People keep saying Israel can't launch a strike on Iran and hope to succeed. These people underestimate the Israelis:
American analysts are divided on Israel’s ability to take effective military action. However, history shows that Israel’s military capabilities are typically underestimated. The Israel Defense Forces keep finding creative ways to deceive and cripple their targets by leveraging their qualitative advantages in manners that confound not only skeptical observers but also, and more important, Israel’s enemies.
I've done my own calculations based on the premise that Israel would need 100 strike aircraft to carry out an effective strike on Iran. This premise has led a number of analysts to conclude that Israel can't strike Iran.
But by thinking outside the box, Israel can get to a 100-plane-equivalent strike, I think.
Let me add another option based on Israeli-Saudi shared alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran in the absence of serious American efforts to halt Iran.
What if Israeli pilots quietly go to Saudi Arabia to fly Saudi F-15s on a short flight across the Gulf? Israeli F-15 pilots could use simulators to gain experience with the Saudi cockpit layout. That option could reduce by a considerable amount the number of planes Israel needs to launch from Israel itself, reducing the launch signature that would telegraph the strike to Iran.
Assuming Israel strikes Iran successfully, setting back Iran's program a significant amount, wouldn't Iran retaliate with missiles and terrorists? That's the standard excuse to do nothing.
What if Israel makes it known that Iranian missile strikes on Israel would lead to an Israel air and missile campaign against Iran's oil export facilities at Kharg Island?
Remember that Iran is in a difficult position if Israel pulls off a successful air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and holds out the certainty of a strike on Kharg if Iran retaliates.
Obviously there's the economic price Iran could pay--pretty important given the need to bolster Assad's forces and base of support in that war.
Less obviously, Iran has spent a couple decades unveiling advanced super weapons (that don't exist) to show their people that Iran is tough--and that's why powerful America is held at bay.
If little (but equally evil, naturally) Israel manages to strike Iran despite all those super weapons, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
And if Iran retaliates and sees a number of their ballistic missiles shot down by Israeli anti-missile defenses, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
And if Israel then smashes up Kharg Island--something Iraq never managed to shut down for long in the Iran-Iraq War--despite the Iranians now being on guard after the first strikes and Iran's retaliation, what will Iran's people think of their rulers and their boasts?
Iran might strike back. After all, just to sit and take it despite all their boasts of super weapons would be hard for the mullah's base of support to take. But that might be better if they can come up with a good excuse than courting further military disasters.
And I don't assume Iran could unleash the sleeper cells to go on a rampage of terrorism.
I'm just saying that Iran's ability to retaliate with missiles or terrorism isn't a slam dunk for either deterring Israel or being effective as an attack or as a means of bolstering public support for the regime.
