| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran improving air defenses |
| 2006-01-12 |
| A recent research project by the IAF has determined that in the summer of 1981 Israel did not have a clear picture of the impact a strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor would have, but chose to attack anyway. Prime minister Menachem Begin ordered the bombing, condemned by the world at the time, thus inaugurating what became known as the "Begin Doctrine," Israel's policy of launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent any of its enemies acquiring nuclear weapons. It is the Begin Doctrine which repeatedly has been invoked lately regarding Iran and Israel's response to its suspected efforts to produce nuclear weapons. The internal IAF research paper shows that the feasibility of a successful military operation need not be total in order for Israeli leaders to order such a strike. This appears to abate a recently published US army report that claims Israel has no viable military option against Iranian nukes. According to a senior Air Force officer who was privy to the IAF paper, the intelligence available at the time of the June 1981 strike on the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was only partial and it was unclear whether the planned air raid would be effective. "At the time, there was no firm information on either the extent of the damage that the strike could cause or whether it would have a fatal impact on the Iraqi nuclear program. The information he had was very partial, even to the extent of the physical damage we could do to the target and how much it would delay the Iraqi program," said the senior officer. But that was history and today it is Iran and its nuclear program that weighs heavy on their minds. The IAF officer said that Iran is increasingly fearful of attack. "But they are limited in their ability to create an effective air defense," he said. According to intelligence, Iran has beefed up its air defenses around various nuclear sites as a precaution against a possible pre-emptive strike by US or Israeli forces. The source described the present Iranian air defenses as "good." It is known that Iran has deployed Soviet-origin anti-aircraft systems around the 1000-megawatt Bushehr nuclear reactor. Iran's air defense contains Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles, according to The Military Balance published by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. They also have aged US-made Hawk missiles and have been seeking to purchase the sophisticated S-300P from Russia. One war game scenario played out by the IAF was an American attack on Iranian nuclear sites. In this case, it was believed the US would give Israel a prior warning of "perhaps a day, nothing significant." "There is no way the Iranians would believe that it was the Americans and [they] will seek to retaliate against Israel," a senior officer said. The officer declined to say whether there were key targets in Iran that, if destroyed, would seriously set back their nuclear program. "I will have to provide targets to the generals so that they can offer various options to the government," the senior officer said. "We have to be able to provide answers all of the time for potential targets." Ironically, the Israeli F-16s that bombed Osirak were actually built for the Iranians. Israel received them instead after the Islamic revolution toppled the shah and the US imposed an arms embargo on Teheran. Today, the IAF has a new generation of F-16s custom built for striking Iran. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #8 I like it. I would add to (f). and threaten total destruction of Teheran's infrastructure. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-12 20:14 |
| #7 Iran understands clearly the impact of an attack on shipping in the Straights of Hormuz (sp). Which is why a simple Riot Act™ needs to be read to Iran concerning how any attempt to blockade the Straits of Hormuz will result in the complete destruction of Kargh Island terminal. I purposely advocate partially crippling this vital tanker filling terminal specifically so that there is more damage to be done if Iran proves non-compliant. First we sever all input pipes to the terminal. Should Iran prove agressive, we then demolish the entire structure, a devastating economic blow to Iran. A scenario might be as such: a) Destruction of all nuclear facilities plus limited damage to their military. b) Iran retaliates by mining the Straits. c) Crippling of Kargh Island. d) Limited naval engagement with commercial traffic in the Straits. e) Full destruction of Iranian military capacity. (and) f) Threat to obliterate Kargh Island. (upon further Iranian action) g) Thorough rubble-bouncing of all major military infrastructure. This one is for all the marbles and we'd better act like it. Half measures won't cut it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-12 19:55 |
| #6 None of their air defence capabilities are a viable threat to our missle systems when supported by countermeasures. There are less than 20 sites that are believed to be weapons related facilities. A strategic strike would be fairly easy and with very high probability of total success, destroying all sites and very few aircraft over Iran. We must be careful of the assymetrical threat Iran can activate in the area, their conventional forces are a joke. We know the Qud are supporting Hezbollah and Hammas and have capabilities world wide. Iran understands clearly the impact of an attack on shipping in the Straights of Hormuz (sp). I always joke of Nuking Iran, but we have time and we should hold until we have a bit more stability in Iraq. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-01-12 19:18 |
| #5 The new Russian equipment is not cold war crap, unfortunately. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-01-12 16:56 |
| #4 Do the Chinese have an embassy there? No, seriously! - that's where all the Mullahs will be hiding. |
| Posted by: Jake-the-Peg 2006-01-12 14:47 |
| #3 You may recall that al Guardian, al Independent, etc all lauded Saddam's military before each of the last two wars. They'd count up all the toys -- x many tanks, y many howitzers, etc -- and conclude that our military just wouldn't be a match. We all know what happened, and why. Now it's happening with the Iranian military. Oooooh, they have air defense guns! The USAF can't possibly fly through the wall of lead that they'll put up! We're doooomed! What rot. The first moment the Iranian air defense crews on those missiles see anything will be the moment a HARM ruins their day. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-01-12 14:45 |
| #2 So they have a bunch of cold war crap pointed at the sky. They would invariably hit something if they shot enough, but stealth bombers are probably not what they were made to defend against. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-01-12 13:35 |
| #1 So, how good are these air defenses at taking out 450 cruise missiles? This reminds me of the startup of Gulf War II, in which Richard Meyers and others had described our strategy as "Shock and Awe." During one particularly striking barrage, a Pentagon reporter asked "Is this it? Is this the shock and awe." The reply (I don't know who made it) was: "If you have to ask, it's not shock and awe." |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-01-12 13:00 |