http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/w...per&adxnnlx=1213960809-uROuwvywdmddskh3DR7SLAU.S. Says Exercise by Israel Seemed Directed at Iran
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: June 20, 2008
WASHINGTON — Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”
But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.
One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.
A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”
Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.
Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”
But Mr. Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power.
Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.
Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.
“They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.
Any Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the program’s infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel’s ability at this time.
But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
GLORIOUS SPARTAN: Prelude of upcoming events in the Gulf ?
- Thread starter BLACK SHIP
- Start date
GLORIOUS SPARTANS target:
I just want to make a few things really clear about this recent current event.
We should hope GLORIOUS SPARTAN achieved its real intent and the concerned parties work something out. Failing that it could be a long year...
-DA
I just want to make a few things really clear about this recent current event.
- It's intended targets are US, Europe and Iran.
- It doesn't at all suggest any Israeli attack is certain.
- It's meant to demonstrate capability in order to give credibility.
- An Israeli attack could take many forms.
- An attack like this would have a low probability of success and almost certainly require follow on strikes.
- Done unilaterally it could seriously undermine OIF.
- Iran could strike back hard.
We should hope GLORIOUS SPARTAN achieved its real intent and the concerned parties work something out. Failing that it could be a long year...
-DA
Against Israel? Not really, without directly confronting US forces (overflight over Iraq). They could at most lob maybe two or three dozen MRBMs over there. Sorta comparable to GW1, except AD is better now. Sure, they could also have Hisb'allah start up again. But that's not really that much of an issue either - doing so would be a tenacious thing anyway due to vastly increased European forces in Lebanon.
Are you familiar with Iran's strike capabilities? They are quite substantial and go far beyond any simple MRBM bombardment. They would almost certainly employ various asymmetric responses led and directed by a most competent commander who I assure you has a full range of contingency plans for any such scenario. Confronting U.S. forces is something they have been doing for quite some time in a much more restrained manner than they are capable of and even that has resulted in THOUSANDS of deaths. We are taking this very seriously. This is a lesser of two evils situation for all sides. The situation is beginning to approach the level of seriousness of the Cuban Missile Crisis and it's consequences.
If force is used by the Israelis their options IMV are as follows:
-A raid or several raids on the scale of Operation Eldorado Canyon or the Osirak Raid with almost no chance of permanently stopping the Iranian nuclear program or even significantly delaying it.
-Blocking Iranian trade and SLOC.
-Preemptive Nuclear Attacks.
The first two will not stop Iran and the third will likely be too politically costly.
-DA
Last edited:
radiosilence
jints
Does the Israelis have the ability to block Iranian trade and SLOC and maintain it for an extended period of time?
To an extent. Certainly they could harass it. But then you get on a slippery slope of screwing around with who ever they are trading with. Anything that had to move through the Suez with an Iranian flag, no problem. Other flags may be a lot harder to discriminate against. Even if you find that they are bound for Iran, what are you going to do? Sink a neutral party? Further away and closer to Iran. Air interdiction would be very logistically demanding and it would struggle to maintain persistent coverage. Israel does have a few SSKs but they are conventional and somewhat limited in persistence that far out. Israel does have a base in Africa IIRC but it's still far. Also, the Iranians would have serious retaliatory options.
In short, I'd characterize it this way. Israel can harass and strike along Iranian SLOC but not block and certainly not maintain extended ranged operations for very long. This is just an opinion and I'm sure some may disagree as you can get really creative. I just don't see it as realistic in terms of achieving the desired outcome.
The same is true of an air operation. It's an issue of access, ISR and logistics. Israel no matter how successful in a strike or series of strikes cannot achieve the mass or tempo necessary to go after anything more than Irans nuclear nodes which are probably not all known and can be built back. Short of going in on the ground which would be very difficult to impossible for Israel, outside of Special Operations Forces the only military means Israel has that could guarantee a result are nuclear weapons.
-DA
Even a nuclear strike wouldn't guarantee anything. The overall outrage in the middle east against Israel would be so great, that we could be seeing another Arab-Israeli war, and a complete collapse of order in Iraq. I would not underestimate the lashback, regional and military, not global trade wise, that would result from Israeli nuclear strikes. Not to mention that again they don't know the full extent of the Iranian program, and thus are not guaranteed to wipe it out. (finally if the technical documentation survives the strike, nothing stops the program from being restarted, sure it would take years to reach fruition, but then again Iran has the time)
Nothing in life is guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that Arab nations aren't going launch an all out war against an angered nuclear power that's demonstrated capability. Whatever fall out happened will be political in nature or terror related which is nothing new to Israel.
Also, it isn't necessary to know the full extent. Just the critical nodes which include the people in control of the program and their bosses running the regime. Surely there will be some Anti-Israeli sentiment in Iran post-nuke strike. But it is an unknown quantity. The last nation that got nuked is now most closely allied with it's nuclear attacker and runs a peaceful transparent nuclear program! Go figure.
Don't rule out a nuclear strike because you have heard nukes are bad by biased analyst. Study, study study and objectively look into possibilities. Sometimes the only way to change things is for a massive rule set change. The recent firing of fighter pilot USAF leadership and subsequent replacement by non-fighter pilot is an example. Hiroshima and Nagasaki's vaporization is an example. Because of that example large scale major power wars have not occurred for more than half a century. It takes cojones and courage to make decisions like this. It's why being in charge is never easy. Sometimes all you have are tough choices.
Anyway, I'm not saying Israel should nuke Iran. Only that it could as an option and that has to be taken into account. Those nuclear weapons are not just there for bragging rights and humanity needs to accept the fact that they will be used in anger again eventually. Just a matter of time. 1962 was almost one of those times. 2008 could also be one of those times. As Kennedy proved, sometimes you have to pull out your biggest guns and show a mortal enemy you aren't screwing around when you say something in unacceptable. Clearly, and no one seems to appreciate this so far, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable from an Israeli point of view. That's just a military reality. Just like MRBM/IRBM 5 minutes from SAC bases and Washington DC were an unacceptable military reality.
What say you?
-DA
For the most part I agree (that doesn't seem to happen very often between us 
). However I would like to add several important things.
1) Once again nothing stop the program from being restarted, or from already happening at several additional secret locations. In such a case, Iran could secretly continue with the development. It's not as small as Syria, and finding a secret reactor would be much harder. If later Hezbollah, or some other group nukes (with Iranian supplied nukes) Israel in retaliation, it could get ugly.
2) I wouldn't rule out another Arab Israeli war, possibly even on the level of events like the 6 day war. I know relations between Iran and Saudi aren't that great, but compared to Saudi-Israeli relations they're pretty close.
3) This is likely to push Israel away from the west, which would condemn such a move, and towards the East (Russia, China, Kazakhstan) which often needs Israeli technology, and doesn't have the same qualms about extreme measures taken during wartime.
). However I would like to add several important things.1) Once again nothing stop the program from being restarted, or from already happening at several additional secret locations. In such a case, Iran could secretly continue with the development. It's not as small as Syria, and finding a secret reactor would be much harder. If later Hezbollah, or some other group nukes (with Iranian supplied nukes) Israel in retaliation, it could get ugly.
2) I wouldn't rule out another Arab Israeli war, possibly even on the level of events like the 6 day war. I know relations between Iran and Saudi aren't that great, but compared to Saudi-Israeli relations they're pretty close.
3) This is likely to push Israel away from the west, which would condemn such a move, and towards the East (Russia, China, Kazakhstan) which often needs Israeli technology, and doesn't have the same qualms about extreme measures taken during wartime.
To tell you the truth, I'm afraid. I'm afraid of this
opposed to this
Both points are valid. The problem is that they are valid both ways. They are valid in a US/Israel perspective but they are valid in an Iran perspective as well. We're creating a closed "chicken or the egg first" loop here. If we stay in this loop, then we are heading in the worst case scenario. A game of chicken. Are we sure that someone will blink?
Few words but wise. By a stroke of luck there were some sane enough to stop the further escalation of the cuban missile crisis. Who or what will break the cycle here?
Guppy
Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it didnt take courage to nuke, because the japanese couldnt shoot back. I believe large scale major power wars have not occurred for more than half a century because of mutual assured destruction.DarthAmerica said:
I oppose the use of nukes for many reasons, but perhaps the most important is: if USA nuke Iran, -whats stopping Russia from nuking Tjetchnia, or any other inconvenient place?. And whats going to stop USA from nuking Chavez, etc ?
Then you give the entire world a really good incentive to produce deterrent.
I really hope nuclear powers around the world agree that it is too terrible to accept the use of nukes vs non nuke countries because of this.
OK there is a misunderstanding. I'm not arguing the moral justification of nukes. I'm only discussing nuclear weapons as a military option in the context of GLORIOUS SPARTAN. When military professionals face threats and have to develop solutions, they don't have a philosophy/ethics class to determine the response. That is for the politicians. The Generals merely present the options which for a nuclear power will include nuclear weaponry. What gets chosen is another matter. Keep in mind that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the chosen solution of "quarantine" was only one of several suggestions which included powerful air strikes and invasions.
"Hoping" nuclear powers don't nuke non-nuclear powers is futile as that threshold has already been crossed in both word and deed. Moreover, there are target sets that are only vulnerable to nuclear weapons. So they are at least going to consider them. That is how it works in real life.
With regard to potential targets rehearsed in GLORIOUS SPARTAN, I'm assuming the IDF primary concern would be the nuclear infrastructure. Based on the past history of pursuing hard targets I think that the IDF is a bit light on their ability to go after multiple dispersed hard targets at these ranges. No doubt they could get some of it and maybe even key nodes. But I can't help but to think the probability of tangible success or anything more than a symbolic victory is very low with conventional weapons.
How are they going to do CAP, EW coverage, SEAD at least in the target areas over such a large area at that range using predictable air avenues of approach through these kinds of defenses? They must have done some serious customization of the F-15I with regard to EW. It will also help that Iran is very difficult to cover with adequate Early Warning radar which will put a lot of burden on the point defenses.
-DA
Aliph Ahmed
Banned Member
To DearthAmerican:
I read Operation Redux and I think they missed one route:
Possibility of Israel using India to Afghanistan to Iran route.
They have excellent relations with India and can use Afghani mountains to their best advantage against the Iranian radars.
What are your thoughts on that ?
I read Operation Redux and I think they missed one route:
Possibility of Israel using India to Afghanistan to Iran route.
They have excellent relations with India and can use Afghani mountains to their best advantage against the Iranian radars.
What are your thoughts on that ?
which mountains?
Besides, they'd have to fly all the way across Iran to Bushehr and other suspect sites, which are on the coast, within 100 miles of Kuwait.
Aliph Ahmed
Banned Member
I was speculating since Iran 100% expects them to come from the West. So why not come from the East through India. Just a thought.
I'd wonder three things in this order. How are they going to deploy a force such as this to India without being detected by Iranian Intelligence. How, would the Pakistani's react to such a large force overflying their territory from India. Then I'd wonder how the Afghans would react. That's a lot of dependency on multiple governments to host your operation and not compromise OPSEC.
-DA
Aliph Ahmed
Banned Member
Iranians intelligence cant detect them if they cant see or find them.
There is a very small Pakistani land that is dividing India from Afghanistan.
Afghanistan will not know who flew by since Afghan Airspace is controlled by USA.
The Israelis can always come from the sea using the air refulers. Enter India, go low, cross that maximum 2 km Pakistani area and enter into Afghanistan and then into Iran, attack targets and then fly West or use one of the returning routes mentioned in Osirak Redux.
Reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia when he attacked Aqaba from a side Turkey least expected. Same here. Iran expect 99% of the attack to come from West so why not attack from the East using India ?
Afterall, they are helping India so much fixing their military projects. Doubt that the Indians are in a position to say no to Israel. and not like the route will be declassified anytime soon.
Just a speculation to add more thoughts.