Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian

#1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece


The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”

In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.

Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.


john
 
#2
I'm guessing (I really am) that the only way Isreal will be able to get to the targets will be by taking out the (guessing again) well dig in anti-air first? And the only way they can get hold of the co-ordinates of the AA is from the yanks? So the Obama administration would have to leak it to them....again.
 
#3
So what are the chances this will actually kick off, and not become more posturing about by the Israeli's?
 
#4
Kakashi said:
So what are the chances this will actually kick off, and not become more posturing about by the Israeli's?
Posturing? If there's one thing that Israel can't be accused of, it's gobbing off without the will to back it up with action. They've shown themselves to be only too willing to launch offensive strikes when they feel the need to - against Syria, Lebannon, the Palestinians and aid ships in the last few years alone.
 
#5
Spot_the_Dog said:
I'm guessing (I really am) that the only way Isreal will be able to get to the targets will be by taking out the (guessing again) well dig in anti-air first? And the only way they can get hold of the co-ordinates of the AA is from the yanks? So the Obama administration would have to leak it to them....again.
It seems that the Israelis have had satellites since 1988(?) and have been putting the Kodak Instamatics in them for some time.
They have even had satellites put in orbit for them by the Russians; that would seem a bit like the enemy of my enemy is my friend

LINK
 
#7
This good news is giving me a semi, could one presume that switching off air defences and allowing aircorridors is not the only assisance the Sunnis are going to offer the Children of David against the heritic.
 
#8
The Israelis usually lash out when the PM is in trouble.

Not the case at the moment. Bibi is sitting pretty according to Haaretz.
...
Satisfaction with the prime minister's performance, which showed a decline recently, shot up in the new poll to above 50 percent. The public apparently buys Netanyahu's narrative, which seems to suggest that the world is hypocritical, that we are the only just people, and that whoever is not with him - with Netanyahu - is against Israel.

Fully 57 percent of those polled said they trusted the ministerial forum of seven, which came under fire in the past week, and trust it even more now. Only 37 percent did not trust the forum of seven in the past and now, following the flotilla episode, trust it even less.

Opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who criticized the government just days after the flotilla operation, was punished by the public for her ostensible lack of patriotism. In a poll two months ago, Livni had a slightly positive rating: 45 percent were satisfied with her performance, 43 percent were not. In the present poll, 50 percent say they are not satisfied, against 35 percent who say they are.
...
How quickly they forget, Tzipi was the beloved hammer of Gaza not so long ago.
 
#9
Has it been a month since the last Times 'Israel to attack Iran' article? They normally come along every 3 or 4 weeks regurgitating the same old stories in an attempt to convince the public that it's all some foregone conclusion.

If it's all so easy for the Israelis, why haven't they done it already?
 
#10
as much as i dislike both countries i cant help admiring their "u dont like us, we dont care" attitude they have in common. especially iran. they've basically been givving 2 fingers and sayin fcuk u we'll do wat we want, for the last few years
 
#12
The solution is in theory quite straightforward. Israel strikes from the air, supported by the Americans. We use the armies stationed next door to move in and take over the country, (after all we did this with the Sadaam regime) once overtaken we then dismantle the nuclear facilities. Whatever regime follows so long as it is not a lunatic theocracy will no longer threaten the rest of the world.
 
#13
Tytus_Barnowl said:
The solution is in theory quite straightforward. Israel strikes from the air, supported by the Americans. We use the armies stationed next door to move in and take over the country, (after all we did this with the Sadaam regime) once overtaken we then dismantle the nuclear facilities. Whatever regime follows so long as it is not a lunatic theocracy will no longer threaten the rest of the world.
And in reality quite different.
 
#14
Tytus_Barnowl said:
The solution is in theory quite straightforward. Israel strikes from the air, supported by the Americans. We use the armies stationed next door to move in and take over the country, (after all we did this with the Sadaam regime) once overtaken we then dismantle the nuclear facilities. Whatever regime follows so long as it is not a lunatic theocracy will no longer threaten the rest of the world.
Absolutely, after all, it went so smoothly smoothly in Iraq...

8O
 
#15
Schleswig-Holstein said:
Tytus_Barnowl said:
The solution is in theory quite straightforward. Israel strikes from the air, supported by the Americans. We use the armies stationed next door to move in and take over the country, (after all we did this with the Sadaam regime) once overtaken we then dismantle the nuclear facilities. Whatever regime follows so long as it is not a lunatic theocracy will no longer threaten the rest of the world.
Absolutely, after all, it went so smoothly smoothly in Iraq...

8O
It did indeed. Iraq with its miserable army was fought to a standstill by iran. Equal or what? The world does not need theocracy regimes. There are no intenational barriers, Russia will do absolutely shag. Civilisation has a chance to stop them NOW. We might not have the same chance 10 years down the road.
 
#16
Tytus_Barnowl said:
It did indeed. Iraq with its miserable army was fought to a standstill by iran. Equal or what? The world does not need theocracy regimes. There are no intenational barriers, Russia will do absolutely shag. Civilisation has a chance to stop them NOW. We might not have the same chance 10 years down the road.
Did you start drinking early today?
 
#17
Lets hope that Israel gets the go ahead sooner than later.
 
#18
I thought the Iranians had recently significantly updated their AA capability by getting a load of quite effective SAM's from Russia, mainly strategically placed near supposed nuclear research sites!
It would be far more effective if a series of mysterious blasts, possibly nuclear, triggered by some form of unfortunate meteorite (possibly ICBM :lol: ) strike, could happen at each of these "research" sites, after all the Iranians are playing with fire (nuclear fire that is) and "accidents" do happen! :lol:
 
#19
No_Duff said:
Lets hope that Israel gets the go ahead sooner than later.
More importantly, why do they need the go ahead from somebody else and why haven't they already done it already?
 
#20
Tytus_Barnowl said:
Schleswig-Holstein said:
Tytus_Barnowl said:
The solution is in theory quite straightforward. Israel strikes from the air, supported by the Americans. We use the armies stationed next door to move in and take over the country, (after all we did this with the Sadaam regime) once overtaken we then dismantle the nuclear facilities. Whatever regime follows so long as it is not a lunatic theocracy will no longer threaten the rest of the world.
Absolutely, after all, it went so smoothly smoothly in Iraq...

8O
It did indeed. Iraq with its miserable army was fought to a standstill by iran. Equal or what? The world does not need theocracy regimes. There are no intenational barriers, Russia will do absolutely shag. Civilisation has a chance to stop them NOW. We might not have the same chance 10 years down the road.
Not sure about 'miserable'. Prior to the Kuwait invasion, Iraq had an enormous land army, loads of chemical weapons, and about the only thing it never really got sorted out were its Navy and Air Force. In all honesty, if it had been competently led, it should have cleaned the Iranian's clock. What really crippled the Iraqi war effort was a combination of Saddam's incompetent leadership, (and habit of purging officers with a bit of talent lest they become a challenge), and determined resistance by the Iranians.

In that war Iran was the defender. The people were united against a hostile external threat. Getting the Iranian population onside for a major aggressive land war is a very different matter. There is a serious undercurrent of resistance to the current regime, and although large slabs of the economy are now owned by the Revolutionary Guard (On the Chinese PLA model), the RG don't appear to be very good businessmen. The economy is on a knife edge, and the regime knows it.

There's two ways this could go. Either the messianic nutter Ahmedinajad gets his nuclear toy sorted out and kicks it off (0-0 draw with only the cockroaches enjoying extra time in Tehran), or saner voices in the religious hierarchy decide that they are going to get lynched if the current bunch of muppets continue running the economy, and remove him.

Theocratic regimes have their faults. Some do quite well (ancient Egypt, the Aztecs, and so on). Where they stand or fall is basically on the admin skill of the theocracy. No-one, for instance, ever said that the Vatican was run by dummies.

A theocracy might go to war for different reasons to a democracy, but 90% of the time it goes to war for the SAME reasons, but uses religion as a fig leaf to cover itself. IF Israel uses its free airspace pass from the Saudis, it won't be because the theocratic Saudi regime now loves the theocratic Jews. It's because both sides have a vested interest in removing a bigger threat to their own wordly positions.

If Iran goes to war, it MIGHT be because the President and his inner circle are howling at the Moon, but its much more likely to be a case of trying to unify the nation by waving the old 'bloody shirt' to try and forestall a domestic uprising brought about by their own economic incompetence. At current rates, Iran won't be a superpower in 10 years time. It'll be a Third World ruin, but which might have a nuclear warhead.

There ain't going to be a new Persian Empire under this leadership. It might achieve a poor copy of North Korea at best. Personally, I'm inclining towards a new version of Sudan or Somalia.And that's without the Israelis chucking instant sunshine at them.

Edit: Interesting article on todays' BBC about Iranian domestic politics one year on from the election.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10299933.stm
 

Latest Threads