|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
<<Previous -- Table of Contents -- Next>> THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR THREAT:
.. .Israel's political and military
leaders have long made it clear that they are considering taking decisive
military action if Iran continues to develop its nuclear program ....
Reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency ... has made it
clear that whether or not Iran ties all of its efforts into a fennal
nuclear weapons program. it has acquired all of the elements necessary
to make and deliver such weapons ... , Iran has acquired North Korean
and other nuclear weapons design data through sources like the sales
network once led by the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, A.
Q. Khan. Iran has all of the technology and production and manufacturing
capabilities needed for fission weapons.... It has also worked on nuclear
weapons designs for missile warheads. These capabilities are dispersed
in many facilities in many cities and It is far from certain that such action would be met with success .... One of the fundamental problems dogging Israel, especially concerning short-ranged fighters and fighter-bombers, is distance. Iran's potential targets are between 950 and 1,400 miles from Israel, the far margin of the ranges Israeli fighters can reach, even with aerial refueling. Israel would be hard-pressed to destroy all of Iran's best-known targets. What's more, Iran has had years in which to build up covert facilities, disperse elements of its nuclear and missile programs, and develop options for recovering from such an attack. At best, such action would delay
Iran's nuclear buildup. It is more likely to provoke the country into
accelerating its plans. Either way, Israel would have to contend with
the fact that it has consistently had a "red light" from both
the Bush and Obama administrations opposing such strikes. Any strike
that overflew This might not stop Israel. Hardly a week goes by without another warning from senior Israeli officials that a military strike is possible, and that Israel cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, even though no nation has indicated it would support such action .... Most analyses of a possible Israeli attack focus on only three of Iran's most visible facilities: its centrifuge facilities at Natanz, its light water nuclear power reactor near Bushehr, and a heavy water reactor at Arak it could use to produce plutonium. They are all some 950 to 1,000 miles from Israel. Each of these three targets differs sharply in terms of the near-term risk it poses to Israel and its vulnerability. Israel has fighters, refueling tankers and precision-guided air-to-ground weapons to strike at all of these targets---even if it flies the long-distance routes needed to avoid the most critical air defenses in neighboring Arab states .... In August 2003, the Israeli Air Force demonstrated the strategic capability to strike far-off targets such as Iran by flying three F-15 jets to Poland, 1,600 nautical miles away. Israel can launch and refuel two to three full squadrons of combat aircraft for a single set of strikes against Iran, and provide suitable refueling. 'Israel could also provide fighter escorts and has considerable electronic-warfare capability to suppress Iran's aging air defenses. It might take losses to Iran's fighters and surface-to-air missiles, but such losses would probably be limited. Israel would, however, still
face two critical problems. The first would be whether it can destroy
a hardened underground facility like Natanz. The second is that a truly
successful strike might have to hit far more targets over a much larger
area than the three best known sites. Iran has had years to build up
covert and dispersed Experts sharply disagree as to
whether the Israeli air force could do more than limited damage to the
key Iranian facility at Nalanz. Some feel it is too deeply underground
and too hardened for Israel to have much impact. Others believe that
it is more vulnerable than conventional wisdom has it, and Israel could
use weapons like the GBU-28 earth-penetrating bombs it has received
from the U.S. or its own penetrators.... Israel also faces limits on its military capabilities .... Israel does not have the density and quality of intelligence assets necessary to reliably assess the damage done to a wide range of small and disperse targets and to detect new Iranian efforts. These problems are why a number of senior Israeli intelligence experts and military officers feel that Israel should not strike Iran, although few would recommend that Israel avoid using the threat of such strikes to help U.S. and other diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to halt.... The alternatives, however, are
not good for Israel, the U.S., Iran's neighbors or Arab neighbors. Of
course being attacked is not good for Iran. Israel could still strike,
if only to try to buy a few added years of time. Iranian persistence
in developing nuclear weapons could push the U.S. into launching its
own strike on Israel will not wait passively
as Iran develops a nuclear capability. Like several Arab states, Israel
already is developing better missile and air defenses, and more-advanced
forms of its Arrow ballistic missile defenses.... [P]rovoking its Arab
neighbors and Turkey into developing their nuclear capabilities, or
the U.S. into (Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2009) <<Previous -- Table of Contents -- Next>> |
|
The
Iran Attack Plan
