Whottt
09-24-2004, 08:32 PM
LOL! SO Iran wants to play with Nukes and brag about wiping people off the map eh?
www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=8709 (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=8709)
U.S., Israel turn up the heat on Iran - but there's a downside
By Ed Blanche
Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, September 25, 2004
BEIRUT: The Bush administration's decision to sell Israel 500 satellite-guided "bunker-buster" bombs, revealed on Tuesday, did nothing at all to dispel concerns that the United States and Israel are considering preemptive strikes to knock out Iran's nuclear weapons program. Despite all the threats flying back and forth between the adversaries, the prospect of conflict still seems remote, if only because the consequences could be disastrous all round. But U.S. or Israeli air strikes, or even possibly a joint assault, remain an option that's on the table. There is intense debate on this in both governments, although the Israelis seem more inclined toward military action.
For the time being, the Bush administration appears to be prepared to negotiate with Iran, but confrontation remains a distinct possibility. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, the hawkish John Bolton, visited Israel for talks on Iran's nuclear program earlier this month and declared: We are determined to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. The U.S. would not hesitate to use force, if necessary."
In May, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 376-3 to allow the government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." If the Senate follows suit, President George W. Bush would have a green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations. Not a cheerful thought.
Apart from the one-ton BLU-109 Joint Direct Attack Munitions bombs, known as Jdams, capable of penetrating 5 meters of reinforced concrete before exploding, the $319 million U.S. weapons package also includes 2,500 other one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs and 500 quarter-ton bombs.
Israeli and U.S. officials played down the possible use of such weapons against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But it transpires that the bombs can be guided by Israel's own military surveillance satellites which monitor Iran, meaning the Jewish state would not need to rely on U.S. satellites for guiding the bombs in to Iranian targets. That's not a cheerful thought either.
The BLU-109, however, is not the last word in U.S. weapons designed to destroy targets buried deep underground, as much of Iran's nuclear program is believed to be. To really do the job, the Israelis would need the GBU-28 "super bomb" used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israeli commentator Amir Oren wrote in Haaretz in early September that once the U.S. presidential elections were over, presumably with Bush reelected, "the Pentagon might support providing Israel with the huge "bunker-busting" GBU-28 bomb, capable of penetrating deep underground storage spaces for weapons of mass destruction."
The U.S. Air Force is also developing an experimental 13,600-kilogram bomb, the biggest in its inventory, to knock out deeply buried targets beyond the reach of existing bombs. "We think a bomb like this could be important in the future for targets that we can't destroy with what we have now," said Jake Swinson of the Air Armaments Center at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
The Pentagon said in June that the bombs package for Israel was designed to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." Although the Defense Department did not elaborate, one could extrapolate that the Americans were giving Israel the wherewithal for a direct assault on Iran's nuclear facilities.
But there is a belief in U.S. military circles - and probably in the Israeli military establishment as well, despite all the bellicose rhetoric - that the Israeli Air Force, the spearhead of Israel's offensive capabilities, is not able, for the time being at least, to effectively take out the Iranian installations in one fell swoop, which is the preferred scenario.
And Israel's defenses against an Iranian missile attack remain unproven. In recent days the Israelis have suffered two critical setbacks in their efforts to develop a multi-layered shield against missiles. On Sept. 6, they failed to put into orbit the Ofeq-6 remote-sensing surveillance satellite, which would monitor Iran for missile launches, Eleven days earlier, an Arrow-2 ballistic missile interceptor missed its target, a simulated Shehab-3, in a joint test with the U.S. off the coast of California.
The timing of the double failure could not have been worse for Israel, given its threats against Iran and the technological superiority over its regional adversaries that it has long flaunted. Analyst Amir Oren, writing in Haaretz, said that the failure to put Ofeq-6 into orbit "could accelerate the escalation in tension between Israel and Iran and bring them closer to a military clash."
The touchstone of all this was Israel's ground-breaking air strike on June 7, 1981, that destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor south of Baghdad. The Iranians learned a lesson from that (as did Saddam) and widely dispersed their nuclear installations, burying them deep underground, making simultaneous attacks difficult. They are also heavily protected by batteries of S-300PMU long-range air-defense missiles bought from Russia over the last decade and highly regarded by Western military experts. Finally, most of the potential targets lie at the outer edge of the combat range of Israel's strike aircraft.
The other possibility, of course, is for the Americans, with their greater military assets, such as aircraft carriers, long-range cruise missiles and the air bases in Iraq and Central Asia acquired since September 2001, to conduct a systematic large-scale assault on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"A U.S. attack ... using an array of Tomahawk cruise missiles and/or guided munitions from stealth bombers would surely be much more effective than anything Israel could muster," according to an August assessment of a preemptive assault on Iranian nuclear installations by the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute for International Studies in California.
The mechanics of such a difficult operation thus are well within U.S. capabilities. But, as the center notes, the likely consequences of such an attack are sufficiently negative to make it unacceptable for the US, and thus for Israel too. For one thing, just as the Osirak raid made Saddam even more determined to acquire nuclear weapons, so the Iranians, who probably have duplicate installations for more of their facilities, could be expected to redouble their efforts to do the same.
An operation like that would also be widely viewed as an act of aggression by much of the world, which on top of the anger caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq would undermine the diplomatic coalition seeking to negotiate with Tehran to abandon its nuclear quest.
"The most troubling aspect of such a scenario is that, unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran is not dependent on foreign imports for nuclear technology and already has available the raw materials, and most of the designs and techniques, required to pursue a nuclear weapons program," the Monterey assessment said."
A U.S. or Israeli attack would in all likelihood trigger a retaliatory Iranian missile attack on Israel with Shehab-3s, developed with Russian, North Korean and Chinese help. The hard-line Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is believed to have at least 25, possibly even 100, of these weapons, which are generally seen as Iran's means of delivering nuclear warheads.
Tehran is not expected to have any of those for some years, but the Shehabs, whose accuracy is not clear, can still carry warheads of up to 1,000 kilograms of high explosive that could target Israeli strategic installations, such as the nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev desert. But it is likely that large cities such as Tel Aviv or Haifa (though presumably not Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest site) would be targeted as well.
Iranian retaliation would also probably involve attacks with shorter-range Shehab-1s and 2s, of which Tehran has an estimated 300-450 with ranges up to 500 kilometers, against U.S. bases in Iraq and the Gulf. The Iranians would also cause chaos in Iraq, using the Shiite majority to move against the U.S.-led occupation, possibly with restive Shiites in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states rising up against these regimes, while Hizbullah unleashes Katyusha barrages against Israel and openly joins the Palestinian intifada. The impact regionally would be catastrophic.
www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=8709 (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=8709)
U.S., Israel turn up the heat on Iran - but there's a downside
By Ed Blanche
Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, September 25, 2004
BEIRUT: The Bush administration's decision to sell Israel 500 satellite-guided "bunker-buster" bombs, revealed on Tuesday, did nothing at all to dispel concerns that the United States and Israel are considering preemptive strikes to knock out Iran's nuclear weapons program. Despite all the threats flying back and forth between the adversaries, the prospect of conflict still seems remote, if only because the consequences could be disastrous all round. But U.S. or Israeli air strikes, or even possibly a joint assault, remain an option that's on the table. There is intense debate on this in both governments, although the Israelis seem more inclined toward military action.
For the time being, the Bush administration appears to be prepared to negotiate with Iran, but confrontation remains a distinct possibility. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, the hawkish John Bolton, visited Israel for talks on Iran's nuclear program earlier this month and declared: We are determined to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. The U.S. would not hesitate to use force, if necessary."
In May, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 376-3 to allow the government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." If the Senate follows suit, President George W. Bush would have a green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations. Not a cheerful thought.
Apart from the one-ton BLU-109 Joint Direct Attack Munitions bombs, known as Jdams, capable of penetrating 5 meters of reinforced concrete before exploding, the $319 million U.S. weapons package also includes 2,500 other one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs and 500 quarter-ton bombs.
Israeli and U.S. officials played down the possible use of such weapons against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But it transpires that the bombs can be guided by Israel's own military surveillance satellites which monitor Iran, meaning the Jewish state would not need to rely on U.S. satellites for guiding the bombs in to Iranian targets. That's not a cheerful thought either.
The BLU-109, however, is not the last word in U.S. weapons designed to destroy targets buried deep underground, as much of Iran's nuclear program is believed to be. To really do the job, the Israelis would need the GBU-28 "super bomb" used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israeli commentator Amir Oren wrote in Haaretz in early September that once the U.S. presidential elections were over, presumably with Bush reelected, "the Pentagon might support providing Israel with the huge "bunker-busting" GBU-28 bomb, capable of penetrating deep underground storage spaces for weapons of mass destruction."
The U.S. Air Force is also developing an experimental 13,600-kilogram bomb, the biggest in its inventory, to knock out deeply buried targets beyond the reach of existing bombs. "We think a bomb like this could be important in the future for targets that we can't destroy with what we have now," said Jake Swinson of the Air Armaments Center at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
The Pentagon said in June that the bombs package for Israel was designed to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." Although the Defense Department did not elaborate, one could extrapolate that the Americans were giving Israel the wherewithal for a direct assault on Iran's nuclear facilities.
But there is a belief in U.S. military circles - and probably in the Israeli military establishment as well, despite all the bellicose rhetoric - that the Israeli Air Force, the spearhead of Israel's offensive capabilities, is not able, for the time being at least, to effectively take out the Iranian installations in one fell swoop, which is the preferred scenario.
And Israel's defenses against an Iranian missile attack remain unproven. In recent days the Israelis have suffered two critical setbacks in their efforts to develop a multi-layered shield against missiles. On Sept. 6, they failed to put into orbit the Ofeq-6 remote-sensing surveillance satellite, which would monitor Iran for missile launches, Eleven days earlier, an Arrow-2 ballistic missile interceptor missed its target, a simulated Shehab-3, in a joint test with the U.S. off the coast of California.
The timing of the double failure could not have been worse for Israel, given its threats against Iran and the technological superiority over its regional adversaries that it has long flaunted. Analyst Amir Oren, writing in Haaretz, said that the failure to put Ofeq-6 into orbit "could accelerate the escalation in tension between Israel and Iran and bring them closer to a military clash."
The touchstone of all this was Israel's ground-breaking air strike on June 7, 1981, that destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor south of Baghdad. The Iranians learned a lesson from that (as did Saddam) and widely dispersed their nuclear installations, burying them deep underground, making simultaneous attacks difficult. They are also heavily protected by batteries of S-300PMU long-range air-defense missiles bought from Russia over the last decade and highly regarded by Western military experts. Finally, most of the potential targets lie at the outer edge of the combat range of Israel's strike aircraft.
The other possibility, of course, is for the Americans, with their greater military assets, such as aircraft carriers, long-range cruise missiles and the air bases in Iraq and Central Asia acquired since September 2001, to conduct a systematic large-scale assault on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"A U.S. attack ... using an array of Tomahawk cruise missiles and/or guided munitions from stealth bombers would surely be much more effective than anything Israel could muster," according to an August assessment of a preemptive assault on Iranian nuclear installations by the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute for International Studies in California.
The mechanics of such a difficult operation thus are well within U.S. capabilities. But, as the center notes, the likely consequences of such an attack are sufficiently negative to make it unacceptable for the US, and thus for Israel too. For one thing, just as the Osirak raid made Saddam even more determined to acquire nuclear weapons, so the Iranians, who probably have duplicate installations for more of their facilities, could be expected to redouble their efforts to do the same.
An operation like that would also be widely viewed as an act of aggression by much of the world, which on top of the anger caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq would undermine the diplomatic coalition seeking to negotiate with Tehran to abandon its nuclear quest.
"The most troubling aspect of such a scenario is that, unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran is not dependent on foreign imports for nuclear technology and already has available the raw materials, and most of the designs and techniques, required to pursue a nuclear weapons program," the Monterey assessment said."
A U.S. or Israeli attack would in all likelihood trigger a retaliatory Iranian missile attack on Israel with Shehab-3s, developed with Russian, North Korean and Chinese help. The hard-line Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is believed to have at least 25, possibly even 100, of these weapons, which are generally seen as Iran's means of delivering nuclear warheads.
Tehran is not expected to have any of those for some years, but the Shehabs, whose accuracy is not clear, can still carry warheads of up to 1,000 kilograms of high explosive that could target Israeli strategic installations, such as the nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev desert. But it is likely that large cities such as Tel Aviv or Haifa (though presumably not Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest site) would be targeted as well.
Iranian retaliation would also probably involve attacks with shorter-range Shehab-1s and 2s, of which Tehran has an estimated 300-450 with ranges up to 500 kilometers, against U.S. bases in Iraq and the Gulf. The Iranians would also cause chaos in Iraq, using the Shiite majority to move against the U.S.-led occupation, possibly with restive Shiites in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states rising up against these regimes, while Hizbullah unleashes Katyusha barrages against Israel and openly joins the Palestinian intifada. The impact regionally would be catastrophic.