You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Israel hints it's preparing to stop Iran
2006-01-22
EFL
Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action. "Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
Posted by:Jackal

#5  US and Israeli forces will do their coordination, and a lot of it, ahead of time. Tons of stuff, from IFF codes, anti-missile systems, areas and times of operation, liasons, and Sea Air Land coordinations, all the way to mutual assistance on the battlefield. Emphasis on avoiding friendly fire and target redundancy.

However, Israel is not NATO-standard, which means that there are a lot of "interlocking parts" that don't interlock. This means to some extent, we have to give each other a wide berth for mutual safety.

The ultimate mission of the action is also very up in the air, as US and Israeli long term objectives may be very far apart, and also how to accomplish those objectives. Certain things the US will have to tell the Israelis "hands off".

The US may also have to make Israel some very strong guarantees to insure their nuclear missiles stay in their silos.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-01-22 14:57  

#4  I like it a'moose, except the US part. No chance at all of a joint or seeming joint US-IDF operation.
Posted by: 6   2006-01-22 13:04  

#3  A few operational notes: US ground forces will be in the middle of a rotation from March to June of this year, so there will temporarily be more than the usual deployment. The deployment also seems to be with slightly "heavier" units.

Right now, on the other hand, our naval forces in the region are fairly light in the Med, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. I would suspect that repair/refit/rearm operations are very underway in the Atlantic fleet.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-01-22 12:32  

#2  Here is a pretty thorough but pessimistic analysis of the available options.
Posted by: Matt   2006-01-22 11:49  

#1  This is shaping up to one of two scenarios. First, that Israel and the US wait for Iran to make the first move. This is risky. Second, that Israel makes the first move; then when Iran responds with a counterattack, it does so "over" Iraq, in US controlled airspace, so the US can respond to this "act of war".

The advantages of letting Iran go first are that you previously arrange with all the other powers that if Iran attacks, it loses all support. It also allows you to focus entirely on overwhelming defense against whatever they throw, costing them much of their offensive capability at the outset, leaving you time and space to build up your own offense.

However, as Napoleon said, you should never let your opponent have any advantage. This includes letting them go first, unless it immediately results in a major defeat for them.

For this reason, Israel should attack first. Not only because they have the airpower, but because they have infiltrated any number of ground personnel who can wreak havoc at the start. This will also reduce the Iranian counterattack, so the US can focus less on absolute defense, and more on its own counterattack when Iran responds.

The third element are our infiltrators, who unlike the Israelis, want to coordinate those groups who could take advantage of the situation in Iran, those being the Kurds, the Arabs, the Baluchs, and possibly even the Zoroastrians. Uprisings in any of those areas could neutralize missile sites and airbases, and could cause national disruption.

While Israel's attacks would focus on the actual nuclear targets themselves; other than attacking their radar and CCC, the US would probably go against their infrastructure and military. The US could also "soften up" heavily defended targets with unmanned weapons, leaving them open to Israeli attack.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-01-22 10:59  

00:00