07_SeppDietrich
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2018
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
"We judge that the introduction of nuclear weapons into the Near East would increase the dangers in an already dangerous situation and therefore not be in our interest. Israel has 12 surface-to-surface missiles delivered from France. It has set up a production line and plans by the end of 1970 to have a total force of 24–30, 10 of which are programmed for nuclear warheads." - Henry Kissinger
08-May 2018: The Trump administration withdraws from the Iran Nuclear Deal. This plays straight into the hands of anti-American hardliners in the Iranian government.
22-June 2017 UPDATE for the first time Iran has employed one of its indigenous missile designs under actual combat conditions - and the result appears to be not what was expected. This event represents one of the first times that parts of Iran's ballistic missile force usage can be observed by Western analysts. Whether this assessment can be applied to the bulk of Iran missile force remains unclear, however, perhaps some of Iran's missile capabilities with respect to weapon accuracy could be reassessed. Please see here.
While a furious effort is now underway (18-Aug 2015) by Israeli lobbying groups in the United States to scuttle the Iran deal - they are all operating on the premise that US-Israel retains the option to conduct a military attack on Iran to stop or delay an Iranian nuclear program. However, neither the ZOA, NOPAC, or Washington beltway Iran hawks - can tell anyone - what a US-Israeli attack on Iran would look like - or what outcome(s) it would produce.
Not one.
While they are free to oppose the Iran deal, one must ask the last question first; will US-Israeli military action (a war) stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
Iran has never been a legitimate threat to Israel's existence - as it is well known that Israel sits on a nuclear deterrent ‘Jericho ICBM force’ – which can hit any target in the Middle East (including Iran).
[Above] The 'Jericho' was started in the 1950s with assistance from Dassault.
Israeli survival has never (ever) depended on a “better” Iran nuclear deal.
Israel has ~ 100-600 nuclear weapons.
So those in the US Congress and elsewhere who oppose a negotiated deal are effectively either:
Some historical contexts is warranted here. History tells us the question is not will (will) Iran retaliate for a US-Israeli attack - but simply - in what manner will Iran retaliate. The Iranians did not sit back and absorb Iraqi air strikes during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran went on the offensive within hours of the first Iraqi strikes on 22-Sept 1980, the IRIAF launched coordinated retaliatory strikes to hit Iraqi airfields near Baghdad and Basrah and includes the first (the first) successful attack on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor on 30-Sept 1980 eight days later. This joint operation was followed eight (8) months later by Israeli jets on 06-Jun 1981. (During the first attack an Iranian RF-4E took real time photos of the reactor which were later shared with Israel as the American were supporting Iraq during the war. Iran and Israel cooperated in other areas during the war also.)
The Iranians did not target the main reactor because of radiation release concerns (prevailing winds blow east). This successful IRIAF deep-penetration strike on the Iraqi nuclear facility has been all but forgotten by Western analysts, historians, and defense press. Iran might be a lot of things - but irrational isn't one of them.
Iran has hundreds of Shahab-3 (Sejil-2) class medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) weapons, (never mind a dizzying array of other types) on mobile launchers. History instructs that mobile-missiles cannot be “taken out” by Tomahawks, cruise missile, air strikes, area-denial munitions, or Special Forces teams.
You can’t find the missile-launchers before the missiles are fired – as the high number of Iraqi SCUD launches throughout the 1991 Gulf War attests.
Iraq launched ~ 86 Scud missiles throughout the 1991 Gulf War. Serious allied attempts to find and stop Iraqi SCUD mobile-launches - would prove totally futile.
The American Patriot Missile System was widely reported (and shown) intercepting Iraqi Scud missiles over Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. Indeed, then US President George H.W Bush exalted the Patriot for this "achievement." An investigation after the war concluded that Patriot hit one (1) or - none - of the Iraqi Scud warheads. This includes a Scud that hit the barracks of a US Army detachment in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on the night of 25-Feb, 1991. Seventeen (17) years after the war, Raytheon (builder of Patriot) literature continued to assert that Patriot missiles had destroyed Iraqi Scuds. No less than forty-two (42) Patriot missile rounds were fired at Iraqi Scuds during the war - for perhaps one (1) or zero (0) hits.
We all understand that information/disinformation control during wartime can be vital, but fraudulent industry assertions 17 years after the fact - illuminate a vastly different problem.
Raytheon has introduced PAC-3 upgrades to address the issues of 1991 while Iran has moved beyond Scud-class 'Ghauri' Mach 5 capability.
Israel-US possesses no real defense against an Iranian counter attack from hundreds of Iranian mobile-MRBM class weapons. Both the Israeli ‘Arrow’ anti-ballistic missile system the American Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system claim "successful tests" but remain unproven. Israels 'Arrow' system hit no Hezbollah rockets in 2006. ‘Iron Dome’ cannot deal with targets of nearly 1-ton traveling upwards of Mach 3, and no amount of USN Aegis SM-2/SM-3 destroyers in the Persian Gulf or Mediterranean can stop all the Shahab-3 (Sejil-2) rounds. Israel-US has tried to bolster 'Iron Dome' with Patriot interceptors - but its hopeless. No air/missile defense system is perfect. We think under actual combat conditions the probability of interception/destruction of in-flight Iranian mobile-MRBM by all US-Israeli missile defenses to be no greater than 30%. The speed of the Sejil-2 is Mach 13, while Shahab-3 is closer to Mach 7. Terminal reentry speeds are lower, but still high. Simply too many Iranian mobile-MRBMs will get though.
The exact nature of Iran's missile forces is not well understood - with a dizzying array of missile name, designation, and configuration changes. Iran's years of isolation make accurate appraisal difficult. Western military planners best assume robust Iranian capability out to at least ~ 2000 km (~ 1240 mi).
[Above/Below] Although these two systems are operated by the DPRK - this is what could be on the horizon in Iran if American and Israeli hawks continue their threats of attack. Mobile missile launchers have a proven capability (under actual combat conditions) to avoid detection until it is too late. They are effectively impossible to find and stop in time. Russia maintains a large modern mobile-ICBM force for this very reason.
This means land-based US-Israeli air power needs to be based out of reach of Iranian mobile ballistic missiles. This equates to at least ~ 2000 km (~ 1240 mi) away from Iran. Examine carefully the graphic below. Note the red and yellow zones. US/Israeli planners would do well to ponder this point. For it is pivotal.
08-May 2018: The Trump administration withdraws from the Iran Nuclear Deal. This plays straight into the hands of anti-American hardliners in the Iranian government.
22-June 2017 UPDATE for the first time Iran has employed one of its indigenous missile designs under actual combat conditions - and the result appears to be not what was expected. This event represents one of the first times that parts of Iran's ballistic missile force usage can be observed by Western analysts. Whether this assessment can be applied to the bulk of Iran missile force remains unclear, however, perhaps some of Iran's missile capabilities with respect to weapon accuracy could be reassessed. Please see here.
While a furious effort is now underway (18-Aug 2015) by Israeli lobbying groups in the United States to scuttle the Iran deal - they are all operating on the premise that US-Israel retains the option to conduct a military attack on Iran to stop or delay an Iranian nuclear program. However, neither the ZOA, NOPAC, or Washington beltway Iran hawks - can tell anyone - what a US-Israeli attack on Iran would look like - or what outcome(s) it would produce.
Not one.
While they are free to oppose the Iran deal, one must ask the last question first; will US-Israeli military action (a war) stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
Iran has never been a legitimate threat to Israel's existence - as it is well known that Israel sits on a nuclear deterrent ‘Jericho ICBM force’ – which can hit any target in the Middle East (including Iran).
[Above] The 'Jericho' was started in the 1950s with assistance from Dassault.
Israeli survival has never (ever) depended on a “better” Iran nuclear deal.
Israel has ~ 100-600 nuclear weapons.
So those in the US Congress and elsewhere who oppose a negotiated deal are effectively either:
- Totally ignorant.
- Parroting the Israeli governments (a foreign entity) official policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear weapons.
- Forced to maintain a position that Iran is not a rational agent.
Some historical contexts is warranted here. History tells us the question is not will (will) Iran retaliate for a US-Israeli attack - but simply - in what manner will Iran retaliate. The Iranians did not sit back and absorb Iraqi air strikes during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran went on the offensive within hours of the first Iraqi strikes on 22-Sept 1980, the IRIAF launched coordinated retaliatory strikes to hit Iraqi airfields near Baghdad and Basrah and includes the first (the first) successful attack on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor on 30-Sept 1980 eight days later. This joint operation was followed eight (8) months later by Israeli jets on 06-Jun 1981. (During the first attack an Iranian RF-4E took real time photos of the reactor which were later shared with Israel as the American were supporting Iraq during the war. Iran and Israel cooperated in other areas during the war also.)
The Iranians did not target the main reactor because of radiation release concerns (prevailing winds blow east). This successful IRIAF deep-penetration strike on the Iraqi nuclear facility has been all but forgotten by Western analysts, historians, and defense press. Iran might be a lot of things - but irrational isn't one of them.
Iran has hundreds of Shahab-3 (Sejil-2) class medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) weapons, (never mind a dizzying array of other types) on mobile launchers. History instructs that mobile-missiles cannot be “taken out” by Tomahawks, cruise missile, air strikes, area-denial munitions, or Special Forces teams.
You can’t find the missile-launchers before the missiles are fired – as the high number of Iraqi SCUD launches throughout the 1991 Gulf War attests.
Iraq launched ~ 86 Scud missiles throughout the 1991 Gulf War. Serious allied attempts to find and stop Iraqi SCUD mobile-launches - would prove totally futile.
The American Patriot Missile System was widely reported (and shown) intercepting Iraqi Scud missiles over Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. Indeed, then US President George H.W Bush exalted the Patriot for this "achievement." An investigation after the war concluded that Patriot hit one (1) or - none - of the Iraqi Scud warheads. This includes a Scud that hit the barracks of a US Army detachment in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on the night of 25-Feb, 1991. Seventeen (17) years after the war, Raytheon (builder of Patriot) literature continued to assert that Patriot missiles had destroyed Iraqi Scuds. No less than forty-two (42) Patriot missile rounds were fired at Iraqi Scuds during the war - for perhaps one (1) or zero (0) hits.
We all understand that information/disinformation control during wartime can be vital, but fraudulent industry assertions 17 years after the fact - illuminate a vastly different problem.
Raytheon has introduced PAC-3 upgrades to address the issues of 1991 while Iran has moved beyond Scud-class 'Ghauri' Mach 5 capability.
Israel-US possesses no real defense against an Iranian counter attack from hundreds of Iranian mobile-MRBM class weapons. Both the Israeli ‘Arrow’ anti-ballistic missile system the American Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system claim "successful tests" but remain unproven. Israels 'Arrow' system hit no Hezbollah rockets in 2006. ‘Iron Dome’ cannot deal with targets of nearly 1-ton traveling upwards of Mach 3, and no amount of USN Aegis SM-2/SM-3 destroyers in the Persian Gulf or Mediterranean can stop all the Shahab-3 (Sejil-2) rounds. Israel-US has tried to bolster 'Iron Dome' with Patriot interceptors - but its hopeless. No air/missile defense system is perfect. We think under actual combat conditions the probability of interception/destruction of in-flight Iranian mobile-MRBM by all US-Israeli missile defenses to be no greater than 30%. The speed of the Sejil-2 is Mach 13, while Shahab-3 is closer to Mach 7. Terminal reentry speeds are lower, but still high. Simply too many Iranian mobile-MRBMs will get though.
The exact nature of Iran's missile forces is not well understood - with a dizzying array of missile name, designation, and configuration changes. Iran's years of isolation make accurate appraisal difficult. Western military planners best assume robust Iranian capability out to at least ~ 2000 km (~ 1240 mi).
[Above/Below] Although these two systems are operated by the DPRK - this is what could be on the horizon in Iran if American and Israeli hawks continue their threats of attack. Mobile missile launchers have a proven capability (under actual combat conditions) to avoid detection until it is too late. They are effectively impossible to find and stop in time. Russia maintains a large modern mobile-ICBM force for this very reason.
This means land-based US-Israeli air power needs to be based out of reach of Iranian mobile ballistic missiles. This equates to at least ~ 2000 km (~ 1240 mi) away from Iran. Examine carefully the graphic below. Note the red and yellow zones. US/Israeli planners would do well to ponder this point. For it is pivotal.
