| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Can the IAF take out Iran's nukes? |
| 2007-06-14 |
| Barring a "catastrophic development," reports Middle East Newsline, George W. Bush has decided not to attack Iran. An administration source explains that Washington deems Iran's cooperation "needed for a withdrawal [of US forces] from Iraq." Wish I could disagree with the above If correct, this implies that the Jewish state stands alone against a regime that threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" and is building the nuclear weapons to do so. Israeli leaders are hinting that their patience is running out; Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz just warned that "diplomatic efforts should bear results by the end of 2007." Can the Israel Defense Forces in fact disrupt Iran's nuclear program? rest at the link |
| Posted by:gromgoru |
| #11 Even if the IAF has the capabilities and logistics to carry it out It wouldn't be viewed as a unilateral strike. Bottom line: It ain't gonna happen without complicit US consent. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-06-14 15:29 |
| #10 It is in Israel's Long and Short term interest to wipe out Iran's Nuke program and wipe out Iran's strike capability also. Why? Because for years now Iran has Publicly Sworn to Annihilate Israel... many times! AND the 2006 summer thingy with Hezbollah in Lebanon. [remember? the thousands of rockets fired into Israel] Israel cannot afford to let America do it's job for it. Israel must rehabilitate their feared reputation amongst the primitives in that part of the World. Sure some help would be OK, but in the main there is no cheap way out for Israel this time, They must kick ass big time and restore respect. It will do wonders for the Israeli people's morale and the morale of Israel's friends. [USA] |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2007-06-14 14:54 |
| #9 If we, they let Iran slide it will be only a matter of time before Israel and the US get hit by Muslim nukes. Armageddon folks and the sand people won't stand a chance. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-06-14 14:20 |
| #8 An administration source explains that Washington deems Iran's cooperation "needed for a withdrawal [of US forces] from Iraq." Washington is relying on Iran's cooperation? Huh?! My guess would be that IRG will move into Iraq to fill the vacumn when US forces withdraw, steal the oil and expand the Persian empire. I'm sure I don't know everything the president does but, from my point of view, he's doing everything wrong. If he's not wrong I wish at the very least that he would explain but he never does except in generalities that leave all the real questions unanswered. Is it all so secret that he can't reveal what he's really up to or is he a complete fool? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-06-14 12:21 |
| #7 W has already shown himself to be "patient". As has every President since 1979. Not that I can talk, Canada's former Primer Minister (Chretien) works for Iranian oil interests. We are actively part of the problem. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-06-14 10:43 |
| #6 Ironically, if Israel (or the US) attacks, one of the first things they need to do is to take out every Iranian ship and submarine. About Iran's submarine fleet: "The US Navy has devoted a lot of thought and training time to countering Iran’s diesel submarines, including submarines operating from "submarine bastions." A US Navy reader might send me an "official definition" of a sub bastion, but here’s my on-the-fly description. A sub bastion is an undersea area surrounded by mines and sensors, usually located in coastal waters. The sub hides inside the "bastion" — waiting to take a shot (with torpedoes or anti-ship missiles) at ships approaching the bastion or attempting to sweep the mines. A bastion-builder like Iran could site anti-aircraft missiles on land to protect the bastion from anti-submarine warfare aircraft. A sub inside a bastion is operating in a restricted space, but the sub is "quiet and floating", making it more difficult to detect. The bastion-builder might even have a few "decoy" subs in the bastion — electronic devices or even ballasted metal tanks that fake a submarine’s operating signatures. The odds are very good that US Navy or Royal Navy anti-submarine hunters will eventually find and kill the sub inside the bastion; but the bastion defense makes the hunt riskier and potentially expensive. Sinking a US Navy capital ship gives Iran a propaganda victory. A slick diesel sub commander operating in a coastal bastion will undoubtedly have several "paths of retreat" to a cove or harbor. The gambit here would be to frustrate coalition sub hunters as long as possible, draw them into the bastion’s minefields, draw surface craft into an anti-ship missile ambush (or aircraft into a SAM ambush) then pull out and live to fight another day." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-06-14 10:34 |
| #5 I would say any military would have a rough time taking out the nuke sites. Israel, would have the best chance of any western nation, barring the US. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-06-14 09:16 |
| #4 ooops ... wrong post for that comment. Sorry. |
| Posted by: occasional observer 2007-06-14 08:59 |
| #3 Unfortunately, we ALL get the government THEY deserve. |
| Posted by: occasional observer 2007-06-14 08:56 |
| #2 Well, if that's the case, when is Iran gonna start "cooperating" and when will W's patience run out? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-06-14 08:44 |
| #1 Professor Pipes is a pretty knowledgeable fellow and he gives a decent picture of the IAF side of things. However he leaves out one relevent military factor. The Israeli Navy may soon (or they may already) be able to deploy assets with the capability of carrying fairly heavy surface to surface weapons. Of course another side of it is whether Iran can improve it's point defense against incoming missiles. The betting is that they can't do so, at least not substantially. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-06-14 08:31 |