Here's how Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear program

[AlHayatZween 2]

damn little sister, i am and drinking myers 151 rum straight from the bottle..

we'll be okay... we love burros and know how to live off the land.

[almaty 19]

*ouch*

and pwned by brother duncan

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

i have no doubt that Israel will take out any threat from iran, in this area....

I don't know. Can they handle this?

Edited May 23, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[mawilson 2,133]

Gee, really guys?

Based upon the first article I posted in this thread, I really hope not.

Much as I don't want to see a nuclear Iran, I don't think the military options to remove that capability are very promising.

Have you read this assessment written by a couple of guys from MIT?

[scandal 951]

Gee, really guys?

Based upon the first article I posted in this thread, I really hope not.

Much as I don't want to see a nuclear Iran, I don't think the military options to remove that capability are very promising.

Have you read this assessment written by a couple of guys from MIT?

Mawilson, Thanks for posting the link. And, anytime you feel like picking up our conversation about short sales (or market activity in general), I'm game.

I've just read the article you posted, it's from May 2007, exactly two years ago. Interesting reading. Obviously the authors of that study are more bullish of Israel's capabilities than the Toukan and Cordesman authors cited in the Haaretz article I posted.

The pedigrees of the studies are:

2007: Whitney Raas and Austin Long, PhD candidates in Nuclear Engineering and Political Science @ MIT

2009: Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Both studies are in agreement on several key points.

One - the 3 main targets are Esfahan, Arak, Natanz. While certainly Iran has hundreds of nuclear-oriented targets throughout the country, I suppose it's reassuring that only 3 targets need to be taken out to deal a significant blow.

Two - the targets are super-hardened and will require serious bunker-buster munitions with precision guidance systems to have any chance of taking them out.

Three- Israel would require a strike force of a significant portion of its air capability to mount the attack.

2007 study: a "strike package" of 50 US-made F-15 and F-16 jets - a considerable proportion of the IAF's current strength - could potentially wreck Iran's ability to build nukes,

2009 study: A strike mission on the three nuclear facilities would require no fewer than 90 combat aircraft, including all 25 F-15Es in the IAF inventory and another 65 F-16I/Cs. On top of that, all the IAF's refueling planes will have to be airborne: 5 KC-130Hs and 4 B-707s.

Where they diverge, significantly, is on these points:

One - Iranian defenses

The 2007 article glosses over the challenges Israeli aircraft will face or the casualties they will suffer in terms of aircraft losses: all in all the Israeli airmen might have to fight before they even reached Iraq, and perhaps again before they got home. (the article said 'Iraq', they clearly intended 'Iran'). Note they simply say 'perhaps' the Israeli aircraft may need to fight.

In contrast 2009 study is much more pessimistic, citing Iran's defensive strength: Iranians have deployed batteries of Hawk, SA-5 and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, plus they have SA-7, SA-15, Rapier, Crotale and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Furthermore, 1,700 anti-aircraft guns protect the nuclear facilities - not to mention the 158 combat aircraft that might take part in defending Iran's skies.

and also:

However, all these obstacles are nothing compared to the S-300V (SA-12 Giant) anti-aircraft defense system, which various reports say Russia may have secretly supplied to Iran recently. If the Iranians indeed have this defense system, all of the IAF's calculations, and all of the considerations for and against a strike, will have to be overhauled. The Russian system is so sophisticated and tamper-proof that the aircraft attrition rates could reach 20-30 percent: In other words, out of a strike force of 90 aircraft, 20 to 25 would be downed. This, the authors say, is "a loss Israel would hardly accept in paying."

Two - Jericho missiles

2007 does not mention them at all (but does mention Israel's submarine capability).

2009 considers usage of Jericho missiles as an alternative to strike aircraft.

Three - collateral damage.

2007 - not mentioned

2009 - an ecological disaster and mass deaths will result. The contamination released into the air in the form of radionuclides would spread over a large area, and thousands of Iranians who live nearby would be killed immediately; in addition, possibly hundreds of thousands would subsequently die of cancer. Because northerly winds blow in the area throughout most of the year, the authors conclude that, "most definitely Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides."

The 2009 article comes to the same conclusion that I personally have. A military strike against Iran is not in the cards.

As much as it is terrifying to think of a nuclear Iran, the only option to stop it at this point is through concerted sanctions and diplomatic pressure involving Russia and China and the Security Council.

Even that is very unlikely, meaning we better get used to the idea of a nuclear Iran, and do it quickly.

We already have a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear North Korea as unstable weak regimes.

The days where the nuclear club was limited to states that we could somehow countenance (China, Russia, western powers) has now expanded to include India and Pakistan. Iran is going to joint this list I fear, whether we like it or not.

Israel is right to be fearful. So does the rest of the region and the rest of the world. A MAD (mutually assured destruction) strategy is imperative, to convince Iran in no uncertain terms that any first strike launched against Israel is 100% guaranteed to result in the destruction of Iran. Even if that first strike wiped out Israel, the retaliation will come from Israeli submarines in the Gulf, and American strikes. Iran will not survive the destruction of Israel. This does not help ease our fears for Israel obviously, other than to have some level of confidence that the Ayatollahs do not want the destruction of their land any more than Khruschev would have contemplated the same for the Soviet Union.

It's a bad, sad, mad world out there. And it isn't going to get any easier any time soon.

[mawilson 2,133]

Great analysis - thanks!

[scandal 951]

Great analysis - thanks!

Having just re-read this thread, something struck me.

The Toukan and Cordesman study said:

However, all these obstacles are nothing compared to the S-300V (SA-12 Giant) anti-aircraft defense system, which various reports say Russia may have secretly supplied to Iran recently. If the Iranians indeed have this defense system, all of the IAF's calculations, and all of the considerations for and against a strike, will have to be overhauled. The Russian system is so sophisticated and tamper-proof that the aircraft attrition rates could reach 20-30 percent: In other words, out of a strike force of 90 aircraft, 20 to 25 would be downed. This, the authors say, is "a loss Israel would hardly accept in paying."

Not that I'm minimizing a loss of 30% of the strike capability, which translates to 20-25 planes, and 20-25 dead or captured Israeli pilots..... that's a horrific loss for Israel which places a premium on the safe execution of its missions....

But.

If this is truly an existential fight. If this is a life or death mission to save the country itself, and all it's ~ 7 million residents, from a nuclear Iran - wouldn't the loss of 25 aircraft and pilots be a no brainer?

[Danno 1,228]

But.

If this is truly an existential fight. If this is a life or death mission to save the country itself, and all it's ~ 7 million residents, from a nuclear Iran - wouldn't the loss of 25 aircraft and pilots be a no brainer?

To you and me maybe but there are a number of people who would not even subject someone (such as an enemy who cut the head off of Daniel Pearl) to waterboarding,,, even if the information this top leader had would save scores of innocent American people.