All Syria has to do to shitcan the attack is send up some planes, or even easier, fire off a bunch of SAMs. They don’t even have to hit anything. The Israeli planes will have to dump fuel tanks and ordnance to evade the missiles. Even if they keep the bombs, odds are they would no longer have the fuel.
Israel has missiles though, don’t they? Are they precise enough to launch a conventional missile attack on Iran?
Hmm, Israel does have these, so they could launch some of these from subs in the Persian Gulf.
Yes.
Because Quds Force, Iran’s professional trainers of terrorists, have been training & arming the Arabs of Palestine becauuussse…?
The Jews hate puppies & kittens?
No, that can’t be right…
Looking at a map, Tel Aviv is about a thousand miles from Tehran. and the eastern fringes of Iran is another 500 miles or more.
So we’re talking 3000 mile round trip with full weapons loads. The B1 and B2 could do it, and I think maybe a Russian Blackjack, but I don’t think there are any tactical aircraft that could do it without multiple in-air re-fuelings. I doubt they can do it without direct support from the US logistical services.
If it’s so easy for them, why didn’t they do it when Israel was bombing their own nuclear reactor?
Frankly, if I were a Syrian pilot, the last thing I’d want to do would be to get airborne right now. There are already American F-22s and other aircraft patrolling Syrian skies. Add to that a group of Israelis passing through, and you want to take off into all that?
Because the Israelis didn’t have to fly on hundreds of miles past Iraq to deliver their weapons there. And because the Iraqi target was one single place, and only needed one single attack.
Israel has some 707s that are meant to be used as tanker planes.
There sure is a lot of tall talk here. Short of nuclear action has bombing ever changed a nations mind? Ever?
I think it had an affect on Japan, for sure.
Ok, I found this an interesting question and I’ve been looking at a bunch of stories from site, well, at least they sound more knowledgeable than me.
Daily Kos (from 2013): The Israelis don’t currently have sufficient tankers to mount a strike, but the US has just agreed to sell them more. I couldn’t find a site that referred to the number of planes changing hands.
The Atlantic (from 2013): this is a very odd story that I can’t make much sense of. The authors claim that Israel must attack Iran before it has enough nuclear material to build a bomb. Because of their tanker deficit, making an attack is extremely risky. So, the US should give tankers to the Israelis, which would give them more confidence they could pull off an attack, and this confidence would somehow make the Israelis delay an attack. How this would set back the deadline that the authors claim for Israel is beyond my power to understand.
New York Times (from 2012): this is a pretty straightforward assessment of the difficulty of this attack. It’s not so unanimous to call it consensus, but the general sense of the military and intelligence people who commented is that it not possible, and this is specifically because of their tanker supply. Those who think the lsraelis CAN do it believe that it’s possible because Israel has some kinds of secrets or planes that the US doesn’t know about.
I also find it interesting that these stories are so old. I didn’t go looking for old material, these were page 1 hits in a Google search.
Hmm, wonder if nuclear action was part of that? Seems like I read something out that once.
What were the American fighters that took out a couple of Iraqi MIGs without dumping their external tanks during the gulf war?
It is often said that Russia finally declaring war on Japan had something to do with it.
Doesn’t it appear that the Israeli strikes on Iraq’s and Syria’s reactors changed their minds? I also vaguely remember something about Libya giving up a secret WMD program when we started bombing Iraq oddly enough.
Hadn’t heard that – can you find a site about the event?
I’ll look again.
Worked on Serbia.
How does that follow, though? How, exactly, do you get from “the Quds Force trains and arms Arabs” to “Israel’s survival depends on denying Iran nuclear weapons”?
After all, Pakistan’s ISI trained and armed the Taliban, hardly a bastion of pro-Zionist sentiment. And yet it would be absurd to claim that “Israel’s survival depends on denying Pakistan nuclear weapons.” Pakistan has nukes, and yet Israel stands.
As I wrote earlier, an Israel with both nuclear technology and nuclear weapons could very well co-exist with an Iran with nuclear technology and/or nuclear weapons.
I am inclined to disagree, for the testosterone poisoned Iranians want to “wipe Israel off the map”, but the USA and the USSR co-existed with nuclear technology and weapons, and Khrushchev was hot headed, to say the least.
There might well be a non-zero number of “testosterone poisoned Iranians” who do want to “wipe Israel off the map,” but those people are not in charge.
As for the quote you’re thinking of, a) the man who said it was voted out of office two years ago, and b), what he said was “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad,” i.e. “the Imam (i.e. Khomeini) said that the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” Note the word “regime.” He was calling for regime change, not a second holocaust.