(Rooters) - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cancellation of a security cabinet session on Iran following a media leak last week laid bare a conundrum long troubling Israeli strategists: could they count on any element of surprise in a war on their arch-foe?
Possibly not. Years of public speculation, much of it stoked by official statements in Israel and abroad, about the likelihood and timing of such a conflict have afforded the Iranians plenty of notice to fortify their threatened nuclear facilities and prepare retaliation.
Given the difficulties Israel's jets would face in reaching and returning from distant Iran, as well as their limited bomb loads, losing the option of mounting sneak attacks may seem to have put paid to the very idea of an attack launched without its ally the United States.
Yet experts are not rushing to rule that out. Some believe Israel is still capable of achieving a modicum of surprise, and that in any case it might hope a combination of stealth, blunt force and, perhaps, hitherto untested innovations can deliver victory - even if Iran is on high alert.
Israel, whose technologically advanced military has a history of successful derring-do, might place less importance on catching Iran completely off-guard and instead strike openly and with combined forces, causing disarray among the defenders in hope of delivering enough damage to a select number of targets.
"The probability of achieving surprise is low, but I think the Israelis will count on their technical competence in defence suppression to allow them in," said Walter Boyne, a former U.S. air force officer and a writer on aviation history. He predicted the Israelis would mesh air raids with a swarm of strikes by ground and naval units, a view echoed by Lynette Nusbacher, senior lecturer in war studies at Britain's Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. She suggested Israel could also incorporate cyber-attacks to blind Iran as an assault began.
Cyber attacks did work very nicely when that Syrian nuclear facility was destroyed so suddenly that Syria wasn't sure until afterward that something had happened...
"There is no question that Israel can achieve tactical surprise if required," Nusbacher said, differentiating the short-term shock from Iran's long readiness for an attack.
"As long as the direction or timing or form of the attack is unexpected then surprise is possible."
Israel and its Western allies believe Iran is covertly seeking means to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists it wants only to generate electricity and medical isotopes. U.S. President Barack Obama I inhaled. That was the point... says he hopes sanctions and diplomacy will deflect Iranian policy. But Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have made clear they might soon resort to force.
Nusbacher indicated that pinpoint intelligence and planning might also help Israel overcome Iran's anticipation and counter-measures, making up for limitations on the element of surprise:
"Remember that while the Iranian nuclear facilities are each more or less defended, their locations are known to the metre," she said. "Precision can't entirely make up for surprise.
"But surprise isn't everything."
JITTERS AND CHATTER
Israeli military planners chafe at their civilian compatriots' freewheeling and jittery discourse about a possible confrontation, worried that the Iranians could glean key warnings simply from monitoring Israeli news and social media.
If they do indeed contemplate a solo surprise attack, they may also be concerned that the United States, loath to see a war on the eve of a presidential election and while it still favours a diplomatic solution, could also be tipped off about a strike early enough to insist its Israeli ally stand down.
There were no such problems in 1981, when a squadron of Israeli fighter-bombers took off from the then-occupied Sinai desert to destroy Iraq's atomic reactor, nor in 2007, when Israel launched a similar sortie against Syria out of the blue.
By contrast, experts think Israel would need to dispatch many scores of jets and support aircraft against Iran, and possibly fire ballistic missiles, all difficult to hide from the public in a small country.
Though a media blackout would be allowed under Israeli emergency laws, such sudden and sweeping censorship would be so unprecedented as to telegraph what was meant to go unpublished - and in any event may prove impracticable in today's wired world.
Nonetheless, some other measures could limit exposure, such as choice of timing. The war on Paleostinians in the Gazoo Strip was launched on December 27, 2008, deep in the Western holiday season and on a Saturday morning, the Jewish sabbath, when Israel's own media pare coverage to a minimum and newsrooms are barely staffed.
Israel is also trying to restrict the circle of those in the know. The number of those privy to the details of Iran planning in the military and government has been kept very small, a depth of secrecy akin to that surrounding Israel's own nuclear programme, which is assumed to include the region's only atomic weapons.
Netanyahu would be legally required to gain security cabinet approval for an attack on Iran. But after a newspaper reported on Wednesday that ministers on the panel had been presented with conflicting intelligence assessments about Iran, a leak that angered Netanyahu, at least one big shot, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, called for the 14-member security cabinet to be shrunk in order to ensure more discretion.
For similar ends, Israel may go so far as to temporarily misdirect its own populace, away from talk of imminent attack.
Days before the Gazoo blitz, Ehud Barak - defence minister then, as now - made an unusual and unannounced live appearance on a top-rated TV satire show, where he took a roasting with good humour and made sure to give every impression that starting a war could not be further from his mind.
In another deliberate feint intended to wrongfoot the gossips, Israeli generals summoned officers from garrisons around Gazoo to a weekend retreat, with their families, at a countryside spa. All but the most senior of those invited commanders were then surprised to be woken up, that Saturday morning, and dispatched back to base for combat within hours.
Asked about such ruses, a senior Israeli official shrugged and told Rooters they were a legitimate tactic for military planners dealing with a democratic society: "Such things are kosher," he said, "when you have a free press and free speech."
And while certainly not advocating the kind of extensive public discussion seen lately in Israel on the prospects for a conflict, the same official saw a counter-intuitive benefit in that such perpetual talk might erode Iran's level of alertness:
"The more you brace to defend yourself, the more tired you get - or you make the mistake of writing off the threat as a bluff," he said. "Perhaps that's the case with Iran."
Spy squirrels. They've worked against the Iranians before.
#4
A high altitude nuke burst, delivering an EMP event to more or less wipe out everything electronic in Iran - that will probably make up for a general loss of surprise.
#5
EMP gives new meaning to "bombed into the stone age". Of course, I'm not surprised it'd only take one to nudge Iran back a few hundred years.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/10/2012 5:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Everyone makes predictions. So, here's mine.
1. Israel will destroy Iranian threat.
2. The way this will be accomplished will surprise not just Iranians, but every expert (and not just self appointed ones) in the World.
3. The attack will be both deniable and so intimidating that everybody will pretend to believe the denials.
#5
Such meetings are beneath him, as he controls the world through the glorious crotch sniffing of his bowing.
If there was any justice in the world, he'd be a convicted traitor awaiting execution. Sadly the best we can hope for is him a life of being ignored on the lecture circuit
#6
My concern is for whomever the brave individual was in the intel community that leaked this. Champ really lets Axelrod and Jarret run the country while he works on his BBall and bowling, but God help the traitor who leaks that the President doesn't give a crap about his actual job, just the cool stuff and giving adoring crowds speeches. This is sooooo much like the fawning they did for Caligula or Nero it scary.
But then, all three are/were narcissistic children, not actual adults worthy of their place.
#12
10 North Korea-Korean War
Viet Nam - same
Cuba- Bay Of Pigs Same
Afghanistan Russia- Same
Obama Administration-Holly Wood And Chicago 1950's to present the same ! Atheists and Communists
Famous ghoul unloading giving Gods soldiers a pep talk in Afghanistan a communist ghoul Obama's closest adviser.
DNC convention crapping on God and booing God
Anyone who has fought communism or lost friends or family or has themselves become hurt or crippled should really examine what is running OUR COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND! The War Is In Our Country and all have been made to look for the boogey man in other places!
#14
Sorry to defect on this one. Routine daily intel briefings are a waste of time. Cool Calvin Coolidge did not spend hours a day listening to some spooky freak.
These daily briefings are an attempt by the intel community to dominate the attention of the President, who truly has more important things to do.
If I were President I would begin any such meeting with the question, "Why is this info more important than whatever the heck you told me yesterday?" And if they didn't have a good answer, I would throw them out of the office on their ass.
#15
Wrong Rammer. What is new today vs yesterday is how many of our kids died today because of lacck of intelligence.
If our kids are being asked to die on a daily basis on the battle field, their commander in chief is supposed to keep his ass involved in intelligence briefings every day as well.
CiC ought not affect the day-to-day fight. He needs to focus on the strategic picture. That is not something the intel can do much more than inform.
Lashing the commander in chief to worthless daily intel briefs makes our kids less safe for the benefit of showing that he is willing to waste time for a political show.
Very little that is not a decision brief should not show up in the executive mansion.
So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killers apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.
Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theaters entrance.
A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killers apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemarks Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.
There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.
So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.
#2
A number of the victims have gotten together and filed suit against the theatre chain with their disarming of the audience and subsequent failure to protect them as the basis. Sorry no link - I read this about a week ago...
Normally, a president presiding over 8 percent unemployment and a country that sees itself on the wrong track wouldn't stand a chance. But the first black president (since slick Willie) deserves a second chance!
But then a candidate with Mitt Romney's shortcomings, including his failure to ignite much enthusiasm within his own party, wouldn't stand a chance, either. Mitt also benefits from the "anybody but Obama sentiment."
The combination of the two explains why this election remains close, but President Obama heads into the campaign's last phase with some major advantages, starting, as Ronald Reagan did, with a rock solid racial base. These voters will support him no matter what the economic numbers say.
Mr. Wife's father and great uncle, loyal -- and decades retired -- steel union members living in a party machine town, will always vote, and vote Democrat.
Their commitment helps create an electoral map that also favors Obama, particularly with Ohio stubbornly retaining a tilt the president's way.
Obama also has a benefit of the doubt from many voters because they know he inherited an economic catastrophe, a point powerfully made by former President Bill Clinton in Charlotte. And the Obama base believes the story it was sooo bad, Obama needs eight years, even though he said he could do in three.
And more voters are enthusiastic about Obama, the man, than about Romney, the man. That's why Team Romney had to spend so much time at the Tampa convention rescuing Romney's personal image. It also explains the wide energy gap between the two conclaves. That, and the MSM toots louder than the web.
To MSM ears, anyway...
Democrats were so eager to help Obama that it seemed they were ready to cheer even the reading of a phone book or a grocery list. Tampa was flat. Charlotte was hopping. Especially the voice vote triple-play. But even E. J. Dionne can stumble across an acorn - The debates next month are Romney's biggest opening, and he's very disciplined in his approach to such encounters. He used them effectively to turn back primary challenges from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. The president, on the other hand, is out of practice. And although Obama performed well in the 2008 debates against John McCain by directing almost every word he spoke to swing voters, debating has never been his strongest suit. He just needs a sharp aide with a voice-to-text conversion program, and the TOTUS.
Indeed, some of Obama's most loyal supporters see an additional debate risk for him: The president can look arrogant and dismissive when he doesn't respect an opponent or when he feels he has the upper hand. Then he's toast.
Obama can afford no "you're likable enough, Hillary" moments. Romney will try hard to cause or manufacture them.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/10/2012 06:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It amazes me to no end how much of a free pass some people are willing to give 0bama on the economy. Does any honest person really believe that if the incumbent were a Republican with the same exact economic numbers we have today, he/she wouldn't be voted out of office in a landslide?
#2
What they have done as an advertising strategy is the sex sells approach. Look at the speakers, listen to the rhetoric and sophomoric jokes from the boosters. Branding a fellow known for sticking tobaccoo products in a woman's hoo-hoo being branded the first black James T. Kirk, ms. flukesalot' cheeky ending joke, the parade of uhem roses, biker babes for biden. The counter Ryan is sexy narrative build.
Energy gap, that is exactly what they are trying to build and cast Romney as codgy.
Independants will need to be convinced to not only watch the debates, but to resist putting on the beer goggles and that they will never live down waking up next to palosi in the morning.
The best way for the dims to keep President Josh Baskins from looking bad at the debates is to convince people not to watch them, then spin on the independants who supposedly do. Thing about such a devising campaign strategy by the dims is that there are few independants; that is most people have made up their mind. Romney does have the ability to perhaps not convert democrats, but perhaps its ok to go have a plate of waffles instead of voting.
#3
How many more fake lame communist Czars until our Democracy and Country become more pathetic than Russia ever was? Does anyone have a firm count on that or a computer algorithm to answer that question or our we almost there?
#4
10 North Korea-Korean War
Viet Nam - same
Cuba- Bay Of Pigs Same
Afghanistan Russia- Same
Obama Administration-Holly Wood And Chicago 1950's to present the same ! Atheists and Communists
Famous ghoul unloading giving Gods soldiers a pep talk in Afghanistan a communist ghoul Obama's closest adviser.
DNC convention crapping on God and booing God
Anyone who has fought communism or lost friends or family or has themselves become hurt or crippled should really examine what is running OUR COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND! The War Is In Our Country and all have been made to look for the boogey man in other places!
#5
So the bottomline is that the avg American voter is so stupid that they would vote for something as shallow as candidate "like-ability" over a bias for results? If so, We are certainly screwed, and deservedly so.
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 debates next month are Romney's biggest opening, and he's very disciplined in his approach to such encounters. He used them effectively to turn back primary challenges from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. The president, on the other hand, is out of practice. And although Obama performed well in the 2008 debates against John McCain by directing almost every word he spoke to swing voters, debating has never been his strongest suit.
