Is this even possible for IAF?

[pshamim]

As to the question of if Israel could do this...certainly yes. They have done this before in 1981 and the personnel who flew and supported those missions are pretty high up in the food chain these days.

If they intend to strike with unconventional weapons then it's possible to use a small number of fighters. Nuclear weapons don't require large strike packages to cause wide scale damage and a small force has a better chance of getting in undetected.
DA

The whole idea of preventing Iran from becoming nuclear is to preserve Israel's security and to stop the spread of nuclear arms proliferation.

Nuking Iran to prevent Iran from going nuclear is a very dangerous idea and no sane person will think of it ever happening. Such actions will endanger Israel's security to an extent that even Uncle Sam may not be able to save Israel. It will surely turn every country in the region go nuclear by which way they can. Will Israel and US want that..

Guys, please show maturity when discussing such grave matters.

 

[zainulhuda]

"AEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei infuriated the administration and its European partners last week by telling reporters that the demands for suspension have been "superseded by events" in Iran. He said they should accept a certain level of uranium enrichment in exchange for more inspections and Iranian agreement not to expand the program."

Some sane analysis at last. Of course the Bushies and his supporters in the EU (Sarkozy; the EU Bush in making?) cannot stand such "equitable" and "pragmatic" thinking. But the cat is really out of the bag now. Completely obliterating Iran's nuclear program would involve not only destroying all of their infrastructure but probably also somehow liquidating their human resources. If not, it seems to me that it would only be a matter of time before we're back at the same impasse.

With every series of sanctions, Iran's cooperation with the IAEA has deteriorated, follow this to its logical conclusion and I say forcing Iran's hand too much (with sanctions) will inevitably result in a nuclear weapon.

I am not sure why the demand for a stoppage to enrichment is not dropped, in exchange for much greater access for the IAEA inspectors. The whole thought process behind trying to "stop knowledge or information from proliferating" is mindbogglingly flawed. It just wont happen; not at the stage where Iran is. Delayed perhaps, but definitely not capable of being stopped without some of the doomsday scenarios being bandied about coming to fruition.

Engage, accept, monitor, regulate.
If only this administration would stop wanting to "negotiate from a position of strength". Makes me believe the Iranians when they complain about not being treated fairly or as equals.

 

[metro]

this story goes around in a circle and by the time you hear it again, people have added or deleted something from it=New story with New sources. it's BS.

israel isn't playing a game of "frogger," with the US, using nuclear armed planes.

israel could get "a landing strip in SA or Turkey." The only rational for israel to use a "small" amount of fighters is because israel could drop a few bombs and iran would have no idea who the attack came from (israel/US). this would almost definitely cause iran to attack US interests; bringing the US into a full scale confrontation with iran.

meanwhile israel would pre-emtively strike at syria and hizbollah.

yes, israel could do it alone, but it wold be crazy.

any real attack on iran, would almost positively have to come from the US. I'm guessing the US would send sadaam's head in a box to assad, with a message saying stay out of this, or this is your fate. meanwhile, israel would have to "uproot" hizbollah and hamas.

 

[metro]

Haha......true...3 f-16s only??? You gotta be kidding mate. When israel launched operation opera, there were 8 f-16s accompanied by 6 f-15s. ( I'm talking about Iraq back then) Now we're talking about Iran....Iran has better air defences dude...by using just 3 f-16s??? This must be some sort of rumour...:

As I said, I seen this "article" written and re-written, so many times, it's total BS. The guy who is writing these articles is also selling a "9/11 conspiracy book." I think that says enough about him and his "deep placed sources."

However, if we just wanted to ask the question, can 3 F-16Is complete a mission from Israel to Iran? I'd have to say yes, it's definitely possible.
If Isreal gets to the point where it decides "this is an imminent existential threat," the F-16Is can fly directly through Iraqi air-space without US being able to do much about it. Israel, could let it be known to the US that the 3 F-16Is are carrying nuclear altimeter-armed bombs--meaning if it a plane gets shot down, the nuke goes off. The 3 F-16Is would be more difficult to spot than a huge wave, and it they would probably be on a decapatation mission, and none of them would be planning on returning. Resulting EMPs would probably render all Iranian weaponry useless (to say the least).

Just a scenario.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[swerve]

As I said, I seen this "article" written and re-written, so many times, it's total BS. The guy who is writing these articles is also selling a "9/11 conspiracy book." I think that says enough about him and his "deep placed sources."

However, if we just wanted to ask the question, can 3 F-16Is complete a mission from Israel to Iran? I'd have to say yes, it's definitely possible.
If Isreal gets to the point where it decides "this is an imminent existential threat," the F-16Is can fly directly through Iraqi air-space without US being able to do much about it. Israel, could let it be known to the US that the 3 F-16Is are carrying nuclear altimeter-armed bombs--meaning if it a plane gets shot down, the nuke goes off. The 3 F-16Is would be more difficult to spot than a huge wave, and it they would probably be on a decapatation mission, and none of them would be planning on returning. Resulting EMPs would probably render all Iranian weaponry useless (to say the least).

Just a scenario.

Might do for Tom Clancy, but not for real life.

Let us consider what Israel is doing in this case -
1) holding a gun to the head of its biggest benefactor. How to make friends & influence people?
2) involving the USA unwillingly in an Israeli nuclear war (note: US involvement will not be deniable, for obvious reasons). Oh dear oh dear.
3) committing national economic suicide, since the EU would almost certainly embargo Israel (look up the trade figures).

Really, really clever, eh?

 

[metro]

Might do for Tom Clancy, but not for real life.

Let us consider what Israel is doing in this case -
1) holding a gun to the head of its biggest benefactor. How to make friends & influence people?
2) involving the USA unwillingly in an Israeli nuclear war (note: US involvement will not be deniable, for obvious reasons). Oh dear oh dear.
3) committing national economic suicide, since the EU would almost certainly embargo Israel (look up the trade figures).

Really, really clever, eh?

If you gave me Tom Clancy Royalty's, I'd be happy to "ghost write" for him.

As I said, i've read (we've all read) variations on the same thing coming from "sources" in every country. I think either the US or Israel or both have had a "Strike Date" for eveday of the year (for the past 5 years) in some article or another.

I was giving a scenario where Israel learns that it's a target of an immanent Iranian nuclear threat. This means an existential threat if action isn't taken.
Therefore all of your points become moot. Israel mght have the highest approval ratings in the world for us (America), but they're not suicidal, they're not stupid, and they definitely won't "take a nuke for the team."

 

[swerve]

Reported...

Good. I expect something will happen soon - and we know what.

[Edit]. It did.

 

[Ares]

way too political here. Lets keep our personal opinions to ourselves.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thread re-opened. any further breaches and it risks being locked for good.

Please read forum rules if unfamiliar before posting any further.

This does not need responding to.