JERUSALEM, March 17 (Reuters) - Ballistic missiles could be Israel's weapon of choice against Iranian nuclear facilities if it decides on a pre-emptive attack and deems air strikes too risky, according to a report by a Washington think-tank.
Israel is widely assumed to have Jericho missiles capable of hitting Iran with an accuracy of a few dozen metres (yards) from target. Such a capability would be free of warplanes' main drawbacks -- limits on fuel and ordnance, and perils to pilots.
Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to "severely damage or demolish" Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak. "If the Jericho III is fully developed and its accuracy is quite high then this scenario could look much more feasible than using combat aircraft," he said in the March 14 report, titled "Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities".
Israel, whose jets bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and mounted a similar sortie over Syria in 2007, has hinted that it could forcibly deny Iran the means to make an atomic bomb.
But many experts believe the Iranian sites are too distant, dispersed and protected for Israel's warplanes to take on alone.
Israel neither confirms nor denies having Jerichos, as part of an "ambiguity" policy veiling its own assumed atomic arsenal.
Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. air force colonel who runs war games for various government agencies in Washington, cast doubt on the usefulness of ballistic missiles against Iran, noting, for example, the robust fortification at Natanz. This, he said, would required that attackers "burrow" into the targets using multiple, precision-guided bombs dropped by plane: "The American conclusion is that the only way to get deep enough is to put a second warhead into the hole of the first."
Loath to see further destabilisation of a combustible region, the Obama administration has championed engaging Iran diplomatically. Some U.S. officials have signalled unhappiness at the idea of Israel going it alone against its arch-foe.
Toukan, whose 114-page report frowns on the prospect of unilateral Israeli action, said a Jericho salvo could draw an Iranian counter-attack with Shehab missiles. Other reprisal scenarios include Iran choking off oil exports, hitting U.S. Gulf assets, or ordering proxy attacks on Jewish targets abroad.
Some Israeli experts have been dismissive of the Shehab threat, citing intelligence assessments that Iran has deployed fewer than 100 of the missiles and that, if fired, most would be destroyed in mid-flight by Israel's Arrow II interceptor. "Under such circumstances, we would expect little more than a repeat of the Gulf war," said one ex-general, referring to Iraq's firing of 40 Scud missiles at Israel during the 1991 conflict. Those attacks inflicted damage but few casualties.
The Arrow II also provides some protection for Jordan, an Arab neighbour of Israel and which Toukan saw becoming "Ground Zero if a ballistic missile exchange takes place".
He noted that any Jericho strikes on Iran -- which has denied seeking nuclear weapons but vowed to retaliate if attacked -- would be complicated should Tehran obtain the most sophisticated version of Russia's S-300 air-defence system, which can tackle ballistic missiles as well as invading planes.
Israel could face a further difficulty in mounting a sneak Jericho attack because its strategic air bases are located near population centres. The unannounced test launch of what was believed to be a Jericho III outside Tel Aviv last year became public knowledge within minutes.
But that may be the extent of Iran's forewarning. According to an Israeli defence consultant, only the United States and Russia have put up satellites capable of spotting ballistic missile launches in real time, "and it's highly unlikely that the Iranians would get access to that information".
The consultant, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, played down the notion of ballistic missiles being used for conventional attacks: "You look at any major Western military, and you'll see that such strikes are the purview of manned warplanes, while ballistic missiles are reserved for nuclear-strike scenarios." That anonymous consultant, probably the barkeep at the nearest pub, is full of it.
I have speculated about this possibility for quite some time. The Jericho rocket family has an interesting history, and a lengthy one. The original version goes all the way back to the "French connection" era in IDF history, before the 1967 war, when France was Israel's top arms supplier. The original Jericho was apparently based on the French SSBS-1 missile. This in turn incorporated quite a bit of licensed and highly sensitive American technology, most notably solid propellant formulations and guidance hardware. In the years since, the family has developed as an exclusively Israeli program and now includes Israel's Shavit space launcher.
One crucial advantage of ballistic missiles is the warhead's potentially very high impact velocity and the resulting potential for deep penetration. Unlike the Space Shuttle or the Soyuz, missile warheads are designed to slow down as little as possible before impact or detonation. With modern aerodynamics and certain other influences, a high fraction of the warhead's maximum velocity can be retained all the way to the ground. This allows for phenomenol penetration against hardened structures if the warhead is designed to survive the impact (and some are). With the addition of GPS updating for the inertial guidance, the necessary accuracy is relatively simple.
On another point, there has been a lot of speculation about how and where Israel's Jericho missiles are based. I have seen some uninformed types suggest that they are on Israel's submarines. This is quite impossible, Jericho II is a large missile, and Israeli subs are quite small by comparison with American or other SSBNs.
Various experts have scoured satellite images for missile silos or similar installations in Israeli, and have yet to find any.
My guess is that the Jericho is land-mobile and I have a good idea of the specific method, but it is not wise to speculate further in a public forum. Continued on Page 47
#1
"Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to "severely damage or demolish" Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak."
Toukan is right. With a forged steel case, the penetrator warhead could still contain a few hundred pounds of explosive. Set that off in a deeply buried facility, and Iran's nuke program is over, to say nothing of the impact effects themselves, which would be considerable.
#3
No link handy but I recall debate around 2002/2003 regarding tackling the deep bunker problem with conventional deep penetration warheads on US SSBN launched missiles. I believe it was abandoned as Rumsfeldian craziness as it was potentially destablizing. Same with 'low yield' nuclear weapons.
This makes some sense if Russia or China detected a launch and assumed it was a nuke. I still think it was worthy of consideration for certain scenarios in which we could inform Russia and China in advance and use liasson officers to prevent any misunderstandings while we take out the Iranian, North Korean or Pakistani arsenal.
Israel has no such constraints for a number of reasons. This scenario had not occurred to me until AC posted this. But, now that I understand it, I draw the opposite conclusion of CSIS, a leftish think tank. I do hope Israel can do it this way. The pending sale of S300s is the real point of no return with Iran. After that point a barrage of Jerichos is by far the most benign way this conflict could play out.
As for Iran retailiating against US assets in the Gulf should Israel attack: they can hurt us but we know how it would end and so do they. Obama or not, there would be tremendous political pressure in the US to destroy that regime utterly if they attack our forces or disrupt our economy. If they use WMD, there will be no more Iranians but we will have to restock some warheads on boomers after all. Missiles too.
If Iranians are smart they'll take to the streets to turn this year's sham election into something resembling a real one and elect a 'reformer' who should take Obama up on offer to 'talk' so they can walk back their nuke and air defense plans in exchange for some sort of fig leaf and normalization of relations with the west. If the mullarchy remains in control, there is no good way out for their country.
#4
It's highly likely that Iran will respond to an Israeli attack by disrupting oil traffic through the Gulf. This will bring the hammer down on them, because no one can afford to have their oil supplies cut off.
Israel's problem then becomes making sure the USA, the Euros and the Gulf states are properly prepared.
#5
Also there have been rumours of Israel producing a very long range UAV capable of carrying bombs.
Then the missile/UAV distinction is arbitrary based on pre-unmanned thinking. There is no reason why you couldn't turn a UAV into one big bomb and use it like a cruise missile.
#8
No link handy but I recall debate around 2002/2003 regarding tackling the deep bunker problem with conventional deep penetration warheads on US SSBN launched missiles. I believe it was abandoned as Rumsfeldian craziness as it was potentially destablizing. Same with 'low yield' nuclear weapons.
Wasn't really craziness..it actually is realisticaly feasible in engineering and physics sense. Relatively costly but not very compared to some options. The problem comes in how to figure out your SSBN is launching a conventional instead of a nuke? One idea tossed around was to have a dedicated launch facility somewhere in the US to launch only conventional warheads..still relatively a feasible idea.
The part that has killed this idea however is physics, namely the fact that no matter how fast the penetrator is going you can only dig to a depth 4 times the length of the rod before sheer forces rip the rod apart. To give a comparison also for a steel rod to penetrate concrete at any depth it must be moving at least a half kilometer per second.
Faster speed doesn't help either in this case because you'll simply deform any type of penetrator or even melt it upon impact.
#9
The part thats realistic from the above being that you have a "15 minute" response solution to a high priority target that needs to be taken out ASAP. Not necessarily a deep bunker however.
#10
Another discussion we had a while back was the feasibility of attacking deep bunkers by targetting multiple missiles at the same location. Essentially, each subsequent missile digs a deeper hole and eventually the bunker is breached.
#11
I don't see why a warning courtesy of Russia would be "highly unlikely". Russia is after all a sponsor and diplomatic protector of the Iranian nuclear program.
Likewise the Obama administration might share intelligence on Israel with Iran as a confidence building measure to open up a dialogue.
Would that make a big difference for Israel militarily?
As for Iranian retaliation, do they have the capability to launch non-conventional warheads with their Shahab missiles?
What would the Israeli reaction be?
#12
turn a UAV into one big bomb and use it like a cruise missile.
Germany called such a craft the V-1 back in the 1940's. They were not accurate enough but that limitation is gone now. The Japanese solved that problem by installing disposable biologic guidance units (kamikaze pilots) in their version of the cruise missile - a technique we might anticipate from the Iranians.
#13
As for Iranian retaliation, do they have the capability to launch non-conventional warheads with their Shahab missiles?
Shahab-3: 1300-2000 km range (Israel in range)
Shahab-4: (NorK Taep'o-dong 1): 2000-3000 km
Israel would be on the losing end of that exchange. Iran has more missiles, is much bigger with 13X the population, has fewer high value targets and can absorb more damage.
Posted by: ed ||
03/18/2009 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The Japanese solved that problem by installing disposable biologic guidance units (kamikaze pilots) in their version of the cruise missile - a technique we might anticipate from the Iranians.
Would the Iranian pilots be able to get off the ground unobserved and unharmed? I thought that was why Iraq buried their air force in the sand before the 2003 invasion.
#15
I think by now the Jericho II or IV has been MIRVed. If so, Israel might have enough to take out both the Nuke sites, the ballistic cammand site and the missile sites at the same time (assuming the Jericho are supplemented by some less fancy sub launched missiles.
#17
I think they would rather chance it with Iran striking back with a much larger conventional missile force than going ahead and letting them keeep building the nukes though. there woul;d be alot more collateral damage if a nuke hit anywhere near a city, unlike when Saddam fired his SCUDs into Israel with little effect
#18
Good point on the physics. You go deep enough with the right mix of materials and it just won't work even with an ICBM. The Norks and Iranians have learned to dig.
Israel has good Civil Defense and ABM capabilities. They'd hold up OK to whatever Shahab's come their way.
But it's all about the strategic targets. If they can take them out with 42 Jerichos it is likely to happen. If not, they won't shoot.
Physics of bunker penetration and delivery of S300s are the 2 unknowns.
#19
Refining fissile material takes a s***load of power. That's why Oak Ridge was built in TVA country and Hanford near the Columbia River dams. Power plants are a lot bigger and harder to hide and bury than weapons bunkers. No power, no bombs. Doesn't work after the bombs are finished, though. Draw your own conclusions.
#20
Refining Uranium is power-intensive because you are limited to using the small mass difference between isotopes to sort them. Hanford was the Plutonium fuel plant, and that process created Plutonium by nuclear reaction, and then separated it from the other reaction products by chemical processes, which are considerably 'easier' from a power use perspective.
Which path is Iran following? We hear about the Uranium centrifuges (which were not an option in 1944, so I don't know their level of power use).
#21
One source I read had about 40 watts/centrifuge. I think the most power hungry step is keeping the machinery and piping hot enough to keep the uranium hexaflouride gaseous (>65°C ).
Iran is pursuing both enriched uranium and plutonium bomb processes. Try and claim this is for fuel production: Arak
Posted by: ed ||
03/18/2009 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Maybe Israel could hit them around April 4th when the NORKs are grabbing the worlds attentions with their launch...
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/18/2009 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#23
brilliant! What's another "peace rocket" or 47?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2009 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
The Iranian foreign minister says oil prices are 'unrealistic and unfair', two days after OPEC decided to leave output unchanged.
"The current price of oil is unrealistic and unjust. Oil producers should take measures beyond the traditional mechanism of OPEC," Manouchehr Mottaki said in a Tuesday meeting with UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) decided in a Sunday summit not to cut its current production level at least until May, when the group meets in Vienna to reevaluate the oil market. OPEC said it would instead push its members to 'comply fully' with earlier agreements to reduce oil output. The 12-member group agreed to cut production by 4.2 million bpd starting from September last year.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), OPEC members have complied with 80 percent of their output quotas. The UAE president, for his part, said all regional states should strive to bring prices to a 'fair and real' level.
US light crude for April delivery climbed $1.24 to $48.59 a barrel on Tuesday. April crude oil options expire on Tuesday. Brent crude for May delivery was up 90 cents at 47.36 a barrel. The April contract expired Monday at $43.98.
Mottaki, who is on a visit to Persian Gulf countries, has already visited Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11138 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told regional leaders meeting in Tehran on Wednesday to discuss the global economic crisis that the capitalist system was close to collapse.
Opening a one-day summit of the 10-nation Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) including Turkey, Pakistan and other neighbours, he also suggested a "single currency" should be used in trade between the group's members. "After the collapse of the closed socialist economy, the capitalist economy is also on the verge of collapse," Ahmadinejad said in his televised speech. "The liberal economy and the free market have failed," said Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West.
Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are the founding members of the organization, which was set up in 1985 and now includes seven other regional nations, Afghanistan among them.
The Tehran meeting is expected to discuss ways to boost trade and economic cooperation in a region which boasts major energy resources.
Ahmadinejad made a series of recommendations, including the creation of an ECO development and trade bank and currency cooperation. "The process of obtaining one single currency in the trade and exchanges among members, and in the next stages with other countries and neighbours, should be designed," he said.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11136 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
Lebanon's Minister Nassib Lahoud responded to the attacks of the Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun's during a press conference on Tuesday, by telling the retired general "to stop cheating and misleading the Lebanese people."
Lahoud, who appeared to have had enough with Aoun told reporters : Aoun has reached a new low, which does not suit the Lebanese and the Christian communities.
In response to Aoun's allegations that he was with Saiqa, Lahoud said : " The Lebanese people will decide who is right. Everyone knows that I was never a member of the "Saiqa" organization. I was an adherent to the National Liberal Party not to the 'Saiiqa' as Aoun claimed." He added : "what Aoun said about the issue is fabricated. Let the Lebanese people judge who is the ignorant amongst us." He continued " General [Michel] Aoun's rhetoric is based on rumors. Misleading information cannot fool the Lebanese."
In response to Aoun's attacks against the Church Lahoud said : " Who forgets the campaigns against Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, the Maronite bishops and the Patriarchy?"
" I tell Aoun: Stop fooling and misleading the people, enough forgery, enough cheating . You deceived people too many times and we won't let you cheat them again." He added
With regards to the elections in the Metn , Lahoud said : "I believe that the Lebanese and the Metn residents will abide by the Maronite Patriarchy's recommendations." He added " June 7 would witness the response to General Aoun personally."
Lahoud stressed that : "The March 14 alliance would be unified in the Metn district and a unified list will be announced in the forthcoming weeks."
Lahoud criticized Aoun's campaign style : " Attacks and campaigns are Aoun's style to run in the elections. Aoun's campaigns also targeted prominent journalists, the spirit of the martyrs." Lahoud warned: " We will not remain silent to these attempts."
With regards to Aoun's former ally MP Michel Murr, Lahoud said : "There used to be a disagreement with MP Michel al-Murr in the past, but I previously announced that there are some common points between us."
In response to allegations that March 14 leaders are behind his defeat in 1990 Ladoud responded
" Those responsible for October 13, 1990 are not only those who were present at BIEL on Saturday, but also some were Aoun's allies. I have nothing to do with the Presidential Palace's invasion in Baabda in 1990 as Aoun claimed."
Aoun "should have remembered Oct. 13 during his visit to Damascus," Lahoud proclaimed
For the record on 13 October 1990 Aoun was defeated by the Syrian army and forced into exile. He returned to Lebanon on May 7, 2005, eleven days after the March 14th Cedar Revolution forced the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
Lahoud concluded: "I remind Aoun that I was within the opposition for 15 years. If he wants to hold me accountable for participating in governance, this would be for the past six months when I became minister of state."
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11137 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Gordon Brown, Britain's prime minister, has said Iran has the right to civil nuclear power, but could face tougher sanctions if it refuses to co-operate with the international community over its atomic programme.
At a nuclear energy conference in London on Tuesday, Brown also revealed he and the United States hope to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
The prime minister said he and Barack Obama, the US president, shared "the ultimate ambition of a world free from nuclear weapons", adding that Britain would reduce its nuclear arsenal if the US and Russia also agree to reductions.
But he said Iran could prove to be key in showing whether countries can share enriched uranium peacefully, as the world tries to become less dependent on fossil fuels to lessen the impact of climate change.
"Iran is a test case for this new philosophy of the right to civil nuclear power with sanctions for rule breakers," Brown said, adding it had "the same absolute right to a peaceful civil nuclear programme as any other country. "Indeed the UK and the international community stand ready to help Iran achieve it."
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11137 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Iranian foreign minister says oil prices are 'unrealistic and unfair', two days after OPEC decided to leave output unchanged. 
