Whenever I read spy/intel news, I ask 'who is really talking, and why are they telling me this now?' Truth is only indirectly related to effect in an infowar strike. Words are the most efficient of weapons, dispersing and confusing an enemy with a mere threat.

That said, destroying a coupla billion in flying stock on the tarmac does sound like our efficient nuclear-armed allies, doesn't it? Or just threatening to do so. As pointed out in an earlier discussion, blowing uranium all over the Persian countryside is a really bad move for Israel. And most especially for us too.

The F-15 shown in Tom's pic was 'sold' with nuclear delivery capability intact, a tech export that is prohibited under US non-proliferation law. Go figure.

http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=6040

"DEBKAfile's Iranian and intelligence sources disclose that Moscow warned Tehran Friday April 17 that Israel was planning to destroy all 140 fighter-bombers concentrated at the Mehr-Abad Air Force base for an air show over Tehran on Iran's Army Day the following day. The entire fleet was accordingly removed to remote bases and the display cancelled."

First off:

Walking Wounded -- debkafile is an official or quasi-official disinfo agency of the Israeli government. If you read it regularly you'll notice that by the third or fourth paragraph the comments on their bulletins usually devolve into remarks that are less than objective and promote Israeli policy. In the shorter releases that happens by the third or fourth sentence.

Second:

If Israeli aircraft did somehow reach Iranian airfields by avoiding Iraqi airspace, which has already been declared off limits by the Americans and the Iraqis all or a large percentage of the ordnance they carried would have to be used against Iranian Air Force targets. That wouldn't leave much left over for continuing on and attacking the hardened nuclear facilities inside Iran. That means the Israelis would have to turn around, go home, refuel and and re-arm. Then fly back to Iran to attack Natanz etc. That hardly seems like a cogent plan. Once the Iranian Air Force was hit the rocket and missile forces under Iranian command would commence an attack on Israel itself. "Under Iranian command" includes friendly forces in Lebanon.

Maybe he is preparing for his first visit to D.C.

Why take an attack off the table? No one wants a nuclear Iran, an attack adds to leverage, so why take it off the table?

Three reasons: it's misinformation; it's a manifestation of confusion among Israeli policy makers; it's a recognition of possibility that an attack would suit Iran's purposes just fine therefore mitigating utility of such.

If the latter, would Iran's interests trump what Israel considered to be in its best interests? are there not reasons why they would want to keep an attack on the table regardless? Consider that keeping an attack viable increases Israel's leverage in negotiations with Washington: Bibi's jaundiced view of the Palestinian issue is at odds with Obama: wouldn't Bibi want to keep the threat alive and hanging over Obama's head in order to get what he wants viz the Palestinians?

So, lots of questions, no clear answers - but keep this in mind: Israel has made it very clear they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran: if they now do not intercede to prevent it the perception in the region will be that Israel is weakened: Israel does not like to look weak and will be motivated to compensate. We're sitting here thinking that the worst thing that could happen is Israel attacking Iran, but imagine a scenario of an aggressive and ambitious Iran with the bomb and Israel looking to counter a view of it as impotent and ask yourself if that's really the case.

USS Stark suffered mass casualties, could have been sunk, and that was 'friendly fire' from our ally Saddam's air force. The USN has excellent fire discipline, and yet an Aegis cruiser somehow managed to take down a scheduled civil jetliner from inside Iranian waters, killing 290. Things have a way of getting out of control.

Right, but those were blindside attacks in a relatively peaceful/peacetime environment. Not sure how those apply here. Both the Israeli and Iranian Air Forces must surely be on heightened if not full alert at all times at present. I'm not suggesting that the Israelis would welcome air-to-air battles with the Iranian Air Force but I don't think they'd kick off hostilities by attacking them on the ground, then have to still go home and refuel and re-arm. Hizballah would likely be launching missile attacks against Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dimona before Israeli pilots were out of Iranian airspace on the trip back to Israel. Maybe attacking Israeli airfields as well.

The Israelis claim Hizballah has 40,000 artillery rockets, which most observers consider to be a gross exaggeration, but who knows. I'd guess at a minimum they have five to ten thousand. If Hizballah managed to launch only half of those that would result in a level of damage, destruction and general chaos that the Israelis have never experienced on their own property. It would be tough for them to refit their aircraft then fly back toward Iran while their cities and nuclear facilities were under missile attack. Meanwhile the Iranans themselves would be preparing to proceed with whatever immediate response they've been planning for the last several years.

Israel has submarines, corvettes at Eilat, and we supposedly are guaranteeing international passage at Hormuz.

Yes, but SLCMs are not really the weapon of choice to take out sandbagged, hardened targets. They can do damage but in this scenario I don't think the Israelis could be confident of accomplishing a significant and acceptable level of destruction if relying on SLCMs. Plus the Iranians do have coastal watercraft that are radar equpped. The Israelis in submarines or small ships could not simply park off the Iranian coast and start lobbing cruise missiles into Iran without the risk of being counterattacked by Iranian vessels (including Iranian submarines).

Or do you mean attack the Iranian Air Force with SLCMs? That's a possibility. Whether or not it was an effective attack though Hizballah in Lebanon is only a phone call away.

American SLCMs were found to have failure rate of between 11% and 20% in the '91 Gulf War by the way.

A spectacular raid that destroyed the iranian air force would be money in the bnak, and maybe they could depend on the USA to prevent them from the horrific but indecisive attack on the reactor fuel.

You might be right -- if it ended there, after an attack on the Iranian Air Force. But the Israelis would have to understand that it would not end there. Iran would go into counterattack mode, probably low level after they and their friends had fired all of their rocket artillery. An attack on the Iranian Air Force, even if 100% successful would be only the first half-inning of a nine inning game. I agree with you that neither Israel nor the United States wants to get trapped in a long drawn out conflict in the Middle East. I presume that's exactly what the Iranians would commence, particularly through destabilising Iraq and Af'stan with their special forces and attacking international Israeli/Jewish assets. No theatrical confrontations with the USA using their official army with shiny boots and recognisable uniforms. That situation would not affect the Israelis so much as the Americans but I'd be shocked if the Americans have not already told the Israelis that We (the Americans) will hold Israel responsible for any increase in hostilities and American troop casualties that result from Israeli actions. Synagogues, El Al offices, diamond brokers in Brussels and Amsterdam and other Israeli/Jewish organisations would likely begin to experience violence as well. The American army in the ME would receive the majority of but not all of the retaliation.

That would be counterproductive for iran. It would be stupid for them to encourage international zionism that way, but they might possibly be stupid like that. And the international radicals they support but don't control might easily do some things like that apart from iranian wishes, that could then be blamed on iran. And if there isn't enough of that happening, israeli hit teams could do it to increase support for zionism.

Yes, this is true. But if hell-bent on revenge the Iranians will do whatever they can, they're not concerned whether or not such actions would motivate zionists or others to support or relocate to Israel. The complete leveling of the largest synagogue in Sophia say, on a Saturday morning would be considered an effective mission by the Iranians. I can't speak for the entire world but I can say with complete confidence that public sympathy in Europe would not be with the Israelis after such a punch-counterpunch.

I'm with you 100%. It would be a far more reasonable world if people like you and me were running things.

I've already tried that. No one seems to want to listen to me. But I'm willing to give it another go if you've got a plan.

Cheers,

DD