Saturday, 18 April 2009


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece

 

From

April 18, 2009

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites


The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

Related Links

Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.

The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.

“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community.

He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.

An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.

Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.

“The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran's programme by two to four years,” he said.

A visit by President Obama to Israel in June is expected to coincide with the national elections in Iran — timing that would allow the US Administration to re-evaluate diplomatic resolutions with Iran before hearing the Israeli position.

“Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.

Among recent preparations by the airforce was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

“Sudan was practice for the Israeli forces on a long-range attack,” Ronen Bergman, the author of The Secret War with Iran, said. “They wanted to see how they handled the transfer of information, hitting a moving target ... In that sense it was a rehearsal.”

Israel has made public its intention to hold the largest-ever nationwide drill next month.

Colonel Hilik Sofer told Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that the drill would “train for a reality in which during war missiles can fall on any part of the country without warning ... We want the citizens to understand that war can happen tomorrow morning”.

Israel will conduct an exercise with US forces to test the ability of Arrow, its US-funded missile defence system. The exercise would test whether the system could intercept missiles launched at Israel.

“Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear Iran. According to Israeli Intelligence they will have the bomb within two years ... Once they have a bomb it will be too late, and Israel will have no choice to strike — with or without America,” an official from the Israeli Defence Ministry said.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1386

Israel's Air & Missile Forces Could Wipe out Iran's Nuclear Sites

DEBKA-Net-Weekly Exclusive Updated by DEBKAfile

April 15, 2009


The detailed report compiled by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) in Washington last month, complete with graphs and diagrams, has been reprinted in thousands of copies in Tehran. It is compulsory reading for its intelligence and Revolutionary Guards personnel because the Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities concludes that the Jewish state has all the resources necessary for a successful strike.

When asked recently, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, agreed with this estimate. This week, president Shimon Peres and prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu both said that if diplomacy failed to halt Iran's nuclear activities, Israel would be left with no option other than the military one. And Tuesday, April 14, the New York Times quoted an Israeli official as saying that Jerusalem would give the Obama administration until late 2009 to stop Iran's uranium enrichment projects; after that, Israel will be forced to act.

Tehran responded with a complaint to the UN Security Council demanding that Israel be condemned for "its threats against a sovereign state."

For the past three years, US military and intelligence sources have used attributed and leaked assessments to the American media to emphasize that such an operation is beyond Israel's capabilities because of the nuclear facilities' wide distribution across Iran. At best, they maintained, the Israeli Air Force might knock out a few Iranian nuclear installations, but only enough to put Iran's nuclear drive temporarily on hold.

The CSIS paper refutes this assessment and maintains there is no need to destroy dozens or hundreds of sites; the destruction of seven to nine targets would be enough to cripple the Iranian program, and lists them as follows:

1. Lashkar A'bad, site of secret uranium enrichment plants in the north near the Turkish border.

2. Tehranb, for the central laboratory for developing atomic armaments as well as more uranium enrichment facilities.

3. Arak, in central Iran, where a heavy water plant is under construction to manufacture plutonium for weapons.

4. Isfahan, in central Iran, near which a small research reactor and a cluster of laboratories for uranium enrichment, centrifuges and weapons development, are situated.

5. Natanz, the main center for uranium enrichment.

6. Ardekan, at the southern tip of Iran, where more uranium enrichment facilities are located.

7. Saghand, Iran's main uranium mining region.

8. Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf shore, Iran's biggest nuclear reactor built by Russia.

9. Gachin, near the Strait of Hormuz, the site of more uranium mines and enrichment facilities.

Complicated tables set forth an array of technical details showing how many PG bombs Israeli Air Force F16I or F15F bomber-fighter planes can carry, how much fuel is needed to reach their Iranian targets, and at what stage of their return journey they would need to refuel.

This think tank finds Israel has enough aircraft as well as the necessary intelligence and electronic resources for the task - contrary to previous estimates.

The authors propose three attack routes for a potential Israeli operation against Iran: an eastern route over Saudi Arabia; a central route over Iraq, and a northern route over Turkey, Syria and northern Iraqi Kurdistan. They point to the third as Israel's best option in view of the superiority of its electronic warfare (EW) capabilities.

This is the first time a detailed and accurate description of these capabilities, and a description of how they were put to use in the Israeli raid on the North Korean-built plutonium reactor in Dar az-Zawr, Syria, on September, 2007, has ever been published.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6026

 



Gates totally opposes Israeli strike on Iran

DEBKAfile Special Report

April 16, 2009, 9:30 AM (GMT+02:00)


The US defense secretary Robert Gates again voiced extreme objections to an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. Addressing US marines, Wednesday, April 16, he said Iran's nuclearization can only be stopped by an Iranian decision. "A strike probably would delay Tehran's nuclear program one to three years, it would unify Iranians, cement their determination to have a nuclear program and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them."

DEBKAfile's military sources take issue with Gates' assessment. They note that he avoided spelling out the words "nuclear weapon" - as though to blur the fact that this is Iran's goal. As for his use of "undying hatred," in the future tense, he may not have noticed that the radical Islamic regime bombards its people night and day with their undying hatred for Israel and calls to "wipe the Jewish state off map."

The US defense secretary knows very well that if Israel lets Tehran acquire a nuclear bomb capability, it will be Iran's first target, whether directly or as a shield for its terrorist proxies. Furthermore, no Israeli government can afford to forego three years – and probably more - relieved of the threat of annihilation by a power dedicated to its destruction. Even Gates cannot prophesy the exact consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran, say those sources. The Middle East would certainly be a different place for all its denizens.

 

 

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,5337/

 

Reports | Detail

Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities


Author:

Abdullah Toukan

Date of Publication:

March 16, 2009

Associated Programs:

Burke Chair in Strategy
Burke Chair on Arab-Israeli Conflict
Burke Chair on Iran's Military and Nuclear Capabilities

Related Research Focus:

Middle East & North Africa
International Security
Proliferation Prevention

Experts :

Anthony H. Cordesman

Synopsis:

During the last several months, the Burke Chair has carried out a detailed examination of Iran’s programs involving missile and weapons of mass destruction. The key drafts involved are available on the CSIS web site at:
http://www.csis.org/burke/reports/
A final comprehensive report will be published this summer as CSIS book by the Praeger Press.

Abdullah Toucan, a senior Associate of the Burke Chair, has prepared an additional report which provides an independent assessment of Israel’s options for striking at Iran’s facilities, based in part on prior work on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This report provides a detailed analysis of Israeli capabilities, possible flight paths, sorties requirements, battle damage capabilities relative to target hardening, and the other details of possible Israeli strikes.

It is entitled “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities”, and is available on the CSIS web site at:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

The analysis examines the problems that Israel might encounter in penetrating the air defenses of given states in the region and the comparative air defense coverage of key states along possible flight paths. Detailed maps and charts analyze the coverage of given systems, sortie options, and the other military details that shape possible Israeli and Iranian options.

Finally the analysis provides a comparative analysis of Israel’s possible nuclear weapons holdings relative to Iran’s capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, and of possible missile as well as air attacks.

The key conclusions of the analysis are:

•   A military strike by Israel against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible and the optimum route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back the same route. However, the number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate.

•    With regard to the Arab States, most probably they will not condone any attack on Iran under the pretext that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and a security threat to the whole region, whilst Israel has some 200 to 300 nuclear  weapons, and the delivery means using the Jericho missiles, in addition to Israel still occupying the West Bank and  the Syrian Golan Heights.

•    The more there is an Israeli threat to the survival of the regime in Iran, the more Iran will be determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran would withdraw from the NPT based on the argument that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty and any further aggression by Israel and the U.S.

•    A strike by Israel on Iran will give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism.

•    Iran should be engaged directly by the U.S. with an agenda open to all areas of military and non-military issues that both are in agreement or disagreement. Any realistic resolution to the Iranian nuclear program will require an approach that encompasses Military, Economic, Political interests and differences of the U.S vs Iran.

•    The U.S. will have to try to make Comprehensive Verification of Iran’s Nuclear Development Program one of the priorities in any diplomatic dialogue, while trying at the same time to persuade Iran to stop its enrichment program. However, in this area the U.S. will have to walk and negotiate along a very fine line between Israel’s WMD and Ballistic Missile capabilities and the Iranian Nuclear development program. The U.S. must recognize that both are very closely inter-related and are fueling each other. So the U.S. should be prepared to address both issues simultaneously while trying not to be perceived as though it has double standards when it comes to Israel.