all electrical, electronic and vehicular systems wherever found. This would freeze the military almost completely. No missiles, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, radar, or any engine-driven vehicle would be operable for some time, until repaired. This window of paralysis, which would be renewable for perhaps days or a week, would be the entree for Israel's air force and missiles to rain down on every military installation and nuclear facility in Iran with impunity, virtually destroying their capability to fight and to produce nuclear weapons. Special attention would be paid to the missile sites that threaten the Strait, the navy vessels and shore facilities, and any oil vessels belonging to Iran. Their route to Iran from Israel is no longer any difficulty for the US in Iraq since we have largely departed that nation, and the Iraqis are virtually defenseless against air overflights.
It is also my prediction of long standing that Iran would then attack US facilities worldwide using sleeper cells, thus forcing the US to join in the attacks against Iran, and including their allied organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, I believe that common sense dictates that, instead of waiting for the retaliations to begin, we join Israel in the first instance to ensure that Iran is totally disabled militarily, and that the other allied nations and groups on the Iranian side are neutralized quickly too.
Yet another idea I have promoted is for the US, perhaps with allies, and only after we have declared war, to move large tank and troop formations with air cover into the Western and Southern sectors of Iran, daring them to come out and fight us on our terms in a pitched battle. This would accomplish several objectives: 1) It would ensure that we find all of the missile sites threatening the Strait; 2) It would occupy the most prolific oil production sites and sea accesses in Iran, cutting off their sea sources of revenue and supplies; and 3) It would ensure the destruction of the remainder of their army should they dare to come out and fight. With proper handling, the Mullahs would be overturned at this juncture.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Nuclear Weapons, Oil, Palestine, Syria, Terrorists, War
Monday, November 14, 2011
Israel Beliefs--My View
Beliefs:
1. Israel will make war with Iran.
2. They will use nuclear weapons, especially the EMP type to disable electronics and electrical systems all over Iran.
3. They will do their best to destroy as much of Iran’s military equipment as possible.
4. They will use their C-130 aircraft to haul MOABS to the nuclear sites, and will keep on bombing the sites until they are satisfied that the sites are destroyed.
5. Iran will fight back, using their surrogates worldwide to sabotage facilities, including many US owned facilities.
And, they will close the straits of Hormuz to tankers using their surface to surface missiles. Even US vessels will be hit.
6. The US will be forced to relaliate to open the Straits, and to stop Iran’s attacks at the core, while ensuring that Iranians in the US are not a threat.
7. If this is perceived as a highly probable scenario, the US may well decide to join the Israeli attack up front.
8. US forces would take only the Western and Southern parts of Iran to choke off their oil, and to destroy the hidden missile sites threatening the Straits. If Iran tried to attack US forces in those open plains without transport or tanks or artillery (mostly lost by the IAF arracks), our forces would obliterate them.
9. There would be regime change in Iran.
1. Israel will make war with Iran.
2. They will use nuclear weapons, especially the EMP type to disable electronics and electrical systems all over Iran.
3. They will do their best to destroy as much of Iran’s military equipment as possible.
4. They will use their C-130 aircraft to haul MOABS to the nuclear sites, and will keep on bombing the sites until they are satisfied that the sites are destroyed.
5. Iran will fight back, using their surrogates worldwide to sabotage facilities, including many US owned facilities.
And, they will close the straits of Hormuz to tankers using their surface to surface missiles. Even US vessels will be hit.
6. The US will be forced to relaliate to open the Straits, and to stop Iran’s attacks at the core, while ensuring that Iranians in the US are not a threat.
7. If this is perceived as a highly probable scenario, the US may well decide to join the Israeli attack up front.
8. US forces would take only the Western and Southern parts of Iran to choke off their oil, and to destroy the hidden missile sites threatening the Straits. If Iran tried to attack US forces in those open plains without transport or tanks or artillery (mostly lost by the IAF arracks), our forces would obliterate them.
9. There would be regime change in Iran.
Friday, November 04, 2011
The Israeli-Iranian Conflict
We are much closer to war now, and it will not be pretty.
I firmly believe that Israel is preparing to strike Iran, and have believed so for several years. From Israel’s viewpoint, it is a matter of the survival of their nation and people. The only question is timing, and that is a hard one to answer. I also believe that the attack will encompass not just the nuke facilities, but all war-making capabilities of Iran, with the idea of seriously degrading the Iranian capability to retaliate for years to come. Israel has a number of useful weapons with which to accomplish this, including: 1) long-range missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads; 2) their version of the tomahawk cruise missile; the IAF with its F-15, F-16 aircraft fitted with conformal fuel tanks, and in-air refueling capabilities; 3) a submarine fleet armed with long-range cruise missiles, and 4) perhaps most serious of all, the EMP bomb and delivery systems.
The EMP weapon would disable most of the electrical/electronic systems in Iran for a significant time period sufficient to allow the IAF to obliterate any nuclear facility and weapon system they can find, even using slow-flying C-130 aircraft with super-MOABs. I do not know whether Israel has been allowed to use our underground facilities to test their nuclear weapons or not, but it is a real possibility, however covert such a set of tests would have to be. I do believe that the EMP weapon is Israel’s ace in the hole. As to the opprobrium that Israel would receive worldwide for using a nuclear device, they would shrug it off as necessary to survive, and would point out, of course, that a similar caculus led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US.
Since any strike is an act of war, especially one of such devastation as I suggest, it is an odds-on bet that Iran would declare war on Israel. The chances of Iran also including the US in that declaration are not small, either, which is what we should fear most. Their counters would be on a worldwide basis, and would probably consist of many bombings of US facilities. I have speculated before that Iran would retaliate against the US as well as Israel, thus dragging us into the conflict. The other possibility is an Israeli failure to achieve their objectives and their subsequent pleas for help to survive in the face of six or seven nations attacking them, perhaps even with Turkey now with their well-trained military. The list may include Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran, with even a possibility of some Iraqi support.
Any military man, when standing back and studying this situation, would conclude that we will not allow Israel to go under, and if there is a reasonably odds-on chance that their attack on Iran would spark a far wider Middle East war with their Islamic neighbors, and if the odds that we were included in the war by Iran were better than 50-50, then the US should join up with Israel up front and insure the success of totally neutralizing Iran’s military, and forewarning the other nations in the list that we will respond to their efforts as well with all the force we have. Most likely, the UK would see it that way and also join in the attack, and perhaps France as well. (Then too, there goes the national debt soaring to the sky in this cause!)
Note that friend Obama would be forced to act in such a scenario, or else forget about reelection next year, and, even if the attack did not occur until 2013 or a bit later, the Democrats would be tagged as well, thus seriously jeopardizing their 2016 and later chances. Loss of Israel would be tagged forever to Obama and to the immoderate Democrats. On the other hand, given a Republican in the WH by 2013, it is fairly certain that Israel would be defended, and even more likely up front instead of waiting for the counters.
We are much closer to war now, and it will not be pretty.
I firmly believe that Israel is preparing to strike Iran, and have believed so for several years. From Israel’s viewpoint, it is a matter of the survival of their nation and people. The only question is timing, and that is a hard one to answer. I also believe that the attack will encompass not just the nuke facilities, but all war-making capabilities of Iran, with the idea of seriously degrading the Iranian capability to retaliate for years to come. Israel has a number of useful weapons with which to accomplish this, including: 1) long-range missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads; 2) their version of the tomahawk cruise missile; the IAF with its F-15, F-16 aircraft fitted with conformal fuel tanks, and in-air refueling capabilities; 3) a submarine fleet armed with long-range cruise missiles, and 4) perhaps most serious of all, the EMP bomb and delivery systems.
The EMP weapon would disable most of the electrical/electronic systems in Iran for a significant time period sufficient to allow the IAF to obliterate any nuclear facility and weapon system they can find, even using slow-flying C-130 aircraft with super-MOABs. I do not know whether Israel has been allowed to use our underground facilities to test their nuclear weapons or not, but it is a real possibility, however covert such a set of tests would have to be. I do believe that the EMP weapon is Israel’s ace in the hole. As to the opprobrium that Israel would receive worldwide for using a nuclear device, they would shrug it off as necessary to survive, and would point out, of course, that a similar caculus led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US.
Since any strike is an act of war, especially one of such devastation as I suggest, it is an odds-on bet that Iran would declare war on Israel. The chances of Iran also including the US in that declaration are not small, either, which is what we should fear most. Their counters would be on a worldwide basis, and would probably consist of many bombings of US facilities. I have speculated before that Iran would retaliate against the US as well as Israel, thus dragging us into the conflict. The other possibility is an Israeli failure to achieve their objectives and their subsequent pleas for help to survive in the face of six or seven nations attacking them, perhaps even with Turkey now with their well-trained military. The list may include Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran, with even a possibility of some Iraqi support.
Any military man, when standing back and studying this situation, would conclude that we will not allow Israel to go under, and if there is a reasonably odds-on chance that their attack on Iran would spark a far wider Middle East war with their Islamic neighbors, and if the odds that we were included in the war by Iran were better than 50-50, then the US should join up with Israel up front and insure the success of totally neutralizing Iran’s military, and forewarning the other nations in the list that we will respond to their efforts as well with all the force we have. Most likely, the UK would see it that way and also join in the attack, and perhaps France as well. (Then too, there goes the national debt soaring to the sky in this cause!)
Note that friend Obama would be forced to act in such a scenario, or else forget about reelection next year, and, even if the attack did not occur until 2013 or a bit later, the Democrats would be tagged as well, thus seriously jeopardizing their 2016 and later chances. Loss of Israel would be tagged forever to Obama and to the immoderate Democrats. On the other hand, given a Republican in the WH by 2013, it is fairly certain that Israel would be defended, and even more likely up front instead of waiting for the counters.
Labels: Iran, Israel, New Bomb, War
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Coming Choice for Israel
The Israel-Iran situation heats up---as of August 20, 2010
Here is an outline of my somewhat revised thinking about the current situation between Iran and Israel, and the rest of the West. It is a collection of posts on the blog "Outside the Beltway".
Assumption: Iran will not cave in to Western pressure to end their nuclear program.
1. Israel faces a hell of a decision: to attack Iran or not. That decision has at least two subsets: to attack essentially the nuclear facilities and any defensive systems in the way; or to attack a full package of Iranian military and nuclear facilities and all of the aircraft, weapons sites, barracks, tank and transport parks and naval ships they can find.
2. To hit only the minimum facilities that will impair Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, plus the defenses that must be reduced for that to happen has been the favorite scenario of many people. I believe that is flawed thinking. In executing such an attack, the IAF must destroy quite a few defensive capabilities, many of which are located near population centers. The list of targets must include every military airfield and military aircraft that can be found, every anti-aircraft emplacement, whether it is missile or gun based, every site that has both long and short range radar, every site that may contain long range missiles that could be used in retaliation, and the list goes on, even before starting the list of nuclear facilities that must be reduced. This is quite obviously an act of war: many civilians near the targets will be killed in the attacks, so retaliation must be expected, and blunted where possible. For Iran to rebuild its nuclear capability most likely would take 3 to 5 years. What then? We are back to square one, minus the losses on both sides.
3. To hit many of the nuclear facilities that are underground, there must be accurate targeting, and I suspect that a lot of low level reconnaissance will have to be flown to identify some of the sites by various “tells”, such as entrances and exits, air inlets, transport, tracks and so on. Further, these bunker sites will require large bombs to dig them out or to damage them adequately by overpressure effects. Such large bombs are not going to be carried by F-16C or F-15I aircraft, because they weigh over 20,000 pounds and up! The IAF will probably use C-130 aircraft for this purpose, once full air superiority has been gained. A similar method was used by the USAF to deliver MOAB’s, or Mother Of All Bombs in Vietnam, so the technique is very well known.
4.Thus there is the need for the IAF to gain complete air superiority in order to let recce proceed everywhere and to allow the slower transports, the C-130’s, to chug eventually over the nuclear sites and drop their MOAB’s. For low-flying aircraft, however, Iran has quite a number of ZSU-23-4 (23mm quad mobile gun radar-directed systems) antiaircraft weapons that are extremely deadly against low flying planes. Additional
ZSU-23-2 dual-gun systems have been reported. They still have SAM capabilities, although not the latest Russian systems they have tried to obtain. These are quite capable at altitudes where most of the IAF will be flying, or up to 40,000 feet, so they must be suppressed immediately. It is terribly expensive in aircraft and pilots to attack AA systems.
5. This leads me to a first hypothesis. The weapon of choice to suppress AA weapons, radar, AA missiles, command and control and communications systems, and aircraft, and just about anything using electronics, including vehicles, over a very wide area is a number of powerful and well-placed EMP or Electromagnetic Pulse bombs. A good part of Iran would go dark from such weapons, and during that time, the air would be mainly free from defenses of all kinds. Even ground forces would be stymied by the EMP effects on their engines and other electronics until repaired. Further, civilian areas within the effective range of the EMP blast would likewise have all of their electronics and electrical equipment disabled. There would undoubtedly be civilian casualties as a result, if only on highways and at intersections.
To obtain the necessary power in such a bomb, it would have to be a nuclear device, and it must be detonated at, as a guess, 5-to-10 thousand feet over Iran. As another guess, the radius of its effectiveness would be on the order of 30,000 ft or about 5 miles…perhaps more, I do not know. I have no idea whether Israel has such a weapon, but if they do, this attack is the time to roll it out.
6. Given this weapon’s use, a second hypothesis can be stated. With just about all of Iran, military and civil, virtually helpless and unable for some time to move in vehicles at all, it would be quite logical for Israel to take full advantage of this to destroy Iran’s military capabilities and military industrial base as fully as possible. Special Forces troops could be landed to search out additional hidden sites for destruction, for example.
7. Has the US government been made aware by Israel of such a weapon and their plan to use it? It is possible. The reaction in DC of the planned use of nuclear EMP weapons by Israel would be fierce and negative! Something like the unaccountably negative reaction of Obama during a recent visit by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
8. Without a weapon such as the EMP bomb I have speculated upon, the IAF has a daunting task, starting with the same needs: to suppress the Iranian air defenses thoroughly before their recce and transport/MOAB aircraft fly onto the scene. They must deliver a knockout blow to the Iranian air fleet or risk far too many IAF planes shot down. Airfields would be hit by multiple Israeli cruise missiles, as would known AA missile sites, such as for the SA-2, SA-5, Tor-M1 and SA-7, and would be followed up by F-16I attacks on specific airfield revetments still standing. Those Iranian aircraft, such as the F-14’s, that made it into the air must be handled by Israeli F-15I’s.
9. The low-level air defenses would have to be taken out as well, possibly by Israeli versions of US Wild Weasel fitted on F-16I’s, together with Harm anti-radar missiles for the kills. Losses to short range (up to 6 or 7 KM), hand-operated and optically sighted AA missiles of the will be moderate for fast jets such as the F-16I flown by combat-experienced pilots.
10. Once complete air superiority has been achieved, I envision waves of follow-on attacks on nuclear and other sites interspersed by recce flights to ascertain the damage done. This continued air assault would be maintained for days, until the Israeli commanders believe they have accomplished their mission.
11. The second Hypothesis holds here also, because Iran is now completely vulnerable to further air assault. The target set would be expanded to include most of the vital military targets in Iran.
12. At some point in this scenario Iran would begin their counterattacks, most likely using long range missiles, and by activating their Hezbollah and Hamas partners, if not Syria also, all targeting Israel. Whether there would be an all out attempt by Syria to invade Israel a second time is a big question; one that Israel would be prepared for this time. Lobbing missiles seems most likely.
13.The most fateful decision by Iran is whether to target US facilities and personnel worldwide, using sleeper cells or other terrorist resources to exact revenge. Such attacks would result in the US joining the attacks on Iran itself. The air war would be over in hours, if this occurs, with Iran made even more vulnerable to air assault by the USN and USAF resources in the theater. Thus enters the second hypothesis again, this time with far greater resources available.
14. Within days or weeks of the beginning of this war a ground assault on Iran can begin, and it can take several paths. First, to ensure that Iranian anti-ship missiles are destroyed in Southern Iran, US forces would effect landings to take possession of the sites threatening the Strait of Hormuz.
The third Hypothesis is that in due time US forces would also move to occupy the Western Iranian oilfield sites, thus cutting off a majority of oil revenues of Iran. This might bring a response from the Revolutionary Guard to face the US forces in ground warfare, totally without air cover. The outcome here would not be in doubt, I believe.
15. Scenarios of concern:
1. Try very hard to follow this:
Scenario 1:
1. We, the US, do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does attack Iran, and does a very good job of it using EMP weapons up front..
3. Iran responds by activating its surrogates, because that is all they can do (EMP damage).
4. Iran plus surrogates attack Israel AND US personnel and facilities.
5. We join the action to stop the carnage wherever it occurs.
Scenario 2
1. We, the US, do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does attack Iran, but does not have EMP weapons, which allows Iran to use its resources to fend off the attack or blunt its effectiveness. Iran declare war.
3. Iran activates its surrogates and pits Israel against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria, together with missiles from Iran.
4. Iran plus surrogates attack Israel but not US.
5. Question: what does the US do? Support Israel passively or actively, or not at all. I say we support actively by punishing Iran.
Scenario 3
1. We the US do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does, etc
3.Same
4.Iran plus surrogates attack Israel AND US Facilities and personnel
5 We join the action.
Scenario 4
1. we do not start a preemptive war
2. Israel does not start a preemptive war.
3. Iran uses its nuclear weapons and blasts Israel off the map.
4. Do we retaliate for this or not? I say we do.
Other scenarios?
16. My whole point has been that we do not control Israel, that Israel will attack Iran sooner or later, and that whether we join the action depends upon whether Iran and its surrogates attack US personnel and facilities. If Israel does not succeed, or is in serious trouble from the surrogates, then the question becomes what do we, the US, do about it? Do we allow Israel to go down or not? If we allow Israel to go down, do we retaliate against Iran for it, or do we simply ignore the event?
17. There have been lots of analyses as to the preferred route of attack by Israel. Most conclude that they will use many routes, but dominantly the “middle route” over Jordan and Iraq. The US has recently stated that they will not prevent the IAF from overflying Iraq. Jordan may well stand down from this also, If not, they will not provide a serious obstruction to the attack, and would lose what they put up. Over flight of Syria is a great obstacle, and it is too near Israel to use EMP fully without disabling Israeli assets. My own opinion is that Israel must try to neutralize Syria in the process regardless, since they will join the fray almost immediately anyway. How the Israelis handle Hezbollah and Hamas is a good question that I can’t answer.
18. Another question I can’t answer is will the Israelis use nukes, other than the EMP type, either strategic or tactical, if they are pressed hard? My only thought is–yes, what have they to lose?
19. I daresay that we could not cripple their war efforts in a heartbeat. Israel has been preparing for such a conflict for years, and has been carefully divorcing themselves from essential, baseline military supplies from the US, such that supplies on hand should be sufficient for a war of certain duration. The longer they have to prepare the more independent they become, such as to develop and produce their own equipment, stockpile and have refineries to produce their own fuel. It has been a standing policy for years not to become totally dependent upon the US, because they are quite aware of the twisting tides of anti-Semitism in the US, and especially within certain groups. Israel accepts much aid from the US gratefully, but their ultimate goal is to stand on their own, and they are prepared to do so now.
20. They have used the Swiss model for years, where the Swiss have prepared for a war of 6 months, planning on support coming within that time…from NATO, the US…etc. Israel, however, must rely only on themselves in the final analysis; hence, their development of nuclear weapons for the last resort, when it becomes clear that they will run out of conventional supplies to defend themselves, or are being overrun well before that happens.
Therefore, to say that the US possesses the ability to stop Israel from defending themselves in a truly dire moment is simply hogwash. They will do what they think is necessary.
21. I have expressed my opinion at key steps in the scenarios I gave above. Fundamentally, I see our role as entering the conflict to stop the counter-aggressions by Israel’s neighbors and Iran, and further nuclear or conflict-widening responses by Israel. We cannot stop the first attacks by Israel, in my opinion. Whether this could be done rapidly under the UN flag or not is probably a no, if only because of time. We may well see this UN blessing as an absolute necessity, and hence delay our operational start while the UN Security Council debates the issues. Russia and China would be vitally important to either neutralize or bring into this operation of ours, but lacking that, we must proceed anyway. Time is of essence, but there may be days involved.
22. Otherwise, we will have a ME conflagration that may not stay limited, with a hard-pressed Israel possibly electing to use its nukes wherever they are threatened, which would be a disaster for many innocent ME people, and ultimately ourselves, if this triggers a more general war—a more general nuclear war.
23. In this process of attempting to cut off the conflict, we would undoubtedly be tagged by the Islamic nations and the Socialist/Communist nations with aggression ourselves. Fine, those are words, and the people we save will live to hear them, and to compare their options that we provided them–namely life. Some days you cannot win everything.
24. Any delay, such as the UN debate might cause, or our inability to bring an adequate force to bear in a timely fashion, would work against Iran, as the Israeli attacks would keep going until they know that we can enforce a truce, which they would realize by the rapid buildup of our naval air power in the area in a matter of days. I would hope that the combination of real power in the area and very strong diplomatic efforts through all channels results in a stand down on both sides very rapidly.
25. If I see through my crystal ball clearly enough, the Israelis would take advantage of the relatively few days they have, because of the diplomatic and logistical delays inherent in the situation, to knock out as much of Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities as they could before standing down at our forceful insistence, and under our protection. So much for the air and long-range missile war, I say. Looking back at this, one sees that Iran did get its punishment, by Israel.
26. The ground and missile war that would be raging is quite another matter. Hezbollah and Hamas would not be brought to a stand-down by air power, although Syria might well.
Some form of international force would have to interpose itself between Israel and these nations that have the necessary teeth to compel conformance to the stand-down, and to stop the missiles from flying. The usual UN force is a farce.
27. This is yet another critical problem to be solved, and it would be in the best interests of all parties to solve it quickly. There are some interesting ideas on how to accomplish this task, such as to sprinkle some number of third-nation soldiers throughout Israel, Lebanon and Palestine, with the clear understanding that if harmed by opposing missiles, they will be revenged rapidly and fully, Israel included. Better ideas may be out there somewhere.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Some Comments on the Day
Obamacare: So it has almost made it into law, but with rearguard actions being initiated by both the GOP in Congress and by some 13 states to prevent it from becoming fully operative. There is no question that some provisions of this overly expensive law are in my personal favor, but I see it as busting the nation in a matter of a few years as everyone flocks to the medical facilities for hangnails and cancer. There must be a better way.
Israel: I see the Obama crowd as picking fights with Israel from an excess of zeal for Palestinian ambitions. It is playing with fire to insist on the stopping of building in the West Bank by Israel. The time is drawing near when this will not matter as Israel will attack Iran in great force, and we will be pulled into the fight no matter what this silly President thinks our best interests are.
Oil: After agreeing that we should exploit other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, wave, and bio, I must also say that we cannot bridge the gap between these resources and oil in just a few years. Thus, we must continue to explore, drill and tap our own resources in oil for the coming decades, in my opinion.
Cap and Trade: This silly dispensation trick should be stopped cold!
Amnesty: Here we go again, voting against wishes of the majority of the people in order to gain votes for the Democrats. The idea of Open Borders violates our sovereignty as a nation, and will lead to a very nasty transformation of our way of life.
Rant; I note that in each of the above cases, the common thread is violation of the will of the people. If this kind of government is what you voted for, a pox on you for helping to destroy our country.
Labels: Comments on the day, Energy, Israel, Obamacare, Oil, Will of the People
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Iran and Israel 2010
We return to the possibility of war with Iran
The stakes are extremely high for the Israelis. A nuclear-armed Iran is a direct threat to their existence as a nation. They have held off so far, but by most assessments I have seen, Iran is near the numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles needed to simply burn Israel to the ground. A decision to strike by Israel is ever nearer, despite the cooling rhetoric lately coming from the Israeli PM. Such cooling statements would obviously precede an attack in order to lull the Iranians. The moment will be chosen for its unexpected timing.
The big trouble is that Iran has stated again and again that if Israel attacks them, they would retaliate on both Israel and the United States with their sleeper cells, and would disrupt tanker traffic in the Straits of Hormuz. This would bring us into the war immediately, and there is no telling how widespread that war would become in the Middle East.
Our neophyte President would go down swinging trying to appease the Iranians, when the nation would demand that we settle the Iranian question rapidly with overwhelming force. He would be forced to join the carnage of Iran.
We must recognize that to eliminate the nuclear sites is impossible without taking out virtually all of Iran’s air defenses, communications and command centers, as well as every offensive missile site that could be used against Israel or us. In fact, since the very act is war, the attackers would be stupid not to try to take out every Iranian military concentration and facility they can find while they are overhead in force, including the Iranian navy. This effort would be very protracted, probably lasting for several weeks, with bomb damage assessments continuing until some satisfactory indications have been seen that the raids have been successful.
Thus, as I see it, the delay in striking by the Israelis has been very useful to them in order to stockpile sufficient precision weapons, and MOABs (Mother of All Bombs used to dig out underground facilities), and to ensure the readiness of their pilots, aircraft, and ground forces for such a protracted attack and the war that would ensue.
The Israelis would, in my opinion, take the most direct route to Iran, by flying over Jordan and Iraq. I seriously doubt that either Jordan or the US would try to stop them, despite the obvious Islamic leanings of our President and his intellectual idiots.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Iran
Talks with Iran have been ongoing for close to 6 or 8 years now over their nuclear program. Talking has achieved quite a lot, principally the time for Iran to build a network of nuclear facilities, to process weapon grade uranium, to build medium range rockets able to carry the nukes, and to build an air defense network to protect their facilities.
You want yet another round of the same? In another 6 to 8 years we could talk our way into Iran building long-range missiles and multiple-target warheads. Quite a success story for a nation that defies the West and threatens Israel with total destruction.
It is beginning to seem like the West is not able to muster the courage of their convictions regarding Iran, and is resigning itself that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons.
One exception is Israel, whose very existence is at stake if Iran succeeds. There is a distinct possibility that Israel wants to attack Iran to force them into a response that would drag the US into the fight, thereby insuring far greater destruction of Iran’s warmaking capability and nuclear facilities than Israel could achieve alone.
Consider that to do a thorough job on Iran, many dispersed sites must be hit, each of which is defended against air attack. To roam all over Iran finding and hitting nuclear-related sites, air superiority and suppression of air defenses must be achieved. This in turn means that central command and control sites and communications facilities must be taken out, as well as any number of radar sites and missile or gun installations. If the US joins the fight, all of these goals become feasible.
Having achieved this superiority, then, larger aircraft can be sent into Iraq carrying the huge bombs needed to penetrate deeply buried facilities. Some of these weapons weigh 20,000lb or more, and can be launched out of C-130s rear ramps, or from large bombers like the B-52 and B-2 that only we have.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Israel versus Iran
Where do we come in?
The key assumptions I have made, which are based on precedents and statements by the respective parties, are: 1) That the Israelis will attack Iran when they are convinced that there is no other way; and 2) That Iran will respond to this attack by their own attacks on Israel and the US, using terrorist-type assaults; and, 3) That the US will respond to the Iranian attacks.
If (1) is not true, then neither will (2) or (3) be true. If (1) is true, then (2) may or may not be true, depending on the Iranian response. If (2) is not true for the US, it is very problematical whether (3) would be true. But, if (1) and (2) are true, I assert that (3) will be true also.
So, engagement is not inevitable. It depends on the Israelis to begin with. Would you care to make a bet that they will not attack Iran? Given that they do attack, would you make a bet that Iran will not attack US assets in response? Finally, if Iran does attack US assets, would you make a bet that we will not respond with our own attacks? I will gladly take those bets.
The other side scenario is that the US decides to join the Israeli attack, reasoning that we will become involved anyway, so why not do a good job in neutralizing the nuclear threat from Iran? Further, it is possible that Israel does not succeed in their attack, and it leaves them very short of trained pilots and aircraft, and thus more vulnerable to the Iranian, and perhaps Syrian responses. We end up being drawn into the fight anyway since I believe we would come to Israel's defense. We end up with real damage to our people in both scenarios, and end up attacking Iran.
Labels: Defense, Iran, Israel, The Threat
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Iran Versus Israel and the US
The key actor is Israel!
The crux of the Iranian situation is their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the time it takes to marry the weapons with a suitable vehicle. We and the key Europeans have been pursuing the diplomatic approach for 5 or 6 years now, with virtually zero results.
Meanwhile under the sands of Iran is a growing pile of weapons grade material and launch vehicles that our intel projects to be ready anywhere from 6 months from now to 10 years away.
The intel we have is not reliable. That is the unfortunate truth, or else we would have a far better idea of the timing. We most likely do not have the time for a leasurely, multi-year diplomatic ploy now.
The second crucial element is Israel. I suggest that when their own intel tells them it is the critical time to stop Iran from further weapons development, they will attack Iran by air. For them it is a matter of survival, and they will ignore US attempts to stop them. To me, it is obvious that the US would not use military force to stop the Israelis.
Further, I suggest that the IAF will have to reduce Iran's air defenses before going after the nuclear sites, and that will include communications, command and control and airfield sites in order to limit the Iranian defenses seriously.
Some of the nuclear sites are carefully placed adjacent to or under population centers in order to guarantee civilian casualties in the event of attack. There will be many casualties publicized by the Iranians.
The third critical element is the question of what the US will do in this event? It has been stated by Iran officials that, if the Israelis do attack, they will go after the US as well around the world and in Iraq with their in-place supporters. This is no idle threat.
It seems logical to me that the US would respond to such attacks with full force on Iran, mainly by air, to ensure the destruction of nuclear sites, but also to reduce the shore-based missile sites that threaten the Gulf, and will by necessity reduce the Iranian air force and navy to near nothing.
I also suggest that US ground forces may well seek to capture and occupy the Western oilfields of Iran, and hope to draw the Iranian forces out into a pitched battle, which would be hugely in our favor. Without this crude oil for export, Iran will be destitute. They may also extend their occupation to Southern Iran to dig out any missile sites still operational.
Thus, our moral position would be global self-defense against Iran, and the reduction of the threat wherever found.
I suggest that once we have been attacked by Iran as threatened, the will to action would be no problem, and thus the means to "defend" ourselves would be found quickly.
This, to me, is a very likely scenario.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Retreat is Ugly, Retreat is Deadly
Obama the Messiah enters into Foreign Policy
Seems to me that the collective wisdom of the “leave Iraq” crowd was that: a) we were a cause of unrest, death and terror; and that once we withdraw, if things go sour and genocide begins, b)we can always go back into Iraq to fix it once more.
Was it Ramsey Clark that voiced this stupid idea on behalf of moonbats everywhere?
This is nonsense simply because we have done nothing to alter the multiple tribes and cultures within Iraq, nor could we, and we have not been able to proof Iraq from the gentle ministrations of Iran, which means that the current Iraqi government will fall apart in a short time once we depart.
Were we to stay longer with a reasonable force, a few years more, however, there would be a better chance of a stable Iraq emerging from the chaos that is just under the surface now. We made the choice to go in; now we are making the choice to go out, I believe, before Iraq can cope effectively with its internal contradictions and external threats.
Going back into Iraq would be nearly impossible to pull off, I suggest, because it would be in the face of Iranian and AQ infiltration, support and threats, which a basically pacifist government would be reluctant to challenge yet again.
What a memorial to our casualties, and especially the deaths, and our lost treasure, in that awful place. It is the retreat that pacifists order, out of totally misguided humanitarianism.
It would appear to me that a renewed insurgency and genocide is just around the corner; say, a day after our last combat troops leave, which day, in some 16 months from now, AQ and others will have marked on their calendar in red and planned for in detail.
Oh, it isn’t our responsibility then, is it? Smacks of how we abandoned Nam,”with honor!”, refused them financial support, and turned our heads away from the communist takeover and genocides that followed in Laos, Cambodia and Nam itself.
That is the false pacifism we practice.
Labels: hypocrisy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Liberalism, Pacifism
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
We Support Israel
US-Israel Policy has been consistent for 50 years or more.
Lots of people seem to think they know how to handle the Israeli-Palestinian problems with a change of tack. Most of these people weren't even born when this conflict began in earnest, and do not have the insight or the memories to foster a solution.
Neither have a string of Presidents, diplomats, military men, well-connected civilians, and vast sums of US money dumped on, not only Israel, but also Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt, to attempt a peaceful interregnum. We have proven to the Islamic world our ultimate commitment to Israel.
We support Israel because without our help they would be overrun and killed by the thousands, if not to the last man. Stop our support and Israel is dead. It is quite clear who have been the aggressors in this conflict for 50 years or more, and it isn't Israel. It is disgusting to me to see people trying to build support for the Palestinians, including the Hamas and Fatah murderers.
The US cannot be a truly honest broker in this conflict, and its past failures in trying are not due to lack of effort in every dimension, but to the intransigence of the Palestinians. We have been gamed at every turn for most of those 50 years to open our pockets, and back off from the defense of Israel. We want peace and have big pockets with which to pay for peace. As far as the world sees, the Islamics take our money, spend it on purchasing more and better arms, not humanitarian aid.
The nature of this conflict is a clash of Jews versus Muslims, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that we could intervene successfully with diplomacy in this Holy War. Islam speaks to this end, the end of the Jews, every day, and has done so for 1200 years.
Who are we to say that we can change this Holy War, this jihad, by peaceful means?
Labels: Islam, Israel, Palestine
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Israel is in the Right
After taking hundreds and hundreds of missile attacks by Hamas militants launching their weapons from Gaza, Isreal has had enough. In a big air and ground offensive, they vow to stop Hamas and the missile attacks . Hamas, on the other hand, fades into the civilian population and thereby puts civilians at great risk. The full blame for this conflict rests on Hamas, and I hope they get their full desserts.
I reject the idea that Israel must conform to someone's idea of proportionality of response. I merely ask the Israeli military to try to minimize civilian casualties if they can. If they cannot avoid such casualties, that is just too bad for the people that voted Hamas into power in the first place. I believe that the Israeli would allow civilians to flee from Gaza to Palestine, but I wonder whether the Palestinian Authority would admit them.
Labels: Hamas, Israel, Palestine
Friday, July 18, 2008
Obama Goes Abroad
If it is Tuesday, it Must be France! (or, is it Germany?)
OMG, what's the name of that Prime Minister?
Barack Obama is all set to travel to Jordan, Israel, France, Germany and England in a six-day jaunt, for what purpose I haven't a clue. He will barely have time to shake hands with anyone in each whistle stop of the tour. They say that security is a serious problem, too, forcing the Obama camp to hide the itinerary from the public, lest the bad guys set a trap for him.
Will he come back and tell us all that he has been there, and now knows all there is to know about those nations? Will he say that he now has intimate relationships with the leaders in Europe?
What will he achieve with such a blitz of a visit? Does this burnish his credentials for foreign affairs? Is he now really well-informed about the problems of these nations? Does he realize the depth of feeling these nations have concerning America?
Really now, this is merely a political stunt designed to allay our fears that he knows jack-all about other nations, foreign affairs, conflicts areound the world, and political differences in each of those nations. If anyone is fooled by this cynical maneuver, shame on them.
He knows Jack-all, and will know Jack-all when he returns.
Oh, which one of those guys was the Premier?
UPDATE: 7/22/08
Now we know! Obama is NEGOTIATING WITH THE IRAQIS, DURING A WAR. This has never been done by a candidate in the history of the union. And, to top it off, he gave a press conference in which his faltering AH, Um, that is, um, ah! talk was a full 8 minutes long out of 45 minutes. This is our other candidate? He is indeed an empty suit. May God protect America from such irrelevance!
His sneaky trip actually started in Afghanistan, went to Iraq, and then to Jordan, mostly for a photo op with leaders, except for his injecting himself into the Iraqi war and its negotiations. He should be condemned for this. 30-minute diplomacy is not sound; and candidate diplomacy is totally out of order!
Labels: Dimdems, Europe, Israel, Obama
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Attack on Iran
The time is short, and the Israelis are warming up.
Few believe the US intelligence report claiming that the Iranians have stopped their bomb preparations. This is especially true of the Israelis, who are in the direct line of attack by Iran. Their exercise last week underlines their capability to launch an an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities on which they have good information. This may not be entirely successful because of the dispersion and secrecy of Iran's installations.
Last year, I was convinced that we would launch an attack this Spring, or at least well before the November elections. Obviously a wrong opinion. I was equally convinced that Israel would attack first, which would force us to join them sooner or later, especially after Iranian counterattacks. This may well be borne out to be so in the not too distant future.
Is it possible that the Israelis are holding off until our election is over, so that they know early in November who will be in the White House after January 20th of 2009? An attack now would possibly throw the election in a uncertain direction, to the disadvantage of the Israelis. They would be in far better shape with McCain in the White House, I believe, and I also believe that the Israelis have a much clearer idea of how much time they have before they are compelled to attack than we do.
Thus, I believe that an Obama win would delay the Israeli attack until they could find out what support they would get from Obama. Any whiffle from Obama would precipitate the attack anyway, since the Isrealis only have their nation to lose if Iraq gets nuclear bombs. The Israelis would then be counting on Iran to attack US targets in retaliation, thus dragging us into the conflict anyway.
What we will have if Obama is elected is not only a total passivistic, neophyte President in war and foreign relations, but we also will have lost the coordination and preparation time with Israel for this new phase of the ME war. This could expose both us and the Israelis to serious losses from Iranian attacks before we contained the threat, or knocked Iran out of the running.
Do we always have to play catch up?
Labels: Iran, Israel, McCain, Nuclear Weapons, Obama
