Iran vs Israel

[ORAC]

Debka File: Iran's Gaza-bound ships ready for clash with Israel - Ahmadinejad (http://debka.com/article/8842/)

An Iranian sea convoy will back up the Turkish campaign to break Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured Turkish leaders whom he met in Istanbul Tuesday, Jan. 8 that the vessels due to enter the disputed waters within days will not shrink from a head-on clash with Israel's Navy and Air Force exclusion forces. "We'll breach the Gaza blockade," the Iranian president vowed. The Iranian Red Crescent vessels will carry "volunteer marines" of the Revolutionary Guards "who will teach the Israelis a lesson."

Tehran's "humanitarian convoy" for Gaza will consist of three Iranian vessels flying Red Crescent flags.

debkafile's intelligence sources report that he promised Turkish leaders to attach Iranian warships and submarines to the Red Crescent ships for their voyage through the Red Sea, the Suez Canal and into the Mediterranean. For some months, one or two Iranian submarines have been deployed in the Mediterranean using Syrian naval port facilities. The showdown between Turkey and Israel, said Ahmadinejad, "will change many issues in the world and mark the final countdown for Israel's existence. It shows that it has no room in the region and no one is ready to live alongside it."

British Foreign Secretary William Hague condemned Iran’s plan to send aid boats to Gaza, warning that the move would deliberately aggravate an already tense situation. “It is not helpful, and probably it is not designed to be helpful, he said. Russian Prime Pinister Vladimir Putin, for his part, promised to join Ankara in bringing the Israeli attack on the Turkish flotilla before the United Nations.

The Iranian and Turkish leaders meeting in Istanbul Monday and Tuesday finalized a plan to synchronize the flotilla's approach to Gaza's shores with the UN Security Council vote on sanctions against Iran, whereupon Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon, who are SC members, will halt the procedure and turn the session around to the unfolding sea battle between Iran and Israel. The sanctions vote will be buried by the sounds of war.

Monday, June 7, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton predicted "Iran would pull some stunt in the next couple of days" to divert attention from the unity within the Security Council.

According to our sources, the Iranian convoy will consist of a cargo ship loaded with food and other essentials, medicines and building materials; the second will carry the "volunteer" marines; and the third will be a floating hospital to be anchored permanently in Egyptian Mediterranean territorial waters opposite the divided Gaza-Egyptian town of Rafah. Small boats will ferry patients between Gaza and the hospital ship. Tehran calculates that the Israeli navy will not attack boats carrying sick people and will be constrained from venturing into Egyptian territorial waters to hit the floating hospital. By this means, Tehran will dismantle Israel's sea blockade while also gaining a military presence off the shores of Gaza.

AS details of this scheme are drawn up in Istanbul, Israeli leaders are spending hour of hour, day after day, quibbling over the format of an inquiry commission for studying the legal aspects of the hapless commando raid they ordered against the Mavi Marmara on May 31. Have they formed any plans for countering the Iranian-Turkish scheme to drive Tehran's flotilla through the Gaza blockade? And if so, where will the interception take place? On the Red Sea, where the Iranian Navy has a large presence, at the entrance to the Gulf of Suez or close to Gaza?

An Israel operation against Iranian vessels on any of these sea lanes would pose formidable difficulties.

[green granite]

Does the Israeli navy have submarines? If so plausible denial comes to mind........... wasn't us guv, someone else did it to make it look like us.

[Pure Pursuit]

Well, this could be interesting although I 'm fairly sure that nothing will actually materialise from this talk. However, if it did, it would prove to be a valuable reminder that out forces must not be 100 Herrick centric and that the RN still has a vital role in protecting British interests.

[Trim Stab]

They do have some diesel boats however, I suspect that crew proficiency will not be particularly high.


They are actually believed to have nuclear strike capability from their submarines.
Israel Stations Nuclear Missile Sub off Iran (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/israel-nuclear-submarines-iran/2010/05/31/id/360596)

Can their F-15's launch their Gabriel anti-shipping missile? Or are the Gabriels just on their missile boats?

[Low Flier]

GlobalSecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/gabriel.htm) lists Gabriel III as air-surface.

Hard to see how the Iranians expect to protect that second boat in their flotilla from becoming toast.

[TEEEJ]

Whenever you see 'Debka' you really have to stop reading. Their analysis of military matters has been a laughing stock on military forums for years.

Debka.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka.com#cite_note-JJ-0)

Green Granite,

Israel operates a number of German supplied Dolphin Class diesel-electrics.

NTI: Submarine: Israel Capabilities (http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/index.html)

TJ

[mad_jock]

I met one of the Israel sub skippers at cowes. And shall we say he knew exactlly where the old green kettle pub used to be and fishermans carpark diving site.

[air pig]

Israel sends its sub commanders to do Perisher, need you say more about submarine capabilities.

[Archimedes]

The Iranian Red Crescent vessels will carry "volunteer marines" of the Revolutionary Guards "who will teach the Israelis a lesson."

Did he ask the Red Crescent about this? I imagine that it'd blow the principles expressed here (http://www.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/neutrality.asp) and here (http://www.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/impartiality.asp) out of the water (possibly not the best choice of phrase in the circumstances...)

[Thelma Viaduct]

Another non-story, let them blow each other up, hopefully like the Koreans in that other thread a few weeks back.

The less choppers on the planet, the better.

[Jobza Guddun]

Well, if the Iranians do send a couple of their boats to play in the Med, at least we've got the well-proven ASW platform to keep tabs on them...

[PTT]

Whenever you see 'Debka' you really have to stop reading. Their analysis of military matters has been a laughing stock on military forums for years.

Debka.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whether Debka is a load of bunk or not, I'm just amused that anyone would use Wikipedia as a source of information to discredit another source of information - nice one! :}

[TheSmiter]

Green light from Saudi:

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece)

Methinks the nuclear surgeons are preparing the operating theatre. :eek:

[TEEEJ]

PTT,

:}

Although Wiki undoubtedly has its faults, that entry accurately sums up Debka and its agenda.

TJ

[Buster Hyman]

Russian Prime Pinister Vladimir Putin, for his part, promised to join Ankara in bringing the Israeli attack on the Turkish flotilla before the United Nations.
Is he using a pitching wedge, or a sand wedge to further deteriorate Turkeys alliance with the West?

[Lonewolf_50]

They are actually believed to have nuclear strike capability from their submarines. Israel Stations Nuclear Missile Sub off Iran (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/israel-nuclear-submarines-iran/2010/05/31/id/360596)
In the for what it's worth department, any sub with 53cm tubes is now a nuclear missile sub according to your link and your argument.

All one has to do is get one's hands on a nuclear tipped missile or torp that fits the tube ...

With that in mind, the next time any nation's submarines deploys, they have deployed a Nuclear Missile Sub.

Which, when I think of it, is a pretty dishonest way of describing things.

The no-kidding nuclear missile subs, carrying SLBM's (Delta III's, Ohio Class, Vanguard class) are a much different kettle of fish than subs carrying cruise missiles ... that may or may not have a nuclear payload.

Cruise missiles can be defended against with conventional air defense, albeit EW is very handy.

Ballistic missiles? No.

Compare TLAM (N) (Tomahawk with a nuclear payload) and SS-N-21 (Russian cruise missile with a 200 kilo ton warhead) with a Polaris.

Small wonder the US and Soviets, in the 80's, wrestled with the arms race implications of cruise missiles with nuclear tips.

[Trim Stab]

With that in mind, the next time any nation's submarines deploys, they have deployed a Nuclear Missile Sub.



Only if they have a deliverable nuclear capability - which Israel does.

[checkerboard6]

Its only a matter of time IMHO . . .

[Royalistflyer]

This is seriously worrying - there is no doubt that the Israelis WILL defend themselves. They know (even if we don't) that Fatah want them to beat Hamas into the ground. Fatah will make public murmurings, but they want Israel to defeat Hamas, no question - they are a different brand of Muslim - Fatah is largely secular. Egypt wants Israel to beat Hamas as well - Hamas is fanatical moslem and is related to the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt which the Egyptian government fights - which is why the Egyptians have blockaded Gaza as well. So Israel WILL defend itself - and the Iranians are just plain crazy - certainly stupid enough to provoke a war. The only thing that will give them real pause is the thought that at the moment they don't have nuclear weapons and Israel does ....... unless they have somehow made strides that we are unaware of ... which I doubt. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will Obama be forced to step in and help Israel - while he is already engaged in Afghanistan? or is this an Iranian distraction for Afghanistan. Seriously interesting.

[vernon99]

No its better than that, the USA cannot afford a war with Iran, so they leave Israel to do the dirty work, let them fight each other, once it looks like Iran is done for, they can then step in and stop the conflict, chastise Israel, maybe cancel the billions in aid they give Israel each year, saving the USA a fortune and hopefully bringing a more stable middle east.

[Lonewolf_50]

Trim, do you have evidence that Israel has weaponized (with nuc payloads) their sub launched ordnance?

I'd not heard that, but I have been out of the Mil Intel loop for a few years ...

It is one thing for the Israelis to have the Bomb, which they certainly do, and quite another for them to have chosen a particular weaponization package, which they might or might not have done.

[Fitter2]

Hello Lonewolf.

welcome to the world of deterrence. The key is uncertainty - if the other side knows what you have, and what you will do, they can plan. If not, then sense always dictates that they don't do anything to provoke a response far worse than they can tolerate.

The above assumes the other side is rational..............

[Lonewolf_50]

Hello Lonewolf.
Hello Fitter! :cool:

welcome to the world of deterrence.
Already familiar with it, thanks. ;) Actually, with your post, we are discussing two different elements of deterrence. You are referring to the risk of unknown versus the demonstrated capability as a deterrent. I was quizzing Trim about demonstrated capability (and indirectly, deterrence).

A deterrent demonstrated, for example a functional ICBM system, is a different sort of deterrent issue than
"How many n-bombs do Pakistan have, and are they missile or aircraft delivered?" being mulled over in India's Defense Ministry (to offer but a single example).
The key is uncertainty - if the other side knows what you have, and what you will do, they can plan.
That isn't all that has to do with deterrence, which deals in the combination of certainty, uncertainty, and risk assessment. The Israeli deterrent, writ large, is the known (public secret?) functional strategic nuke capability. We can probably assume a tactical air delivered capability as well, or maybe that has been confirmed.

The risk assessment in Tehran over functional maritime tactical nuke capability (submarine launched Cruise Missile Nukes, call it a Kosher TLAM(N) if you like) can be assumed, or confirmed, without much change in general planning. What I was bothering Trim about was his appearing to convert an assumption into a fact, which requires evidence. If there is evidence of such, I'd be interested to know.
If not, then sense always dictates that they don't do anything to provoke a response far worse than they can tolerate.
Respectfully, no, they simply deal in a different risk assessment and mitigation, regardless of whether we assume them rational (in varying degrees) or not.

I'll offer to you that the confirmation of a Kosher TLAM(N) program / capability is a far more effective deterrent than an assumption of one. As Israel are still not in the NPT, they have no political loss in their own confirmation of capability ... if that seems to them a stronger deterrent.

I'll leave as an exercise for the reader the operational puzzle of how do deploy the 212's to use a cruise missile in a nuclear strike ... which consideration may inform the Iranian acquisition of two Russian SAM systems: the infamous S300, and the TOR-M1 point defense suite previously acquired.

[Trim Stab]

Trim, do you have evidence that Israel has weaponized (with nuc payloads) their sub launched ordnance?

I'd not heard that, but I have been out of the Mil Intel loop for a few years ...

It is one thing for the Israelis to have the Bomb, which they certainly do, and quite another for them to have chosen a particular weaponization package, which they might or might not have done.

I don't know anything that is not in the public domain, but there were credible reports eight years ago that they probably had succeeded in weaponising a compact nuclear warhead into cruise missiles based on their diesel-electric subs.

NTI: Submarine: Israel Capabilities (http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/index.html)

One would have to assume that in the past eight years they have not stood still. I would guess that they have also weaponised their biological weapons in the same delivery vehicles.

[glad rag]

credible reports eight years ago that they probably had

which means nothing.

[Lonewolf_50]

Trim:
One would have to assume that in the past eight years they have not stood still.
Agreed, but we are still guessing here. I think the Israelis have sufficient tech capability to do same, in terms of quality and precision ... but there is still the problem of doing all that at the expense of something else. IMO, take it for what it's worth, using rockets (theater class ballistic missiles) is a far superior means of delivery than cruise missiles, in terms of the difficulty of defeating a ballistic missile inbound. Hell, the US has been at this, with allies that include Israel, for a couple of decades and it's a bloody tough nut to crack. Cost benefit strikes me as a lower probability dice roll. The Kosher Tomahawk approach is more likely to be countered by conventional SAMs. I'll take Jericho III as a more likely demonstrated capability.

Granted, if the Jericho program is effectively NOT weaponized, then Kosher Tomahawk offers many advantages over aircraft on a long range mission with a nuclear strike. Hear in the news today that Saudi confirmed that they'd allow Israelis to overfly on the way to Iran, but am wondering at the veracity of that announcement.
I would guess that they have also weaponised their biological weapons in the same delivery vehicles.

Bad guess, given that bio weapons are an utterly different kettle of fish to deploy. Waste of a Tomahawk/Harpoon missile if you ask me.

[larssnowpharter]

. Hear in the news today that Saudi confirmed that they'd allow Israelis to overfly on the way to Iran, but am wondering at the veracity of that announcement.

Why on Earth would you wonder about that?

The one thing the GCC nations are sh1t scared of is the resurgent, possibly nuclear armed, Iran. Witness the Iranian interference in Iraq.

They would love nothing more thn Israel neutralising the threat, Of course, use of any Arab nation air space would need to be deniable.

[Lonewolf_50]

Why on Earth would you wonder about that?

You answered your own question. :8

They would love nothing more than Israel neutralising the threat, Of course, use of any Arab nation air space would need to be deniable.
Absolutely, which makes me wonder about this announcement, as it buggers the deniability aspect of the political game. :cool:

See this tidbit if for an illustration of what I'm getting at, skeptical wise ...

Saudi airspace 'not open for Iran war' (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=130561&sectionid=351020101)
And
Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-denies-saudis-gave-idf-airspace-clearance-for-iran-strike-1.267118)

Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike

PMO: Report is fundamentally false; Sunday Times: Mossad chief held secret talks with Saudi officials.

This seems to be response to the Times (LOndon) story that begins thusly:
The Times // June 12, 2010
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

Hugh Tomlinson

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.


“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

There is enough blatant assertion in this to make me seriously doubt Mister Tomlinson is doing little more than spreading about a two year old rumor.

However, I leave open the possibility that the Saudi King is in on it, for the reasons you cited, and this: of the two evils, Israel is easier to deal with than Iran, for the Saudi King.

[Trim Stab]

using rockets (theater class ballistic missiles) is a far superior means of delivery than cruise missiles, in terms of the difficulty of defeating a ballistic missile inbound.

Absolutely - and especially if launched from a nuclear sub. Israel's diesel-electric IAP subs are too limited to be a globally strategic weapon platform in any case.

Bad guess, given that bio weapons are an utterly different kettle of fish to deploy. Waste of a Tomahawk/Harpoon missile if you ask me.


That depends on what sort of bio weapons you are deploying, and what strategic effect you wish to achieve. Conventional bio weapons (such as Anthrax) are indeed very difficult to deploy as a true WMD. But genetic hybrid weapons can be more easily deployed and very effective as a weapon of destabilisation. Deployed in a capital city, for example, they might only immediately kill a few people, but can then very quickly render the entire city uninhabitable, forcing a mass evacuation and subsequent nationwide destabilisation. Their appeal to a politically isolated but technologically advanced nation is evident - they can decapitate a rival power, but without causing substantial loss of life or damage to infrastructure, thereby allowing rapid post-victory restructuring of the rival and limiting the wider international political consequences of the attack.

[dangermouse]

If Israel and the Kingdom are independant sovereign states (which they undoutably are) why does the US State Deprtment have to agree with anything they agree between themselves?ot

“They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Surely they could both tell the USA to take their opinion (whatever it was) and shove it!!, after all it's a local affair

just my 2p

DM

[SASless]

One does not get much for a Tuppence these days!

As the USA is a strong supporter of both the Saudi's and the Israeli's then there is a need for each of the three to work together in situation. The UK has as much interest in the right outcome of this matter as do any of the "Local" participants.

Iran armed with Nukes is a prospect the World just does not want to see happen....as it could affect you in Somerset just as much as in Riyadh or Tel Aviv.

[Low Flier]

If Israel and the Kingdom are independant sovereign states (which they undoutably are) why does the US State Deprtment have to agree with anything they agree between themselves?

It's nothing to do with 'having to' agree the deal. They just acted as brokers to smooth the way for the assault on Iran.

Direct negotiations between israel and Saudi would be somewhat problematic. Using the 'good offices' of the parent country made a lot of sense.

[SASless]

Using the 'good offices' of the parent country made a lot of sense.

The "parent country"......please explain that comment LF? I assume you to be suggesting the USA is the "parent" of either Saudi Arabia or Israel or both.

Just how do you arrive at that viewpoint?

I thought the British were the folks who split up the Middle East all those years ago.

Was it not the UN that decreed there the Jewish homeland would be in Palestine?

[Lonewolf_50]

Trim Tab]Absolutely - and especially if launched from a nuclear sub. Israel's diesel-electric IAP subs are too limited to be a globally strategic weapon platform in any case.
Then we agree, I think, not to mention the 212's are not suitable to carry ballistic missiles for submarine launch. I assume IAP means what I call AIP, Air Independent Propulsion? :confused:[/SIZE] Israelis don't need global strategic, just theater strategic, which AIP allows but for that slight shortcoming in terms of what it can, or can't, carry. ;)
That depends on what sort of bio weapons you are deploying ...
Not gonna derail into discussing why a sub launched cruise missile isn't how you delpoy bio weapons ... cheers. :)

[Low Flier]

The US is very much the sponsoring parent of Israel. Be in no doubt about that.

Despite Kim Philby's father's best efforts, the House of Saud is very much an American protectorate, not a British one.

[SASless]

Gee LF....did I not see British Troops in the Gulf Wars? It would strike me the UK has helped protect the Saudi's directly and the Israeli's indirectly. Kim Philby's best efforts were in support of the Russians and Communism as I recall.

[Utrinque Apparatus]

Yes Sasless, but Philby's Pappy, St John Philby, was a desert explorer par excellence in the Wilfred Thesiger mould (and a convert to Islam,........... go figure), and possibly would have been quite disappointed at his son's treachery ?

As for Iran, brinkmanship in the Middle East brings its own perils and regrettably the madmen running Iran do not see the immense risks their pointless, macho posturing (remind you of anyone nearby ?) and threatening behaviour entails. The Iranian people certainly do though.

[Lonewolf_50]

Despite Kim Philby's father's best efforts, the House of Saud is very much an American protectorate, not a British one.
Which is proven by the Saudi leadership of the 1973 OPEC oil boycott against the US ... please spare us your cut and paste paranoia.

It's a bit more complicated than what you claim.

That said, without explicit US support in 1973, I have my doubts Israel would exist today.