An Israeli-Iran War: What Would It Look Like by Richard Sale

By Richard T. Sale, author of Clinton’s Secret Wars

For months, there have been rumors of a strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The propaganda build-up is very similar to that directed against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2002. In both cases, an isolated state with limited military and physical resources is depicted as a horror threatens to end the survival of the world, except, of course, that Saddam Hussein's WMD didn’t exist.

According to several U.S. analysts like Steven Heydeman, a perceptive commentator for Foreign Affairs, the message emanating from Israel and its right-wing U.S. supporters, is that the road to Jerusalem and an Arab-Israeli peace leads through Iran. Prime Minister Benhamin Netanyahu contends that since Iran’s support of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza means permanent hostiity to Israel's existence,the only way to make  an Israeli-Palestinian peace possible is to use brute force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.  As a result, Iran is incessantly depicted by Israel’s right-wing as the seat of all the world’s evil and calls during the last few weeks for a joint U.S.-Israel strike against Iran have reached a crescendo of frantic anxiety.

Israel’s rationale for a strike is solidly rooted in its past.  Avner Cohen, a first rate analyst of Israel’s nuclear and defense programs, wrote recently that the day after the bombing of the Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin exclaimed that the Osirak attack meant installing a new strategic doctrine that said that “Israel would do its utmost, including risking starting a war, in order to prevent hostile states in the region from obtaining nuclear arms.” Behind this statement lurked Begin’s fear of new Holocaust of Israel’s Jews.

Israel adopted the so called Osirak doctrine, as if “it were holy writ,” said Cohen. But what the Israeli public in 1981 did not know was that throughout the operation, Begin hadn’t correctly understood his own intelligence, plus top Israeli security officials - including the heads of army intelligence, the Mossad and the director general of the atomic energy commission – had stridently opposed the attack. The obdurate Begin launched it anyway.

In the past, the United States had lead in confronting Iran. For years, the United States Air Force has had “Project Checkmate,” a secret, strategic planning group tasked with running detailed contingency scenarios for a possible U.S. attack Iran.  It is part of CENTCOM and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defense and cyber experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA, DIA and other government agencies.

Time changed this. During the past few years, it was Israel who increasingly sought to launch a preemptive strike on Tehran with the United States assigned a subsidiary role. As one former US official with personal knowledge of the situation said that all through the summer: “Israel wanted to start something and drag us in.”

This correspondent first heard of the threats of a preemptive Israeli strike as early as last May when reports surfaced of classified DOD drills were being conducted  in support of an Israeli attack on Iran. All summer long, the drills continued supervised by teams of senior CIA and DIA officials who were personally opposed to any such attack.

Last spring, then Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, who had a fixed and determined will, resisted the very idea of such an attack. When he once said that, “Any country who invaded another ought to have his head examined,” there were many U.S. officials who believed it was said of Israel.

Nevertheless, tensions continued to increase. 

In August, after Gates retired, there were rumors that Israel would attack after Adm. Mike Mullins, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired in September. After Mullins stepped down, President Obama sent the new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to Israel to argue that an attack would not succeed in its aims and attempted to get a commitment from Israeli Prime Minister  Netanyahu not to strike Iran without warning.  Several sources said that Panetta failed to get that pledge.

And Israeli attempts at intimidating kept on. Within the last two months, there appeared numerous accounts portraying Israel’s military capability as invincible. Only last month, Israel fired its new long-range Jericho III missile able to hit Iran, (a weapon capable of being launched from a submarine,) and its air force conducted a joint exercise with the Italian Air Force over Sardinia, covering an area of 800 kilometers, making clear that Israel could conduct a deadly, long-range strike.  A recent article by Daily Best correspondent Eli Lake, boasted that Israel’s new cyber weapons would be able to pierce and disable Iran’s air defense forces, foil Iran’s air defenses, disrupt Iran’s electrical grid, jam the frequencies of responders, and collapse its software networks.  The comedian George Carlin once called these activities “prick waving.”

The boasts of Tel Aviv’s invincibility prompted Professor Paul Williams of the National Defense University, to comment to me, “The Israelis are not invincible.  Pride goes before the fall.”

Could Israel Do It?

According to our best sources, the war would begin without warning.  Israel would fall silent, as it did before the Osirak strike in 1981. The attack would utilize three Israeli strike units: its aircraft, its missiles, and cruise missiles launched from its three diesel subs. However, the most important strategic element would be Israel’s Air Force.

In the words of former senior US intelligence and Mideast experts, the most highly-regarded scenario would involve a strike package of 70-80 aircraft that would fly up to the corner of the Mediterranean, adjoining northern Syria and southeastern Turkey. There the strike planes would top off, then fly east over southern Turkey, infuriating the Turks, but who probably would not hoot the planes down.  After hitting their targets in Iran, and realizing that hostile Turks would now be in the air, the Israeli planes would be in peril. With the need for fuel becoming more acute with each passing minute, Israel’s aircraft “would barrel straight through Iraqi and Jordanian airspace in a direct line for home,” in the words of one U.S. expert source.

Thanks to U.S. pressure, the Iraqis would not engage the aircraft either, and the Jordanians, much as they did back in June 1981 during the Osirak operation, would scramble its air force belatedly and without any real desire to engage, fearing that an encounter could result in them losing most of their air force.

What would Iran’s Reaction be?

The 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War (called the Second Lebanon War in Israel) was an attempt by Israel at eliminating the MAD counter-force in Lebanon. It was an attempt that failed. According to Lord Elgin, a British weapons consultant for British Aerospace, Iran had purchased and supplied to Hezbollah), a large number of very nasty, relatively low cost Russian AT-14 Kornet solid fuel anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), and the Iranian-trained Hezbollah commandos dug in massive numbers of these in concrete bunkers and firing positions. According to former DOD officials, after over 50 under powered and lightly armored Merkava main battle tanks were hit, and after Israel’s American-made warplanes and pinpoint weapons proved ineffective, failure stared Tel Aviv in the face. Either Israeli had to use neutron bombs and deploy a large number of Israeli soldiers to remove the Hezbollah threat or it could declare peace. Israel declared peace.

In the case of an attack on Iran, Israel has a vast array of weapons including neutron bombs, nuclear weapons, and fuel air explosive (FAE) bombs. But if Israel used  an FAE weapon in an attack, Iran and its allies in Lebanon would fire thousand upon thousands of its scud missiles armed with high explosive (HE) warheads “at every Israeli population center down as far as Tel Aviv,” according to  one former senior DOD analyst.

The Syrians, using larger and more actively guided missiles, could shower Israel with high explosive warheads (or even WMD payloads) while Israel would attempt to use its Green Pine radar system, and a combination of U.S. and Israeli anti-missile missiles, to shoot down these salvos. DOD analysts told this reporter that Israel in the beginning would have good success in knocking down many incoming missiles, but the sheer number of incoming missiles would “totally overload all any defensive measures.”

A former US intelligence official, with direct knowledge of Israel’s attack plans, emphasized: “The Israelis have no defense against this. Israel has a massive disincentive against the use of any kind of nuclear weapon. Israel has only two population centers and this attack would finish them.”

The last part of the statement deserves notice. According to Rand Corp war-gamers like Austin Long and Anshel Pfeffer, an attack by Israel on Iran would succeed.  “The Israeli Air Force has conducted training missions with simulated operations as far as Gibraltar at the western edge of the Mediterranean, which indicates it could effectively organize a very large long-range strike.”

This is directly contradicted by serving and former U.S. military and intelligence officials.  First they pointed out that the Israeli-Italian Air Force joint mission covered “very small distances,” in the words of one. These same sources conclude that Israel’s  strike against Iran would not be “crushingly decisive” chiefly because the bulk of Israel’s Air Force could not participate, mainly because of  “limitations relating to certain types of aircraft trawling long distances and Israel’s limited aerial tanker capacity,” in the words of another analyst.

A former senior DOD official, with firsthand knowledge of Israel’s attack plains said that Pfeffer’s estimate “ignores all the space time considerations, Iranian air defense, Israel’s fuel limitation, etc.” another US official said “Israel would have huge losses from fuel starvation.”

There appear to be three major targets in Israel’s strike plan: the uranium-conversion facility at Esfahan, the fuel-enrichment plant at Natanz, and the heavy-water production plant and heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak. Even if Israelis Air Force reached their targets, there being deep underground would make them hard to hit. “It would take thousands of sorties,” said a former senior Pentagon official.  And given the range, the Israeli planes couldn’t stay at the area for very long. ‘”The Israelis have no idea of the scale and complexity of this kind of operation,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official.

Resolution?

But American resistance to any Israeli strike spiked recently when two senior US military leaders bridled at the scheme. Only a few days ago, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey and CENTCOM  chief Gen. James Mattis (who commanded the battle of Falllujah in 2004) complained to President Obama about his seeming lack of firmness in letting Netanyahu know the “lay of the land” – how deeply the U.S. military was opposed to a strike by Tel Aviv.  The president’s reply was not what the generals expected.  Sources close to the exchange say that Obama said that  he “had no say over Israel” because “it is a sovereign country.”

One can understand the generals’ bluntness and anxiety. Any strike by Israel would place in peril all the US military personnel and assets spread throughout the Persian Gulf. U.S. analysts Joseph Gerson and Bruce Birchard say that: “Two thirds of the Defense budget is targeted at the Middle East.” The Persian Gulf is the keystone of the world oil market and any instability could weaken the already faltering world economy.

U.S. assets in the region are immense.  The U.S. Sixth Fleet polices the Mediterranean keeping a keen eye on Syria using bases in Morocco, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece and Turkey. The formation of the  Gulf Cooperation Council in 1981 set up a whole string of support bases that serve that Central Command, including facilities for transit, refueling, resupply of naval forces, maintenance of equipment ,storage of fuel and supplies and communication links.  One of the most important of these bases is Diego Garcia.   

The Fifth Fleet stationed at Bahrain, but U.S. forces are also in Saudi Arabia and Oman, and in other GCC countries like Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – who bought US weapons costing $22 billion from 2005 to 2009. The Saudis alone have a current deal for $60 billion pending.

A surprise attack by Israel would put in peril all these assets, and Gens.’ Dempsey and Mattis warned Obama that it would take 45 to 90 days to ramp up a force to defend the region if Israel attacks, according to serving Defense sources,

Even in Israel, the Begin doctrine no longer holds dominion. The debate for and against an Iran war has turned into a catfight “alive and spitting, sharp in tooth and claw,” as a poet said. The country’s intelligence officials, like ours, had dead set against any war.  The former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, who made headlines last January when he resigned after calling any preemptive strike by Israel, “insane," said recently that he believed it is Israel’s duty to prevent any military attack a view held by most American Jews.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect about the incessant calls for an Israeli strike was the fact that the most strident hawks, both U.S. and Israeli, appeared to see war as something abstract, a pin in your opponent’s map. But any war gives license not only to the righteous but to the avid, the brutal and criminal and any war ignores the fact that war means the death of helpless and innocent people.

Thankfully, this latter view seems be seizing new ground and gaining new strength in both Israel and America.  Richard Sale

Comments

[Dongo]

These are my favorite kind of posts on SST -- I learned so much!

[505thPIR]

Iran has Bio Weapons

[steve]

This sounds somewhat optimistic. Let's hope that next month's scheduled talks are more than just window-dressing.

If the Obama administration is ultimately able to stop an Iranian-Israeli war, imho it would be his greatest policy triumph.

[Paul Deavereaux]

I find it mind-boggling that people are talking about a rogue nation armed with nuclear weapons embarking on a criminal act of destruction and murder and we're all sitting around fluttering our hands & peeking thru the curtains.

I appreciate Mr Sales comments and insights but this entire situation has reached the point of absurdity. Deadly absurdity. The timidity of our leadership class is disgusting. Rein in the mad dogs, do it now, do it publicly and do it with courage.

[Farmer Don]

"There the strike planes would top off, then fly east over southern Turkey, infuriating the Turks, but who probably would not hoot the planes down. "

My guess is that the Turks would not let the Israelis fly over their home territory. The Turks are proud of their air force, they are very upset about their citizens being killed on the ship going to Palestine. They are proud of their role as the leading State in the region. Letting Israel go over their air space would cause them to loose a tremendous amount of face.

I think they would have to keep to the South of Turkey.

[Walrus]

Mr. Sale has introduced something new into the discussion - the potential use of nuclear weapons on Iran by Israel. I have not seen this raised before as a credible option.

If this talking point is taken up by others, Without contradiction, then I think it can be safely assumed that we are expected to marvel at Israeli forbearance if they "only" attack with conventional weapons.

It's that Overton window thing at work.

[Harper]

One added dimension to the madness very accurately portrayed by Richard Sale. Israeli intelligence knows, as well as US intelligence (reflected in the 2010 NIE update), that Iran is not working currently on weaponization, and is a long way away from a bomb or a bomb-making capability. The issue that strikes fear in Israelis is that Iran is developing a longer range missile capability with improved guidance systems. Once Iran has an arsenal of accurate, longer range missiles capable of striking targets in Israel, Israel no longer has the luxury of launching preventive attacks without retaliation directly from Iran. Hezbollah is an uncertain ally of Iran unless directly attacked. Hamas has flipped over the Qatar-Saudi side under the sway of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is now in a power-sharing arrangement with the Egyptian Army. Only a direct Iranian retaliatory capability is of certainty. Armed with conventional high-power explosives, Iranian missiles hitting population centers in Israel would be devastating. When Barak talks about the "window of vulnerability" closing, he is not talking about the hardening of targets in Iran. He is talking about Iran obtaining a credible retaliatory strike capability. This is all about regional geopolitical competition between Tel Aviv and Tehran. That is no justification for drawing the US into a confrontation that would certainly go regional and likely go global. That is why Generals Dempsey and Mattis are so adament and so furious at President Obama for not being tougher with Bibi. The Navy is frantically updating contingency plans and deploying forward-based assets because they too are uncertain about what Obama will do if Israel launches a preventive attack as described by Richard Sale. The window of war danger is wide open at least through September.

[Charles I]

"The window of war danger is wide open at least through September."

Well at least that covers driving season, let the dividends flow.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Mr. Obama, in fact, has been the great enabler of the current policy crisis; in my opinion.

[steve]

I agree, but hopefully Obma will be able to back the US out of the corner he put it in. And at this point, I think that would involve some commendable diplomacy.

[Tim Vincent]

Looks like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Will]

Two operational matters to add to the discussion:
1) rather than Turkish air space, the Israelis could proceed thru the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, their quasi-ally per Iran.

2) there was a recent article in Foreign Policy that Israel had rented an airfield in Azerbaijan so they wouldn't have to bring their strike force all the way back home.

"In March 2012, the magazine Foreign Policy reported that the Israeli Air Force may be preparing to use the Sitalçay air base, located 340 miles from the Iranian border, for air strikes against the nuclear program of Iran"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan%E2%80%93Israel_relations

[turcopolier]

will

There is no Saudi deal with Israel. the Azari thing is almost equally baloney. It might be useful for SAR. pl

[Tigershark]

Col.

This has been in my head for a while; should Israel strike Iran, and transits back to Israel over or near KSA, what happens if the Saudi Air Force attempts to take out the IDF planes? Damaged planes or those low on fuel would be easy targets. Losing most of their F-15's would be a disaster for Israel. Would the Saudi AF take on the returning planes?

[turcopolier]

tigershark

This is a political question. Ask the Saudia. pl

[dan]

Will

As with all these "scenarios", there are enormously questionable assumptions embedded that are taken as axiomatic; unwrapping the axioms simply demonstrates that the scenarios are absurd. It also needs to be stressed that the Israelis have been on this tip since the early 1990's, without there being the vaguest hint of an airstrike.

The most basic thing to note is that any state that provides the IAF assistance in going to war with Iran is a belligerent co-party to that war, and can, by default, assume that it will be at war with Iran. Few countries wish for this scenario - this includes the Israelis, who are very keen for the US to be at war with Iran, not themselves.

The Saudis aren't going to allow the Israelis access to their airspace - it's not even that much help to the IAF, as the flight distances are dramatically longer, and place even greater burdens on their limited aerial refuelling capacities. The Saudis have a major political problem with asserting that the Israelis might be able to violate their airspace with impunity - they've spent hundreds of billions on fancy military assets, but would then have to concede that they're useless - which might be awkward politically, as it's an admission that the money spent was just wasted.

Azerbaijan has no conceivable interest in being at war with Iran - they couldn't even beat the Armenians back in the 1990's over the Nagorno-Karabakh spat. The Iranians smashing up their oil infrastructure in a fit of pique isn't going to be a politically palatable consequence of being suckered into the useful, grinning idiot brigade. The Azeri government knows this. Deniable covert ops is one thing, SAR assets is a step too far. Foreign Policy shopping an idiotic story about the use of an Azeri airbase simply proves that they're collectively unable to use a map and have failed to grasp the airspace implications of being a land-locked country. An earlier iteration of this story involved the use of Georgia, but this has quietly been dropped since the summer of 2008, for obvious reasons.

For the most part, all these stories about third party military assists to the Israelis in accomplishing their sacred mission to bomb Iran are, objectively, bollocks. They do have a function, though, and that is to impede, damage and complicate Iran's external relations with its neighbours.

[Bill]

I tend to agree with the meandering conclusion, that an Israeli attack is too expensive with too little chance of success, but I don't think this analysis looks properly at the political dimension. I've always viewed a possible Israeli attack as having the goal of not destroying the Iranian nuclear program (which it can't do), but of triggering a war that forces the US to become involved. Hence, the attack would be a political action, not so much a military one.

The author does a good job of pointing out where key players in the US military stand today, but he doesn't game out where they would stand 2 hours after the attack. Would political or strategic considerations drag the US right behind Israel into a war it doesn't want? I'd say yes with about 95% confidence.

That question, to me, is a deciding factor on whether or not we'll see an attack.

[Babak Makkinejad]

The United States, in my opinion, has no strategic or political considerations that could cause her to follow Israel into war with Iran.

Such considerations as there are in US are of religious and emotional nature.

[Will2]

All the wild conjecture by the crooked Media is part and parcel of the PsyOps going on day in and day out...
A definitive DEAL has been struck already between Iran and the USA, it is ALL encompassing and Good for both countries.
Israel knows that and is very very unhappy at the prospects that will open up from Afghanistan to Africa...

[Jonathan House]

Is this ongoing conflict within leadership of Israel? Military vs. Bibi/Likudnick? or a purposeful government approved beginning of backing down? Or ???

IDF chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-chief-to-haaretz-i-do-not-believe-iran-will-decide-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-1.426389

one quotation: "...I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."