Reply With QuoteI believe Iran's air defenses will give IAF a fair amount of trouble if not directly aided by US air and naval strike groups.
Hypothetical Israel vs Iran campaign thread *READ FIRST POST*
This thread is to discuss the anatomy of a Hypothetical future Israel vs Iran campaign.
It is based on Israel deciding to strike Iran's nuclear facilities at some point in the next 18 months.
NOTE!
This thread is for informed debate on a specific subject.
Keep all discussion relative to the thread subject. Do not engage in discussion of events or subjects other than those clearly related to the thread subject.
Asking questions about politics, diplomacy, weapon systems, the operational art, tactics etc, is acceptable.
Any trolling or flaming regarding Iran vs Israel/ Jews vs Muslims, etc, etc will be met with summary banning.
My very general theories.
My supposition is based on the assumption that an Israeli attack is only possible if one of Iran's neighbors -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey(obviously unlikely), or a heavily U.S.-influenced Iraq -- either publicly or tacitly allows Israeli entry into its airspace for the strike on Iran. I figure that though Israel could chance an initial airstrike without an agreement, it would need permission for follow-up attacks. I suppose that in the near future Iran scares its neighbors into allowing Israeli access, (enemy of my enemy, etc).
The Israelis have some tough decisions to make. They can attack Iranian morale by destroying nuclear sites or battering its oil infrastructure (the theory being that either would induce Tehran to abandon its nuclear program). Oil sites are less heavily defended, and they're closer to the Israeli flight path over Saudi Arabia, which means Israeli planes can carry more bombs and less fuel, and CSAR would stand a greater chance of success. But oil installations can absorb an awful lot of damage before going offline, and attacking the world's petrol supply could trigger an international backlash against Israeli which Iran could exacerbate by closing the strait of Hormuz.
Israeli strikes.
The initial Israeli strikes would hit the Arak, Bushehr and Isfahan atomic sites, which are closer to the Saudi border.
Follow up attacks would fall on Qom, Natanz and Parchin. However these are only the key facilities. There are still a number (twelve possible from OSINT) of 'lesser' facilities that would need to be destroyed in order to ensure the campaign objectives were met.
The SEAD, Offensive counter air, strike and support packages would use the majority of the IAF assets.
It's probable that SF assets would be employed for targeting and BDA.
Iranian retaliation
Iran will almost certainly attempt to strike back with their MRBM arsenal. Conventional munitions in the first waves followed by WMD's in escalation. I have no data on the readiness state and prep time for for the eight different types the Iranians are known to possess, but I believe they would launch within 2-6 hours.
Minutes after the first bombs fell on Iran and well before Israel launched any follow-up strikes, southern Lebanese skies would be criss crossed with Katyusha rocket trails. Intelligence reports stated that it took Hezbollah only a matter of weeks to resupply their arsenals of rockets after the 2006 war. These are assessed to number anywhere from several thousands to over twelve thousand.
Gaza and the West Bank would also erupt.
If Saudi Arabia allows Israeli jets to transit its airspace, its likely that Iran would respond with military action against it. The majority of Saudi oil and its facilities lie within a stones throw of Iran which Iran would likely strike. This potential action would in turn likely drag in the United States.
Iran clearly couldn't go toe to toe with the US militarily, but it could certainly disrupt their operations to support the gulf states and cause untold casualties to them as well as shut down the Gulf in terms of oil production and transportation. At approx 17 million barrels a day coming through the straits of Hormuz that would cripple any number of economies. How long would the world without that supply and who would they blame/pressure for it?
----------------
Israeli is faced with a complex and difficult air campaign, while Iran will probably be more patient and subtle, compensating for Israeli military superiority by judiciously striking at public opinion with missiles and proxy terrorist and guerilla attacks, seeking to politically isolate Israel and deny it allies.
So;
Israel can't stop Iran from retaliating with missile attacks and terrorism. But it also can't guarantee complete destruction of Iran's nuclear program.
More to add, but that's enough to get things rolling.
I believe Iran's air defenses will give IAF a fair amount of trouble if not directly aided by US air and naval strike groups.
My question is what are the chances it boils to WWIII? And who will be the players?
That's a scary thought.Originally Posted by icefrog
What would happen to oil supplies? How long before there would be shortages, rationing, etc.
I've always been of the opinion that an attack on Iran will not happen without very significant US help or better still, it would be a purely US strike. If Israel could do it successfully, it would have done it already.
Open Question: How does the presence of US troops (or lack of) in Iraq affect a possible strike on Iran? a few years back, I heard a British military military "expert" on BBC say that if U.S. was to strike Iran, it must do so while it had troops present in Iraq in other to better contain "fall-out". However, I thought the reverse should be the case, since they would become potential target for Iranian missiles.
I think the outcome of Sunni vs Shia political turmoil can have a great effect on Israeli's chance to attack Iran via Iraq. Should the Sunnis came out on top, they would probably allow the Israelis to pass through so they can counter Iranian attempt to influence Iraqi Shias.
Israeli and US definitions of 'success' are different.
For Israel causing a delay of a few years to Iran's nuclear program is a success.
For the US a success probably also includes safety of the oil traffic, safety of the royal family of saudia, fall of the ayatollahs regime, and other geopolitical interests that Israel doesn't care about.
Hum Israel AF alone ??Hypothetical Israel vs Iran campaign thread *READ FIRST POST*
Then all wargames simulation say that IAF doesn't have the manpower (enough long range planes and enough tankers) to carry a significant operation (i.e an operation which would destroy in a significant way the Iranian nuclear program grid) on a single wave. That's maybe why they hadn't have done it yet.
As for the consequences, well at least there is not anymore US forces in Irak but Iran has a large regional and abroad nuisance capability : Missile retaliation on Israel and any "ally" in the Gulf (KSA or UAE), proxie activation (Hezb in Lebanon, Al Qods units abroad in Europe and South America) closing of the Ormuz straights (through mines, land based AshM, midget subs) and providing weapons to obectives or not so objectives allies in Astan (a wave of EFP, ManpAds, mines arriving massively in Talibans hands wouldnot be something very funny for NATO forces in Astan).
On a larger scale, China who is one of the main if not the main customer for Iranian oil would not be very happy but i don't see it moving for that beside some diplomatical moves. Anyway the situtaion would be stinking enough at the local (Ormuz straight) regional (Middle East) and global level
PS : i ll ad a question : what would/may be the level of retaliation of the Iranian forces if Israeli (or US for what matters in the scenario) jets destroy a nuclear facility in the vicissinity of a big city (like Ispahan) sending in the atmosphere a huge amount of radiopollutants and thus killing tenth of thousands of civilians through that radiochemical contamination ??
Do not forget two important factors.
1) China is getting ready for war.
2) West is going bankrupt.
well, given the tools Israel has available to achieve this goal, the possibility of "success" is far less clear.
Israeli Air Force will be running on limits of it's capabilities if Israel strikes alone. It means they have to use almost all of their fighters in operation along with all of their air refueling capability. Fighters participating in the strike will be loaded up to very limit of their payload capability, those have to be if IAF wants to inflict real damage to nuclear facilities. F-15 or F-16 woluld run circles around most of Iranian fighters on light load, but as those are carrying sh!tload of air to ground weaponry and extra fuel tanks, even F-4's and F-5's will become very real threat. Basically just showing up will force Israelis to either dump the weaponry or fight with very limited mobility due to being heavily loaded.
Even if Israeli strike will be complete success as military operation, destroying couple nuclear facilities will only slow down Iranian nuclear program to minor degree. If Iranians will retaliate against Saudi-Arabia as it must allow Israel to use it's airspace to strike, it will cause rise in oil price, that might lead to massive economic consequences. It might be the straw that will break donkeys back in regards of European economy. That may make current economic crisis go up to level of the Great Depression of 1930's instead of just another depression.
![[RNZE]Sapper's Avatar](image.php?s=3ee3450623ec5a5f79878c36334b61c8&u=141214&dateline=1323289501 "[RNZE]Sapper's Avatar")
Why is China always being dragged into this? What are they gonna do in the next 18 months? Pull another carrier group out of their @ss?
1)Chill the fvck out. We got this.
2)Just putting it out there. The Fall of the West(tm) will be a long, ugly and drawn out affair. I'll be lucky to live through it.
Very interesting thread.
My guess is that only Israel would attack Iran if USN 5th Fleet is able to keep Hormuz Strait open and free for shipping. I take for sure the US would cooperate, not initially and publicly. So, which is the US Armed Forces deployment in the area?
Some other key factors (apart from economics) to take into consideration;
- UK support (publicly or not).
- Arab League position, IMHO hard to foresee.
- Proxy terrorists groups activity not only in the region.
- Possible internal uprising in Iran taking advantage of the situation.
- China and Russia positions, probably against the attack and/or further escalation involving Western countries.
Edited; took more than 30 mins to write this as I was at work... so no ideas stolen
Last edited by grabie_bis; 12-27-2011 at 06:51 AM. Reason: clarification
Yeah but then it would turn "global" no doubt...
Don't forget:
-Combined Task Force 152: http://combinedmaritimeforces.com/tag/ctf-152/
-Port Zayed, UAE home of Marine Nationale's Indian Ocean fleet with permanent warships there (plus the Armée de l'Air base + FFL who relocated there from Djibouti)
-Camp Virginia, Kuwait with thousands of soliders + equipment
- Permanent US CVBG in the area
And of course all the hundreds of advanced jets used by GCC countries (they are even more advanced than those used by the country of origin i.e F16blk60 and M2000-9) compared to the few 80ies era jets used by Iran
Given the tools Israel has, the possibility of "success" is clear.
Israel abstains from attacking Iran right now because there is still some time for the US to decide about massive attack which would also take other US interests into consideration. But before times runs out, if US does nothing about Iran, Israel will attack at any cost, regardless of permissions, US interests, oil prices, Hormuz Strait, e.t.c.
Posting Permissions
