The Israeli Air Force Exercises


Last week, reports surfaced that Israel has been conducting large-scale and long-range attack simulations over the Mediterranean. Inasmuch as the exercises included aerial refueling, they are interpreted as preparation for a strike on Iran, specifically its nuclear facilities. Though the US’s National Intelligence Estimate of last fall cast doubt on the goals and status of Iran’s nuclear research, the report is not believed in Israel or in many key parts of the Bush administration. Indeed, many seasoned intelligence analysts also have grave doubts about the NIE’s reliability.

The obviousness of the exercises and the apparent leak about them to the media suggest that an Israeli strike is not in the near future, only that Israel is preparing for such attacks and perhaps losing patience. The exercises were aimed, obviously enough, at intimidating Iran, but also at signaling Washington that Israel is not pleased with US policy toward Iran, which is inconsistent and varies from threats to diplomacy.

An Israeli attack would present formidable logistical and diplomatic problems. Israeli jets must fly over other countries and cannot strike their targets and return without refueling. But where? Iraq is one possibility. Though the Shi’a-dominated government is on good terms with Iran and already burning with sovereignty issues over the US presence, neither it nor the US is in a position to oppose overflights. Kurdistan is more or less independent, but it would not wish to face retaliation from Iran, which has already intermittently shelled Kurdistan. Turkey has fairly good economic and intelligence ties with Israel and so would be one likely ally, if only through acquiescence. Reports surface that Saudi Arabia is so alarmed by Iranian nuclear potential that it would allow Israeli planes to use its air space.

NightWatch asserts that Israel has been negotiating with India to allow its planes to land and refuel there. But Iran has also been negotiating with India as of late, and the issue was likely to have come up. A less palatable option would be for Israeli pilots, on completing their strikes, to eject over the Arabian Sea and be picked up by Israeli naval or commercial vessels.

The consequences of such attacks are numerous and unfathomable. Israel can only disrupt and not end Iranian nuclear research. Two of the principal locations are thought almost invulnerable to conventional air attack. The Natanz plant is under 120 feet of bedrock and the one near Isfahan is burrowed into a mountain. These targets can probably be destroyed by the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (a 30,000-pound bomb recently developed in the US for just such targets), but MOPs can only be carried into combat by B-52s or B-2s, neither of which is in the Israeli arsenal. This of course raises the unsettling though slight prospect of a nuclear strike on those targets.

Iran will strike back at Israel and at anyone deemed to have aided in the strike. Hizbullah will be instructed to attack across the Lebanese border and perhaps elsewhere in the world. (Hizbullah is thought to have bombed a Jewish center in Argentina in the mid-nineties.) Regardless of US foreknowledge and approval, Iran will strike back at the US. Tehran has considerable influence with the Malicki government, the Badr Brigade, and the Mahdi Army, and Shi’a hostility toward the US has been escalating in recent weeks. Iranian Quds Force detachments could easily infiltrate across the Iraqi border and wreak havoc.

Iran’s retaliation against the US will likely trigger US retaliation that might finish the job begun by the Israeli air force. Perhaps this is in the Israeli strategic calculus: to put into play dynamics pressing the US to finish the work on Iranian nuclear plants, including the hard targets of Natanz and Isfahan. All this of course will end any dialog between the US and Tehran and poison relations between the two countries for the foreseeable future, regardless of who is elected in the fall.

~ ©2008 Brian M. Downing
Brian M. Downing is a regular contributor to The Agonist and the author of several works of political and military history, including The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: War and Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam. He can be reached at brianmdowning@gmail.com.


Brian Downing June 24, 2008 - 8:16am
( categories: Analysis | Iran | Israel and Palestine )

A key question is: how would Israeli jets fly from Israel to Iran? What countries would need to give permission? And what are the repercussions?

For instance, it would be hard for Israel to reach Iran without passing over Iraq, controlled by the US, or Saudi Arabia.
Albert

Albertde June 24, 2008 - 8:32am

I hope that, if he is the president, he reverts back to taking the diplomatic route and refrains from warmongering. Maybe he'll tell AIPAC to take a hike.


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena June 24, 2008 - 1:11pm

Of course, Iran's best and easiest retaliation would be to just shut down the Persian Gulf and set the Shia world completely on fire in Iraq. Bet that wouldn't be too hard to do.
And I bet a bunch of oil speculators wouldn't mind seeing that happen too. The Texas boyz would love to pump at $500 a barrel.
And Israel might get burned badly in that firestorm, too.
So many possibilities.
Best get the diplomats talking.

JT June 24, 2008 - 9:04am

Iran war and America's entrance into the really great depression.

I love how their faces tense all up when confronted with real truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ndGJLdV8W8&eurl=http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/240608_b_change.htm

Lasthorseman June 24, 2008 - 7:54pm

Keep an eye on the Cheney guys, it seems they are quite bent on launching the war before Bush leaves office. To interpret events, we should probably analyze at the sub-national level. Locate the centers of elite decisionmaking and watch carefully for signs that the hawk faction is maneuvering to constrict the ultimate options available to President Bush and the military leadership.

Crucial example: the Minot Loose Nukes incident was apparently part of a move by the Cheney hawk faction to position tactical nuclear weapons at Barksdale AFB, which is a staging locale for mideast bomber flights. Thus, after any incident, the Cheney faction would have been one step closer to saying "Hey Mr President, we already got the nukes at Barksdale." (this may have been why the Air Force secretary and chief of staff got canned - they were trying to institute a second nuclear chain of command under Cheney. At least, that was the exciting Wayne Madsen theory.)

We have to keep squarely in mind that the Iraq war may have started in part because Bush was amenable to it, but also mainly because the coteries of hangers-on, hawk thinktanks and various agents of foreign powers brought about the war by manipulating Intel in Washington, using espionage, information operations and stovepiping. You have to watch for the pattern of the self-powered hardline hawk faction, which will pull any tricks to further their agenda. Including killing lots of people (though officially, only brown people) and quite possibly even the assassination of the Houston CIA agent Carnaby a couple months ago.

Carnaby, who was friendly with the Bush clique, may have been watching Russian-Israeli covert operations around the Houston ports, and keeping an eye for false flag operations possibly abetted by the Iranian Mujahideen el-Khalq exiles that live in the Houston area. (He also may have been the conduit from the Israeli Prime Minister's office tipping off the CIA/FBI to an old Israeli spy that got caught, and preventing a Mossad bomb attack against Hezbollah.) This was another Wayne Madsen angle, so take it with a ton of salt; however, it always seems like things work out for the "weird" reasons these days.

See the "new 9/11 warning" here:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=126397

There may also be some kind of weird subterranean battle inside the American intelligence community, which Carnaby was a victim of. The hardliners among the Mossad, neocons and other assorted shadeballs might be fighting the Cool Cats who don't want to launch a war with Iran at all.

That seems like a lurid/conspiratorial angle, but it simply wouldn't surprise me these days. One angle seems to be foreclosing or manipulating the President's options, and for this i would cite Fletcher Prouty's view of the "Secret Team" that always runs ahead of the official decisionmakers, most notably in his example of preparing crucial documents for McNamara that escalated the Vietnam war.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/STchp1.html

It's probably a handy oversimplification, but it's worth considering the idea that the Secret Team in the old days would basically stage the scenes and documents that decisionmakers like McNamara would live within, and in turn the ST would get a ton of leverage and direction over events. Today, I would say such arrangements are more splintered, but the pattern could nonetheless be quite similar.

--
Hongpong.com

HongPong June 25, 2008 - 1:14pm

I have no idea how serious Israel/the US is about starting WWIII, but saying that the Israeli show of force was a warning to the US government is ridiculous.

geoduck June 25, 2008 - 1:55pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.