I guess from all the recent news on the Iran nuclear issue, it timely to discuss whether a strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities is possible, and explore the possible platforms used in that strike. The most likely party involved in that strike would be Israel. Given general knowledge of Israeli arsenal, perhaps we could disucss/debate/update each other on the weapons deployed possibly for the strike.

It has been widely circulated about IAF's F15s to lead the attack, using bunker busting bombs to destroy the underground targets, but what's the casualty figures given Iran's robust air defense systems which has been further boosted with the recently announced purchase of Russian SAMs and radars (are they delivered yet?) But with Israel's past experience in dealing with Soviet designed air defense, perhaps there's a possibility of creating another milestone after knocking out Iraq's nuclear reactor. But the point being the element of surprise was there in the previous case while this time there seems to be so much hype and news.... inputs pls.

Iran is an important exporter of crude oil. Attacking Iran will have quite an impact on the crude oil price. This Iran is a real handful. I have no doubt Isreal is itching to strike on Iran but they probably need uncle Sam's permisson first. Isreal will need to fly through Jordan and Iraq before reaching Iran. The F-15I would probably need refueling mid air. Element of surprise is tough in this situation.

I would think uncle Sam is also itching to strike on Iran but they are concerned about crude prices. Therefore securing Iraq is of vital importance before antigonising Iran.

Iran worries me immensely. I don't think that they actually want a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. What they would like to have is the capacity to go nuclear at a moment's notice. They have observed the caution which the US has used in dealing with N. Korea in comparison with Iraq. Being one of the countries listed on the 'Axis of Evil', this has given them hope that WMD will allow their regime to survive. But it is the 'knock-on' effect of Iran's possession of nuclear weapons which is troubling. If Iran possesses nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, being a Sunni/Arab country might suspect that going nuclear is the only defence against its Shiite/Persian neighbour. If Saudi goes nuclear, Egypt always considering itself the leader of the Arab world, might decide to go nuclear too. If Egypt goes nuclear, Syria would follow suit...etc. Then you would have an extremely unstable region with volatile disputes, all in possession of nuclear weapons. Not a pretty picture for the future.

I suspect that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is a different proposition to the bombing of the Iraq Osirak reactor (1981). The Iranians have learnt from the Iraqis experience and have dispersed their nuclear facilities throughout the country. As Sayaret has correctly pointed out, the element of surprise is also not with the IAF this time. What worries me also is that any attack on Iran is going to rally support to the hardliners. It would also convince many Muslims in the ME that Israel really was a puppet of the US, at a time when the US really needs support in Iraq. Its a desperate situation. The Iranian economy is in a terrible state and sanctions could really hurt them. But how effective is it likely to be if the hardliners decide nuclear weapons is the only way to preserve the regime?

With Sharon out of action, it is extremely unlikely for Israel to be involved in any airstrike, in the near future. As for the US--it will all depend on whether the administration is willing to do the unpopular. American public opinion is not exactly supportive of any attack on Iran at the moment. Not to mention European public opinion. In the meantime, some momentum is building to have Iran referred to the UNSC...waiting to see if anything will come out of that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do know who's in the SC right...???


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. IceBerge ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNeTxx ~~


--------------------

Waiting is a luxury the world always give to would be terrorists/tyrants/dictators/evil regimes (just look at history). Too much considerations would ultimately make situations too late...however, I agree with all your opinions. Iran is a totally different case from Iraq, also to act at this point of time would be destabilising as the hardliners/fanatics/terrorists would use it as an excuse to commit more acts of violence against civilians linked to Western countries. But to leave the case to the UNSC, it might be quite lame....though the Iranian economy is in a bad shape, they are still spending those precious oil money on such projects instead of on their people. I feel an oil embargo on Iranian oil, just like the one placed on Iraq. But of course, the other Arab oil producing countries would need to support it by increasing oil output to off-set any effects.

A friend from the Air Force said that Israel wouild most definitely be using their submarines launched cruise missiles with conventional warheads in the strike...they would be targetting the facilties underground via ventilation shafts. Special commando units would be on the ground to provide extra targeting data to minimise the chances of missing. Aircrafts could be used as a diversion to draw away or distract the AA defenses. Does that sound possible guys?

Actually, I'm quite sure that the Israelis always have their contingency plans--the problem is whether the political leadership will be able to resolve themselves to do something at this particular juncture, now that Sharon is out of action (because of medical condition).

As for the UNSC--the interesting thing is that it's UK, France and Germany who are driving the push to have the thing referred to the UNSC.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17847771-23109,00.html

Russia is not happy about it though.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...rrent%20Affairs

I am no fan, I repeat, I am no fan of the UNSC or any UN agency for that matter. But realistically speaking, without some type of UN-ish approval, it is very difficult for the powers that can and want to actually do something to go ahead, given the current state of public opinion. At the very least, the UN must be seen to have tried and failed before other possibilities will look kosher in the eyes of public opinion.

That's the reason why I am waiting to see if anything will come out of the latest diplomatic moves.

We live in interesting times...

Anyway, here's more:

* * * * *

Israel prepares to launch attack on Iran nuclear sites
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/jan/1288617.htm

(The Express On Sunday Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)

ISRAEL is set to strike nuclear targets in Iran if the United Nations fails to take action against the rogue state, intelligence sources claim.

Military chiefs have told the United States that they are ready and able to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons facilities - with an attack as early as March.

The revelation comes as Iran faces growing isolation over its decision to restart its uranium enrichment programme in defiance of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA).

The UN-backed authority has warned that the country could be just three years away from building a nuclear weapon after it broke UN monitors' seals at its Natanz plant on Tuesday to restart work on its nuclear programme.

Iran's hardline president Mahmoud A hmadinejad, announced: "Iran is not frightened by threats from any country and it will continue the path of production of the nuclear energy. Iranian people do not allow foreigners to block their progress."

The decision, which sparked alarm across the Middle East and western powers, follows an earlier call by President Ahmadinejad for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

He has also suggested that the Jewish state be moved to Europe and denies that the Holocaust ever happened.

Britain, France and Germany last week called for an emergency session of the IAEA to refer Iran to the UN Security Council with the implied threat of sanctions as international fears grow that Iran's "civilian" nuclear programme conceals an ambitious secret effort to build atomic bombs.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, backed the move, accusing Iran of a "provocative" and "deliberate escalation" w hile, in a surprise development, Russia signalled that it would also give its support.

It is thought unlikely, however, that China, a permanent member of the UN security council, will bow to diplomatic pressure and join calls for sanctions against Iran for breaching its international nuclear obligations.

Israeli military chiefs say their plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites are "feasible", say intelligence sources.

They claim the Israelis are certain that an attack by their military machine would be as effective in destroying the Iranian project as it was against the Iraqi Ossiraq nuclear site in 1981. An Israeli missile attack would be expected to set back Iran's nuclear weapons programme by up to 10 years. The new government of acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also wants President Ahmadinejad to understand that the incapacitation of Ariel Sharon, following his stroke, would not affect Israel's state of military readiness.

A recent statement by the Israeli military chief of intelligence, General Aharon ZeeviFarkash, indicated that Israel had set a March 1 time limit for diplomatic means to deter Iran's plans. Sources in Tel Aviv say the general's remarks were based on a military planning timetable and could indicate a likely date for the missile strike. General Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, said last week that there were several military means to deal with the problem.

He ordered a report as part of strategic cooperation talks with the United States and it was discussed recently when senior Israeli military figures met the heads of several US intelligence agencies.

President George W Bush's administration has attempted to quell any serious discussion of an attack following homegrown intelligence assessments that claimed the administration could wait until at least 2008 before Iran emerged as a nuclear threat.

Israel's military brass has concluded, however, that an Israeli or US strike on Iran could eliminate that nation's nuclear weapons facilities.

Israeli air force fighter pilots have been training for the past 10 years to survive antiaircraft and radar threats from Soviet antiaircraft systems which have been sold to Iran and other Middle Eastern states.

The Israelis have also received help from former Soviet or Russian anti-aircraft officers who emigrated to Israel.

The Israeli air force also chose recently to reveal details of its cooperation with Iran's neighbour Turkey, including the deployment of Israeli fighter jets there and Turkish squadrons in Israel as part of a joint training programme.

Earlier this month, President Ahmadinejad publicly called for Islam to prepare to "rule the world".

He said Islam did not restrict itself to national borders, saying: "We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice."

He added: "We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

And on Sharon's absence at the helm:

* * * * *

Israel Must Learn to Live without Ariel Sharon – at Least for a While
DEBKAfile Special Report
January 5, 2006, 2:18 AM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1130

It soon became evident Wednesday night, Jan. 4, that prime minister Ariel Sharon was very ill indeed. After he went into emergency surgery at Hadassah Ain Karem hospital to drain the blood flooding his brain, his close aides would only say: We are praying for a miracle. Minutes after he was admitted to the hospital, acting prime minister Ehud Olmert assumed his powers. This time there was no hesitation, unlike after his stroke three weeks ago. The rabbis and religious parties added to the sense of crisis by asking the public to pray for him. Everyone began to understand that, even if the operation was a success, Ariel Sharon would not be fit to resume his duties for months – if at all.

Israel without Ariel Sharon as prime minister will have to adjust to important changes:

...

3. The security situation hangs in the balance. Defense minister Shaul Mofaz and chief of staff Lt-Gen Dan Halutz obeyed Sharon’s guidelines to the letter, even when this meant confronting the country with grave difficulties. Neither appears capable of rising above this submissiveness to fill the leadership vacuum left by the stricken prime minister. Olmert may have to look around for a strong figure in defense to compensate for his own lack of experience and instill in the country the sense that security is in capable hands.

...

IMHO... with over 40-50 subterranean nuclear facilities all over Iran... A pre-emptive strike by the Israeli AirForce (Even With The Help Of The USAF) will only delay the inevitable...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(SIDE-TRACKING)
While Iran is embarking on the path to nuclear armament... i can't really say the same for the United States...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. IceBerge ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNeTxx ~~


--------------------

Yes, I agree totally. The UN and its subsidiaries are just as "effective" as the League Of Nations when it tried to rein in Hiltler. There are so many controversial self-serving issues at stake - China and Russia being the chief, if not the only main opposition in almost any sensible voting issues - they are among the biggest beneficiaries of aid from the other Security Council members yet they are always doing the opposite. I wish there were ways for these 2 countries to be also taught a lesson, not so much for them to have a mind of their own but to put the macro aspect of their votes as top priority instead of their own selfish reasons like oil supplies, defence contracts etc.

I think no one in the world except Israel has the "Bxlls" to act first and answer later with regards to such difficult and sensitive decisions. Its just that they know what has to be done and the consequences are better faced without the initial threat. In this case without nuclear weapons, whatever terrorist threats or attacks, they can handle it quite satisfactory (in fact they have mounted a tit-for-tat response to terrorists attacks which deter only but the hardcore ).

Theory, I think you and I are going to agree that nothing really substantial would come out of the UNSC voting becos' 2 members would veto it. In your opinion, would the strike be more than just the facilities themselves or it would also encompass other military targets like those which have missiles en-placed? Would it be possible for a assasination of the current Iranian President to take place during the time of the strike? It is possible for them to take the opportunity to eradicate the material threat and the driving force behind the idea all at the same time. However, it would be even more complicated, should economic sanctions be imposed and certain parties do not adhere to it, thereby rendering the situation in a half official and half non-official situation. I suppose that the EU and other members of G7 should after UNSC sanctions be imposed, add on additional individual sanctions on Iran and those that decide to act in counter to those sanctions, especially Russia (dependent on various soft loans and aids). :angry:

I've a list of related articles on whether a strike will or can be carried out

http://www.alert5.com/2006/01/report-iaf-t...ran-attack.html

I agree that these two nations, China and Russia, are quite the least concerned with macro issues than their internal issues.And it's only when it impacts domestically, does China ever speak out in any contrary way to what we might expect.

Frankly, I think the UN is a joke ! :angry: Here is an organisation that offered Sudan a chair on its Human Rights Commission during the Darfur genocide ! The Commission was headed by Libya !!! Collective security? :lol: If it wasn't for the US prodding, bribing and blackmailing, Kuwait in 1991 would have gone the same way as Abyssinia in 1935.

However I do wish that China and Russia would see the big picture. Iran is one of the signatories of the NPT. What would happen if the world just stood back and let Iran slip? Countries like Brazil and S. Africa stopped their nuclear weapons development on the basis of the guarantee which the NPT provided. If they watch nations like Iran break this treaty with impunity, what is to stop them from deciding that their security would best be guaranteed by restarting their nuclear weapons program again? What is to stop Japan from deciding the same thing? For once I wished common sense would take precedence over self-interest.

a stirke on Iran's main and more important nuclear sites and a strike to kill the researchers would set Iran back quite abit

But killing researchers would only mean that they can be re-hired again bro....the strike should put the entire programme of at least the most crucial and difficult to replace sections of the programme. Also, perhaps if killing is what you want, kill the President!! He's the one that had been doing all the rousing of anti-Israeli sentiments and hatred. But as the US had wished for a regime change would be the best.

There has been talk of covert ops in Iran to organise some sort of resistance movement, so a push towards that aspect by organising and uniting the Kurdish and other groups together during that strike and allow them to establish some sort of enclave thereby weakening Iranian central govt. control. However all these would be pretty far off becos' of the after effects. So I guess the strike to disable the facilities would be best. But it must be a powerful precision strike though.

"But killing researchers would only mean that they can be re-hired again bro"

There is a very limited domestic talent pool. Nuclear Physicists are not a dime a dozen kind of people. Even rehiring foreign experts to continue the program would take a long time. Killing the core people in the nuclear program would halt it almost as effectively as as taking out the infrastructure. The problem is, is it feasible? Not easy at all to target specific people. Saddam Hussein showed just how hard it is to do something like that.

One of the problems with dealing with Iran militarily is that there is a considerable fraction of people in power who are actually moderates and advocate a closer relationship with the west. (though some have been purged, I think, by the current President) Striking Iran would deal a serious blow to their agenda.

Even if an air strike achieves its target, Iran will turn even more hardline. Then it will become even more unpredictable. Would the Middle East turn against the west? The worst case is Arab against west.

It's really hard to say whether the UN will just stall, or will make some angry sounding noises that really amount to nothing--and it's hard even to tell which is worse!

I doubt that I can answer your questions--I take it that a comprehensive attack is necessary (neutralise the air defenses using stealth bombers, move in for the obliteration of the main nuclear facilities, secondary facilities). It might or might not include covet-ops to take out the head honcho. Perhaps even to sow the seeds of rebellion. But all easier said than done. And if anyone *can* do it, it will be the US.

Israel's options are more limited. To begin with, any airstrike will have to overfly countries in between (e.g., Iraq)--and unless the US gives the green light, they can't go ahead. Even if the US does give the green light, I doubt that the Israelis will be able to do the sort of comprehensive airstrike that the US can. It will have to be one good hit (or a few good hits) on as many targets as possible. World opinion will be furious after that; even more so if there was a *sustained* attacked.

Which brings us back to the US. If they are going to allow the Israelis to do it--and if it is done, everybody can guess that they must have given the go ahead--then why not just join the party rather than play coy. This means that the cards are in US hands. That's my guess anyway.

I'm not really optimistic that an airstrike--even a comprehensive one that takes out all the facilities, etc., topped off with the Iranian head honcho's, ahem, removal will really solve anything--without a more fundamental change in the regime. But it will buy time, assuming that it can be carried out, and assuming that it doesn't just lead the whole middle east turning against the west and WW3.

Yea well but the Israelis are good at this. Look what happened after Munich!

"World opinion will be furious after that; even more so if there was a *sustained* attacked."

Would they... really? The developed world understands and appreciates the threat and implications of a nuclear Iran. Even Russia isn't too happy with them now. From this sector I believe only muted silence or low rumblings of 'disapproval' will result. (And they'd probably be more than a bit happy that Israel did the dirty business for them) The NAM coalition of discontented misfits will squawk and condemn this 'unprovoked aggression', probably with Mahathir leading the chorus - but who ever bothered about them anyway? China will condemn it - but not really care much of a hoot - what's done is done, and Iran will still provide oil.

"Which brings us back to the US. If they are going to allow the Israelis to do it--and if it is done, everybody can guess that they must have given the go ahead--then why not just join the party rather than play coy."

There are advantages to US letting Israel loose on Iran without getting involved in the actual strike. US seems to be determined to let Europe be in the driver's seat in handling the Iran Crisis - it wants legitimacy, and that means going the UN route. Should the 'UN route' not lead to peaceful means of solving the problem through sanctions, and even then still not be able to provide a consensus on using force, then the 'Isreal option' might be the way to go.

I'm hoping the rumoured public opinion on their own Iranian leadership is true, and they are terribly discontent.If they know that their futures' are being dragged towards death and destruction, then I hope they do something about it.

Personally, I think much of the civilised world would be very relieved if the Israelis really do something. But then again, there is also a lot of people out there, many of whom happen also to live in otherwise civilised countries, who believe that the zionists are basically the worst enemies of humanity and would not blink to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth...

Something else sort of related:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/...rms_france_dc_2

BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.

Deflecting criticism of France's costly nuclear arms program, President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."

He said there was no change in France's overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism...

Even *France* is talking tough now... what's the world coming to? :blink: Anyone else think that Chirac is gesturing toward Iran?

Excellent article that those who are into the Iran thing might want to read. A bit long, so I won't summarise:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows/

Just the opening:

A s a preview of the problems Iran will pose for the next American President, and of the ways in which that President might respond, The Atlantic conducted a war game this fall, simulating preparations for a U.S. assault on Iran.

...

Our exercise was stripped down to the essentials. It took place in one room, it ran for three hours, and it dealt strictly with how an American President might respond, militarily or otherwise, to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. It wasn't meant to explore every twist or repercussion of past U.S. actions and future U.S. approaches to Iran. Reports of that nature are proliferating more rapidly than weapons.

Rather, we were looking for what Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel, has called the "clarifying effect" of intense immersion in simulated decision-making. Such simulations are Gardiner's specialty. For more than two decades he has conducted war games at the National War College and many other military institutions. Starting in 1989, two years before the Gulf War and fourteen years before Operation Iraqi Freedom, he created and ran at least fifty exercises involving an attack on Iraq. The light-force strategy that General Tommy Franks used to take Baghdad last year first surfaced in a war game Gardiner designed in the 1980s. In 2002, as the real invasion of Iraq drew near, Gardiner worked as a private citizen to develop nonclassified simulations of the situation that would follow the fall of Baghdad. These had little effect on U.S. policy, but proved to be prescient about the main challenges in restoring order to Iraq.

Gardiner told me that the war games he has run as a military instructor frequently accomplish as much as several standard lectures or panel discussions do in helping participants think through the implications of their decisions and beliefs. For our purposes he designed an exercise to force attention on the three or four main issues the next President will have to face about Iran, without purporting to answer all the questions the exercise raised.

...

Just one bit from the article. The "principals" are not confident about Israel:

* * * * *

The real debate concerned Israel. The less America worried about reaction from Europe and the Muslim world, the more likely it was to encourage or condone Israeli action, in the hope that Israel could solve the problem on its own. The more it worried about long-term relations with the Arab world, the more determined it would be to discourage the Israelis from acting.

Most of the principals thought the Israelis were bluffing, and that their real goal was to put pressure on the United States to act. "It's hard to fault them for making this threat," said Pollack, as the Democratic Secretary of State, "because in the absence of Israeli pressure how seriously would the United States be considering this option? Based on my discussions with the Israelis, I think they know they don't have the technical expertise to deal with this problem. I think they know they just don't have the planes to get there—setting aside every other problem."

"They might be able to get there—the problem would be getting home," retorted Gerecht, who had the most positive view on the usefulness of an Israeli strike.

Bacon, as White House chief of staff, said, "Unless they can take out every single Iranian missile, they know they will get a relatively swift counterattack, perhaps with chemical weapons. So the threat they want to eliminate won't be eliminated." Both he and Pollack recommended that the Administration ask the Israelis to pipe down.

"There are two things we've got to remember with regard to the Israelis," Kay said. "First of all, if we tell them anything, they are certain to play it back through their network that we are 'bringing pressure to bear' on them. That has been a traditional Israeli response. It's the nature of a free democracy that they will do that. The second thing we've got to be careful of and might talk to the Israelis about: our intelligence estimate that we have three years to operate could change if the Iranians thought the Israelis might pre-empt sooner. We'd like to have that full three years, if not more. So when we're talking with the Israelis, toning down their rhetoric can be described as a means of dealing with the threat."

I have to agree that it won't be easy to target all key personnels involved in the Iranian nuclear project and also that it won't be easy to replace them. But of course if the regime is desperate and deliberate in acquiring the techonology they will come up with the biggest carrots to attract such key people from every and anywhere. But that's not the point, becos' the possibilities are too big to factor all in. The main crux of the discussion is now whether or not Israel will and can do the job. Its certain now that they are the only ones poised and ready (as can be read from all the great links that Theory had put in - thanks!!) If they could have pulled off their previous feats like in Uganda and Iraq by overflying other countries' airspace, perhaps they can pull it off this time without having to do so - submarine launched cruise missiles!! They are not battle tested yet, and it would be a great test-bed and warning to enemies and would be enemies that Israel is not to be messed with. But guys, does Israel have that kind of missiles for the job?

Heres a tip... try goggling for...

• Dolphin Class SSK
• Nuclear Armed Popeye Turbo Cruise Missile
• Nuclear Armed Harpoon Surface To Surface Missile

or otherwise...

• long-Range Nuclear-Capable
  Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. IceBerge ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNeTxx ~~


--------------------

Err...those are nuclear tipped missiles...was actually talking about conventional ones like the air launched bunker busters. Are there any submarine launched bunker-busting missiles that the Israelis have? or it there such types of missiles launched via submarines?

We can't be expecting nuclear strike from Israel cos' the consequences would be unthinkable. Perhaps conventional precision missile attacks via subs and aircrafts, but nuclear option is obviously no-go.

The fallout would be total Arab condemnation and rally against Israel, even Saudis and Turkey would have to join in.

Its all down to whether the Mossad is able to obtain those intel for targeting purposes.

Basically... theres absolutely no difference between a nuclear-armed cruise missile and a cv one other than the type of warheads equipped... the carrier used is the same...

Simply... setting examples of the differrent types of submarine-launched cruise missile... used by the IDF... in response to your enquiry...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. IceBerge ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNeTxx ~~


--------------------

... Bush is expected to invite Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli prime minister, to Washington next month for talks on Iran. The timing is sensitive. Israel goes to the polls in March and it would be bad form for the White House to give the successor to Ariel Sharon an apparent electoral boost. But the Iranian threat is considered so serious that Bush may not want to wait.

Before the massive stroke that left him in a coma, Sharon had declared: "Israel will not accept a nuclear weapon equipped Iran." He had quietly ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to be ready to launch airstrikes against nuclear sites in the Islamic republic if necessary. "The whole issue is now with the Americans," said an Israeli defence source. "Once we get the green light, we're ready."

For now the light has stalled on amber. Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, chastised Iran last week for its "dangerous defiance" and warned that "the president of the United States never takes any of his options off the table". She added, however, that diplomacy was the best way to solve the crisis: "If the international community stays united, it has a chance to work."

.... Some Israelis have declared themselves willing to shoulder the burden. "We should attack and we are capable of completing the job," said General Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel's national security council, last week. "Iran is an imminent danger to Israel."

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, has backed the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, although Olmert's Kadima party looks the more likely election winner.

At the Hatzerim air base on the edge of the Negev desert, the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron is ready to attack. Months of preparations have been completed and the young pilots have finished training for the long-haul flights that will be necessary to reach Iran and back without refuelling. The planes, costing GBP 60m each, are equipped with secret state-of-the-art weaponry and precision bombs that have yet to be tested in battle.

Two submarines capable of launching cruise missiles are on standby: one hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf, the other stationed in the Israeli port of Haifa. In an attack they will be used to receive high quality signal intelligence.

Israel's elite special forces are also prepared for their role - flying into Iran by helicopter to sabotage the underground targets that cannot be bombed from the air. That Israel has a plan of action surprises nobody, but it is a long way from pressing the start key. Its air force successfully bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 but, mindful of the lessons of that attack, the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear sites around Iran. There are thought to be at least 40 targets, some buried deep in the ground.

"What we now have is a lot of targets, which makes the operation much more difficult," said Ze'ev Raz, the former pilot who led the attack on Osirak.

It is inconceivable that the Israelis could strike without the support of the Americans. "The reality is that it would have to be a sponsored mission because the Israelis would have to fly across Iraqi or Turkish air space," said a senior British defence official.

"Then there is the question of retaliation. Iran has got ballistic missiles and some chemical weapons. What would happen if they used them?"

A wave of terrorism could be unleashed against Israeli and Jewish targets. On Israel's southern border with Lebanon, Iran's Hezbollah allies could fire off rockets - although, as with Osirak, there would be plenty of Arab nations relieved that Iran had been de-fanged.

The consequences, however, are so unpredictable that Perle believes it would be safer for America to take on the job itself. "If the only credible solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is an airstrike to destroy their facilities, we are far better able to do it than the Israelis. The worst thing would be to attack and not succeed."

If Olmert comes to Washington next month, Bush is certain to warn him against acting precipitately. "Our working assumption is that the Americans will try to pour water on our military plans," said an Israeli defence source.

One of the questions uppermost in the policymakers' minds is the state of public opinion in Iran. It is overwhelmingly likely that an attack would inflame people against the American "Great Satan" and Israel.

Not only would Iranian national pride be wounded; civilian casualties could also provoke fury at a time when pro-western sentiment in Iran had been on the rise.

For Perle, the correct strategy is obvious: hold off military action for now and extend vigorous support to the internal opposition in Iran. As he sees it: "There's nothing being done there. We're giving the mullahs a free ride."

Mounting international pressure on Iran could test the unity of the Islamic regime and the Iranian people. The son of an ironworker, Ahmadinejad's humble background and simple lifestyle have won him the respect of many of the poorest Iranians, who still hope he will fulfil election promises to fight unemployment and corruption.

The country's political elites, although aghast at his gaucheness, mostly support his nuclear policy out of national pride. "Ahmadinejad is using the nuclear question to play to the domestic gallery," said a Foreign Office official. "He has revived the sentiments of the 1980s. That's his philosophy."

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, has been one of Ahmadinejad's most outspoken critics but he has remained silent on the nuclear issue. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran who has the final say on all matters, is said to favour Ahmadinejad's uncompromising stance.

Some reformists are concerned by Iran's defiance of world opinion. Mohammad Reza Khatami, the younger brother of Ahmadinejad's predecessor as president, believes that the country should not risk international isolation.

"It's impossible to put very strict and broad sanctions in place against Iran. The world is not unified and it needs Iran's oil," said Khatami. "But it is important that Iranians feel they are part of the world and their isolation would have a very heavy effect on them."

How to put pressure on the regime without punishing its citizens is a vexing question for the security council. One idea floated last week was to ban Iran from the World Cup, for which the country has qualified for the first time.

"It would give a very clear signal to Iran that the international community will not accept what they are doing," said Michael Ancram, the Conservative MP.

That was not the view from the terraces in Tehran on Friday, where the Iranian team Persepolis was playing Germany's Bayern Munich in front of a home crowd for the first time since 1972. Many fans expressed relief that the German team had ignored the political fallout over the nuclear issue and turned up to play.

In London, Straw soon rejected the idea anyway, saying he was "not certain" that sports sanctions would help. "Sports sanctions hurt the people, not the regime," said a spokesman.

Other suggestions for sanctions include blocking travel visas for the political elite and halting Iran's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation. China - Iran's top oil importer, with burgeoning energy needs - is likely to veto all but the mildest of diplomatic sanctions. "It would be a replay of the Iraq debate," said one western diplomat gloomily.

Only last month a high-level Chinese delegation slipped into Tehran for talks on an oil and gas deal worth more than $57 billion. The two nations also have military links stretching back to the Iran-Iraq war.

The Russians are furious that their attempt to play the go between with Iran and the West has gone nowhere. They had hoped that Ahmadinejad would take up their offer to enrich uranium in Russia for Iran's civilian needs. His humiliating lack of interest led to some unusually sharp criticism of the Iranians last week. Even so, it is highly doubtful that President Vladimir Putin would support stringent sanctions jeopardising Moscow's huge economic and strategic interests in the region. Even the French and Germans have warned that economic sanctions are "premature".

As a first step, the UN security council president is likely to issue a stern statement condemning Iran, a move likely to be interpreted in Tehran as a sign of western weakness. The pressure will then be increased by degrees but it is a risky gambit that will allow Iran to continue its nuclear work.

The Israelis believe that time is running out. Its nuclear scientists claim that Iran is fast approaching the "point of no return" when it will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity.

According to a study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran will be three years away from producing a nuclear bomb if it can feed the uranium through 1,000 centrifuges that it hopes to operate at Natanz. A 50,000-centrifuge plant being built nearby could hasten the process considerably.
The 2½ years of talks with the Iranians have already sped by. By the time the talking stops, Iran may have the know-how to build what the rest of the world dreads: an "Islamic" bomb.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. IceBerge ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNeTxx ~~


--------------------

Yes the time is running out, and the Iranians have cleverly delayed the talks for such a long period of time just so that they can buy time to further their objective. Therefore, the world must act now, not wait, but now. "Too many chefs spoil the soup" as the saying goes. If one country can't persuade them, two countries cant, and three or four others also can't then wat's the use if its the representative body of the world? Actions not more talks!! UNSC is going to be like NATO (No Action Talk Only) as to the way they handled the Balkans situation.

Personally hope that the world would brace for the possible increase in oil prices and prepare all necessary economic measures to buffer against it. Also, start drafting and enacting economic sanctions on Iran and an oil embargo on Iranian oil. Also, freeze all their offshore assets and monetary transactions to squeeze them.

Although it may be a fact that even the representative body of the world may not be able to persuade Iran from it's present course, but then the world is not one where you force and impose your views freely. If somebody decides to do things a certain way, does it mean you have the right to beat the person up?

Don't get me wrong, personally I do not support the path Iran is currently on. But war should be only considered as a final option, when all avenues of diplomacy fails. In war, people die. It is not a statistic, or a game of risk. Talk is cheap, I think you would think different after a tour of duty, living with those USA troops stationed in IRAQ.

Each country got its own agenda, and is hard to convince the world to brace for the definate increase in oil prices. The current price is already too high. Any higher might cause the world economy to go into a recession. There are alot of factors to consider, and not who got the b*lls to strike....not a pissing contest.

Iran going nuclear, is not a matter of how. Is a matter of when.They got the funds, the technology, and most importantly, the political will to do so. Sigh...for the sake of peace and stability on earth, I pray that an peaceful agreement can be reached, and soon.

:unsure:

Analysis of the situation on Strafor

Archived at: http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/003871.html

Just one extract:

...

The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons. First, building a nuclear device is not the same thing as building a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon must be sufficiently small, robust and reliable to deliver to a target. A nuclear device has to sit there and go boom. The key technologies here are not the ones that build a device but the ones that turn a device into a weapon -- and then there is the delivery system to worry about: range, reliability, payload, accuracy. Iran has a way to go.

A lot of countries don't want an Iranian bomb. Israel is one. The United States is another. Throw Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and most of the 'Stans into this, and there are not a lot of supporters for an Iranian bomb. However, there are only two countries that can do something about it. The Israelis don't want to get the grief, but they are the ones who cannot avoid action because they are the most vulnerable if Iran should develop a weapon. The United States doesn't want Israel to strike at Iran, as that would massively complicate the U.S. situation in the region, but it doesn't want to carry out the strike itself either.

This, by the way, is a good place to pause and explain to readers who will write in wondering why the United States will tolerate an Israeli nuclear force but not an Iranian one. The answer is simple. Israel will probably not blow up New York. That's why the United States doesn't mind Israel having nukes and does mind Iran having them. Is that fair? This is power politics, not sharing time in preschool. End of digression.

...

The latest newspaper reports states publicly that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, but for the moment they would allow diplomatic wheel to turn, but time is running out. The Israelis are fast losing their patience and I am quite sure they have majority of their plans in order already and can strike at a moment's notice.

I'd say that this is the clearest truth so far.

More from the talking heads...

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62033.htm

Some extracts (there's a lot more as well, including stuff on possible US military options, possible Iranian responses, etc.)

* * * * *

January 23, 2006 -- A REPORTER last month asked Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the Israel Defense Force's chief of staff, how far Israel is willing to go to stop Iran's nuclear (weapons) program; the general answered: "2,000 kilometers" — the flying distance from Israel to Iran's key nuclear sites.

Keeping the military option on the table for dealing with the Mullahs of Mayhem's atomic intransigence makes good policy sense. Diplomacy and "soft power" options such as economic sanctions are always more effective when backed up by the credible threat of force.

Unfortunately, flattening Iran's nuclear infrastructure isn't easy or risk-free — and could have serious consequences for American interests. The key challenge: the program is underground — literally and figuratively.

Iran burrowed many sites deep below the soil, making them much tougher targets. (It also put some near populated areas to make civilian casualties a certainty if attacked.) And these are the sites we know about: At least two dozen nuclear-related sites are scattered across the country (which is four times California's size) — but it may be more than 70.

By burying and dispersing its facilities, Iran is clearly trying to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program back in 1981 — when Israeli F-16 fighters, crossing Jordan and Saudi Arabia, destroyed Iraq's 40-megawatt Osiraq reactor in a dawn raid, effectively setting Saddam's nuke dreams back a decade.

An Israeli strike at Iran today might feature fighters carrying satellite-guided JDAM bombs, cruise missiles on diesel subs — and Special Forces. But the task would be much tougher than the Osiraq strike, thanks to the number of targets and their dispersion, and the greater distances from any Israeli base.

...

The recent article regarding Iran's control over the Straits of Hormuz also illustrates another one of the problems resulting from an attack - how can the flow of oil be guaranteed from Iranian disruption should an attack be carried out?

Another reason why it is in the interest of the US to rein in the Israelis (even if they continue to play the "play nice or we'll unleash the Israelis on you" card)--unless they want to do the military option themselves, up to and including securing the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz in the subsequent fallout.

If the actions are sanctioned by UNSC then I think keeping the Straits open would not be an issue, but what the sanctions would be is the question. If the UNSC can encourage the other oil producing countries to increase their production to stabilize the oil prices, then perhaps closing the Straits and not keeping it open. I still believe (not withstanding whether oil producing countries are going to cooperate or not) that an embargo on the Iranians would be among the best way to squeeze the regime. Also they have started to move their cash assets out of traditional Western areas into Asia. But I suppose if its UNSC sanctioned, wherever the funds are, it still can be frozen. So its a question also of how committed and uniform the whole would be in the face of this question. The striking of Iran would depend on whether the world is capable of acting as a whole to tell other would-be flouters of world laws not to try becos' they would face the full fury of the world. There must not be petty selfish micro managing govts here and there to spoil the cohesion.

"If the UNSC can encourage the other oil producing countries to increase their production to stabilize the oil prices"

It is through the Straits of Hormuz from which oil is transported/supplied from countries like Kuwait etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_of_Hormuz

I wonder how useful a threat of closing the Straits of Hormuz is? Should an Israeli strike be completed successfully within a day or 2, what are the advantages to Iran of actually closing off the Straits and strangling the world economy? Nuke sites are already destroyed. World is angry, not only at Israel, but at Iran for closing off the Straits. In fact, to close off the straits would redirect some of the anger at Israel for a unilateral strike to Iran. Pressure would mount on Iran to reopen the straits - what's done is done, the world can't ask Israel to undo the strikes, after all. Only China would still be sitting happy with its oil supply from Iran still flowing. But even the revenues from selling oil to China would not help much in the event of EU imposing sanctions. IMO closing the Straits of Hormuz is a double edged sword for Iran. The only scenario where it would work is when there is a protracted air strike on Iran's nuke facilities - closing off the Straits as an ultimatum on the world community to stop whoever's conducting the strikes.