Turkey curtails Israeli military overflights, making an airstrike on Iran less likely

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Some interesting comments to this article as well... note in comments that Units 5101 (IDF-Sayeret Guided Target Acquistion Unit) and 5707 (IDF-Sayeret Tactical Observation Unit) were likely on site on 9/11... they could have been the "Dancing Israelis" sent to "Film the event"  in NJ, IMHO --  CSR

-------
Turkey curtails Israeli military overflights, making an airstrike on Iran less likely

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 10:46 AM Share

Turkey's post-flotilla decision to close its airspace to Israeli military flights seems to me to make it less likely that Israel could carry out an airstrike against Iran. I don't think they can fly the straight Jordan-Iraq-Iran route, which leaves going through either Saudi or Turkish airspace. As I understand the mechanics of the flight, the Turkish route would be the easier one -- you take off in Israel, top off on fuel a tanker orbiting over the Mediterranean, and then shoot east just north of the Turkish-Syrian border, then pop back out to refuel again before landing.

(HT to Juan Cole)

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... ess_likely

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/Diller.doc
========

JPWREL

4:07 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Whatever route the IAF close

Whatever route the IAF close the entire operation would in fact likely be meant as a more of a demonstration of Israeli resolve than an expectation to accomplish anything more than a superficial delay on the Iranian program. The IAF as good as they are do not have the operational capacity to muster up a sustained air interediciton campaign at very extended ranges. Such an air effort might encourage the Russian's to reverse course and sell and deploy the modern S-300 which would complicate further Israeli efforts by forcing them to first run complex operations against a buried fiber optic air defense network at extreme ranges – no easy thing even for the USAF.
 

TYRTAIOS

5:32 PM ET

June 29, 2010

There are alternatives - sort of

If ever Turkish air space was an option, strained relations would now make any covert military planning with Ankara for over flight doubtful if for no other reason: because it probably put opsec at risk.

Part of the problem in figuring which route Israel might use instead (two routes - an alternate back?), is complicated because Israel doesn't give out it's technical specs, an/or how those modifications they make to our hardware impact. So much military analysis is based on what the assets they possess are capable of under U.S. norms.

It is certain, Israel wouldn't have the capability to launch follow on strikes or hit all known locations on any first strike, so they probably have one or two locations in mind that they view critical to Tehran's nuclear weapons program. My guess (it ain't really a guess) is the enrichment facility at Natanz

It may be interesting to recall Israel's June 2008 long range aerial exercise in which they flew 600nm over the Med to Crete and back with aerial refueling in evidence for the second 600nm leg. Of note was the practicing of down pilot rescue.

Anyway, my swag for the day is the Israeli's may use Saudi air space someplace around the Sinaitic Peninsula, perhaps around the Gulf of Eilat - Khalyj al Aqabah if you please, for the first leg of about 800nm from where they'll turn into Iran at the Persian Gulf for the last 300nm.

Pretty daunting eh?
 

TRANSTRIST

5:55 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Tom, you're off the mark

The "Turkish route" was abandoned some 5 years ago, when the IAF intelligence came to regard Erdogan as unreliable. The vastly preferred option is the Saudi one, where the necessary understandings had been reached. But what I don't get is the insistence of talking about the manned aircraft attack only. Israel has cruise missiles on subs and surface ships which are in the Indian ocean as we speak. Israel has ballistic missiles and hunter-killer drones. There are many options, especially if Jerusalem decides that, since Israel can't escape escalation, it should prepare for it and act accordingly. The launching of the Ofek-9 satellite and speedy preparation to launch Ofek-10, first of the new generation, points to the coming attack, not to stand-down. Netanyahu cannot afford Iranian bomb - neither from the strategic nor from pure political POV.
 

TOM RICKS

5:56 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Good points

I know they have the presence in the Indian Ocean. Between those vessels and ballistic missiles at home, do you think they have enough non-nuclear firepower to do the job, however that job is defined?
Best,
Tom
 

TYRTAIOS

6:22 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Back to the mark

Israel's Jericho ballistic missile has the range, but a conventional warhead, diminished in weight for further distance might not have the ability to penetrate into these sites. Iran probably knows what bunker buster technology the U.S. has provided Israel and has buried and hardened these sites accordingly.

Of the 15 to 20 or so estimated sites, most would need follow-up attacks and only the U.S. has that capability. So at best this would only be a calculated set-back strike undertaken and Israel would have to assess if the political and military risk is worth it for only a short term time set-back gain against Iran?

However, you will note: Saudi King Abdullah is visiting Obama, which sets the stage for the King's visit with Netanyahu. Certainly, it is about accepting the Saudi Peace Initiative, but I can't believe the issue of Iran will not come up, and Abdullah is known to feel Obama's diplomatic effort toward Tehran is too soft. Would the King discuss Saudi air space with Netanyahu - the House of Saud is no fan of a Shi'a regime possessing a bomb.
 

TRANSTRIST

7:33 PM ET

June 29, 2010

The definition of "job done"

Full elimination of the Iranian nuclear program (without nuclear strikes) is not an option, but a significant setback is possible. IAF intelligence believes that if the attacks will be surgical and any unwanted casualties will be avoided, the locals will not erupt in righteous indignation but rather will see the outcome as proof that Ahmadi and his friends are full of it, after their nonstop boasts like "Zionist enemy can't touch us". The opposition will be able to claim that only they can bring Iran to nuclear power, since the hardliners can't neither shut up nor protect the nation's assets. But those are beliefs, not prognosis. On other subject, the prognosis is clear - Iran will retaliate by targeting both Israeli and American targets in its reach, forcing the US to get involved. And THAT, I believe, is the main purpose of the exercise.
 

COURTNEYME109

6:00 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Little Satan could do it

Preacher Command's New Clear complex has four critical nodes: Esfahan, with its conversion facility, the Natanz and Qom enrichment facilities, the heavy water plant and future plutonium production reactors at Arak.

The total maximum strike package may be around 80 aircraft, all the 25 F-15I in the Little Satan's Inventory and 55 F-16I/C. The F-15E would then need 5 to 6 KC-130s to refuel from, and the F-16Is would require 6 to 7 KC-130.

Total number of weapons needed to have reasonable confidence in
destroying all three target sets is 24 5000-lb weapons and 24 2000-lb
weapons.

84 tons of intelligent guided precision weaponry! Weaponeering capabilities includes the happy fact that Little Satan maintains two elite especial forces units dedicated to assisting with air strikes, one dedicated to laser target designation (Sayeret Shaldag/Unit 5101) and one to real time bomb damage assessment (Unit 5707).

Little Satan could instead go ballistic -- say, 42 Jericho III missles with about a 750 kg Warhead each would seal the deal
 

JPWREL

6:16 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Sustainability of the effort

Sustainability of the effort is the question mark. No one doubts that the IDF has assets that can reach Iran. The question is can they sustain the effort over a period of time otherwise it is merely a noisy demonstration. If we have learned about anything about air operations in the ME it is that there must be a sustained effort of reconnaissance and attack. The Israelis do not walk on water, they are very good but the 'fog' of war is such that unless they have a deep bench such a shallow attack could be counter productive. I might add the blowback would likely be sever and not exclusively directed at Israel.
 

COURTNEYME109

6:29 PM ET

June 29, 2010

True

Iran would withdraw from the NPT based on the argument that it needs to acquire new clear weaponry to diss any further aggression by Little and/or Great Satan.

Destabilizing Iraq through the Shia against allies, further arming insurgency groups when possible.

Escalate current support and upgrade Taliban capabilities in Afghanistan.

Increase the threat of asymmetric attacks against American interests and allies in the region, especially against countries that host Great Satan's military such as Qatar and Bahrain.

Target U.S. and Western shipping in the Gulf, and possibly attempt to interrupt the flow of oil through the Gulf.

While all this certainly sounds scary - and it is - it may actually make more sense to launch a far larger ambitious assault aerially againt the entire regime in Iran.

Tough to see how Iran could be any more PO'd than the above sans terror attacks on American soil and that (even with plausible deniability) would result in the regime's complete annihilation.
 

TYRTAIOS

8:54 PM ET

June 29, 2010

U-RAAAH!

Time is running-out. Hop on the war-wagon, every kid in America has heard his/her teacher in school talk'en about our B-61 Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. We might not make a fuel efficient car, but after give'n a couple of these bad oscars to Israel to drop . . . who'll care. . . nor be able to afford to drive a car anyway. A nice 4 or 6 mile hike to and from the mall will do all of flabby America good!

Between us and our Hebrew allies, we'll show those missile building, carpet weaving, pistachio eating Persians and that runt of a president of theirs, they can't dig their way out of this one.

I am serving notice to all the Iranian mullahs that they better get ready for a real taste of American BBQ - U-RAAAH!
 

KUNINO

10:39 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Never underestimate Israeli military ingenuity

Consider the successful July 1976 military raid on Uganda, 2500 miles away. The flight was longer than that because of overflight restrictions of the time. How this was achieved is instructive. The Israeli government looked at the headlines and asked for anding rights in a state bordering Uganda which the Ugandan government had been insulting and threatening for some weeks. With this permission, the Israeli aircraft -- some seconded from El Al -- were able to land in Kenya and refuel for the flight home.
 

JPWREL

12:05 AM ET

June 30, 2010

Hardly the same as a very

Hardly the same as a very long range complex attack against hardened targets requiring sustainability to accomplish more than just a feel good demonstration. This would be a major campaign for the USAF if done correctly let alone the limited range IAF and smallish cruise and ballistic missile force.
 

WALKING WOUNDED

7:42 AM ET

June 30, 2010

Radiological attack, by any route, is WMD warfare

Working centrifuges and partially enriched U-hexaflouride stocks are pressurized. The working medium and product is a highly radioactive and chemically toxic gas.

Anyone attacking such facilities in Israel or America, dispersing tons of partly enriched uranium into the domestic civil environment , would be guilty of radiological terror. The US regards even the threat of such as terrorism.

No friend of Israel should be encouraging them in threatening 'preemptive' radiological terror-war. These threats are strengthening, not weakening, the confessional police state in Iran.

Talking about large-scale air attack on enrichment facilities as if it is a tactical problem steps past question #1; What kind of war would that be? How would it affect US troops and security interests, in the Gulf and Central Asia? The economic cascade from an oil price head-rise in the aftermath would likely be devastating, globally, weakening integrated economies like the US and Israel.
 

STEVE C

3:24 PM ET

June 30, 2010

Wasn't this KSM's first 9/11 plan?

To attack nuclear power facilities?

Wasn't it deemed haram by Zawahiri?
 

WALKING WOUNDED

8:56 PM ET

June 30, 2010

plan of attack

An early domestic hijacker circa 1970 did attempt to direct the airline pilot to ram a nuke, on the W. coast I think.

Since 'sum of all fears' and TMI plot lines abound in fiction, other targets likely were considered and rejected for the 9/11 attack. The training of some hijackers here in San Diego, where multiple navy ships sit within sight of the airport, is scary. The 9/11 planners may have believed that near-urban nukes or naval targets were NOT undefended from air-terror attack, even in 2001.

US news has created the impression that bombing concrete under construction in Iraq and Syria is really no different from blasting uranium or plutonium into the water and food supply of Iran. It's not at all the same. To my knowledge no state has conducted an attack on enemy radiological sites, and no terrorist has succeeded in stealing from or breaching containment at such a site.

This would not be a 'victory at Entebbe' for Israel. It would be a Chernobyl, an evil jinn haunting the land, long after Likud and Ahmedinejad are out of power.

In 'The Stronger Horse', the point is made that Israel is well defended, is in fact a proxy for Arabia and the gulf Sunni elite, in this confrontation with Iran. Some might guess that Arabia has bought, paid for, and stands ready to take delivery of Pak-built nukes, where allah's missile engineers have access to the plans for upgrading Arabia's Chinese-built IRBM's.
 

AUGUST WEST

6:46 PM ET

June 30, 2010

A real threat?

This entire discussion assumes Iranian nukes would be a real threat. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, both then-Foreign Minister Livni and former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy denied that Iranian nukes would be an "existential threat" to Israel and said that Israeli politicians were using the issue as fear-mongering. "Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel" (Haaretz, Oct. 25, 2007).

Ahmadinejad = Hitler. Second Holocaust. Wipe Israel off the map.

Sound familiar?
 

AURANGZEB KHAN

10:25 PM ET

July 1, 2010

Any attack by Little Satan or Big Satan will have dire

Any attack by Little Satan or Big Satan will have dire consequencs.

(a) 40,000 rockets will be launched on Tel Aviv from Lebanon.

(b) Iran will ask the so far pliable Shia of Iraq to take revenge on the Americans and their puppets making the situation very explosive.

(c) Iran will ask the so far pliable people of western Afghanistan to take revenge on the Americans and their puppets making the situation very explosive.

(d) If Saudi Arabia gives permission to the Little Satan to attack yet another Muslim country it will be the end of the Saudi monorachy. The king will be found hanging from a lamp post much to the dismay of the Big Satan.

It's amazing to hear what schemes the devil makes to live amongst Arabia as a foreign Jew state and America to win hearts and minds; perhaps it's supposed to be to earn eternal enmity as if it has not already been earned by their wrong-headed machinations.

lalqila.wordpress.com
 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

7:16 AM ET

July 2, 2010

Hey Khan, go kill yourself

Hey Khan, go kill yourself and take advantage of the 70 virgins or whatever. Nobody cares for your racist, uneducated, backwards rants.
 

AURANGZEB KHAN

7:03 PM ET

July 2, 2010

Your tribe is the prime mover of all terrorism in Arabia...

Your tribe is the prime mover of all terrorism in Arabia and beyond.

Your tribe is the prime reason for all American wars of aggression in Arabia and beyond.

Your tribe is beating the war drums everyday for further bloodshed of innocent Muslims.

An you call me a racist; is it chutzpah or what?

Shame on you and your tribe.

lalqila.wordpress.com
 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

7:15 AM ET

July 2, 2010

Hopefully the Israelis use

Hopefully the Israelis use Saudi airspace and Tehran directs most of its anger towards RIyadh. Saudi Arabia needs to take a far more active stance on the Iranian issue as it stands to lose the most with an Iranian rise in the region. Israel and the US are doing Saudi Arabia's work and receiving all the diplomatic fallout. If the Saudis refuse to lead, then I would rather learn to live with an Iranian bomb. We have played containment with bigger enemies before.
 

QPZMGR

7:19 AM ET

July 8, 2010

Part of the problem in figuring

Part of the problem in figuring which route Israel might use instead (two routes - an alternate back?), is complicated because Israel doesn't give out it's technical specs, an/or how those modifications they make to our hardware impact. So much military analysis is based on what the assets they possess are capable of under U.S. norms.

It is certain, Israel wouldn't have the capability to launch follow on strikes or hit all known locations on any first strike, so they probably have one or two locations in mind that they view replica rolex critical to Tehran's nuclear weapons program. My guess (it ain't really a guess) is the enrichment facility at Natanz

It may be interesting to recall Israel's June 2008 long range aerial exercise in which they flew 600nm over the Med to Crete and back with aerial refueling in evidence for the second 600nm leg. Of note was the practicing of down pilot rescue.

Anyway, my swag for the day is the Israeli's may use Saudi air space someplace around the Sinaitic Peninsula, perhaps around the Gulf of Eilat - Khalyj al Aqabah if you please, for the first leg of about 800nm from where they'll turn into Iran at the Persian Gulf for the last 300nm