US fears Israel would not advise it in advance if it strikes Iran

[Skybird]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...ttack-1.393834

Comments come at a time short before the US and Israel will stage the biggest joint excercise in their history and Israel'S warning to Iran become much louder, with a new critical IAEA report with evidence for the Iranian nuclear weapon program expected for release in just some days. There is also growing military activity against Gaza reported, and extensive long-range operation practicing of the Israeli air force, reaching ranges over the mediterranean and to Italy that would allow it to reach Iran as well.

Israeli president said on TV, there is only half a year left, at best one year, before Iran either must be attacked, or allowed to go with nuclear arms.

Some ticking sound in the air seems to grow louder.

[1480]

I am sure they will not consult with the current administration. Just a hunch.

[magicstix]

They're going to have some serious trouble getting overflight to Iran if they don't come to us first... Plus a campaign against Iran would require weeks of bombing at high operational tempo, not just a quick airstrike.

[1480]

Originally Posted by magicstix

They're going to have some serious trouble getting overflight to Iran if they don't come to us first... Plus a campaign against Iran would require weeks of bombing at high operational tempo, not just a quick airstrike.

You do not believe they have that operational capability? It may stretch them thin but I think they can handle that type of mission logistically. Do they have the resolve? Silly question.

What could we really do about it if they decide to do it? I do not for see us attacking them, but Russia, different story. Just too many variables that do not have any upside.

A nuclear Iran threatens the entire world. If China and Russia think they would be immune to that threat, then their intelligence agencies are asleep.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by 1480

I am sure they will not consult with the current administration. Just a hunch.

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by magicstix

They're going to have some serious trouble getting overflight to Iran if they don't come to us first... Plus a campaign against Iran would require weeks of bombing at high operational tempo, not just a quick airstrike.

I am sure the Pentagon already has the plans in the drawer. Isra<el probbaly just do not trust the Obama admninsitration not to give away any diplomatioc warnings that the first strike is underway. Also, Israel still accepts, depends and is sure of that the Americans will join once it has begun, but Obama maybe wants to prevent that it begins so that he doe sniot have to come. I think, thertefore, Israel is about preventing early warning to Iran, and to cinfront America with facts created by reality and that force it to join, not to hesistate.

I must admit, if I were Israel, I would calculate exactly the same way. And I never would forget that in case of doubt, I stand all alone, and Europeans will fail me. That's why I take the Israeli warnings serious.

The British are said to also currently run huge manouvers, or did I misinterpret that? I recall there was some news on that some days ago.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 1480

You do not believe they have that operational capability? It may stretch them thin but I think they can handle that type of mission logistically.

For a quick overview, I used Wikipedia.

They have 10 Hercules tankers and 10 Boeing 707 tankers.

Number of F-15 and F-16 jets in service is 373-408 (varying sources).

These fall into three groups, air superiority fighters, fighter bombers, and multi role.

Roughly 60 air superiority fighters.

25 fighter bombers/strike fighters.

~320 multi role

For dealing with a target list of 300 places regarding the weapon and nuclear research program alone, plus the integrated air defences of Iran, plus considering the huge distance they need to approach over, plus the huge size of Iran, those aircraft numbers do not really convince me - nor can I rule out that it is sufficient in case everything works well.

Does everything work well in war?

No doubt a huge number of cruise missiles would be used, too. But still. And Israel's supply in smart ammo is not unlimited.

As I said earlier, I doubt that a conventionel strike alone could reach all components of the Iranian program. And if that strike is reduced in size and cannot be maintained over a longer time since the number of planes available is not sufficient, chances are even thinner.

Outcome of this operation is anything but certain, even if the US throws in its weight. We can only hope that it would achieve its objectives, and that that objective is not "delay", but "destruction". For just delaying it, it is not worth the effort and the ammount of killing and destruction - you will need to do it again in the forseeable future.

It will also be interesting times for Israeli'S ground army and riot police: Gaza/Hamas, Lebanon/Hezbollah, internal riots, and a no longer safe Egyptian border. Just Syria, for the time being, seems to be taken out of the equation.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

I agree

[STEED]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

There not going to risk the chance that Iran would not use it, as you say CCIP they will knock out the threat.

[Oberon]

IIRC the Saudis gave the nod a few years back to let Israel overfly their airspace to hit Iran, so that's an option...but yeah, the first we'll know about it is when Iran starts screaming blue murder. Heck, I think the Pentagon's first warning will be the newsflash on CNN

[Jimbuna]

I've no doubt the US will pick up the IAF via satellite the minute they're airborne but won't advise anyone of the fact.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by magicstix

They're going to have some serious trouble getting overflight to Iran if they don't come to us first... Plus a campaign against Iran would require weeks of bombing at high operational tempo, not just a quick airstrike.

They just flew over Jordan and Saudi Arabia when attacking the Iraqi Nuclear Plant in Osirak back in 1981, they never ask anybody and they didnt have to ask anybody.
What makes you so sure that it needs weeks of airstrike?
Just because the Iranian Loudmouth Ahmadinedschad and other self proclaimed "Middle east experts" say so and the international appeasement press is willingly following this logic?
No one of us knows what the Israelis already know about the locations and their positions and how they will take care of.
You dont have to destroy a nuclear plant or anykind of nuclear production facility etc, just go and kill the heads who run them, kill the workers, detsroy the logistics that can be done in the countries who support them, that must not be necesarly the iran.
Thats the kind of lanquage which is very well understood in any islamic country!!

The other side of the medal is the Israelis themselves, sure they make the loid noise right now about attacking iran, the main reason is that Ahmadinedschad is not very popular when it comes to the Ayatollahs, so maybe the ayatollahs leash the dog again which they have unleashed some years before.
When there is great smoke, that not necessarly mean that there is a fire too and the israelis can play that kind of music like no one else on this planet because the louder the battlecry from israel is the more will the other nations try to get an diplomatic appeasement and then there are options:

1. iran steps back from its nuclear program(which is not very possible)
2. iran has diplomatic negotiations about the nuclear topic and this will bring the israelis more time to take proper care of
3. The israelis make a deal with the iranians, the israelis are quite good in such little dirty deals, they did it with the Jordanians and the Iranians aswell back in the 80's and 90's, just guess from where the spare parts for the iranian M-109's came from during the Iranian-Iraqi War in the 80'

There is a saying in the Middle east that applies very good:
"If you can't cut your enemies hand, then shake it"

There will be interesting times, such much is for sure.

What makes you so sure that it needs weeks of airstrike?

Well a starting point would be the ranges, capabilities and sustainabilities , especially regarding ranges, capabilities and sustainabilities with an added dose of repeatabilities.
From such simple stuff you could move on to little things like effectiveness, which would come back to ranges capabilities and sustrainabilities with some added complications of dispersal and redundacy with some added reinforcement.
Then to take it onwards you have the fallout which affects ranges capabilities and sustainabilities plus adds reprisals.

So really the question is what on earth makes you think that it is possibly even doable in the first place let alone sustainable or effective even without weeks or months of airstrikes?

Just because the Iranian Loudmouth Ahmadinedschad and other self proclaimed "Middle east experts" say so and the international appeasement press is willingly following this logic?
No one of us knows what the Israelis already know about the locations and their positions and how they will take care of.

Wow, years of IAEA reports on just the known facilities seem to have escaped your equation
Have you even seen the Israeli test model for destroying just a single facility using its entire capabilty at maximum range with a full scale of "bloody lucky" on every single roll out of 40 dice and no repeatability at all??????.....when you find it you can perhaps tell us how many months they expect to put the Iranians back by if all works perfectly.

[1480]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

The American President, George Bush, issued an appeal to Israel to hold back from retaliation for the attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4588486.stm

39 Scud missiles were fired into Israel by Iraq during the Gulf war. Israel agreed with the US to not retaliate. I think we owe them a big one.

Security being protecting their borders. No country should have to ask for permission to do so. But we are talking about a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation. Apples and oranges.

It will also be interesting times for Israeli'S ground army and riot police: Gaza/Hamas, Lebanon/Hezbollah, internal riots, and a no longer safe Egyptian border. Just Syria, for the time being, seems to be taken out of the equation.

@skybird: looks like syria is back in play.

"We expect and recommend that everyone keep the current calm but as we've said, the introduction of systems that disturb the balance endanger the stability and the calm, he said.
The United States said the move would have a possible "destabilizing effect" on the region. The presence of more advanced missiles in Lebanon could raise the prospects of a pre-emptive strike by Israel.
Hezbollah is on the U.S. terrorism blacklist, but is part of Lebanon's unity government.
The Lebanese government has had no comment on the U.S. allegations. But Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah said the comments made by the White House were interference.
"This American interference that has completely adopted the Israeli position, is condemned and rejected by Lebanon. This U.S. position presents a threat to Lebanon," Fadlallah said.
"These American pressures and Israeli intimidation will not affect our choices and our commitment to defend our country by all means," Fadlallah told Reuters.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/syria-is...ttack-1.284315

Another month from now, the entire Arab world will think they will be Israel's next preemptive strike target. Either Israel is all that and a slice of cheese or we are getting a hint that Arab countries may band together to attack Israel.

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

Seems to be the case.