Israeli options against Iran et. al.

[Ephraim]

I would like to hear from Israeli experts exactly what options Israel has in the coming war with Iran et. al. (et. al. being defined as "who else becomes involved").

Let's assume that Israel attacks Iran in March/April. They would need to fly multiple air missions to hit Iranian air defences before they can really attack the missile sites. I would imagine that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq would not do anything as Israel crosses their airspace, but the logisticstill boggle the mind.

1. Does Israel have any SCUD-like capability in which they could launch ballistic conventional missiles to do some of the hard work?
2. Do they have land and air-based cruise missiles for the same reason?
3. I assume they have subs which would be included...do they have cruise missiles?
4. Do they have a air tanker force beyond a few tankers?
5. Can Iranian SCUDS reach Israel today?

Assuming that Hezbollah launches a massive attack against Israeli cities with their 3000+ missiles; does Israel have any real way to destroy Hezbollah short of invading Lebanon and Syria? What will the Russians do when/if Israel attacks Syria?

I do believe that Israel will do everything they can to get the US to attack Iran, before they attack Iran. My guess however, is that the US will NOT join in on the initial attack but will do everything after the attack to keep the Gulf open; which may amount to about the same thing as if they had joined the attack. That is probably what Israel is banking on.

We have interesting interests at play here. Israel doesn't see the closure of the Gulf as a strategic threat, while the US (under Obama) doesn't see Iran getting nukes as a strategic threat.

[Ephraim]

Answer to one of my questions- I assume Iran will target Israels nuke sites and then cities. Hezbollah will hit the cities in the north.

Medium- and Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles

Iran's medium- and intermediate-range arsenal includes Shahab-3, Shahab-4, and Shahab-5 missiles. The Shahab-class missiles are often described as defensive weapons to be used in the event of an Israeli attack. In August 2004, following a test of a Shahab-3, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, General Rahim Safavi, was quoted as saying that "If Israel loses its head and attacks Iranian interests, we will deliver a sledgehammer blow to break its bones." It is believed that the Shahab-class missiles are based on North Korean and Pakistani technology.[8]

The road-mobile, liquid-propellant Shahab-3 MRBM has a range of 1,200 km, which is sufficient to target Israel, Turkey, the Indian subcontinent, and U.S. forces stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. It has a payload of 1,200 kg and is able to carry high explosives, chemical agents, or submunitions, although an unconfirmed Israeli report claims that a nuclear warhead is in development.[9] In recent years, reports have surfaced that Iran has developed a longer-range variant known as the Shahab-3A. This missile has an increased range of between 1,500 and 1,800 km with an improved guidance system that would probably increase the value of the Shahab-3A for use against military targets.[10]

The road-mobile, liquid-propellant Shahab-4 IRBM uses technology similar to the older Shahab-3, but has an increased range of 2,000 km and probably has an improved accuracy based on more modern digital guidance systems. Although the project is shrouded in secrecy, it is most likely an attempt to make Iran's missile program less dependent upon foreign materials. If the Shahab-4's reported range of 2,000 km range is correct, the missile will have the capability to target all of Israel, as well as Turkey, much of India, parts of Germany and China, and the Persian Gulf. In addition, a Shahab-4 launched against the closest targets in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel will be able to impact with greater accuracy and at a higher speed, thus increasing the missile's effectiveness and ability to penetrate missile defenses.[11]

Unlike its predecessors, the Shahab-5 IRBM is believed to be based on the North Korean Taep'o-dong 2, which in turn is largely derived from Chinese technology. Some reports claim that the missile's range will be around 4,000 km, which places the Shahab-5 among the new class of longer-range missiles currently being produced by Iran in conjunction with North Korea. The main drawback of the Shahab-5 is its likely inaccuracy, which will restrict the missile's utility to attacking population centers or spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. The Shahab-5 is thus probably more of a blackmail or terrorist weapon than a military asset.[12]

[Pleepleus]

I would like to hear from Israeli experts exactly what options Israel has in the coming war with Iran et. al. (et. al. being defined as "who else becomes involved").....

You seriously expect Israeli experts to publicly post information about their options and capabilities?

[farmboy]

It's impossible to just attack Irans nuclear sites and call it a day. Any confrontation with Iran has to be severe and unrelenting, untill everything that makes their society what it is, no longer exists. To do otherwise would be like kicking a wasps nest, and whatever Israel destroyed today would be rebuilt tomorrow.
There are too many factors against Israel striking Iran without support from other nations so I doubt it will happen.
What I do forsee, is Iran making a nuclear strike via proxy and the world still burying its head, ignoring the threat to its own existence.

[JerichoMissile]

america and europe have different interest when it comes to iran than israel.

1.) israels no.1 interest is to stop iran developing nuclear weapons because everyone with a brain knows israel is irans no.1 target, so for israel it will be a first strike
mission to prevent another holocaust.


2.) for the US and EU, Irans OIL and GAS is their no.1 thought, the US knows iran wont attack the US directly, france and the UK know iran will never launch nukes at them, but they need Irans oil and gas as the western economies are doing down and they need new growth, real growth, not Quantatative Easing (printing money) growth, but growth through real assets, and Irans energy assets are the perfect way for west to secure valuable energy reserves for the next few decades.

As for what will Russia do, it will do nothing directly, they might supply iran with a few light weapons here and there, but they will not support iran with heavy weapons, russia is too smart to do this, the russians barely want to help the syrians so i doubt they will air drop weapons to iran when israel defensively attacks iran.

[Aliyah1995]

I am an Israeli, but I am not an "expert" so I can't say. I will leave that to the top military/security brass to sort out. I will say this though. I thought Saudia Arabia called the shots on the oil and aren't they as much at odds with Iran now as Israeli is? Not to say SA is exactly Israel's or America's friend, but weird as it might sound, I believe there are no small number of Arab countries (SA included) who fear a nuclear Iran.

[farmboy]

For Britain WW1 was the 1914-18 war, for America it was the 1917-18 war
For Britain WW2 was the 1939-45 war, for America it was the 1942-45 war
Don't get me wrong, I like Americans, but they are so unreliable as allies.
Whenever I ponder the prospects of America helping Israel out if she got into big trouble, it always comes to mind how the railway lines to Auschwitz were not bombed by them, when the whole world knew what was going on in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zY9Qh1VPw
20 minutes into the vid explains my case

[Ephraim]

You seriously expect Israeli experts to publicly post information about their options and capabilities?

Come on Pleepleus....I am not expecting the Minister of Defense or Mossad to answer my questions. This is a forum on Israel; thus I can assume that many of the folks know something about Israel's capabilities; if you don't that is fine. But thanks for your input.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=258664

[Ephraim]

good article.

I would imagine however, that once Israel attacks the nuke sites that Iran will SCUD Israeli cities en masse. Hezbollah would do the same thing with smaller missiles.

It appears that Israel does not have much of a conventional answer to the Iranian SCUDS...ie sending an F15 to "carpet bomb" Tehran is not much of a threat. They must be hoping their anti missile systems can keep most of Iranian SCUDS at bay.

Even if Israel is able to destroy primary nuke sites in Iran; an open war with Iran would start and Iran can spend the next 10 years launching conventional SCUDS against Israeli cities. Hezbollah could be controlled with invasion ala 1982 but Iran would be a missile war for the next bunch of years in my view

[Mediocrates]

It depends on what your intended goals might be. Iran isn't going to ever respond to an implied necessity to strike back e.g. deterrence. Toss that equation out the window. They proved in the Iran Iraq war they will sacrifice anything for not even a clear advantage, simply to maintain the stasis. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Iran could adopt a strategy of semi-ambiguity much like North Korea, where there's no good useful information on what precisely they have and what their capabilities are. And why would they do this? Because if nothing else Iran is patient. They only have to hit one time and they're willing to wait a very long time for the opportunity to do that. And, as I said, they really aren't worried about the repercussions. It's a religious duty to them. They don't care how many Iranians die or how many Arabs either as long as a large number of Jews are incinerated and the country collapses.

But there's something be gained by adopting their asymmetrical strategy. Iran believes it can use third parties to its advantage, albeit they'd have to keep those third parties on a very short leash with one of their precious nukes. So it makes sense to use the same kind of triangulation in kind. Israel could adopt a policy of assumed responsibility - that is, an assumption that any WMD attack on Israel is rooted in Iran and wherever tactically it originates from. So if a terrorist weapon is ever detonated and it has Hamas or Hezbollah fingerprints on it then Beirut, Damascus, Gaza, Ramallah and Tehran all get hit. No question no debate. That way all the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians have to live with their necks under the same nuclear sword as the residents of Tehran. Tehran might not care, or it might not matter if they do but the residents of Gaza, Ramallah, Beirut and Damascus will object to that more. And since a terrorist bomb is assumed to attack civilian populations not infrastructure then Israel's stated policy can a kind of strategic political neutron bomb - leave the infrastructure in place and kill all the people instead. Make no apologies for it. They want a holocaust then bring your own to the table at least from the perspective of stated policies and outcomes. Israel doesn't need to change their policy of a 'bomb in the basement' by declaring their own nuclear capability, all they need do state that as a national strategic policy, this kind of triangulation of assumed responsibility will be met with equal or greater force in kind.

This is designed to answer the terrorist nuke. The conventional state nuke on a missile or a plane is easier to strategically confront. Israel should adopt a primary launch on warning stance. The window for decision making is too small so the only sane policy is to launch in kind on warning w.o. waiting for a detonation. It's not a pure first strike policy but an assumed use-it-or-lose-it second strike. Then the conventional second strike ability would still be held in abeyance as a traditional second strike. This strategy mimics the strategy of the SAC in the US from 1957 to the mid 1970s'. By the mid-late 1970's the US dropped its launch on warning stance when it adopted a more reserved second strike policy. So it's not unheard of. Moreover the time to strike for a second strike, ostensibly on cruise missiles and aircraft is much longer than a primary launch on warning stance. Nuclear tipped missiles land launched from Israel are no more than 3-6 minutes from detonation anywhere in the region. That's the operational window that Iran, Syria, Lebanon can live with and the millions of people living there. Effectively it's zero warning. For Gaza and Ramallah it really is zero warning. Israel could lob a nuclear warhead into either place in under a minute. You can see I like the idea of zero warning nuclear brinksmanship. Just push them to the absolute edge of nuclear threat terrorism in kind. Float that as a strategic doctrine and see what happens. In fact give them the time parameters - response in kind, launch on warning with a zero-6 minute warning to detonation window, no callback, nice to know you.

[JerichoMissile]

what would happen if Israel launched surprise raids on suspected Iranian Nuclear weapons sites and Iran replied with Scud missiles tipped with Nerve gas or mustard gas, and it ended up killing say 500+ jews before they got their gas masks on, how would israel counter strike?
would it go nuclear? or would the great USA keep israel restrained? because the US wouldnt want world oil prices to go to $200+/bbl in a full blown arab/iranian/israeli war.

[farmboy]

would the great USA keep israel restrained? because the US wouldnt want world oil prices to go to $200+/bbl in a full blown arab/iranian/israeli war.

The oil prices are set by the US, Britain and the French. Why else do you think, we gave those desert gypsys crowns and let themselves be called kings?
The natural resources laid down billions of years ago don't belong to just one man, they belong to all men. By inflating their ego and allowing their offspring into polite society it made them feel important and gave them some form of protection as well as to OUR oil supply. When they start ranting about increasing oil prices it's best they remember who they are, why they are where they are, and who put them there.
What was cheaply given can be just as easily taken away.

[curlyg]

I'm of the opinion, and have been for months now, that despite the war rhetoric and constant reports of preparations, Israel lacks both the power and the capabilities to attack Iran.

Operationally and technically, I believe that Israel is theoretically capable of targeting a limited number of key nuclear sites, and in so doing postpone the program for perhaps several years (at best). However, I do not think that Israel or its leaders have the stomach to pay the price that will be required for such a limited achievement. We could conceivably see a significant number of Israeli jets shot down and - God forbid - Israeli pilots taken into Iranian captivity. War in the Middle East in which Israel would sustain serious economic and human losses would be inevitable, with both Hamas and Hezbollah reacting and a likely direct reaction by Iran, through its own missile arsenal. The repercussions for the global economy would be extremely severe, and neither the Europeans or the Obama administration will appreciate a massive spike in the price of oil - the former because they're already facing economic disaster, and the latter because of the upcoming election. The threat to American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan is also very real. Israel would become immediately isolated if it carried out such an attack.

The price is too high, and the reward too insignificant. Iran will have the bomb. That is only a matter of time. The only thing that can prevent it is an American attack. Israel will have to learn to live with the fact that its relative power in the region is declining, and adjust its strategy accordingly.

[Aliyah1995]

I supposed I agree with a lot of what Curlyg is saying to an extent. What I disagree with is 1) only an American attack being able to prevent Iran from having the bomb and 2) Israel's power in the region declining.

1) because, aside from America having a bigger military than Israel, they have the same concerns/worries about carrying out an attack that Israel does. America is trying to get out of the Middle East now, not get deeper into the Middle East and America would suffer just as much of a massive spike in the price of oil if they carried out the attack, rather than Israel.

2) because, I don't see how Israel's power in the region is declining. The only difference I can see is Israel's (declining) relationship with Turkey. Other than that, I think it can go either way. Many of the other countries in the region have their own issues to deal with and own houses to clean up. Look at our two immediate neighbors alone (Syria and Egypt).

The only thing that will stop Iran from using the bomb (that they will inevitably have, save some miraculous mission from whoever) is for Israel to also have the bomb and for Iran to know that if they even think of pointing that thing our way, they will be a demolished parking lot.