# US officials: Israeli attack on Iran requires 100 planes



## hoepoe (Feb 20, 2012)

Very interesting article. 

*"In New York Times article, military analysts describe hurdles Israel will face if it decides to strike nuclear sites. 'It ain’t going to be that easy,' one of them says"*

"According to the report, Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task."

Read the entire article, some very good points made http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4192055,00.html

H


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 20, 2012)

ROTLMAO!

Same crew told us Iran was decades away from a bomb what, 2 years ago.
Asshats.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 20, 2012)

And Operation Orchard never happened.


----------



## hoepoe (Feb 20, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> And Operation Orchard never happened.


I don't know what you're talking about  , BUT if it happened, in many aspects it was a much simpler operation.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 20, 2012)

Interesting article, thanks for posting


----------



## Manolito (Feb 20, 2012)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,658663,00.html
This may help


----------



## Scotth (Feb 21, 2012)

I tend to agree with what the article suggests. The one point that wasn't raised in that article is the fact that to be truly effective you would need an extended campaign not just one bombing run. Your not going to get everything done in one attack even assuming their intelligence is correct and they know where everything is located. Your going to have to go back and get what was missed in the first round of bombing or what wasn't fully destroyed.

With all the instability from the Arab Spring, I just don't see any Arab countries that would be willing to piss off there own population by letting Israel overfly their country to attack Iran, even if they dislike Iran.  I think the Saudi's would have the most to gain by an Israeli attack on Iran but I don't think they would let Israel overfly the Kingdom's airspace.

They might be able to launch one attack and fly what ever path they choose but a campaign won't happen.


----------



## pardus (Feb 21, 2012)

Im pretty sure the Israelis have considered this, ALL of this, long before any think tank has.


----------



## QC (Feb 21, 2012)

Sanctions it is then.


----------



## AWP (Feb 21, 2012)

pardus said:


> Im pretty sure the Israelis have considered this, ALL of this, long before any think tank has.


 
Slow down, I'm confused. You mean the senior military leadership of Israel has more training, resources, and experience than some talking heads? You actually think militaries across the world have long standing plans to invade nations or conduct punitive raids just sitting on a shelf waiting to be updated and executed?

Crazy talk.


----------



## pardus (Feb 21, 2012)

lol


----------



## JBS (Feb 21, 2012)

Interesting article. Jordan can be overflown in 12 minutes, theoretically. Iraq has no air defense and we (the US) are hauling ass out of there, which takes the USA out of the equation.

Iran is absolutely within striking distance- quite possibly more now than has been the case for more than a decade, since the presence of the US in Iraq would have been a complicating factor that Obama would have wanted no involvement in. If ever Iran is feeling vulnerable it is now. If we see erratic behavior from Iranian leaders, we might be able to interpret this as a sign that they are feeling the pressure from what by now must be an imminent attack.

If I had to anticipate Iran's next move (based on the above line of thinking), Iran might attempt to do something to impact Israel's time-tables in some way.


----------



## JBS (Feb 22, 2012)

Iran Closes Own Escape Route:
http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-tehran-talks-disappointing-004927206.html



> VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday it had failed to secure an agreement with Iran during two days of talks over disputed atomic activities and that the Islamic Republic had rejected a request to visit a key military site.
> 
> In the second such trip in less than a month, a senior team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had travelled to Tehran to press Iranian officials to start addressing mounting concerns that the Islamic Republic may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
> 
> The outcome seems likely to add to already soaring tension between Iran and Western powers, which have ratcheted up sanctions on the major oil producer in recent months.


----------



## Scotth (Feb 22, 2012)

Who says Iran wants to stop Israel from bombing them?

Right now Iranians are moving away from the mullahs and they want more freedom. If Israel attacks the pendulum of change swings back to 1979 and everyone rallies around the flag and the current countries leadership. Not to mention what it will do to the region. All the radical Arabs yelling down with Israel will get elevated in the process. Considering how much is in flux in the region who can knows what the consequence will be three years from now?

Remember the out come of the war in Lebanon in 2006? Israel stopped missile from being fired into there country. They flatten southern Lebanon and in the process Hezbollah was able to gain control Lebanon instead of the relatively moderate previous government.

There is plenty of ways for the Iranian rulers to turn an Israeli attack into a big win for them.


----------



## JBS (Feb 22, 2012)

The question is whether or not Israel, in considering it's national security strategy, is willing to risk strengthening the regime as a (possible) consequence of taking action to mitigate the greater threat from nuclear weapons.  Ultimately, I think the numbers would answer that question.


----------



## hoepoe (Feb 22, 2012)

JBS said:


> The question is whether or not Israel, in considering it's national security strategy, is willing to risk strengthening the regime as a (possible) consequence of taking action to mitigate the greater threat from nuclear weapons. Ultimately, I think the numbers would answer that question.


 
Good question. See what happened in Lebanon when Israel assassinated Musawi. On a smaller scal, but good example.

On the flip side, Iran has said multiple times that they will eradicate Israel, so when the cards are on the table, Israel can't allow them the capability to do that...

It's a tough neighbourhood.

H


----------



## dknob (Feb 22, 2012)

For all the dislike that the Arab community has against Iran, one because they are Persians and two they are all Shia. Would the Sunni Arab nations even bother standing up for Iran?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 22, 2012)

dknob said:


> For all the dislike that the Arab community has against Iran, one because they are Persians and two they are all Shia. Would the Sunni Arab nations even bother standing up for Iran?


Against Israel? I think so, the elites may allow the IAF to burn through their airspace, then protest at the UN.  The masses will always scream "Death to Israel" though.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 22, 2012)

Agree.  The Arab world seems to hate Israel more than they hate the Persians


----------

