Benjamin Netanyahu, the leading hawkish candidate for prime minister, recently stated that Iran posed the "greatest danger" to Israel and pledged to thwart its nuclear aspirations.
When asked if halting the Islamic Republic's weapons programme implied a military strike, Netanyahu replied: "it includes everything that is necessary to make this statement come true."
However, according to GlobalSecurity director John Pike, the United States previously vetoed an Israeli operation against Iranian nuclear sites during the summer of 2008.
"The Obama administration will maintain that there is still time for diplomacy to talk them out of their bomb," said Pike. "(The current White House) will continue to maintain this posture as long as Iran does not conduct a test - that is, seeking to deny Iran the benefits of a nuclear deterrent - so we will then have two opaque nuclear weapons states in the region."
Nevertheless, the chances of an Israeli operation may have increased after Iran demonstrated its long-range ballistic missile capabilities by successfully launching its first satellite into orbit.
Jeffrey White, a defence fellow at the Washington Institute who specialises in the military and security affairs of Iraq and the Levant, discussed the parameters of a possible Israeli strike with The News.
"Dispersion (of Iran's nuclear programme) will make it more difficult to have lasting effect," explained White. "This probably would force the IAF (Israel Air Force) to focus on a critical subset of the programme. The IAF could probably do a lot of damage to a few facilities and that could be effective in the sense of delaying the programme. The IAF is probably going to get only one shot at this, and given the constraints (distance, numbers of suitable aircraft, multiple mission requirements, estimated attrition), could only put a limited number of strike aircraft over the target(s) so target selection would be a critical part of the planning process," added White.
White also offered his assessment of how the IAF could best contend with advaced, Russian-manufactured S-300 batteries that could potentially be deployed to protect nuclear Iranian nuclear sites.
"I think the answer would be to attack a subset of targets," said White. "This would limit exposure of the attack force, and allow some assets for SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences) mission. Surprise would be important. The longer the Iranians have with the system the more proficient they will become with it. S-300 is not the only thing the Israelis have to be concerned with, of course. A lot also depends on how willing the Israelis are to accept losses. If the Israeli government really comes to see the threat as existential, I think it will be willing to risk significant losses and press the attack," stated the analyst.
White also noted that the Jewish state's Dolphin submarines could play a limited role in the strike, but would not help deter Iranian retaliation.
"Dolphin subs (may) have a limited strike role (number of missiles and range limitations), but again this would probably be a one time shot. Depending on the plan they could be used to support an IAF operation by attacking air defenses/C3 and as a diversion. I do not see the deterrence angle as important. Numbers are not there in terms of missiles on targets and Iran will feel a strong need to retaliate, probably asymmetrically," concluded White.
|