However, I do realize that that’s easier said, than done.

but the Israelis have to see a McCain victory as a toss-up at best right now.
Why do you say that, Ed? Not disagreeing, just intrigued by the statement.

Assuming you’re not joking, let me handle this . . .

Because it IS a tossup at this point.

John McCain still needs to work out the kinks from his strategy as to how to tell conservatives such as myself the right pack of lies to get us to support him …

I’m still WAITING!

The first problem is targeting. The Iranians aren’t as dumb as the Iraqis, who put all their atom bomb eggs in one reactor that could be taken out in one air strike. The Iranians have dispersed their atom bomb program. As I understand it, it is spread across hundreds of sites. How do you get reliable intelligence about the location of these sites, the nature of their construction, and their relative importance in the program? You would need some recent high-level defectors from the program to provide reliable targeting data.

The second problem is the massive size of the air campaign to strike these targets, once located. I’m reading three hundred sorties over three days. The Israeli Air Force has about four hundred fighters, but only a fraction of them can strike that far. They would need help to service all those targets from the USAF.

The third problem is access. The direct route from Israel to Iran flies over Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Of course, to fly over Iraq the Israelis would need US permission and cooperation. We control that air space. For lots of reasons, that’s unlikely to happen.

The Saudis are our allies, at least on paper though not in fact, which means that theoretically we should not turn a blind eye to Israelis flying strike packages over Saudi Arabia. Blatantly disrespecting the Saudis (not that there is anything wrong with that) to help the Israelis wage war against fellow Muslims would stir up the Muslim and Wahhabi pot.

However, it’s within the realm of possibility that the duplicitous Saudis could strike a secret deal to allow their hated Jewish enemies to strike their hated Shia enemies in Iran. The Saudi princes could pose as surprised and outraged at the incursion, however pleased with the outcome. They’re good at lying like that.

The fourth problem is the extreme range. It looks to me to be about 1000 miles, at least, as the crow flies from Israel to the centrifuge facility at Natanz, aka the Esfahan enrichment facility. Of course, the mission will be longer than this when you allow for an indirect route to targets deep inside Iran.

The F-15E Strike Eagle has a ferry range of 2,400 miles (3,840 kilometers) with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks. Israel has bought those conformal tanks, oddly enough. However, that’s FERRY range, not the range carrying heavy bombs. I’m guessing that adding a couple 2000 pound laser-guided bombs would reduce the range of the F-15Es to less than distance required to reach their targets. It seems obvious that these fighters would need to be air-refueled, optimally just outside the Iranian border. The range problem is worse with Israel’s 324 F-16s and 50 F-4Es.

Israel only has five tankers, B707 airframes roughly similar to the KC-135. If each tanker supported a flight of four fighters, that’s only twenty fighters Israel could project to Iran. Again, Israel would need US support in the form of tankers to fuel its airborne strike force.

The bottom line is that Israel can not successfully take out the Iranian atom bomb program by itself, so the Transportation Minister’s threat is an idle one. Israel can only succeed with help from the US. However, if we must strike Iran, Israeli help is a political handicap in our foreign relations with the bigoted Middle Eastern and European states. If we must strike Iran, we must leave Israel out of it.

We have better weapons with which to strike Iran than Israel. Our stealthy aircraft such as the B-2 and F-22 can traverse Iranian airspace with little fear from the 1970s-era technology Iranian fields to defend itself. And who knows what wing of secret strike aircraft we have stashed out in the mountains of Nevada, ready to make its combat debut? Our non-stealthy B-1s, F-15Es, and F-16s would fly over the smoking remains of the Iranian defenses.

We are also better positioned to strike Iran, with air bases in the neighboring countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even though I am an advocate of air power, the gains it makes are transient unless followed up by a ground campaign to secure them. Without a ground campaign, we’ve only temporarily set back the Iranian atom bomb.

I think we can stop Iranian aggression short of a war. Iran is economically fragile. Already, our financial measures have taken a toll on them. We can bring Iran to its knees without bloodshed by simply stopping it from shipping its oil and/or importing gasoline.

We can also lend support, carefully hidden, to Iran’s resistance. They could use money, training, communications equipment, et al to support their movement. Perhaps we can redirect the Iranian shaped charges we capture in Iraq back into the hands of the Iranian resistance. Let the mullahs fear the IEDs they export to harm the Great Satan.

Rather than a hard strategy of military action that would polarize Iranians against us, we might profit more by pursuing a soft strategy of support for the disaffected Iranians who want to topple the mullahs and restore ties with America.

US may lift ban on F-22 sale to Israel

WildcatFan on June 6, 2008 at 11:18 AM

How can they afford to buy it from us? We give them money.

Top Hizzbbullah Commander from IRAN Caught in IRAQ.

roninacreage on June 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Now…what on earth would he be doing in such a dangerous place? Someone ask Obambi.

Give me a mintute to get my recliner and some popcorn!

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM

Target acquisition is much easier in the middle east, than in the Far East due to climate, and terrain.

We have MUCH better, more preise, munitions than Nam. The F-15 and F-22 can carry much larger payloads, of better weapons, and we have outstanding satelite imagery to do target selection.

Bridges, Manufacturing plants, Electricity generation, refinerys, oil production and transport… we could easily knock their entire economy on its rear end.

No bridges? Can’t transport food, or raw materials. No oil pipelines? Can’t transport oil. No electricity? No refrigeration or manufacturing….

Remember, that modern economies are actualy much more fragile than ever before… We crippled the German ability to wage war by bombing all the Ball bearing plants in WWII… think of what we could do now.

Point was that punishing Air Power CAN bring pressure on a country…

Romeo13 on June 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM

I agree with the bringing pressure part, but sufficient pressure? That’s the $64 question. Probably not. Then would there be more pressure after they have time to adjust? And then more pressure still?

I think that it’s basically all or nothing. Not at all sure which, but I think that “half measures” would probably be counterproductive.

Iran has more to lose than anyone else by blocking the straits. WHich isn’t to say that they won’t do something stupid, but their economy would completely collapse if they did that.

exhelodrvr on June 6, 2008 at 2:22 PM

They also have a lot to lose by using a nuke. I’m not willing to bet that will deter them, plus oil prices are determined primarily by traders influencing the market, as I understand it. So, even a threat or temporary blockage skyrockets crude prices, which doesn’t hurt them as much as being unable to deliver product, although because they have restricted refining capacity, they have to import gasoline so a double whammy. That has to be included in their calculations. There would be global economic hysteria, that’s for sure. I’d just as soon get it over with and pay the piper now.

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Point was that punishing Air Power CAN bring pressure on a country…

Remember, there was a Peace treaty signed, and Viet Nam had relative peace for a year or so. It was AFTER the Dem Congress sold them down the river by passing a law that we would not support them at all, that the North invaded with conventional forces.

Linebacker II was, IMO, a success.

Another major difference is that N. VietNam was being supplied by an outside superpower… Iran? Unless Russia or China supports them won’t have that safe source of supply.

Romeo13 on June 6, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Besides, do we want Iran at the “peace table” jaw, jaw, jawing and probably out jawing us?

Romeo13 on June 6, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Never seemed to change things on the ground in RVN. Not so as you would notice anyway. I think that they came to the peace table as they thought that they would make out well there, and they did.

But McCain isn’t conservative enough. How about if we don’t vote at all?

Similar was tried against North Vietnam. It was a waste of time. It resulted in a lot of American POW’s like John McCain and was ineffective.

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Uh, you do know that it was Linebacker II that brought the North to the Peace table? Even Giap said so in his memoirs.

America could modernize an ancient combat tactic, the punishment raid.

Iran’s economy is very fragile, and could be taken out from the air pretty easily. Take out bridges, refineries, munition plants, oil production facilites, electricity generation… basicly move them back to the Dark Age culture that some of their leaders want.

Then leave it. Don’t invade. Don’t occupy. Let their own people decide if its worth it or not.

With the internal problems they already have? Government won’t last long.

Romeo13 on June 6, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Similar was tried against North Vietnam. It was a waste of time. It resulted in a lot of American POW’s like John McCain and was ineffective.

War with Iran has to be a coordinated, sustained, smashing. Raids won’t cut it.

Limerick on June 6, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Yes, it must be pretty much all or nothing. I’m not such which one, but I know that it is one of those two.

Limerick: Here ya go!

http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/psychowar.shtml

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ss_iraq0215_06_05.asp

And,Me thinks imacrazyguyinadinnderjacket might
regret his daily rantings of”Little Satan” and
“Big Satan”!

Payback is gonna be a b!tch!

AlexB on June 6, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Probably just an elect me sound byte but could also be psyops.

If Israel attacks I expect the U.S. to get drawn in, simply because iran will retaliate by trying to block the Straits to affect oit prices. Probably just as well it happens quickly.

a capella on June 6, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Iran’s “navy,” such as it is, would not be a factor even if it didn’t cease to exist simultaneously with the nuke sites.