Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

[i am your fear]

We are Muslims first.. then we are Pakistanis... That is what our Prophet (SA) taught us.. Nation boundaries are not as important for a true Muslim as is being brother to another Muslim....

We are an Ummah first , then we are Pakistanis and then we are Sindhi , Punjabi , Balochi , Pakhtun , etc....

You know nothing about Ummah.. So better don't talk about it... Because some extremist muslims have divided themselves on regional or national basis , it does not at all means we don't have the spirit of Ummah within us....

they why Pakistan army killed so many Muslims brothers in pak and in Afghanistan

do you mean you will provide army help to iran against isreal and USA

what your country stand on the iran issue ???

 

[IndianArmy]

Self Delete

 

[JonAsad]

well sir how will Pakistan react

do you support Iran by sending any help or just words

We are in no position to support any one
Most probably there will be reactions but eventually it will settle down.

Remember Flotilla ?
What.. What Flotilla
c even i am forgetting it now.

 

[JonAsad]

they why Pakistan army killed so many Muslims brothers in pak and in Afghanistan

do you mean you will provide army help to iran against isreal and USA

what your country stand on the iran issue ???

This is more precise. so i will answer to this.

Every country has a right to obtain nuclear technology either for defence or for domestic consumption.

We understand that right.. as we have gone through this stage already.
We can moraly support them but taking part in reaction.. NO

 

[sulemani keeda]

Every country has a right to obtain nuclear technology either for defence or for domestic consumption.

That may be the "special" rights provided by "you" to Iran.

But actually, any country signatory to NPT has no right whatsoever to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has signed NPT by will. It has to remain commited to its obligations.

 

[JonAsad]

That may be the "special" rights provided by "you" to Iran.

But actually, any country signatory to NPT has no right whatsoever to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has signed NPT by will. It has to remain commited to its obligations.

Just like
The special rights to us were provided by you in 1974.

and Iran is saying that their nuclear technology is to meet its ever growing energy demands.
No where they are saying thats for defence or offence.

 

[sulemani keeda]

This is more precise. so i will answer to this.

Every country has a right to obtain nuclear technology either for defence or for domestic consumption.

The special rights to us were provided by you in 1974.

and Iran is saying that their nuclear technology is to meet its ever growing energy demands.
No where they are saying thats for defence or offence.

It was you who was justifying Iran pursuing nuclear tech for defence.

And pakistan is as free to develop nuclear weapons as India and Israel are, because they are non-signitory to NPT. But Iran cannot.

 

[Admiral]

i see no problem here. i hope the s. arabia skies are clear for israel-usa alliance.
the problem is not to strike iran by air. you cant change a regime and design the country from 0 point with an air strike. you definetely need to launch a ground assault and reach tehran. is this possible?
such an airstrike will improve the position of Ahmedinejad in iran. thats all mates, for this reason we shouldnt expect too much from israel-usa coalition.
and they have only one chance to hit iran's necessary targets. what if they miss one of them? what if iran keeps its capability to fire b. missiles against israel? so many miles, such a difficult operation, such a stubborn nation, such baseless policies... i dont think that they have chance of success. i hope they strike and learn iran is not iraq or poor afghanistan.

 

[johnny boy]

he he ehe he really nice...........................

 

[Pasban]

This information is not new at all and I had first come across articles as such roughly two years. In case, one is to assume the above is implemented (which I believe it won't), here is my take on the issue... (This is from an older post made by me several months ago)

The route in yellow shown above has some very important advantages over the other ones on the map.

1. Its the shortest possible way from Israel to Bushehr (if we assume , that Bushehr is one of the most important Iranian nuclear targets) - its almost direct fly-line towards Persian Gulf & the Iranian coastline.

2. The Zionists won't face any Iranian SAMs using this route when reaching the Bushehr nuclear plant-- they will fly over a little part of Jordan (which has almost negligible air defense capabilities) and Saudi Arabia. After that they will fly over the Persian Gulf & will reach Bushehr from the sea-- that means they will not face any Iranian SAMs or IRIAF jet fighters until approaching very close to the nuclear station, which is in opposite in other possible routes through Iraq or Turkey (I mention Turkey because of the Syrian debacle that was had previously), where they must enter from the north over Iranian soil where there are heavy SAM emplacements and Iranian interceptors.

This line eliminates the strategic depth, which assures the Iranian geographic obstacles at every other approach towards Bushehr.

3. In this manner the Zionist aviators could be intersected on an earlier stage by Iranian naval vessels in Persian Gulf with the appropriate radar equipment-- this route is comfortable also not only for attack against Bushehr but also for northern nuclear centers of Natanz & Arak. The distance between them is not so large also.

4. This route has also political advantages. The possible fly-line goes over northern regions of Saudi Arabia which are commonly have little habitation.

In this manner the Saudis could always explain that they haven't been able to intersect the Zionist aircraft because they have been flying over deserts & no population frontier regions, where there were
no radar installations or military bases. This is a situation analogous to the Yemeni civil (North Yemen vs Socialist South Yemen) war during the Cold War period where Zionist aircraft conducted operations straddling the Saudi coastline with Saudis stating that their aircraft were undetected after first denying that such operations were being done.

Now, it would be an illogical suggestion to say that all related sites could be struck by airpower. It would most likely be concentrated on the most important Iranian sites, which are probably 6-7 (including Bushehr, Natanz, Arak, Esfahan etc..)

The Iranian facilities are very decentralized and allocated near many different places on Iranian soil with some of them built deeply underground, so the already limited capabilities of IAF would necessitate much concentration on selected facilities only.

(This map is very outdated and the placement of bases is not very accurate either but I use it here as it gives a general idea)

At present, Iran has beefed up it's air defenses and have made many movements concerning it's air defense assets and so the situation has become more complicated.

I think for the Zionists, considering their limited resources in terms aircraft capable of making such a trek, the number of aircraft they deem safe enough/effective enough to send, and limited movement both there and back, they will likely target just a few sites-- 1. Natanz Enrichment facility (which would have to be hit with quite a few Bunker busters to damage due to its heavy fortification), 2. Esfahan Conversion Facility (therefore taking out two steps in the Fuel cycle), 3. Arak heavy Water reactor (which is still likely at least 4 years from completely and could in theory be used to produce plutonium, so they say at least)

To balance out my post, let's see it from an Israeli perspective (based on posts on Israeli forums). Now Israel also has other ways to take out these sites. Only Natanz is truly protected by tens of meters of earth and re-enforced concrete so it has to be taken out by an aircraft carrying bunker busters (the heaviest Israel has is the 5,000lb model) but the other two sites are out in the open and the Zionists could target them with different weapons. For example its reported Israel has greatly enhanced the accuracy of their Jericho missiles and they could be used against Arak or Esfahan (though Arak would be preferred due to its relatively isolated position from the population) and they do have the Popeye Turbo Cruise missile which is fired from their Dolphin submarines (whose true range has never been revealed and could be as great as 500km). Such means aren't as "reliable" as air strikes but would allow Israel to concentrate on Natanz. There are many complications and problems with the above-- for instance the Dolphins would have to be on Iranian soil for them to be able to target Iranian nuclear facilities with a 500km Cruise missile. --but that is the subject matter of a different post.

The above are just my thoughts of course...

 

[Pasban]

For the sake of this thread, below is a piece from a post made by a poster (not me and not on this forum) concerning the same subject. Again, it was made months ago.

An Israeli attack on Iran via the Saudi route is practically impossible


An Israeli airborne attack on Iran via the Saudi route is practically impossible because of the long distance to prime target at Natanz, near Esfahan and the ability to safely refuel in mid-air, at least twice...

Map of route: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2913/499/400/iaf-map.jpg

This of course assumes that the Saudis - who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel, are actively boycotting its economy and have publicly rejected the claim - would allow overflight of their country by Israel. Personally, I believe that Iran has such vast asymmetric warfare capabilities, that it will not be attacked by the Zionists or the US...

Here is why IRAN will NOT be attacked...

- Distance and aircraft range:

The Israeli aircrafts with the longest range are the F-16I (100 units) and F-15I (25 units) both capable of covering approximately 1000 miles with external tanks, which is just enough to reach the Persian Gulf for refueling before attacking, as I doubt the Saudis would want lingering Israeli aircrafts refueling over its territory at low speed...

However, the distance to target is at least 1,200 miles in direct line, or around 2,600 miles in total, including some expected maneuvers, which will require at least 2 refueling operations over the Persian Gulf, one before and the other after the attack...

- Refueling problems:

Israel has only 8 old KC-707 single boom tankers converted from Boeing 707 airframes that are between 36 and 50 years old, as the US turned down its request to buy modern twin booms tankers based on the Boeing 767 design...

Tanker pic: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2913/499/400/iaf-refuel.0.jpg

The ratio of fighters to tankers is as low as 2 fighters for the F-117 and between 3 and 4 fighters per tanker for the F-15/F-16 when all is going well. Assuming the higher ratio of 4 to 1, means that the 8 tankers can only support 32 aircrafts at best. Since the tankers will need protection over the Persian Gulf, at least 2 fighters per tanker will be required, leaving only 16 fighter/bombers to engage land targets...

- Iranian aircraft defense:

The Russian will have detected the Israeli move early on and alerted Iran, which has its own surveillance satellites deployed over the region. Iran will scramble its own fighters in addition to mobilizing its 29 Thor-M1 and S-300 batteries (S-300PMU-1 and S-300PMU-2), so before reaching target, the 16 Israeli fighter/bombers will have to fight - with their full fuel and weapons payload - through 40 MIG-29, 37 Sukhoi, 24 Mirage F1 and about 50 F-14 Tomcats armed with 100 miles range missiles...

Meanwhile, some of the Iranian fighters - the F-14 Tomcats with their long range missiles and radars being best suited - will be busy engaging the Israeli tanker fleet and its escort over the Persian Gulf: if half the tankers fleet goes down, as could reasonably be expected, then at least half of the fighter/bombers won't make it back home...

Such outcome would be a disaster for IsraHell after its recent loss in Lebanon and the political consequences of such a failed attack would in all likelihood signal the beginning of the end for the criminal enterprise called IsraHell.

This quick analysis reinforces my belief that there will be no attack on Iran any time soon...

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN 2006 AND IS BEING USED IN 2010


An Israeli attack on Iran via the Saudi route is practically impossible

 

[JonAsad]

It was you who was justifying Iran pursuing nuclear tech for defence.

And pakistan is as free to develop nuclear weapons as India and Israel are, because they are non-signitory to NPT. But Iran cannot.

You got me all wrong..

I say it agian Every country has the right to develop nuclear energy for offensive or defensive use.

and Iran has always said that this technology is to meet their energy needs.

Now where was i justifying it for defence??

 

[gambit]

You got me all wrong..

I say it agian Every country has the right to develop nuclear energy for offensive or defensive use.

and Iran has always said that this technology is to meet their energy needs.

Now where was i justifying it for defence??

There is no such thing as nuclear energy for 'offensive or defensive use'. There is either nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons. Once Iran VOLUNTARILY signed the NPT, Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[JonAsad]

There is no such thing as nuclear energy for 'offensive or defensive use'. There is either nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons. Once Iran VOLUNTARILY signed the NPT, Iran has no right to develop nuclear weapons.

We consider our nuclear weapons are for defensive use regardless of nuclear doctrine

 

[Cheetah786]

THis is classic wests divide and rule and the way most here are worked out over this propogenda proves we still fall for there crap.