Whatever route the IAF close the entire operation would in fact likely be meant as a more of a demonstration of Israeli resolve than an expectation to accomplish anything more than a superficial delay on the Iranian program. The IAF as good as they are do not have the operational capacity to muster up a sustained air interediciton campaign at very extended ranges. Such an air effort might encourage the Russian’s to reverse course and sell and deploy the modern S-300 which would complicate further Israeli efforts by forcing them to first run complex operations against a buried fiber optic air defense network at extreme ranges – no easy thing even for the USAF.

If ever Turkish air space was an option, strained relations would now make any covert military planning with Ankara for over flight doubtful if for no other reason: because it probably put opsec at risk.

Part of the problem in figuring which route Israel might use instead (two routes - an alternate back?), is complicated because Israel doesn't give out it's technical specs, an/or how those modifications they make to our hardware impact. So much military analysis is based on what the assets they possess are capable of under U.S. norms.

It is certain, Israel wouldn't have the capability to launch follow on strikes or hit all known locations on any first strike, so they probably have one or two locations in mind that they view critical to Tehran's nuclear weapons program. My guess (it ain't really a guess) is the enrichment facility at Natanz

It may be interesting to recall Israel's June 2008 long range aerial exercise in which they flew 600nm over the Med to Crete and back with aerial refueling in evidence for the second 600nm leg. Of note was the practicing of down pilot rescue.

Anyway, my swag for the day is the Israeli's may use Saudi air space someplace around the Sinaitic Peninsula, perhaps around the Gulf of Eilat - Khalyj al Aqabah if you please, for the first leg of about 800nm from where they'll turn into Iran at the Persian Gulf for the last 300nm.

Pretty daunting eh?

Preacher Command's New Clear complex has four critical nodes: Esfahan, with its conversion facility, the Natanz and Qom enrichment facilities, the heavy water plant and future plutonium production reactors at Arak.

The total maximum strike package may be around 80 aircraft, all the 25 F-15I in the Little Satan's Inventory and 55 F-16I/C. The F-15E would then need 5 to 6 KC-130s to refuel from, and the F-16Is would require 6 to 7 KC-130.

Total number of weapons needed to have reasonable confidence in
destroying all three target sets is 24 5000-lb weapons and 24 2000-lb
weapons.

84 tons of intelligent guided precision weaponry! Weaponeering capabilities includes the happy fact that Little Satan maintains two elite especial forces units dedicated to assisting with air strikes, one dedicated to laser target designation (Sayeret Shaldag/Unit 5101) and one to real time bomb damage assessment (Unit 5707).

Little Satan could instead go ballistic -- say, 42 Jericho III missles with about a 750 kg Warhead each would seal the deal

Iran would withdraw from the NPT based on the argument that it needs to acquire new clear weaponry to diss any further aggression by Little and/or Great Satan.

Destabilizing Iraq through the Shia against allies, further arming insurgency groups when possible.

Escalate current support and upgrade Taliban capabilities in Afghanistan.

Increase the threat of asymmetric attacks against American interests and allies in the region, especially against countries that host Great Satan's military such as Qatar and Bahrain.

Target U.S. and Western shipping in the Gulf, and possibly attempt to interrupt the flow of oil through the Gulf.

While all this certainly sounds scary - and it is - it may actually make more sense to launch a far larger ambitious assault aerially againt the entire regime in Iran.

Tough to see how Iran could be any more PO'd than the above sans terror attacks on American soil and that (even with plausible deniability) would result in the regime's complete annihilation.

Time is running-out. Hop on the war-wagon, every kid in America has heard his/her teacher in school talk'en about our B-61 Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. We might not make a fuel efficient car, but after give'n a couple of these bad oscars to Israel to drop . . . who'll care. . . nor be able to afford to drive a car anyway. A nice 4 or 6 mile hike to and from the mall will do all of flabby America good!

Between us and our Hebrew allies, we'll show those missile building, carpet weaving, pistachio eating Persians and that runt of a president of theirs, they can’t dig their way out of this one.

I am serving notice to all the Iranian mullahs that they better get ready for a real taste of American BBQ - U-RAAAH!

Working centrifuges and partially enriched U-hexaflouride stocks are pressurized. The working medium and product is a highly radioactive and chemically toxic gas.

Anyone attacking such facilities in Israel or America, dispersing tons of partly enriched uranium into the domestic civil environment , would be guilty of radiological terror. The US regards even the threat of such as terrorism.

No friend of Israel should be encouraging them in threatening 'preemptive' radiological terror-war. These threats are strengthening, not weakening, the confessional police state in Iran.

Talking about large-scale air attack on enrichment facilities as if it is a tactical problem steps past question #1; What kind of war would that be? How would it affect US troops and security interests, in the Gulf and Central Asia? The economic cascade from an oil price head-rise in the aftermath would likely be devastating, globally, weakening integrated economies like the US and Israel.

This entire discussion assumes Iranian nukes would be a real threat. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, both then-Foreign Minister Livni and former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy denied that Iranian nukes would be an "existential threat" to Israel and said that Israeli politicians were using the issue as fear-mongering. "Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel" (Haaretz, Oct. 25, 2007).

Ahmadinejad = Hitler. Second Holocaust. Wipe Israel off the map.

Sound familiar?

Hopefully the Israelis use Saudi airspace and Tehran directs most of its anger towards RIyadh. Saudi Arabia needs to take a far more active stance on the Iranian issue as it stands to lose the most with an Iranian rise in the region. Israel and the US are doing Saudi Arabia's work and receiving all the diplomatic fallout. If the Saudis refuse to lead, then I would rather learn to live with an Iranian bomb. We have played containment with bigger enemies before.

Part of the problem in figuring which route Israel might use instead (two routes - an alternate back?), is complicated because Israel doesn't give out it's technical specs, an/or how those modifications they make to our hardware impact. So much military analysis is based on what the assets they possess are capable of under U.S. norms.

It is certain, Israel wouldn't have the capability to launch follow on strikes or hit all known locations on any first strike, so they probably have one or two locations in mind that they view replica rolex critical to Tehran's nuclear weapons program. My guess (it ain't really a guess) is the enrichment facility at Natanz

It may be interesting to recall Israel's June 2008 long range aerial exercise in which they flew 600nm over the Med to Crete and back with aerial refueling in evidence for the second 600nm leg. Of note was the practicing of down pilot rescue.

Anyway, my swag for the day is the Israeli's may use Saudi air space someplace around the Sinaitic Peninsula, perhaps around the Gulf of Eilat - Khalyj al Aqabah if you please, for the first leg of about 800nm from where they'll turn into Iran at the Persian Gulf for the last 300nm.