Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets
Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated Press
One possible Israeli target, the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran, was guarded in 2007 by antiaircraft artillery.
Published: February 19, 2012
Multimedia
Related
-
Iran Halts Oil Exports to Britain and France (February 20, 2012)
-
U.N. Nuclear Inspectors Return to Tehran (February 21, 2012)
That is the assessment of American defense officials and military
analysts close to the Pentagon, who say that an Israeli attack meant to
set back Iran’s nuclear program
would be a huge and highly complex operation. They describe it as far
different from Israel’s “surgical” strikes on a nuclear reactor in Syria
in 2007 and Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.
“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to
be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as
the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American
air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.
Speculation that Israel might attack Iran has intensified in recent
months as tensions between the countries have escalated. In a sign of
rising American concern, Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, met
with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in Jerusalem on
Sunday, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E.
Dempsey, warned on CNN that an Israeli strike on Iran right now would be
“destabilizing.” Similarly, the British foreign secretary, William
Hague, told the BBC that attacking Iran would not be “the wise thing” for Israel to do “at this moment.”
But while an Israeli spokesman in Washington, Lior Weintraub, said the
country continued to push for tougher sanctions on Iran, he reiterated
that Israel, like the United States, “is keeping all options on the
table.”
The possible outlines of an Israeli attack have become a source of
debate in Washington, where some analysts question whether Israel even
has the military capacity to carry it off. One fear is that the United
States would be sucked into finishing the job — a task that even with
America’s far larger arsenal of aircraft and munitions could still take
many weeks, defense analysts said. Another fear is of Iranian
retaliation.
“I don’t think you’ll find anyone who’ll say, ‘Here’s how it’s going to
be done — handful of planes, over an evening, in and out,’ ” said Andrew
R. Hoehn, a former Pentagon official who is now director of the Rand
Corporation’s Project Air Force, which does extensive research for the
United States Air Force.
Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence
Agency from 2006 to 2009, said flatly last month that airstrikes capable
of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the
capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack
aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task.
Still, a top defense official cautioned in an interview last week that
“we don’t have perfect visibility” into Israel’s arsenal, let alone its
military calculations. His views were echoed by Anthony H. Cordesman, an
influential military analyst at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington. “There are a lot of unknowns, there
are a lot of potential risks, but Israel may know that those risks
aren’t that serious,” he said.
Given that Israel would want to strike Iran’s four major nuclear sites —
the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo, the heavy-water
reactor at Arak and the yellowcake-conversion plant at Isfahan —
military analysts say the first problem is how to get there. There are
three potential routes: to the north over Turkey, to the south over
Saudi Arabia or taking a central route across Jordan and Iraq.
The route over Iraq would be the most direct and likely, defense
analysts say, because Iraq effectively has no air defenses and the
United States, after its December withdrawal, no longer has the
obligation to defend Iraqi skies. “That was a concern of the Israelis a
year ago, that we would come up and intercept their aircraft if the
Israelis chose to take a path across Iraq,” said a former defense
official who asked for anonymity to discuss secret intelligence.
Assuming that Jordan tolerates the Israeli overflight, the next problem
is distance. Israel has American-built F-15I and F-16I fighter jets that
can carry bombs to the targets, but their range — depending on
altitude, speed and payload — falls far short of the minimum 2,000-mile
round trip. That does not include an aircraft’s “loiter time” over a
target plus the potential of having to fight off attacks from Iranian
missiles and planes.
In any possibility, Israel would have to use airborne refueling planes,
called tankers, but Israel is not thought to have enough. Scott Johnson,
an analyst at the defense consulting firm IHS Jane’s and the leader of a
team preparing an online seminar on Israeli strike possibilities on
Iran, said that Israel had eight KC-707 American-made tankers, although
it is not clear they are all in operation. It is possible, he said, that
Israel has reconfigured existing planes into tankers to use in a
strike.
Even so, any number of tankers would need to be protected by ever more
fighter planes. “So the numbers you need just skyrocket,” Mr. Johnson
said. Israel has about 125 F-15Is and F-16Is. One possibility, Mr.
Johnson said, would be to fly the tankers as high as 50,000 feet, making
them hard for air defenses to hit, and then have them drop down to a
lower altitude to meet up with the fighter jets to refuel.
Israel would still need to use its electronic warfare planes to
penetrate Iran’s air defenses and jam its radar systems to create a
corridor for an attack. Iran’s antiaircraft defenses may be a generation
old — in 2010, Russia refused to sell Iran its more advanced S-300
missile system — but they are hardly negligible, military analysts say.
Iranian missiles could force Israeli warplanes to maneuver and dump
their munitions before they even reached their targets. Iran could also
strike back with missiles that could hit Israel, opening a new war in
the Middle East, though some Israeli officials have argued that the consequences would be worse if Iran were to gain a nuclear weapon.
Another major hurdle is Israel’s inventory of bombs capable of
penetrating the Natanz facility, believed to be buried under 30 feet of
reinforced concrete, and the Fordo site, which is built into a mountain.
Assuming it does not use a nuclear device, Israel has American-made
GBU-28 5,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs that could damage such hardened
targets, although it is unclear how far down they can go.
Earlier this month, a Bipartisan Policy Center report by Charles S.
Robb, the former Democratic senator from Virginia, and Charles F. Wald, a
retired Air Force general, recommended that the Obama administration
sell Israel 200 enhanced GBU-31 “bunker busters” as well as three
advanced refueling planes.
The two said that they were not advocating an Israeli attack, but that
the munitions and aircraft were needed to improve Israel’s credibility
as it threatens a strike.
Should the United States get involved — or decide to strike on its own —
military analysts said that the Pentagon had the ability to launch big
strikes with bombers, stealth aircraft and cruise missiles, followed up
by drones that could carry out damage assessments to help direct further
strikes. Unlike Israel, the United States has plenty of refueling
capability. Bombers could fly from Al Udeid air base in Qatar, Diego
Garcia in the Indian Ocean or bases in Britain and the United States.
Nonetheless, defense officials say it would still be tough to penetrate
Iran’s deepest facilities with existing American bombs and so are
enhancing an existing 30,000-pound “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” that
was specifically designed for Iran and North Korea.
“There’s only one superpower in the world that can carry this off,”
General Deptula said. “Israel’s great on a selective strike here and
there.”