Logistics of an Israeli Strike on Iran: An Informed View from Germany
There are plenty of analysts who deal with the logistics of nuclear weapons and their interdiction in the abstract, and a very few who have dealt with the matter as an existential issue. Apart from the Israelis, for whom Iranian nuclear capability represents an existential threat, the list is short. The German defense expert Hans Rühle headed the Policy Planning Staff of Germany’s Defense Ministry during the 1980s, when the U.S. installed the medium-range Pershing missiles in Germany and undercut Russia’s military advantage in the European theater. A nuclear exchange with Russia remained a live possibility in those days; after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the high water mark for strategic risk during the Cold War came in 1983, when then-Soviet premier Andropov declared a nuclear alert, ostensibly in response to NATO’s “Able Archer” exercise, but really as an attempt to panic the Germans.
Hans Rühle was one of the toughest and most perspicacious analysts in those heady days. Today he evaluates Israel’s capacity to knock out Iran’s nuclear program in an essay in the German conservative daily Die Welt. It is worth reading (for non-German speakers, there’s Google Translate).
Rühle is highly confident that Israel could knock out Iran’s nuclear program for a decade or more with about 25 of its 87 F-15 fighter-bombers and a smaller number of its F-16s. Each of the F-15s would carry two of the GBU-28 bunker busters, with the F-16s armed with smaller bombs. Rühle writes
There are 25 to 30 installations in Iran which are exclusively or predominately dedicated to the nuclear program. Six of them are targets of the first rank: the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the conversion works in Isfahan, the heavy water reactor in Arak, the weapons and munitions production facility in Parchin, the uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, and the Bushehr light water reactor.
The location, nature, and defenses as well as (with some limitations) the type of installed anti-aircraft systems are extensively known.
The information about Natanz are solid. The project has been under satellite surveillance from the beginning and watched by Israeli “tourists.” At the moment there are a good 10,000 centrifuges installed, of which 6,500 are producing. Israel’s strongest “bunker buster” is the GBU-28 (weight 2.3 tons), which demonstrably can break through seven meters of reinforced concrete and 30 meters of earth. It would suffice to break through the roof at Natanz. In case of doubt, two GBU-28s could be used in sequence; the second bomb would deepen the first bomb’s crater and realize the required success.
Available guidance systems, the German expert adds, are quite adequate to guide the bunker-busters to their goal in this fashion. Only a few bombs, he adds, would be required to destroy all the centrifuges; spinning at 1,500 revolutions per second, these instruments turn into grenades when destabilized. With a few hits, all the centrifuges would be destroyed beyond repair.
Fordow, by contrast, is a harder target, with about 3,000 centrifuges under 70 meters of rock. Even the U.S., Rühle says, does not have bunker-busters that can penetrate that far. The deployment of special forces is a more likely option. The other targets (the light- and heavy-water reactors) are far softer, and F-16s with lighter munitions would suffice.
Parchin is the “bottleneck” through which all nuclear materials must pass, the weapons production facility where warheads are designed and tested. “How many bombs would be required to destroy Parchin,” Rühle says, “is a matter of speculation.”
Most importantly, Rühle believes that it would take Iran a decade to restore its capabilities — with the exception of Isfahan — unless special forces could inflict more damage from the ground than was possible from the air. There are risks, of course: the Russians might have secretly given Iran more advanced surface-to-air missiles; refueling might be interdicted along a route that overflies potentially hostile countries; and Iran’s proxies (Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas) might retaliate. Nonetheless, he concludes that Israel could lastingly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
Leaves me with some questions.
How about refueling? I dont think they could make the round trip on one tank even with the extra fuel tanks installed. Israel has some refueling capacity but not much and where would the tankers need to be? IAF planses can refuel from US tankers but I dont know if there is much chance of that.
How many additional aircraft needed for jamming and supression of air defenses? How many would need to be armed with air to air missiles?
How could special forces be put on the ground and extracted from Fordow? I dont think Israeli helicopters could get that far and back through all the defenses.
Google this: Saudis give Israel overflight permission. Refueling won’t be a problem…
If Israel is going to hit Iran it will go for a total knockout of the regime:
the leaders are the most dangerous part. Hit the ministries of intelligence, information and interior. Nail the revolutionary guard bases and even that nice house where Mr. Khameini lives. Ahmadinejad too for that matter.
Just remember that Israel has been planning for this attack for over ten years. They will be bringing everything revealed and unrevealed for the Iran strike. If they strike, military planners will look at the raid for years to come. Israel has put their best people on this thing and it will be the gold standard of disruption and destruction.
Personally, I hope the regime implodes without war but Israel was built with one purpose in mind- to never subject the Jewish people to the non-existent mercies of criminal barbarians like the ones running Iran.
If Israel strikes they will do so because they have no choice. The counter strikes from Syria Hezbollah, and possibly Egypt now that they have gone radical, will be terrible but when war with its death and uncertainties becomes the only choice left, look out. The Israelis are waiting to see if the Iranian election destabilizes the regime, if that does not happen the die has already been cast.
The current wave of terror attacks is designed to force Israel to attack. Iran wants a war to use Israel to justify the regime’s existence. Israel is resisting this to make the war at the time of their choosing. It should be a hot summer.
Disagree. Regime change through air-strikes is impossible and should not be considered at all. In a worst case scenario, they can even lead to a rally effect that strengthens the regime instead of weakening it.
Fortunately, air strikes are effective for the destruction of specific targets. Since that is the goal here, it is good to know Israel has the capability to do something significant. If all they accomplished was to gain 10 years to continue to refine anti missile systems and work for regime change behind the scene’s, that would be worth it.
Disagree.
I know Reza Kahlili. I’ve read his book and we have become close friends for 2 years now. He writes for PJM every month roughly. He was a NATIVE Persian who grew up under the Shah, told us all about the coming of the Ayatollah, and his indoctrination into the IRG(C) in his now famous book (finally vetted by the CIA, “A Time To Betray” — absolutely worth the tiny amount it costs, and absolutely worth the most unbiased view from someone WHO LIVED THROUGH IT ALL — not an armchair philosopher from afar, who knows nothing).
Reza, not, his real name of course, is/was incredibly brave and is currently being ACTIVELY hunted by IRG members in the USA and must constantly travel with protection and must vary his schedule accordingly. THE IRI want this man dead, of that there can be no argument.
Reza was allowed by the CIA to keep many of his connections — another reason the IRG desperately would likely to find and torture him or simply kidnap him straight to Iran if they could. By “Connections” I mean people who were as equally disgusted with the sheer brutality, the horrid and sick ways in which Evin prison was run — as if it somehow “comported” to “some Islamic ideal” — if sodomizing every member of a suspects family was funny, I’d laugh at this point! …and the utter hypocrisy between the so called “Ayatollah” and the death he worked so hard to wreak especially from the children, instead of purchasing mine-clearing machines. He also killed our Marines — the Marines IN BEIRUT WERE KILLED ON HIS ORDERS — Reza, makes that plain.
Reza also makes plain that EVERY one of his contacts reports that the entire country is SEETHING with a desire to overthrow the current regime… SEETHING! How does that compare to your, “it’s impossible dahling, get me another drink.”
So please save us from your back handed bent wrist as if that mere gesture alone should suffice as to why Iranians are NOT in fact demonstrably and painfully obviously sick and tired of the “Revolution.” If you had any connection at all to the country, you’d know this which is why I’m mostly wasting my time in even responding to you. It has <nothing whatsoever to do with politics, it has to do with saving the Persian culture and freeing themselves from the death-spiral that is ISLAM They all saw that from the 2nd year of the grand Revolution, but were by then caught.
Nevertheless, despite all this, all I wanted to say is that in marked contrast to your ludicrous hand-waving and couch-potato leftist remark that “regime change is impossible” (oh thank you great Oracle of all knowledge! Where shall I leave the sacrificial animals in your behalf? — I’ll stuff the dead rodent in your mailbox, and the 25 cents I’ll throw in your lawn somewhere)…
Reza, and many other like him at the distinguished Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy of the DOD and yet others at the Council of Foreign Relations and Council of Foreign Affairs think tank, and the “normal Iranian on the street” (actually, on their rooftops) are desperately trying to tell you, by shouting it every night that they are “damn sick and tired of the current regime and will do anything to get rid of it — are you so insulated that you’ve been unaware of this movement going on for 2 years now?! How can someone who knows nothing of his people’s NIGHTLY CRIES from their rooftops(!) FOR FREEDOM throw back his limp wrist and “proclaim” it can never happen. It can DAMN WELL HAPPEN SIR! And if either Israel or the US will bomb the Government centers as Reza, who has far more credibility than you, has suggested, then the
“people” will have their best chance since the last one Obama lost for them to overthrow their shackles.
Perhaps Jews will then be able to pay back the “gift” of being freed by Queen Esther and then Cyrus, by today setting the current Persians free of their tyrant(s). It would be fitting and just.
Frumious, amen and amen.
Faster….faster…..
touche!
Also disagree. Syria is busy imploding. Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah are all busily looking for other benefactors like the Turks. And Egypt is only a grain shipment or two from complete anarchy.
The lynchpin in all of this is Syria, as Iran’s Evil Twin Skippy in the ME for decades, it was the funnel / conduit for Iranian aid into the terrorist groups it was using as proxies against Israel. That funnel / conduit is now broken. And the Iranians have wasted an incredible amount of dollars in a region that is no longer capable of acting as its proxies. Cheers -
Yes cheers right before the Syrian MBO start forcing out Christians and plotting the war in 2020 with Israel and Morsi bringing the MBO on both flanks…but at least the neocons will be happy for a while.
Iran has the F-14 Tomcat and the MiG-29. The greatest risk is that Iranian pilots are more competent than Arab pilots. Can this sort of thing even be measured?
If there is a risk of Russians giving them weapons, surface to air missiles aren’t the worst thing to come to mind.
The special forces idea is fantasy. This isn’t Grenada.
Their F-14 are no longer interceptors — it being a ‘hanger queen’ is the REAL reason it was stricken from the USN — instead they are babied — held in reserve as AWACs platforms.
Their ultra-high performance radars are not as awesome as a Hawkeye — but are still enough to paint targets at great distances.
Because of their repair issues they are rarely flown.
The MIG-29 is now being phased out by the Russians: it’s a high-loss-rate platform — a hanger queen in its own right.
It’s just not stealthy — and so will fall from long distance AAMs — of which the IDF has plenty.
——
Thank you Bert. It would be helpful if you supplied the info in ordinary language, instead of slang and technospeak. BTW, you park planes in hangars and clothes on hangers.
Don’t forget the challenge of spare parts. Iran probably has a lot more difficulty getting the parts to maintain their previous US built systems.
And that will be the end of it, right?
The mad mullahs will be full of contrition and eager to prostrate themselves before their Israeli/US masters, they will admit to having been very naughty boys and promise to behave themselves in the future.
If they can set back the program for a decade then Israel survives for 10 more years. After that who knows? If they believe that Iran will attack them with nuclear weapons they will act to neutralize that.
One advantage of constantly being under threat and condemned for whatever you do with no end in sight is that it makes your choices much simpler.
Hopefully the Mullahs will be enjoying their virgins in Paradise.
It’s unconceivable that Israel would have failed to prepare for the worst case, a direct attack, if nothing else of real merit and sufficient success is implemented before it’s too late. It’s hard to imagine that the present US administration would assign a high priority to this issue, distracted as they are by a self-centered “leader” and a primary focus on the next election. If you can get tangled in prosecuting a war against the Catholic church, how much room is left for undertaking anything worthy of a state?
I pray that this will change soon but I have no idea whether it can be soon enough.
Good news. Thanks.
If it’s a genuine existential threat, than the cost (diplomatic, material, manpower) of the operation is by definition irrelevant as long as the operation achieves its goals. Surely a ten year set back is a success given that ten years is a lifetime in international politics.
I expect that the Israelis have a long menu of detailed military operations and objectives to chose from, each depending on the moment. Already we see that the Iranians, although they have resupplied Hezbollah with rockets, understand that another round of use would precipitate the much anticipated attack.
Israel has to be concerned about commercial blow-back — and the American regime cutting off military channels.
That’s what is dominating internal discussion.
Regime change is best accomplished by stepping on their wallet: Kharg Island and such…
Coupled to a serious prestige hit: strikes against deep targets.
Israel has technical and military capabilities up to the task that simply cannot be discussed in the open.
So, I see no reason why Israel can’t tattoo defeat all over the mullah’s foreheads.
—–
Right now Damascus is in play — and as it falls Tehran will ‘lose Isengard’ in a river of blood.
—–
It has to gaul AQ that the revolution is occurring without them.
The franchisees are re-writing the franchisor’s manuals.
—–
It’s my belief that, like the Taliban, islamists in power stink up their own soup bowl, even faster than they can re-orient hatred towards America.
I give you the mullahs: America is most popular on the Iranian street — and nowhere else.
—–
Thusly, America has more freedom of action with inchoate islamist regimes in power than we ever had with liberal despots.
Ironic, no?
Because their first mission is to unify the caliphate — is that not a recipe for civil war — followed by an intra-ummah all-axis scrum?
If so, our maximal strategy is to escape the blast zone; and drill, baby, drill.
——
I also believe that Tehran’s PRIMARY targets are the Sunni gulf states. In no way does it make sense to go after the far enemy when the global war chest is sitting across the pond.
Iran’s ‘navy’ is ENTIRELY oriented towards cross-gulf seizures. Deep blue capability is but a fantasy.
I wonder how much of this emphasis on Israel’s aerial strike capabilities is a psy-ops smokescreen designed to divert attention from a stealth operation (to borrow blert’s metaphor, rather like Aragorn marching on Mordor to divert Sauron’s attention and give Frodo a chance to get to Mt. Doom).
Israel has a large population of Iranian Jews who look and speak just like any Iranian (think Eli Cohen and his penetration of the Syrian goivernment that made Israel’s successful assault on the Golan Heights in ’67 possible). They also have good relations with Azerbaijan, right on Iran’s northern border. I can conceive of no situation where Iran has not been swarming with Israeli agents for years.
I think it will be a combination of the two: an all-out bombing run coupled with stealth ops on the ground.
And the sooner the better.
Ephraim:
I suspect that Israel’s population of Iranian Jewish males might differ in one very noticeable physical way, from male Iranian shi’ites!!
When a nation’s survival is at stake, no effort by it is too great to defend itself.
Israel has enough air-to-air refueling capability to get aircraft into and out of Iranian airspace. The Jordanians won’t stop them and the Iraqis don’t have the capability. Several of the Gulf States could provide quiet, deniable assistance from various quarters.
The U.S. seems to be keeping two aircraft carriers in the Iranian theater. Today that would be the CVN-70 [Carl Vinson] and CVN-72 [Abraham Lincoln]. That is more firepower than the entire Iranian Air Force. Can’t guarantee we will keep up that level of force projection, but the Iranians have to both be aware and beware of the threat. Both of them seem to be in the Gulf of Oman and not in the Persian/Arabian Gulf so they are farther out of reach of Iranian arms.
The two CVNs have more firepower than the entire Iranian military, Hezballah, Syria and Shi’i-ville combined.
Sounds neat and clean on paper.
But then again, so did the plan for rescuing of the hostages years ago too. Seems to me that far too few people are talking about what the long term effects of a war being started with Iran would be.
Actually not. The mission was crippled by excessive secrecy and an obsession on “jointedness”, that is, giving each service arm a piece of the action. For instance, instead of using the Marine 3 turbine model of the helicopter (which as I recall also had sand screens, at least as an option), the Navy 2 turbine models were used. Due to the secrecy the unit that the helicopters were acquired from didn’t know it was for something important, so they of course surrendered their worse ones. Related were the issues of which service’s men were willing to press on with the mission. Etc. It was precisely the sort of Charlie Foxtrot we’d come to expect from Carter.
I’ve also heard at the rumor level that plans with a much higher probability of success were vetoed since they’d cause higher enemy casualties (as I recall, some members of the Carter Administration hoped that no one would get killed). E.g. clearing the perimeter with Daisy Cutters (yeah, I know, I too might have vetoed that idea…).
Sounds sinister, “the German expert”. Softly, boom, boom, boom… what’s that sound? Sounds like the drums of war to me.
Softly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbBq60hlCAs
A welcome analysis.
But….
The bombs and the planes that deliver them will all say “Made in USA” on them.
As to the naval battles in the Gulf, I remember the surprise following the tanker war that our navy was using cluster bombs to hit the Iranian motor boats. Makes sense – an area weapon against light, mobile gun boats. When the Ticonderoga shot down the Iranian Boeing, I recall that it had been in the middle of a running gun battle where over 500 five inch rounds had been expended. Sounds like big naval gun fire wasn’t that effective against little gun boats since I doubt there were 500 targets to be hit.
FWIW:
I have read elsewhere that the attack will likely be launched from Georgia.
Rühle ended his article with a moving story about the ‘IAF Eagles over Auschwitz’, making the point that Amir Eshel who arranged that maneuver and made the attached promises, is now the newly appointed IAF Commander.
sounds easy, but it’s insanity
Not that I know Jack about Iran and Israel capability… but I expect that if Israel moves, President Gutsy will do Jack all to help Israel but will move like a cobra to do Israel harm, as in selling them out somehow.
Israel is alone.
About penetrating 70 meters of rock: I read an small note perhaps in the WSJ recently about the Pentagon developing a new and more penetrating bunkerbuster. For just this purpose, no doubt.
One of the Gulf states that is most concerned with Iranian nukes is Saudi Arabia. Not that I am a Saudi fan, but if they can quietly facilitate an Israeli strike somehow chances are they will since they’d rather live with Israel than have the mad ayatollahs come after them next.
“I have read elsewhere that the attack will likely be launched from Georgia.” Very unlikely. Jordanian/Saudi air space is the most direct and likely transit route.
The problem with this entire discussion, regime change or not (and most likely not, though I understand the passion and frustration of the person above, having met anti-regime Iranians living and working in Moscow) is that Pakistan has already said they will back Iran in any war with the U.S. or Israel. Meaning in plain English while Pakistan’s conventional forces are rather woeful, Pakistan could supply Iran with a working (as in missile capable) nuclear Bomb to save the mullahs regime from invasion (out of the question, but this is Pakistan’s famously paranoid ISI we’re talking about here).
The whole story leaked to the press (the Times of London I believe it was) last week about how Pakistan already has secret agreements to proliferate and supply Saudi Arabia with a bomb? Misdirection, I believe, but perhaps…a warning to Islamabad not to send one to Tehran.
In Syria, it isn’t even clear whether the Qatari/Saudi tail is wagging the American/NATO dog. We all know Israel gets accused of pulling the U.S. around by the nose but the Gulf Arabs have generally been far more generous to the second careers of U.S. politicians and ex-State Department folks, so
David has already commented on Iran’s concern for the sizable number of Shia in majority Sunni Pakistan; I’m not sure how that would play out in such a situation.
But Pakistan would have to be suicidally crazy to supply nukes to Iran; based on the fissionables they are made from and the particular details of their construction an analysis of the isotopes left over will determine who built them. It might take a while for e.g. Israel’s Dolphin submarines to get withing cruise missile firing range, but Pakistan should expect a regime ending nuclear response if Israel gets sufficiently trashed by nukes they supplied. I’ve not gotten the impression they’re that crazy.
The debate is whether Iran will implode on its own before Israel needs to take military action. Obviously the preferable thing is to wait for Iran to implode as long as they don’t develop a nuke.
This is a high stakes game of chicken. If Iran is attacked, by Israel or any other country, any hope of seeing a more moderate regime take hold will diminish to nothing. On the other hand, if Israel does nothing and Iran attacks anyone with their weapons, the damage to the middle east will be horrifying. Israel will be hurt, but Tehran and the rest of the industrial capacity in Iran will glow in the dark for centuries.
Nobody wants that to happen. Not even the Israelis.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-continent-young-assets-charting-root-europes-problems-record-old-asset-age
On another Spenglerian theme, Zerohedge shows that EUrope’s assets are aging very fast while returns are declining. Sounds like the value of assets cannot be separated from the aging and infertility of the work force.
Disaster ‘capitalism’ in Greece will be short lived, particularly if the Greeks who’ve been blamed as lazy goons who just want to live off others and retire at 50 (when in fact they work longer hours than Germans, perhaps to pay all those bribes) finally succeed in throwing their bankster-appointed dictators out. Furthermore, perhaps all those prayers in the Orthodox Christian services for God to defend the Orthodox Christians will be answered, and Greece will find its own Leviathian oil field and have the last laugh by letting Schlumberger and Lukoil develop it rather than northern Europeans. And oh yes, just after the neocons congratulate themselves on kicking the Russians out of Tartus after Assad flees to Belarus or some place, Athens will announce a thirty year lease for the Russian Navy at the Pireaus in return for a $20 billion loan. Well that’ll serve the too clever by half NATO bureaucrats right.
Honestly David, if I may so, the demonization of the Greeks as lazy socialists reminds me of the demonization of Russians as a collection of commies, mail order brides/whores or mafia gangsters in the 1990s. All used to similar effect to rationalize as ‘simply the price that must be paid’ for blatant looting.
Why the hell should some banker who entered into a fraudulent contract with the Greek government get a gorgeous island as compensation for some unpaid garbage bonds anyway? The only thing that’s kept Greece from leaving the euro is fear of losing Schengen status for its (ahem) wealthiest citizens abroad in the EU. And the only reason the Greeks are condemned to die by a thousand cuts and Chinese water torture rather than the short, painful amputation of default is saving the sorry likes of Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas and of course Government Sachs from their own folly.
“There are risks, of course: the Russians might have secretly given Iran more advanced surface-to-air missiles; refueling might be interdicted along a route that overflies potentially hostile countries; and Iran’s proxies (Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas) might retaliate.”
Well, I’m glad this guy sees some down side to an attack on Iran. And, trust me, Hezbollah WOULD retaliate and send scores of missiles over the border from Lebanon into Israel. I hope Israel’s “Irone Dome” missile defense can handle all the incoming traffic. Bombing Iran would come close to starting World War III, and who knows what surprises Iran has in store for us with acts of terrorism right here in the United States.
No, we should be going for regime change in Iran. We missed a golden opportunity for that in 2009 after the Iranian “elections.” If we could only re-start those uprisings, that would be the biggest danger to the mullahs. Supply the people with as much money, weapons, and training as possible and let the Iranian people do the work that bombs cannot. We should at least give massive covert operations a try and see what happens.
And, trust me, Hezbollah WOULD retaliate and send scores of missiles over the border from Lebanon into Israel.
Well, I doubt the Israelis would be too worried about “scores of missiles”; the big threats are many, many missiles, especially reaching deep into Israel, and a constant stream of them shutting down the north (or more) of the country for a long time.
And I don’t “trust you” ^_^, for Hezbollah’s position has gotten weaker in the last year after the Syrian civil war distracted their important close patron. Assad is no doubt focusing on saving his throne and neck and has less of everything to support Hezbollah with if they decide to throw down with Israel again … although I suppose the Iranians might make him an offer he can’t refuse.
Hezbollah also can’t count on a repeat of the limp response they got from Israel the first time they tried this, and a vastly corrupt one as well. From depots of supplies for reservists missing a lot of stuff to their top military officer’s first action being to preserve his wealth, not reply to Hezbollah … if Israel’s ruling class hasn’t cleaned up their act since they the country is almost certainly doomed in the long term anyway.
Hezbollah may have Syria’s chemical weapons by now. That’s the real threat to Israeli population centers–chemical warheads.
I doubt Russia has sent any advanced anti-air to Iran that Israel hasn’t already been sold the codes to blind or defeat, as the IAF apparently used easily over Syria in 2007.
The real immediate issue for the Israeli pilots is what exotic stuff China has sold to the Iranians, or not being able to meet their air-to-air refueling tankers while running on fumes if someone suddenly has a change of heart in Riyadh. After all, in Serbia in 1999 there are still pilots who insist they put iron exactly on target and the Pentagon only took the blame as a PR smokescreen for hitting the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The risks of Chinese retaliation for hitting its top oil supplier hard are far more serious now than they were for hitting their embassy then.
EOT for me. A happy and restful Sabbath to David and my other Jewish friends.
I think your PJM colleague, Barry Rubin, nailed this one:
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/26/israel-is-not-about-to-attack-iran-and-neither-is-the-united-states-get-used-to-it/
If I were in charge of Israel, I would be doing four things:
1. Persuade the US to build an airbase in the Negev, with a couple of armored brigades as guards, and a large contingent of missile defense and advanced radars, also to use Haifa as a home port for the a squadron of aegis ships.
2. Instal advanced anti-missile radars on Mt. Hermon. Make it clear that an Iranian nuclear weapon is the absolute end of any idea of returning the Golan to Syria.
3. Embark on a major civil defense program, to equip every residence and commercial building in Israel with underground shelters with 2 weeks of food and water. The Swiss created such a system during the cold war.
4. Make it clear to everyone that the Palestinians are hostages for Iran’s good behavior. And that Mosque, it has been mortgaged.
The muslim countries have always been paper tigers. Have any muslim countries ever won a war against a non-muslim country? The only reason the Israelis haven’t kicked the Persian’s butts before now is that the two countries are 1000 miles apart and the Israelis rally haven’t had to do it.
The big question is if some analyst in Germany can figure out that the Israelis can set back the Persians ten years why can’t Panetta/Obama figure this out? Maybe they do know this. Maybe they don’t want it to happen anyway.
Regime change is obviously the desired end-game. The recent spate of terrorist attacks by Iran against Israel in Asia is intended to send messages to Israel. One of the main messages is “this is what you can expect to happen if you attack.” Um OK. The Bangcockians are rounding up the Iranian would-be terrorists as we speak. What a bunch of friggen loser terrorists. Count on any response from Iran being similarly weak. Whatever they think they can do Israel and the US can do back, 10x or 100x stronger.
What are we airing for? If Iran can be fixed by several weeks of bombing by Israel then let’s just do it. And if we embarrass the Russians at the same time that’s just extra cream on the cake.
The big question is if some analyst in Germany can figure out that the Israelis can set back the Persians ten years why can’t Panetta/Obama figure this out?
I don’t think they give a damn. It’s no accident Panetta, a 100% political animal, was put in his position as Security of the DoD and everything he’s saying is consistent with a desire to kick the can of this problem past the November election. E.g. “we can’t do it” and “my worst fear is that the Israelis will do it” to paraphrase the meat of interviews he gave to The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post respectively.
I do not believe that the State of Israel will attack, unless and until it believes that the threat is existential. That is a given. There are a number of subsidiary points contained in that threat.
1) That if the Islamic Republic of Iran acquires nuclear weapons and a delivery means [conventional or otherwise] that the State of Israel will be subjected to nuclear attack. Such an attack will be fatal to Israel, if not immediately, then within a generation.
2) That the alliance or special relationship with the United States will not prevent the attack, nor would such attack provoke any US retaliation.
3) There will be a realization that any conflict with Iran will not be restricted to Iran.
a) that there will be conventional and unconventional attacks against the population of Israel from multiple axis’
b) that the entire Ummah will be involved in that attack in one way or another.
c) That in that absence of constant resupply of war materials from the United States, the State of Israel will be unable to maintain the conflict for more than a limited amount of time in a conventional war.
d) That such resupply is not only not guaranteed, it is highly unlikely.
e) Prolonged hostilities of this nature will be fatal to the State of Israel.
f) Therefore, any war plan will perforce have to encompass a much larger scope than conventional means will allow.
4) Therefore, nuclear weapons will have to be employed.
5) Restriction of the use of such weapons to Iran alone will not suffice.
6) The Ummah can be removed as a threat to Israel by the inventory of weapons and delivery vehicles currently in hand.
7) The other major powers, essentially all nuclear powers, will have their hand against Israel from that moment on. This will be based both on antisemitism and as revenge for the massive dislocation of world economies involved.
8) A primary strategic goal of Israel from that point will be to deter strikes by those powers on Israel.
9) Concurrently with 7 and 8 above, there will be an economic and diplomatic embargo of Israel can be expected. A parallel goal of Israel will be to render such embargoes ineffective. Items 7-9 will require generations.
In order to survive the long term, one must first survive the short term.
If hostilities break out, they are not likely to remain conventional.
#18 Viktor (not that Victor)
Pakistan could supply Iran with a working (as in missile capable) nuclear Bomb to save the mullahs regime from invasion (out of the question, but this is Pakistan’s famously paranoid ISI we’re talking about here).
The whole story leaked to the press (the Times of London I believe it was) last week about how Pakistan already has secret agreements to proliferate and supply Saudi Arabia with a bomb?
See 3) a)
#11 spinoneone
The U.S. seems to be keeping two aircraft carriers in the Iranian theater.
Just noting that the positioning is better to defend Iran from an Israeli attack than for blocking an Iranian attack on Israel. Iran’s strategic missile strike force is largely in the western part of the country, and any attempt to intercept them with the SM-3’s based on the AEGIS vessels would be facing a long stern chase. However, they would have clear shots at incoming Israeli missiles and aircraft coming towards the nuclear facilities, which are concentrated in the center of the country.
#7 don
If it’s a genuine existential threat, than the cost (diplomatic, material, manpower) of the operation is by definition irrelevant as long as the operation achieves its goals.
Yep. Americans do not understand the implications of such.
#24 Walter Sobchak
With all due respect, given that the current National Command Authority gives every policy appearance of wanting an Iranian nuclear capacity, and every sign of desiring the destruction of Israel, what means could be used to “persuade” the US to make such a commitment to Israel? Further, the Iranian nuclear weapon you mention using the future of the Golan Heights as a hostage for, would destroy Israel. That would be a trade that Iran would be very willing to make.
Subotai Bahadur
Again, pardon the delay in approving comments. I can’t moderate between sundown Friday and an hour after sundown on Saturday.
I had forgotten about Shabbat, and just assumed that I had stepped on someone’s toes and been moderated. Which is the absolute right of the blog owner. No problem with the delay, and actually considering the reason, I approve. In today’s 24/7/365 world, it is good to see people who will stand with their faith.
Subotai Bahadur
In early days bunker buster bombs had to do the whole job in one hit. They got bigger and bigger, and eventually became nuclear.
As the article points out, with the accuracy of modern weapons, two could be used, with the second deepening the hole made by the first. Well, why not three, or four, or ten in succession? The days of bomb-proof bunkers are over. Nothing is bomb proof, as the Iranians will learn.
The Case FOR Iranian Nukes
Let’s do some hypothetical supposing.
Let’s suppose that for very valid reasons you don’t like your neighbor and that neighbor has never cared much for you, either. Let’s suppose your neighbor has a history of acting aggressively toward people he didn’t like. Let’s suppose the neighbor is armed to the teeth and most of the neighborhood is perfectly content with that. Let’s suppose the neighbor has an extremely powerful friend who is ready, willing, and able to intercede on his behalf in any altercation.
Let’s suppose you are Iran and the neighbor is Israel.
Now that the UK’s Guardian is reporting that the hapless Obama administration concedes that crippling sanctions it had naively hoped would bring Tehran to its knees will fail, it’s time for America to backtrack. Obama has supported sanctions so that he could run for re-election as a peacemonger despite Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, et al. but those measures have only served to enable Iran to stall and lie its way to nuclear power status.
Granted, with the notable exception of North Korea, Iran is easily the most psychotic nation on the planet with a mentally-imbalanced leadership cabal that rivals the insanity of Caligula. Granted, too, Iran is a principal money-man financing terrorism throughout the globe and regards truth with the same disdain it holds for women.
Nevertheless, put yourself in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s and Ayatollah Khameini’s sandals: Israel has long been equipped with nuclear weapons and Iran isn’t.
Almost worse, the international community has long been aware of the Israeli nuclear capability with which the Jewish state could obliterate at will any designated enemy within range of its missiles and that community hasn’t done a bloody thing about the situation but bitches over your ambitions.
It’s enough to make a country paranoid. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13588.)
Excuse me, but it is the Iranians who have been threatening Israel with destruction. The Israelis have never threatened to use their nuclear weapons against anyone, and would not do so, unless their very survival was at stake.
Hundreds of millions of Arabs, living nearby Israel, have tried to destroy Isreal in
1948
1956
1972
The palestinians have bombed Israel’s bars, restaurants, schools, and hijecked planes for thirty years, and every single day the palestinians shoot rockets on Isreal, now for a total number of tens of thousands of rockets in the last three years
and the mad mullahs of Iran have repeatedly declared that they goal is the destruction of Israel
but of course, the dangerous country is Israel.
Congratulations, you win the Mad Mullah Award 2011-2012.
Is it you Oliver StoneD ?
Or is it Noam “Al Qaeda” Chomsky ?
We don’t worry about Israel’s nukes for the same reason we don’t worry about France’s or Britain’s.
As for the Middle East, It’s a pretty open secret that Israel has had nukes for decades, yet none of her neighbors have considered developing their own nuclear capability to defend themselves from Israel, and the two who have, Iran and Iraq, do not border Israel and have never been threatened by her. And Iran has specifically stated not a need to defend herself from from Israel, but an intent to attack her.
But the best test case is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, at the tip of the “triangle” where Jordan and the Gulf of Aqaba meet, is literally only seconds from Israel, yet they have never fought a war and not only have the Saudis never considered developing nukes to defend against Israel (but have considered developing them to defend against Iran), but – another open secret – Israel has a green light to transit Saudi airspace to attack Iran.
The message is clear and indisputable: Israel does not threaten, let alone attack, anyone who does not threaten her. American liberals may not know it, but all of Arabia does.
For those of you wondering where the Iranian targets might be, the BBC thoughtfully has provided a map:
Map of Iranian nuclear sites Map of Iranian nuclear sites
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17082433
at the end of the article.
The problem of conducting the op from Georgia is that the Israelis would have to overfly Turkey to get there, and that might be problematical, especially in terms of maintaining operational security.
Israel should blast a nuclear bomb at high altitude to create the Electromagnetic Pulse. Disrupt the communications in Iran, and then destroy their facilities.
Perhaps they should also destroy their oil and gas facilities. Or perhaps they should let Iran know that if Iran even thinks of retaliating, they will be without their oil and gas.
That’s terribly indiscriminate: not only would it likely take out at least the edges of neighboring countries, a classical EMP blast will destroy the power grid for a long time. That could easily kill millions of Iranians (most of whom hate the government), it would shut down oil production in the affected areas, etc. Plus I seriously doubt the Israelis have the data necessary to carefully calibrate such a strike. We probably don’t, due to the way the Soviets played us in the ’50s and ’60.
Good grief. PJM is just getting insanely good.
The articles and the comments make this the finest salon in the world.
1. Obama considers Republicans, Christian’s and conservatives as his main enemy.
2. Obama would shoot down any Israeli strike against Iran. “Mos Def!”
3. Obama ain’t going to do anything but destroy America and rebuild it in a socialist paradise, Iran ain’t even on his radar.
4. Iran either already has the bomb or two and will use it or at least one to close the straits of Hormuz to tanker traffic, No body will insure an oil tanker against a Nuclear strike threat.
5. Iran most likely would also use a nuke to close down the Suez canal.
I cannot see Obama even using force to retaliate against Iran if they sink one or more of our carriers.
The Israeli’s, Euro’s and American’s are going for maintaining the status Quo nothing will be done in the hope that things stay the same until it changes on it’s on.
The German expert gets it largely right, but there are two things he gets wrong. First, there is no need to hit the light-water reactor at Bushehr. It is not, and it will never be, an effective source of fissile material for the weapons program.
Not striking Bushehr scopes down the attack problem for Israeli planners. Bushehr is a geographic outlier; the other targets are all in the north-central part of Iran. That is positive, because the other thing the expert gets wrong is the number of weapons the IAF will want to put on Natanz and Esfahan. Both installations have major underground facilities, about which we know little. But the facilities have been under construction for 7-8 years. Besides hitting the above-ground buildings where enrichment (Natanz) and conversion (Esfahan) are performed, the Israelis will want to put weapons through the tunnel entrances and collapse them at both sites. The typical targeteer would also want to put more thump on the above-ground buildings than the German expert suggests.
It will be necessary to suppress the air defenses along the air corridor and at the target sites as well. Realistically, the Israelis have to do this in less than 24 hours. The size of each strike package would need to be substantial.
First, there is no need to hit the light-water reactor at Bushehr. It is not, and it will never be, an effective source of fissile material for the weapons program.
But it is a place for people to learn things nuclear “for real”; lobbing a few weapons at it would be worthwhile if the risk isn’t too high (which you indicate would be an issue, unless they have and can use some sort of stand off weapon of sufficient range).
J.E. – Do you concur w/Rühle’s assessment that an IAF operation such as he describes (even if the number of strike aircraft were to be raised 50% from his estimate of two dozen F15s, etc. ) “could knock out Iran’s nuclear program for a decade or more”?
As I recall from your 2009 analysis, you estimated that an IAF strike focused just on the nuclear weapons program would set the Iranians back “at least six months, and probably more … a minimum of 12 months”. I did not get the sense that you assessed the Israelis could deliver a decade’s worth of reversal with such a one-time, relatively small operation.
MarcH — No, I don’t believe the level of strike described by Ruhle would set Iran back for a decade. Iran has mastered the technology. Reconstructing the capability would be inconvenient and expensive, but not prohibitve. With outside help it could be done within months, but my guess is that Iran would reject any outside help she didn’t have full control over. So it would probably take longer, but not by any means a decade.
Another point about a strike this small is that it would do nothing to deter Iran from retaliating. The reason US military planners have been clear about the necessity of a BIG strike, if the US were to conduct it, is that they want to ensure against Iranian retaliation (e.g., with missile attacks on the region).
Lina Inverse — dropping the reactor effectively is not something that could even be done with standoff weapons. Iran has a prototype reactor in Tehran anyway, which is where the nuclear scientists have done their research. If that reactor is not taken out, there will be plenty of live reactor training available. It simp;y isn’t necessary to attack the Bushehr reactor. The public has never really been clear on that, but a light-water reactor is just not worth attacking.
The plutonium reactor at Arak, which is designed like the North Korean reactor (and the others assisted by the A.Q. Khan network, including the one the Israelis attacked in Syria in 2007) — the Arak reactor IS a significant source of fissile material. It’s also not operational yet. It should definitely be attacked.
J.E. – I thought your discussion in the 2009 analysis of the need to include Iranian government, IRGC, etc. targets, and therefore make it a more protracted operation with an intended objective beyond just rolling back their nuclear weapons progress a bit, was well done (if I may say so, the entire 2009 analysis is a great product).
Ms. Dyer, MarcH: the Pentagon position under Adm. Mullen’s watch was that taking out the Iranian government and military leadership was indispensable to a successful strike against Iran’s nuclear program. I was taken, though, with Edward Luttwak’s argument that this maximalist position in effect ruled out US military action; he argues that the Pentagon advanced this view precisely in order to raise the prospective cost of an Iran strike and discourage it. It’s not my area of expertise and I will not take a position. But I find the coincidence of Luttwak’s and Ruehl’s views suggestive.
Mr. Goldman — I saw the Edward Luttwak piece also. This has always been a difficult issue, because there is in fact such a strong likelihood of Iranian retaliation.
If one assumes that away, which Luttwak clearly does, then one sees no problem with the very limited strike package he speaks of.
But Iran’s ability to retaliate has only improved over the last few years (missile attacks, mining regional waters, Qods-force activity against regional governments, terrorist attacks). Israel, of course, has little choice in her approach, because of the limitations in her capability.
The US does have a choice, so for us it’s a matter of consciously deciding that we won’t try to suppress the potential retaliation, but only deal with it as it erupts. That approach has been rejected in the past because it has been thought better to deal the blow up front, with operatinal surprise and on our terms, rather than wait for Iran to provoke us into attacking her anyway, but with the drawbacks of a crisis situation (e.g., neighboring governments or peoples alrady at risk) and with fewer operational advantages.
The choice of approach boils down to whether one thinks Iran will seek to retaliate seriously or not.
David – I still have to read the Luttwak piece (Friday’s WSJ?)and would be grateful if you have a link to a good reporting on the JCS position to which you refer above.
I like your term ” maximalist position” and do suspect it is true that elements of the DC senior security establishment “raised the bar” as to what was necessary to effectively tackle Iranian assets in both Iran and Iraq. Perhaps that was behind the supposed feud between ADM Fallon as CENTCON and GEN Petraeus as MNF-I?
I can’t speak for Commander Dwyer but I don’t think she’s advocating or presented an operational proposal for an airstrike intended to cause de-capitation or regime change in Iran (although it could contribute to that), but just degradation of their ability to retaliate.
MarcH,
I’m familiar with the JCS position via my own sources. I haven’t seen adequate reporting. Luttwak’s claim regarding the JCS intent is neither here nor there. Mullen was on record (in the Charlie Rose March 2009 interview I’ve cited before) warning about destabilization of the region in the event of a strike against Iran.
Ms. Dyer,
It seems to me that the issue is whether Israel can do sufficient damage to Iran’s nuclear program to justify a solo strike. If the US were to do it (which I advocate) we might as well execute the thousand-sortie version and be absolutely sure. But if Israel goes it alone, that is not an option; the question then becomes what Israel can do without the US. And it seems to me that both Ruehl and Luttwak have sought to answer that.
Mr. Goldman — indeed, I don’t disagree that it matters what Israel can do alone. MarcH’s reference to my discussion of that relates to a study I did in 2009, in which I concluded much the same thing Luttwak and Ruhle do about which targets must be struck. The study discussed the kind of strike Israel and the US could each bring off.
I don’t believe Israel can set Iran’s programs back for the length of time posited by Ruhle, but that certainly doesn’t mean a strike would be pointless. It could accomplish worthwhile objectives, and it very well may have to be done. (If Iran obtains and operationalizes the S-300PMU-2 air defense system, however, Israel’s options would be severely curtailed. That hasn’t come up for a while due to the Russians’ putting it on hold, but if delivery and set-up of the system become a factor, Israel will want to strike before it’s up and working, or rethink the whole operation.)
David,
Thank you for exploring “whether Israel can do sufficient damage to Iran’s nuclear program to justify a solo strike” and producing information to support the affirmative. The feasibility of an Israeli (or U.S. strike) against Iran is (of course) a critical meme just now as parts of the U.S. security establishment are strongly pushing the opposite meme, as they have done for at least the past ten years. My main concern with Ruehl’s analysis was that the forecast of an IAF strike setting Iran back ten years seemed way out of wack and therefore invites discrediting the whole idea of striking Iran. IMHO, the 2009 Dwyer analysis (http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/the-iran-page/) is one of the best open source descriptions of what various U.S. or Israeli Iran bombing operations might look like and what affect they could produce. But, whether it is Dwyer, Ruehl, Luttwak or Goldman, they are all pushing in the correct direction.
I disagree with you that “JCS intent is neither here nor there”. I would have no problem if these cautionary statements were part of a dispassionate analysis (http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2012/02/17/playing-down-the-iranian-threat/) but they seem to be part of a long term campaign by a large part of the government/MSM/academic security establishment which is (for whatever motive) providing blocking for the Iranian nuclear weapons project. For me, that is the big and frustrating puzzle.
BTW, it’s amusing that both ADM Mullen and GEN Dempsey publicly argue that an Iran strike would be “de-stabilizing”. I wonder how they would describe showing Mubarak the exit-door?
Israel attacks within one month. If it succeeds, Obama takes credit. If failure, “We told you so”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/china-rebukes-iran-for-stopping-oil-sales-to-britain-and-france-1.413706
China has publicly rebuked Iran. This is extraordinary news. Does China expect Israel to get rid of the mullahs?
Beijing sees that this break induces a hyperbolic runaway in commercial relations between Iran and Europe.
Game analysis tells them that such a rupture is all too likely to ‘go Libyan’ on Tehran.
In which case, exports to China would cease — probably entirely — and for a very, very long time.
All of that assistance to the mullahs must, in time, blow back upon Red China.
=======
Iran is never going to block the Strait of Hormuz. Sure, it’s only 2.5 miles wide — if you’re a VLCC — impassible if you’re a ULCC — but Iran is a major importer of food stuffs — like rice from India.
Never forget: you must net off the gasoline imports. Iran ships crude to India and Singapore… and then imports refined gasoline and other POL right back through the Strait. So 4,300,000 bbl per day nets down to 3,500,000 bbl per day. Meaning that Iran provides about 3.5% of the global supply of crude.
So it’s nothing but bluster all the way.
I read that KSA has curtailed exports. Yet, the press omits that Libyan exports are now ramping up. The Italians re-activated the subsea pipeline months ago. It’s good for 400,000 bbl per day, IIRC, all by itself. The trading community is gaming the public. At these terrible prices demand is getting killed.
Further contraction in European demand is a foregone conclusion. The step-wise break up of the Euro Zone won’t be easy. Like all prior rigged exchange rate systems it will decay sovereign by sovereign. For what is the Euro but a fiat version of a gold or silver standard? The notable difference has been the crazed attempt to meld the fiats – -and decree a 1:1 exchange ratio, fiat to fiat.
Whereas, under specie, the exchange crosses via precious metal weight: x DM: y gms Au : z Drachma.
Quick inspection of past sunderings of fixed exchange rates reveals that they ALWAYS trigger economic contractions. Sometimes full blown depressions hit the sinning nation.
In this regard, Greece is an exemplar: she’s defaulted, arguably, more than any other European sovereign. She lied like an embezzler to get in to the Euro, and every day thereafter. Tragically, she spent the money on good living — and attracting the destitute with fine weather and provident food.
[The other major contender would have to be 16th Century Spain. ( The monarch, from time to time, would come up short as his treasure fleet met the bottom of the Atlantic. Resolving these defaults forever shaped the way bankers dealt with sovereigns. ) ]
Europe can’t balance its books until it ejects the imported poor — it’s just not a high growth area. It absolutely cannot find economic utility in broken down bodies; and souls not born and bred locally. Even native Italians can’t get hired any distance from home.
The comment at (33) was in the right direction, but the subcomment was not. For Israel can use more than one, two or three EMP bursts at a somewhat lower altitude, which would carefully direct the EMP’s inside Iran. After disabling most of the weaponry that Iran counts upon to defend itself, the IAF would proceed to destroy every military installation and vehicle it could find in Iran, and, oh by the way, every known nuclear facility. This would preclude any retaliation by Iranian military forces for a sufficient time to complete the defanging of Iran. Since moving military transports and tanks by Iran anywhere would be virtually impossible after the EMP bursts, Israel could insert commandos safely (with overhead air cover) near suspected nuclear sites to block their air intakes or entrances for days or even weeks if needed.
The EMP bursts would not kill people at all, but they would disable most electrical and electronic items within the blast radius for some period of time. The Mullahs would probably lose their grip without a strong military to back them up.
One further possibility must be considered. Iran would most likely try to react by closing the Strait, and initiating terrorist attacks on Israel and the United States. This would bring the US into the fray almost immediately, with devastating consequences for Iran’s still existing but motorless military and their nuclear sites. It would be highly probable then that the US would seriously consider joining the Israeli attack on Iran (either up front or a bit later) to ensure the utter destruction of Iran’s war-making capabilities.
In this situation, Iran would be rendered a toothless tiger, and their citizens would be in need of substantial humanitarian help. It is then quite possible that the US (and others) would land a significant number of troops, only on the southern and western borders of Iran to a depth of perhaps 100 miles, to funnel aid to the populace further inland, and to seize control of most of the oil wells in the country, until such time as a new Iranian government could take them back. We would, if we were smart, let the populace do their own organizing of this new government in Tehran before withdrawing our troops.
Remember the nuclear war study released a year or two ago gaming a countervalue nuclear exchange betweem Israel and Iran?
If the mullahs survived they would face the opposite of decapitation – debodification? – their population of ethnic Persians would be sorely diminished by a third or a half. Teheran could see 50+% casualities with only four hydrogen devices delivered by missile. (From memory.)
Israeli missile defense is equal or better than any other country, including the US. Are the mullahs feeling lucky?
As to the demise of the Euro, how would that affect global competition? My company’s main competitor is French. They use their euro currency basis as a competitive tool for international sales – without it, are they disadvantaged against a company that works in dollars? Eventually, it will sort out as the franc vs the dollar but for the short to intermediate run, a breakup of the euro has to benefit the non-euro economies.
@33. Comment
I do not see how disabling the power grid would cause “millions of casualties”.
As a data point,our city grid was disabled for almost two weeks with zero casualties. It is quite possible that a few casualties would occur because of failing traffic lights or failing hospital power if there is no backup available, and any aircraft flying in the blast zone would be seriously affected.
The Iranian army would be hindered from responding to the attack because of a lack of communications, inability to use mororized transport or tanks, serious damage to missile, tank and gun electronics, AA guidance and radar nets, and even some underground electronics. The Iranian air force would be paralized because of serious damage to aircraft avionics, communications and radar guidance systems, although some might still be flyable if their controls were of the older types.
In the scenario projected, it is quite possible that we could aid the recovery of power selectively, once Iran’s military is essentially defanged, obviously depending on a number of factors, such as the speed of instituting a provisional government, an invitation from them for us to help, rapidly quelling residual troop concentrations one way or another, and the actual extent of the grid damage, which may not be as serious a problem as was portrayed to cause major casualties.
There is a major caveat here: the entire scenario I have suggested is merely informed speculation on my part, and should not be construed as my advocating such an attack. I do fear that it may well take place!
As a data point,our city grid was disabled for almost two weeks with zero casualties.
What would happen in the US after a successful EMP strike has been discussed at length in fiction and non-fiction. Iran is sufficiently urbanized and running at a calorie deficit that it comes down to what I call medium-term survival, what happens after the first few weeks. Your city’s grid was down, but it and the surrounding nation didn’t run out of fuel to transport food to people (plus as a general metric people can survive a couple of weeks without food).
If it’s nationwide, it will take heroic measures to keep everyone fed with basic wheat gruel and the like (from vague memory, one semi-tractor trailer of the ’70s-80s size can carry enough wheat for 100,000 for one day). We, who are fantastically richer and better organized, who export lots of calories and feed many to animals (allowing a “gearing down” by redirecting those to people) would find it very difficult (don’t forget that communications would be almost entirely gone and that the US military has not procured EMP proof stuff since the end of the Cold War). And then there’s the long term; our farms, at least, require electricity to function.
I’m pretty sure that mass casualties after such a strike on Iran is the way to bet.
Timing and logistics are all here. 1)If the strikes can succeed inside of two weeks, and 2)if the US and others are prepared to execute the sea and air landings to resupply food to civilians, and 3)if there is a provisional government rapidly constituted to organize the population around both allowing us to enter and to resupply foodstuffs, and 4)to assist in the recovery of their existing electronics and motor transport, then mass casualties can be ameliorated in urban centers. That is a passel of IF’s, but none of them are necessarily showstoppers.
Reconstituting communications in urban centers can be handled with cell phones and towers and with satellite systems if the US is allowed to erect them quickly. The US Army can provide temporary systems for that purpose, until more permanent equipment and towers can be put in place.
It is not clear to me what the actual casualty rate would be in the hinterlands over a longer period, since it depends largely on the rate of repair of motors and the grid. There are reports that indicate it is feasible to repair much of the EMP damage, but the resources and skilled manpower to do so may well not be readily available. Their power grid may well have multiple levels of cutouts that prevent permanent damage from voltage spikes, such as from lightning, so the repairs would not necessarily be all that difficult, except for the availability of repair parts and reasonably skilled linemen. The power generators themselves depend upon electronic controls to monitor and control the capacity being delivered, and these controls would have to be repaired rather fast, which may be no more complicated than simply grounding out any overcharges in the system and then spinning up. Some serious organization of the repair effort would be indicated, drawing on the resources of Israel, the US and any partners we have.
In the end, however, it seems to me that from an Israeli point of view, it may well be an either them or us decision that they face whether to use EMP or not, and whether to attempt to neuter Iran militarily, and I simply would not bet on the “them” part. The Israeli watchword has ever been survival. Perhaps the agony of having to make such a horrific decision explains why Israel has not acted any sooner.
One further note: EMP effects are not lasting in the area. Minutes after the bursts, motor transport and aircraft can enter the spaces from without at will with no damage, so Israeli and US/Allies military equipment would not be affected when they go into Iran. If the Israelis conduct a succession of EMP bursts, however, there would have to be coordination with our forces to avoid EMP damages.
Lest we get our shorts in a bunch:
A Faraday cage ( a metal, magnetic field conducting box ) stops EMP. It’s a basic law of physics that EM radiation ( long wave ) cannot penetrate metal surfaces. Now X-Rays are a different matter.
The kicker is that, with distance, even air blocks X-Rays. ( They can promote an electron / break a diatomic molecule apart. The effect is entirely in the manner of ozone blocking UV rays — but at even higher power levels. )
If you’re close enough to dose the target with X-Rays — it’s in the blast zone. (!)
[ VELA satellite sensors use the flash-dark-flash signature of X-Ray absorption surrounding atomic fire balls due to this effect, BTW. )
Mac Books are constructed as Faraday cages.
Most cars are metal — which are, hence, immune to the full force of an EMP attack.
Diesel trucks are mainly immune to EMP attack: only auxiliary circuits are at hazard. The typical lamp filament is immune. ( It’d just glow. )
And so it goes: refrigerators are immune, air conditioning — for the most part — are immune.
The stuff are vulnerable are long runs of exposed wire — particularly classic phone lines.
Fiber-optic cables are immune. Their electronics are almost always shielded — whether you ordered it or not.
Most EMP is going to pop fuses/ open circuit breakers — losing its energy that way.
The original discovery of EMP effects occurred when most circuits were still protected by fuses — and Edison fuses at that. Replacing a whole panel of such fuses IS a hassle.
In contrast, resetting circuit breakers is a breeze.
In sum: the shorter the wire/ pick-up antenna the more robust a circuit becomes. The more completely it is wrapped in a good conducting metal the more robust a circuit becomes. Really high energy radiation from the detonation is absorbed by the air — that’s where the ultra blast effect comes from. That’s true if the radiation is Gamma Rays, X-Rays or Alpha and Beta particles. Only long wave radiation really carries. ( Long being visible light on down. )
The fact that the air above blocks all the high frequencies is something that somehow never comes up when arm-chair experts opine.
Cheers.
I do not see how disabling the power grid would cause “millions of casualties”.
Allow me to please quote from a piece several years old on the subject, keeping in mind that Iran is NOT a temperate country:
…
A practical application of Malthus on steroids. Dürer’s 4 Horsemen will ride.
Subotai Bahadur
The vast bulk of Iran is well above sea level…
To the point of changing the weather/ climate.
Unlike Araby, upland Iran is almost like Southern California.
Is it ANY wonder that Iranians find LA the PERFECT place to resettle?
——
EMP was HUGE in the 1960s…
Johnston Island, and all of that….
——-
Today…
Who knows?
It’s TOO sensitive for the Pentagon, et. al. to speak out.
—-
My first take is that EMP is over rated because micro-electronics is practically invulnerable to it.
This is entirely contrary to popular assumption.
But, the ULTRA short dimensions on a chip mean that INDUCED flux has to come elsewhere.
And, the very heart of modern design is to suppress any such surge.
—–
To my mind, the strategic threat is macro-economic.
Can trade survive a died-in-the-cave radical power with an end-of-times, bunkerist mentality?
Will humanity end as a Greek tragedy?
Cue the chorus:
Just a note to thank posters for well-informed and thoughtful comments.
We have all seen the auto being jolted with electrical energy while a man sits inside uninjured. Faraday cages are well-known. However, it is also true that the man in the auto could be seriously jolted if he is grasping anything metallic. It is precisely the long wave radiation that causes problems for the “auxillary circuits” surrounding engines and other electronics, temporarily stopping them. Neither the US nor the Iranians have prepared for EMP radiation in their military or civilian equipment, although experiments have been done to assess effects. Line voltage spikes and any leads to the outside of equipment are vulnerable to EMP, and cause power supply burnouts, breakers to open, or fuses to blow. In itself a reset can be easily done, but when everything around is popping it becomes overwhelming to fix it all rapidly.
The question is, how vulnerable are the Iranian (or Russian-supplied) systems to EMP? Are they all breakered and fully caged? I doubt it. The other variable is the altitude of the bursts, which decreases the air cushion with lower altitude bursts. No one seems to take the number of bursts nor their most likely altitudes into account: it all seems to begin with a single stratospheric burst, not multiple somewhat lower altitude bursts, when military neophytes opine.
An earthquake generator can trigger the natural resonance of the underground buildings housing the Iranian nuclear program, the buildings will shake apart along with the centrifuges. Also remember Tehran sits on a system of earthquake faults and that all the ground under Tehran could be liquified. If the Iranians believe a war is approaching they should evacuate Tehran and Isfahan.
Three large problems were seemingly not cited in Rühle’s outlook of Israeli prospects for air attack on Iran’s main nuclear sites:
- Russia is said to be upgrading and maintaining in Syria the capability to detect a massive raid prepared by Israel so as to be able to warn Iran in advance.
See: http://www.debka.com/article/21774/
Existence of this, possibly of other Russian electronic intelligence assets leaves Israeli planners with only two options:
1. Having F-15s travel low altitude (below radar) westwards outside of Russia’s Syrian-based assets range before climbing to high altitude and taking a longer route, further compounding refueling problems already cited as the difficult point in Rühle’s paper
2. Taking the most fuel-efficient route and lose tactical surprise, making it easier for Iran to disrupt the attack with a larger number of air defense fighters & fully alerted air defense systems
- Operational range of GBU-28 “bunker buster” bombs is 9 kilometers. That’s only slightly within range (12 km) of Russian-produced “Tor M1″ air defense systems, meaning that the risk to the aircraft might be limited. However, “Tor M1″ are probably able to aim at the bombs themselves: these are relatively slow gravity bombs, with predictable ballistic trajectories without capability to evade.
Given Iran’s comfortable arsenal of 29 such systems and their ability to guide several defense missiles simultaneously, it looks quite probable that Iran’s Tor could decrease very significantly the efficiency of any attack by destroying a goodly number of Israel’s limited tally of GBU-28s in flight before they can reach their targets.
By contrast with the USA, Israel would not have options of preventive destruction of air defenses in the framework of a long air campaign, nor of submerging the defenses under sheer number of bombs.
- Indigenously produced “Shahab-3B” medium range ballistic missiles have the capability to reach Israel (range 1500 to 2000 km), have good precision (ECP 300 meters?) and can carry submunitions. Rate of production of 70 per year is cited starting 2008, to which arsenal of less precise Shahab-3A should be added, meaning Iran would have an arsenal over 300 ballistic missiles, including over 200 precise ones.
See: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3636744,00.html
These figures and data are not precise, but the existence of the missile, its range and its indigenous production in numbers are not in doubt. That force gives Iran considerable reprisal options against Israel, much more destructive than any realistic terrorist attack, this without using any WMD and in sufficient numbers to overcome the “Arrow 2″ Israeli antiballistic missiles even if they can tackle the Shahab-3B which is unclear.
The bottom line is that Iranian reprisals may well include destruction of Dimona and other Israeli nuclear sites, possibly extended to other military crucial sites (airbases, submarine harbours?…)
This is not to say that Israel won’t launch that independent, not-coordinated-with-US, air attack. But the obstacles are numerous indeed, and the price to pay would be high.