Last week, Time Magazine reported that an Israeli airstrike in the Sudan involved “dozens of aircraft.” The raid knocked back a sizable overland arms shipment from Iran to the Gaza Strip, but –more importantly– demonstrated just how far (literally) the Israelis are willing to go to break stuff that makes them nervous.
Here’s an interesting bit of trivia. The distance between Tel Aviv and Khartoum is roughly the same as Tel Aviv and Tehran, with most of Iran’s nuclear facilities located in the western half of the country. Though the IAF’s fleet has boasted KC-130H tankers for some time, whether or not Israel had the lungs for such a distant strike was arguable. Now, the debate is over.
Sure the successful strike doesn’t satisfy the question of Iran’s robust IAD network (Sudan doesn’t have one), nor does it offer any insight into a safe ingress/egress route in and out of Iran. But, it does show the Israelis have the legs –and the stones– to prosecute the fight over long distances, and refuel their strike aircraft in close proximity to their Arab neighbors.
Aside: IAF tankers flew a refueling track over the Red Sea, smack in the middle of Egyptian and Saudi airspace. The Egyptians fly F-16s that are a similar, though inferior, variant of the Israeli F-16i, and the Saudis fly AWACs guided F-15s.
I’ve heard rumors that the IAF was ready to knock back Nataz yesterday, should they hear the trumpet’s blast. Even though these guys have proven time and time again that failure isn’t in their vocabulary, factoring in distance and enemy defenses left me skeptical. Now? Hey, I’m a believer.
And just for fun…
–John Noonan
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
I actually feel pain each time I see videos like this. The advancement in technology is truly frightening. That is because the life that we’ve always known can be taken away in just a drop of a nuclear. How sad!? Where are we going from here?
I’d like to think the Israelis aren’t stupid enough to try, because:
a) The Iranians will have made all possible preparations for an attack – it’s not a matter of defences, it’s just a matter of moving anything important out of harm’s way.
and
b) the repercussions in Afghanistan and Iraq, where Iranian co-operation is vital for a successful outcome, would be very serious.
More importantly, I hope their Intelligence people have spotted the lack of actual evidence for Iranian nuclear weapons (remember Iraq, 2002?).
It’s obvious why some elements in Israel want to carry out a strike for their own domestic political reasons; it’s equally obvious why the rest of us should oppose them.
Instead of an airstrike I think theres way more feasible means to destroying their plants…
Rods of God anyone?! :They are a kinetic energy device like the railgun, but instead of using electricity to achieve destructive velocities, they use gravity. The system is comprised of two satellites in orbit around the Earth. One would house the communications and targeting hardware, while the other would house the rods themselves, each up to 1 foot in diameter and 20 feet long. To fire, they would simply be released and allowed to fall back to Earth (with a bit of remote guidance). By the time they reached the surface, they’d be traveling at a speed of 36,000 feet per second and carry the destructive force of a nuclear warhead, only with none of the radioactive fallout.
Nothing like dropping a 20 ton telephone pole at 36,000 to wake up to send a clear message. =]
I don’t know why we always talk about this type of subject regarding Isreal,if they want to bomb someone they will,there is nothing anybody be it the UN,NATO,America or any Arab nation can do about it.They have the technology and the will to do it so all we can do is sit back and ready ourselves for the reaction of the target,simple as that
I doubt very highly that the Israeli violated Egyptian airspace. Egyptian air defense forces are always on alert and had the Israelis violated Egyptian airspace they would have been intercepted and either escorted back to Israeli airspace or better yet, they would have been shot down. Don’t forget that Israel does not like to mix it up with countries that have the means to fight back.
The Egyptians and Suadis may not be to dissapointed if the Israelis did a strike. They can claim in public how the Israelis violated their airspace, while in private doing nothing to stop it. The Heritage Foundation did a good article that partly discussed how a strike while possible, may not be all that effective.
“Israel vs. Iran: 1st Strike Strategies”
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed021208c.cfm
b) the repercussions in Afghanistan and Iraq, where Iranian co-operation is vital for a successful outcome, would be very serious.
There half the problem in iraq and astan weapons material training etc Iran is the worlds leading terrorist state right next to saudi arabia.
Letting the iranins into afphganistan just means letting them rule there.
Iran’s involvment in Afghanistan is not limited to funding elements we tend to associate with the Iranians.
“Iran and the Future of Afghanistan”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13578/iran_and_the_future_of_afghanistan.html?breadcrumb=%2Findex
Had Egypt destroyed Israel’s nuclear power plant at Dimona while it was still being built there would be no Israeli nuclear threat today and no need for Iran or any other Middle Eastern nation to develop a nuclear deterrent. Does anyone know how many times Israel has threatened Iran in the last few years? You can’t blame any nation in the region for wanting to defend itself against Israel.
Gee, Sam, that seems like a real unbiased point of view…
Unbiased, especially, by any trace of fact!
Israel’s nuclear deterrent goes back way before the current Iranian regime, and was originally meant to deter conventional aggression by Israel’s many hostile neighbors.
Israel has, to the best of my knowledge, only ‘threatened’ Iran in response to repeated claims, by the Iranians, that Israel ‘must’ be destroyed…
So, in answer to your closing statement, I *can* blame, not just Iran, but quite a few nations for wanting to ‘defend’ themselves against Israel…
When such ‘defense’ consists of trying to drive every single Israeli into the sea!
The orignal post was talking about the viability of a strike, not whether it is right or wrong, good or bad. Let’s not make it one of those hackneyed Arab verus Israeli discussions.
Hi, just to say Iran is a lot better protected against aircraft strikes than anywhere in the Sudan. Not to say Israel wouldn’t risk it, especially if they were convinced Iran would use the nukes, but the losses in both men and craft would be very costly, and also would greatly raise the profile of Iranian military defensive capabilities (as well as making them something of a hero to much of the Arab world) – this is assuming things went sour for the IAF though.
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/1590
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-03-18-russia-iran-missiles_N.htm
TY to DeusVolt, for the info. Looks like there is chance those S300′s have not yet shipped to Iran. On top of that, it will likely take the Iranian’s some time to get up to speed with the systems capabilities. Russian’s are trying their best to keep it all unclear for leverage in negotiations.
Peterson,
Don’t you get tired of repeating Israeli propaganda? How can anyone justify supporting Israel?
what israel will do or not do in iran ,is an internal matter of israel-what suffocates me is the fact that hussein obama is seeking iranian help in iraq and afghanistan-it is simply and purely similar to appoint a cat to watch a jar of milk-no milk will be left for sure-it is so stupid idea that i can only attribute ie to the inexperience of hussein obama-and how the arab countries will react ? they are much more frightened of a nuclear iran than israel
Nobody has addressed the question of how such a strike could possibly affect the Iranian nuclear program, given that they are expect and attack and will have moved anything vulnerable to safety.
Or that the recent down-turn in attacks on US troops in Iraq may be connected to the Iranians stopping support for such attacks (and cutting the supply of EFPs).
Sam:
We are talking military matters here, justification doesn’t come into it, unless in the form of benefit to one’s Home Nation and People.
Israel was created by the West (Balfour Declaration of 1917 being the most obvious example) with the intent of ‘Balkanizing’ the Middle East (see also the Sykes-Picot agreement). The Ottoman Empire was a world Super-Power until World War 1, when siding with the Germans got their arse kicked.
So, let me just state, that moral justification aside, the presence of the State of Israel has succeeded in suppressing and dividing Arab Nationalism and the resurgence of a Middle-Eastern Super-Power. Therefore it was a sound military and political manoeuvre.
That’s all the justification I need.
The Iranians see nuclear as a right and an imperitive…an attack will slow them down, but won’t stop them. The Iranians turn on and off the tap frequently when it suits them.
DeusVolt,
Then one can only come to the conclusion that containing or dismantling Israel is also a sound military and political manoeuvre given that its presence suppresses and divides the Arab nations. All the justification you need.
i like cads idea ,ive never heard of it .sounds like it would take design time though
Screw Iran, Iran supports hamas hamas fires rockets into israel every single day. Would america tolerate no. One rocket hits america and america bombs the heck out of that nation. Go israel america will support you.
Distance is just one little variable of the “attack on Iran” equatioon for Israel!
if either one of Iran’s Anti-AirCraft Network System, Or skillfull Iranian Pilots (even though they dont have suitable flights, they’ve proven to be brave heart and deadly at any situation during Iran – Iraq war!), Iran’s Missile force be underestimated, we’ll see the biggest and last defeat of Israeal I strongly believe!
Israeal is not taking that high risk, I think!
iran is not a big threat. pakistan should be wiped off with a toilet paper used by JEWS :)