Tactical Feasibility of Israeli Strike on Iran

Rabs said:
Nothing.

They have no friendly skys to fly over and with syria sideing with Iran now. I just dont see how they would get to Iran regardless if they have the aircraft to carry out the strike.
Click to expand...

Turkey may turn a blind eye. Or as another poster mentioned, flying right throught the clueless Jordanian and Saudi AD systems is a real possibility. The ballistic missile option is a good one too, though I'm not sure they would use a nuke and I don't know if they have a conventional ballistic missile with the range needed.

Anyone have any data there?
 
I see four ways in which Israel could attack Iran.
1. The first has already been alluded to in other posts, and that is by air. The exact route that the Israelis would use is the big question, but in the past, they have been very good at playing chicken with many different countries' air defence systems by flying right along the border, thus ensuring that they did not, in fact, violate anyone's airspace. That is how they managed to pull off the raid on Entebbe back in the 70's. If they wanted to do the same thing, they would fly south over the gulf of Aqaba, hang a left at the Jordan/Saudi border and follow it until it becomes the Iraq/Saudi border. At this point, the choices become numerous. Knowing very well that the Iraqi Air defense system is non-existant at the moment, turning north-east over Iraq and popping over the Iranian border would be very easy. Or, they could continue to follow the border until it reaches the Persian Gulf, cross the Gulf wherever they like and hit Iran almost everywhere. The problem with either of these routes becomes refueling. Air to air refueling would be mandatory, and that would be the sticky part. Personally, I would put the tanker over Iraq and the hell with the consequences, but that could be problematic, particularly for the US. As for the poster who said that the Jordanian and Saudi Air Defense systems are clueless, think again. Jordan's is weak, true, but furthermore, they have no interest in provoking a battle with Israel. They would lose. Saudi Arabia has AWACS, F-15s and IIRC, F-16s, so their AD systems are quite good. It is their reaction that might be difficult to predict, but they would not be enamored of a nuclear armed Tehran. I could easily imagine them saying, "Oops!! Sorry! We were asleep. We never saw anything!"
The other route would be the northern one, heading along the Turkey/Syria border. This would be far more dangerous, but possibly doable... once. After that, all bets are off. A third possibility would be to get Ankara to allow Israeli overflights, and I believe that Ankara would probably allow them given that Iran is not exactly the country that Turkey would want to see as the regional nuclear power.
2. Land Forces: I do not ever see this one happening, but after thinking about Entebbe, I figured hey, why not. Israel has considerable heavy lift capacities, both naval and air, as well as enough naval assets that they could easily defend any convoys that could be heading for Iran. If they were to follow the Entebbe model, it would mean C-130's or airliners carrying commandos to the target, the commandos destroying the target and returning to Israel the same day. I do not see an Israeli invasion of Iran, not now or ever. It's not that they could not do it, it is simply that the international reaction might well be far more difficult to deal with. A raid is possible, but an invasion, although somewhat possible for a short period of time, is a non starter.
3. Naval Raids. The Israeli Navy is of necessity a small ship navy, but they do have some missile boats that really are corvettes, At 86 metres long, there is no reason that these ships could not sail to the Persian gulf and have a bit of fun. Of course, after doing anything in the Persian gulf, it is highly possible that the Egyptians would not allow them to use the Suez Canal or that the Israelis would not want to expose their ships to some Egyptian or Palestinian crackpot with a few RPGs so the course the ships would take would probably bring them around the southern tip of Africa. That's a looooonnng trip. In addition the subs that the Israelis are having built could possibly be used. I found this tidbit on the net: "Foreign publications have even speculated — without evidence — that the Dolphin, and its sister ships Leviathan and Tekuma, may be outfitted with strategic capabilities." It would not be difficult to imagine that at least one of the subs has vertical launch tubes, and with those, a quick strike against Iran becomes easy. But it would still be a loooooonnng trip.
4. Nuclear strike. "nuff said.

Dean.
 
Last edited:
Dean said:
I Saudi Arabia has AWACS, F-15s and IIRC, F-16s, so their AD systems are quite good.
Click to expand...

I've worked with those boneheads. The fact that they have awacs and F-15s means nothing. First off, the Awacs has to be airborne to be effective. As far as I know the Saudis don't maintain a 24/7 awacs coverage anywhere, let alone across the entire kingdom. They do, however, maintain a ground based surveillance network that is technically quite good. The problem is that they haven't a clue how to use all this expensive weaponry that they pay for. Despite the networked AD picture and top line fighters, the typical Saudi AD center consists of guys asleep on the console or drinking tea and smoking. No one is looking at the picture. If one of them managed to wake up long enough to realize there was a violation, chances are that they wouldn't know who to call. If they did manage to alert an alert jet somewhere, their ability to launch, vector and engage an unkown/hostile track is about nil. Saudi Arabia is probably the best option if they can't get the Turks to help them out.
 
Insight said:
I've worked with those boneheads. The fact that they have awacs and F-15s means nothing. First off, the Awacs has to be airborne to be effective. As far as I know the Saudis don't maintain a 24/7 awacs coverage anywhere, let alone across the entire kingdom. They do, however, maintain a ground based surveillance network that is technically quite good. The problem is that they haven't a clue how to use all this expensive weaponry that they pay for. Despite the networked AD picture and top line fighters, the typical Saudi AD center consists of guys asleep on the console or drinking tea and smoking. No one is looking at the picture. If one of them managed to wake up long enough to realize there was a violation, chances are that they wouldn't know who to call. If they did manage to alert an alert jet somewhere, their ability to launch, vector and engage an unkown/hostile track is about nil. Saudi Arabia is probably the best option if they can't get the Turks to help them out.
Click to expand...

I can only read the paper which lists their assets, I can't look inside the AD CP. That's your job, and thanks. I tend to agree that they can be really slow to react and that the Israelis should use Saudi airspace should the Turks refuse them. In fact, that is exactly what the Israelis did when they decided to attack Iraq's Osirak reactor 'way back when. Nonetheless, things like this usually only work once, then people wise up. But if the Israelis want to pull this one off, a blind eye could well be turned many times. The Saudis can be a practical lot.

Dean.
 
Last edited:
A common mistake in analyzing a military situation. You've got to look well beyond the weapons system inventory to understand they capabilities of any force or any service. You did, however make the statement
As for the poster who said that the Jordanian and Saudi Air Defense systems are clueless, think again.Jordan's is weak, true, but furthermore, they have no interest in provoking a battle with Israel. They would lose. Saudi Arabia has AWACS, F-15s and IIRC, F-16s, so their AD systems are quite good.
Click to expand...
You were a bit quick to leap to your conclusions. I'm glad you now recognize that a mere listing of assets has little meaning when discussing capability or effectiveness. The track record of the Saudis is quite poor in that regard as well, so it's more than just speculation.
 
Yes I can be quick to jump to a conclusion, particularly when I don't have access to all the info. However, in my own defense, I always thought that the Saudis bought all that hardware to avoid being caught as flatfooted as when Israel went after the Iraqi reactor. If they are still as slow, some 25 years later, well, they have more problems than I ever thought possible. Oh well, all the better for the Israelis.

Dean.
 
Insight said:
I think an Israeli strike on Iran would not be a good thing.
Click to expand...

We arn't going to get into the rightness or wrongness of the issue, that's for the politics forum. We are evaluating tactical options.

IG - Great post. I was kinda' wondering when the subject of nukes would be brought up like Dean hit on. Do we know what their nuclear capabilities are? Do they have anything large enough to eviscerate a target but yet small enough not to land radiation in a country like Iraq that could really F*** up their political situation. I would rate this as extremely unlikely, I was justing wanting to play it out.
 
Last edited:
My opinion: The Israelis have had that research reactor at Dimona for a long time. Their scientists are among the best in the world, and contrary to popular belief, a nuclear bomb is not all that hard to make, if you have all the materials and the knowledge needed to do so. The Israelis have both. I believe the Israelis have all the bombs that they need to turn all the major towns in Iran into parking lots of varying quality, and if they don't, they can definitely turn most Iranian cities into junkyards. But they won't. Let me say that again. Israel has no interest in launching an unlimited nuclear strike against Iran. Doing so would invite an unwinnable war with every single Muslim country in the world declaring war on Israel. The Israelis have been working very hard with mitigated success to develop good relations with some Muslim countries, and they do not want to throw that away. Besides, they have other options, as I stated above.
I have always believed that Israel would only use its nukes as a weapon of last resort, and I am sure that all of their Arab neighbours know this all too well. I do not think that the Iranian program has changed this at all.

Dean.
 
Last edited:
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Wow, I did not know that Israel doesn't have cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

Excuse my generality my pedantic friend. In the context mentioned, cruise missiles was meant to imply "air-launched cruise missiles that would be used to launch a stand-off strike".

If you have other data I would be interested in seeing it. I can't comment on what sort of surface or sea-based systems they may have. However, they would not be germane to the argument anyway.
 
zander_0633 said:
Well, I would suyspect that the Missiles were sold to israel by US?
Click to expand...

Which missiles? We sell them lots of stuff, but they have an uncanny ability to produce their own weapons as well.
 
Zander, there is no such thing as an SAS missile. Yes, Israel did produce its own medium range ballistic missiles (MRBMs). The original Jericho MRBM was made by modifying a missile that they bought from France, and it was again modified to make the Jericho II. During these development cycles, the range of the Jericho went from 500 Kms to over 1000.
This missile is reaching the end of its service life, so the Israelis have now developed the Shavit system, which is an orbital booster. I hope most of you realize that orbital boosters have other uses...

Dean.
 
Last edited:
Rabs said:
Cant the harpoon be air or sea launched?
Click to expand...

Both IIRC correclty, though that was originally designed as an anti shipping weapon. Newer versions exist for land attack targets I believe, though I don't know that the Israelis have them in that version. I'm not entirely sure on that point.

Either way, in light of the original context, use of this weapon (even with the land attack version) would still require penetration of Iranian airspace to target the nuc facilities. The original point suggested that cruise missiles and stealth aircraft would be used in lieu of fighters. The harpoon is relatively short-ranged in that regard and shouldn't be considered a strategic standoff weapon, unlike a CALCM or TLAM.

Do the Israelis have the land attack version? If so, how would they deliver them? I can't find anything authoritative on the topic. I'm curious to see if there is a point to the Harpoon example or is this mere pedantism? I do wish to know as this exceeds my own knowledge base.
 
The Harpoon is an anti-ship weapon. It is available in three versions, air-launched, surface-launched and sub-launches. Cruise missiles are different beasts altogether. They exist in different versions as well, these being the ALCM, (air-launched) the SLCM, surface-launched from vertical tubes and the submarine version which is also launched from vertical tubes at shallow depth.
The main difference is the guidance system. The Harpoon is radar guided, first by the launching ships' targetting radar or sonar, then going active when it gets to the terminal guidance stage of the flight. Cruise missiles have a ground definition radar which continuously compares the ground below the missile to the recording that was previously uploaded into the missile. Once the missile reaches the target, it does one of two things, depending on the hardness of the target. If it is "soft", the missile noses up vertically until it stalls and then falls to the ground and explodes. The remaining fuel in its tanks adds to the mayhem. (This tactic is generally used against airfields and tank farms.) Against a hard target, the missile dives right in.
AFAIK, the Israelis do not have either ALCMS or SLCMS. But then again, if you look at the strategic picture in which the Israelis find themselves, they don't really need them. They know that cruise missiles can be shot down, and their doctrine is such that if they ever have to light up their missiles, it's because Jerusalem is already burning. In that case, they do NOT want those missiles shot down, because they would be spreading the fire to the country that burned Jerusalem.
However, keep in mind that my info on Israel is somewhat out of date. Also keep in mind that and information on the web about the weapons that Israel has or does not have may be far less than accurate. The Israelis have worked very hard and have been very successful at hiding what they can really do.

Dean.
 
Last edited:
Yes dean but the Israleis have converted the harpoon into a land attack weapon.

And many think the Israleis have the capabilites to launch from there subs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top