The potential for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be a lot greater than skeptics may have thought. That’s the upshot of a story published yesterday in Foreign Policy that alleges Azerbaijan has granted the Israelis access to airbases in that country. If true, Israel’s ability to launch a strike from bases on Iran’s northern border would make the Jewish state’s military challenge in seeking to knock out Iran’s nuclear plants a lot simpler. The assistance of the Azeris would enable the Israelis to make repeated attacks and would eliminate the need to refuel their planes in midair in order to make the long flight from Israel to Iran.
Yet at the same time, a report in Ha’aretz insists that Tuesday’s announcement by the U.S. Defense Department that it would ask Congress for more money for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system ensures there will be no attack on Iran before the presidential election this year. While that assumption may be unfounded, along with similar speculation that followed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama earlier this month, it leaves open the possibility that Israel is heeding U.S. requests to hold off an attack. The question for Iran is, which of these stories do you believe?
On that score, there’s no question that Iran must regard the decision of the Azeris to assist an Israeli strike as being a mortal threat to their ability to defend themselves. Prior to this, all discussion of a possible Israeli strike had been tempered by the knowledge that their ability to attack Iran was severely limited by the vast distance between the two countries. When compared to the ability of the United States to project airpower from carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf as well as other bases in the Middle East, it made an Israeli attack on Iran look like a poor substitute for U.S. action. But bases in Azerbaijan completely transform the military equation between Israel and Iran. They remove the need for the Israeli Air Force to refuel planes in midair in order to secure their safe return. Support staff stationed along Iran’s northern border would also make it easier for IAF to execute repeated sorties on nuclear targets and facilitate the rescue of downed planes and pilots. The bases would vastly increase the likelihood that an Israeli air campaign against Iran would achieve a high degree of success and lower the potential for losses.
From Iran’s point of view, this is a total disaster. While they have always known they stood no chance of mounting an effective defense against a massive U.S. air campaign on their nuclear plants, an Israeli attack from 2,200 miles away did not seem as formidable a challenge. The Azeri factor does not quite put the Israeli military on a par with that of the United States but it does act as a multiplying factor with regard to Israel’s ability to launch repeated strikes.
Though the Haaretz report that spoke of Israel’s plans to attack Iran as being put on hold until next spring may encourage Tehran, the fact that the sources for the Azeri story in Foreign Policy appear to be senior U.S. military and diplomatic figures shows the Obama administration is by no means certain Netanyahu can be counted on to hold his fire until after the president is safely re-elected. The American motive for leaking the story is clear. By making public the fact that the Azeris have more or less been bribed by Israel to give them access to bases that will enable them to easily attack Iran, the United States may be hoping to accomplish two things.
One is to scare the Iranians into finally waving the white flag on its nuclear project. The story ought to make it clear to the ayatollahs there is no way they can protect themselves from either Israel or the United States if push comes to shove. The odds of the Iranians coming to their senses in this manner are slim, but the administration is determined to do whatever it can to keep the window for diplomacy on the nuclear question open for as long as it can.
The second motive is to forestall any Israeli attack. Making public the Azeri role in the military plan might force the Jewish state’s Asian ally to back away from any involvement in the project.
Whether the revelation will actually deter Israel from acting should Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak determine it is in their country’s interest to strike prior to November is still to be determined. The belief that the extra money for Iron Dome guarantees Israel won’t attack Iran this year is based on the assumption that Obama and Netanyahu came to some agreement on the issue when they met in early March. The Iranians must certainly hope this is the case. But the one thing we know today that we didn’t a few weeks ago is that Israel’s hand in this game of nuclear poker is far stronger than most people thought.
Let's figure into this mix, too, the recent "MicrophoneGate" scandal that revealed Obama's utter duplicity and the likely policy direction if, heaven forbid, Obama is re-elected. Israel has to be asking themselves why in the world they would wait until Obama is re-elected to strike Iran. Will Obama be more favorable to Israel before or after re-election? It's obvious. And when you also consider that the CIA leaked the Azeri's basing agreement, Israel can have no doubt that this Administration is as friendly right now as it's ever going to get. In fact, striking Iran before November may be the only way to assure that the U.S. will back up Israel against Iranian retaliation since Obama will be under so much pressure from Congress, the American public and wealthy Jewish donors that the Keystone Pipeline fiasco will look like a birthday party.
Ajeri bases would be a big force multiplier but I have not been convinced that Israel's capabilities without that limitation are all that limited, as an analysis in the NYT contended. Israel managed to demolish the Iraqi reactor at Osarek with six — count em — six fighter bombers, accompanied by eight fighters, that flew the 990 mile trip both ways by loading up with extra fuel tanks. The attack force flew through three nation's airspace without challenge from any and without losing a single plane. n nNow, Iran may be a tougher target: there are four sites that need to be taken out that lie between 940 and 1400 miles from Israel. Also, one or two of these sites are reportedly semi-hardened, requiring so-called bunker busters, not ordinary bombs. Reportedly, Israel has 125 aircraft capable of mounting such an attack (plus fighters) but only about 20 bunker busters acquired from the US and eight refueling aircraft. But why aren't 20 busters enough? And who says the highly competent Israelis have not made more big bombs of their own? And why shouldn't we assume that Israel will not convert a dozen other cargo airplanes to refueling use? In addition, Israel is known to have several types of cruise missiles and two missile firing submarines. n nMoreover, if the Osarik attack involved no refueling at all, doesn't it follow that at least some strikes on the nearer Iran targets could be mounted this way? And wouldn't Israel consider it a fair price to pay to ditch some aircraft in the Persian Gulf rather than make the return leg (requiring only a seaborne rescue of the pilots)? Of course, merely being able to land at Azeri bases (forget about mounting attacks from there) would serve the same purpose without losing planes. If not there, can anyone say that another country, say, Jordan, would not permit Israeli jets to land secretly? n nAs for whether 125 strike aircraft are enough to deliver a devastating blow, I say, of course. It took six to knock out Osarik. Triple that and multiply by four targets and you're only up to 72. (An important related issue is the probability of aircraft shot down, and there are suggestions that Iran has a powerful air defense. I think it will turn out to be just as weak and vulnerable as Iraq's or Syria's or Libya's when faced with an attack by an advanced first-world airforce with some of the world's best pilots. n nIn any case, Israel will be willing to run substantial risks to achieve its strategic objectives, as in the past.
John, you are pretty much on target. Other posters should follow your train of thought and pay special attention to our Dolphins and electronic warfare capabilities. All is NOT as the pro Obama media posits. nAdina Kutnicki, Israel
So which side is Commentary on, my country's (the U.S.A.) or Israel's? Don't you by law have to register as a foreign lobbyist if you advocate another country's interests over your own? Do you really think America will be safer if Israel bombs Iran? If so, you haven't been paying attention to how our last couple of trillion dollars of military solutions have worked out. Pakistan is the real nuclear threat, not to mention China and Russia. Are you going to bomb them all too? Ask this question: Will bombing Iran make nuclear terrorism against the U.S. or an attack on Israel more or less likely? More likely, I think. The problem with the war solution is that the other side can shoot back and it is never certain beforehand how that will turn out. Hitler, Kaiser Bill and Saddam found that out. Being the aggressor by bombing other countries does not win friends and influence people. And tends to cost a lot more in the long run.
Will the US be safer if Iran has the nuke. Iran is already infiltrating the US through Mexico!
Once Iran is nuclear-armed, they will hold that over the heads of anyone to shape and effect the middle east and, perhaps, the world to their liking and at their whims. Do you believe otherwise? There is plenty of evidence of their use and backing of proxy organizations, and their money/supply deliveries that clearly show their intent. They will continue to develop ballistic missile delivery systems and, once they are nuclear armed, the options to remove the threat are that much more limited. It will be that much harder to bring them down from within once nucleur armed and, if they should be brought down, it is quite likely they will go out in all their perceived glory with a big bang directed to whomever they see fit. This regime does not have a Western-civilized mind. They will not act as you might expect them to act. Remove Israel from the equation. This IS a worldwide problem of immense proportions for everyone. I feel similar about Pakistan except that at least I know that there are still some rational actors in that government and they do not espouse their hatred of the World to the degree of Iran and do not act accordingly, as does Iran. And, they already have the bomb.
The US and Israel are not on different “sides.” Revealing that you put it that way.r nr nThe US has a declared interest in ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. Obama has stated this as American policy time and time again, as his predecessor did, and few US policies enjoy such overwhelming support in Congress from both parties and from the people.r nr nIf Obama or any US officials do not want Israel to attack, they have not said so publicly in so many words. Inferring their intentions from anonymous leaks is hardly clear. My own belief is that Obama would rather not see an Israeli attack in the next eight months to avoid political complications for himself. After that, who knows.r nr nIn any case, all Americans are free to advocate any policy toward Iran they wish.
kummerow! The question is that on whose side are you? The countries you have mentioned had never treatened anybody with their nuclear weapons. Unlike Iran. Explaining or even advocating certain other countries actions does not make the people with different opinion less American than you are. The mentioned countries perhaps crazy at times but they had never been stupid or fanatics like your proposed friends. If Israel would be live under or attacked by an Iranian nuclear weapon; it would create maybe a partial Holocaust but very definetely an Armaggedon. With more horrible consequences for everybody than you would imagine. I do not see that this columnist in this article wants the US get involved. Unfortunately, the US will be involvead one way or another no matter who does what because the other allies of the US the Arabs and their oil, eventually, the Europeans are also treatened by the fanatic islamist Iran. Unless something happens inside Iran which is unlikely. Anyway you have problem to differentiate between a commentator of an online magazine and a registered lobbyist. Peace.
Just for people like you, Max. Israel should allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But you know what, the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" is not worth the nuclear destruction of Tel Aviv and New York. n nIt's tempting though…
According to a war simulation conducted by the U.S. Central Command, the Iranians could kill 200 Americans with a single missile response to an Israeli attack. An investigative committee would not spare any admiral or general, minister or president. The meaning of this U.S. scenario is that the blood of these 200 would be on Israel's hands. n nIsrael now proceeds at America's risk.
Israel must remain the owner of her destiny. I would not trust the US. The next thing will be the blackmail of Israel into more concessions to the Pal for nothing in exchange but deceptive empty words. Taqiyya! Always taqiyya.
If israel strikes Iran and American fuel costs skyrocket. Israel will be left friendless in America. I'm sorry not friendless. The GOP recipiants of Israeli campaign contributions will stay bought for a little while until they find another source of funding just like any loyal whore.
In your socialist wetdreams ajfneri.
I suppose Iran could flatten the Azerbaijani capital, whatever that is. Would the Azerbaijanis consider that worth the price, for the pleasure of helping Israel maintiain its regional nuclear monopoly and its racist policies on the West Bank?
I hope Bibi understands that he can't trust Obama AT ALL. and I hope he stays strong and continues to protect the citizens of his country, the way a leader is supposed to. n nIsrael is in a bad situation, but they are fortunate to have such great man at the helm. I wish we could say the same in the US!
btw all you commenters out there: n nI don't know why I have a score of -103, but I see it puts me down there with the Jew haters like ajfneri and the fake IDF guy "Israeli" 100. this is very upsetting to me. n nI'm not a Jew hater–I'm a Jew! and I'm very pro-Israel. however, I sometimes write things that are supposed to be sarcastic, and I'm afraid some people reading them must have thought I was serious. n nplease, all you friends of Israel…give my posts some thumbs-ups. I promise I'll write <sarc> in the future so it's obvious what is satire. help me out here: I don't want to have a worse score than the fake IDF guy! I thank you, and shalom.
Israel is responsibile for Israelis and America is responsible for Americans. If Iranians killed 200 Americans; The blood of the 200 Americans will be on Iranian hands. And America has to act accordingly. Israel will proceed on her on risk. No matter what is important for obama reelection (God forbid) or the opinion of the Ron Paul trogolytes.
After hearing of Obama's whispering sweet nothings in the ear of Medvedev, the Israelis would be insane to wait unitl after the elections. If Obama is reelected, image the pressure he will put on Israel to do nothing.
Israel cannot trust its existence to another country, even the US. I think the US government has understood that for a long time. Obama is the president of the US. He must rightly put the interests of the US first, as he perceives those interests. Those interests legitimately include "stability" and the continued flow of oil. He is not anti-Israel. What he has done, and not done, should be compared with other US Presidents of both parties. If he disagrees with/distrusts Netanyahu, so do a lot of Israelis. I am annoyed by the partisan anti-Obama paranoia I perceive in Commentary and elsewhere. Argue with Obama, challenge his liberal naivete if you wish, but attacking his bona fides is both immoral and counterproductive.