Two Windows Are Closing At Once
03.03.2008 - 10:17 AMAs Norman Podhoretz has pointed out in a series of courageous and cogently argued articles (click here and here) making the case for an American strike on Iran’s nuclear program, President Bush seemingly locked himself into such an action when he said, in Podhoretz’s paraphrase,
that if we permit Iran to build a nuclear arsenal, people 50 years from now will look back and wonder how we of this generation could have allowed such a thing to happen, and they will rightly judge us as harshly as we today judge the British and the French for what they did and what they failed to do at Munich in 1938.
But with less than a year left in his term, there are no indications that Bush intends to follow through. If he doesn’t, Israel may have to go it alone.
The venomous anti-Israel rhetoric spewing from Tehran is becoming increasingly bellicose. Iran is said to be supplying the Grad missiles used by Hamas in Gaza to strike the Israeli city of Ashkelon. Iran’s nuclear program, despite the trickily worded U.S. National Intelligence Estimate issued late last year, is continuing apace. With all these ominous trends in place, the pressure on Israel to employ military measures to ward off the Iranian nuclear menace will only grow.
What is the likely timing of an Israeli strike? One new factor in the equation is the Russian supply of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) to Iran, rumored about for months and now evidently moving forward. Tucked away in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last Wednesday was a single sentence from General Michael Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Iran, stated Maples, “is close to acquiring long-range SA-20 SAMs.”
The SA-20 is an advanced air-defense system with a radius of up to 250 miles. Although it presumably can be defeated by electronic measures of the kind at which Israel excels, its deployment would nonetheless seriously complicate the planning and execution of an Israeli attack. Given the risks of such an operation even without having to overcome the SA-20, Israel would presumably have a strong incentive to act before the new Russian system becomes operational.
Some reports are now placing the date for the SA-20 deployment as early as December. Of course, it would take time for the Iranian military to learn to operate the system even half-way effectively. But once the surface-to-air missiles are pointing toward the sky, the clock on that process would be ticking, just as it is ticking on Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Two windows would be closing at once.
Last week, Iran’s president called Israel a “a dirty microbe.” The intentions communicated by this Nazi-style metaphor are all too clear. But Israel is not about to let itself be exterminated. Barring a sudden change of course by Iran, the Middle East is heading for another major war.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Israel, shmisrael. The UNITED STATES can’t fly through the SA-20. It’s a mo-fo.
That’s not an excessive exaggeration. At present, only our B-2 bombers have a low enough radar cross section to reliably defeat the SA-20’s target acquisition radar — IF they approach at very low altitude using terrain masking, which renders them vulnerable to older SAM systems in a tiered air defense network, employed closer to the high-value targets. At medium-high altitude the SA-20’s radar array will be more effective against them. Jamming escorts would be equally vulnerable to the SA-20, and if Iran were to get the latest variant (the true “S-400″), standoff jammers (e.g., retrofitted B-52s) would be vulnerable as well. The standoff jammer must fly close enough to the SA-20’s radar to affect it, which puts the jamming platform inside the SA-20 envelope. The latest upgrade to the S-400 includes shorter range, low-altitude interceptors, making it — by itself — a triple threat: to the incoming bomber at range and high altitude, to the bomber at low altitude on its final target approach, and to the standoff support aircraft.
The F/A-22 Raptor improves on the B-2’s low-RCS stealth. But the fighter-bombers in wide use in the services today — the F-15/16s and F/A-18s — are sitting ducks for the SA-20, as are their old-profile jamming escorts. The Tomahawk missile and Predator UAV are as well.
The SA-20 is mobile, so its disposition cannot be counted on in advance. This is a tough system, with many of the capabilities we’ve been building into Patriot, and not defeated by the means we have adopted to optimize our attack force profile: fewer, more capable bomb-droppers, high-capacity/low-density support infrastructure (airborne radar control, airborne electronic sensor measures, airborne countermeasures). If we had to fight our way through the SA-20 today, we would have to use some combination of target saturation with manned bombers, and cruise and ballistic missiles, a large portion of which would not get through. (The SA-20 is advertised as a Russian “Patriot” counterpart, and although there is no hard evidence that it performs as effectively as Patriot in a high-density target environment, it will almost certainly keep some significant number of ballistic missiles from reaching their targets, even in a saturation strike.)
The US would be well advised to take on Iran, on OUR terms, before the arrival of the SA-20 forces us to ratchet the approach up to a higher level. Today we have effective air superiority, and could achieve full dominance within days. Today, therefore, we could choose from a range of options, from precision-targeting only nuclear facilities, to militarily supporting a coup directed by Iranian groups, to full-on invasion and regime change.
Once the SA-20 is in place and operational, our anticipated losses from a simple, “surgical” air strike would be too great, and the prospects of success for the strike too small, for that option to remain realistic. The loss of air superiority would force all-or-nothing choices on us.
Fortunately, determining whether the SA-20 has been shipped to Iran, and how far along Iran is in deploying it, is something our military intelligence agencies are still good enough to do reliably. “Preempting the SA-20″ is a realistic, bottom-line scenario not just for Israel, but for America. We are unlikely to out-engineer it — and transform our own forces — before Iran has it set up.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Sadly, I don’t see Pres. Bush doing anything about this now — we have entered the election season and short of a major attack on us, he will likely not want to begin something the next president will have to finish (and his political advisors will likely tell him that even a successful attack could damage McCain’s interests — crazy bellicose Republicans and all that). And I don’t see Olmert wising up any time soon either, SA-20s notwithstanding.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 PM
That Iran would acquire such an apparently sophisticated air defense system seems to me to be the last nail in the coffin (as if one were needed) so far as the “peaceful nuclear power” fantasy is concerned. No one but Israel and the US have regional air forces likely to attack Iran, and the only currently imaginable pretext for such an attack would be an imminent Iranian wmd capability. If the mullahs were merely trying to lessen their country’s dependence on foreign oil, they have a funny way of showing it.
Obviously the Russians are as able to recognize this as anyone else, which suggests ample recklessness if not malice on their part, vaguely reminiscent of … the installation of missiles in Cuba. Has Iran become Putin’s client?
Too bad Secretary Rice will be busy fussing over the peace process.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:02 AM
I understand the possible need to shut the open windows. I don’t understand the open mouths. What is served by this gibber? Does anyone suppose, continual scratching and picking at the subject will influence decision makers in Washington or Jerusalem?
Did such talk precede the bombing of the Osirak reactor? I don’t think so. That came as a surprise, and yet it came, and was successful, in part because it came as a surprise.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:16 AM
Israel must not rely on the United States. George W. Bush is not likely to do anything militarily regarding Iran. His hands are essentially tied by the Democrats. The political price would be too great to bear. It would also behoove Israel to bomb Iran before America’s November elections. Such an action will remind American voters that they still live in a very dangerous world—and help John McCain become the next president.
God help the Israelis if either Hillary Clinton or Barack “Barry” Obama get into the White House. Its citizens will find the proverbial rug pulled from under their feet. The Democrats are dishonest pacifists and will find any phony excuse not to go to war until it’s too late. They are similar to the mainstream politicians in Great Britain during the 1930s who refused to believe that Adolph Hitler was truly a threat.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:07 AM
nacl,
The more talk on the subject the better. Politicians will not act without pressure and hopefully the “talk” will awaken people and generate some pressure.
As for the Osirac bombing. At the time Israel was led by a man of principle, Menahem Begin. He was not a strong prime minister but he had his principles. And at the time the leader of the opposition - the present president of Israel Shimon Peres - decried the action saying it will “alienate the world” etc.
The present prime minister of Israel is a spineless unprincipled politician and one should not expect Israel to act as long as it is led by this team (Olmert + Barak).
March 4th, 2008 at 10:31 AM
…and if Russia is in the process of reverting from a mere amoral arms dealer to a full-fledged enemy of the US — using Iran as its virtual proxy against our proxy, Israel — shouldn’t Bush or Rice also say something about that?
March 4th, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Russia, in my opinion, is playing a very dangerous game as it objects to missile defense installation in its prior “buffer” states but continues arming (conventional and nuclear) an unstable regime on its border. We think in terms of the US and Israel, but India must be concerned about another Islamic A-Bomb in the region, along with weaker, mainly Sunni, Islamic states within range of Iran’s increasing weapons programs. Most of Europe is asleep regarding any threat from Iran and I see no hope in actions sanctioned by the UN or the IAEA. Internal unrest and upheaval in Iran might be the only course of action that would take the responsibility from a non-responsive West.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:24 AM
[…] let’s not rule it out entirely.We have already pointed to the fact that as Iran acquires sophisticated Russian air-defenses, which it may deploy as early […]
April 4th, 2008 at 9:41 AM
[…] have asked that question here before, and noted that Iran was acquiring long-range, highly advanced surface-to-air missiles, the […]