This article notes refueling issues, efforts to suppress air defenses, special forces, basing in Saudi Arabia, and even nukes.
I don't think it improves on my various speculation on options that I discussed in 2009 and then went over in 2012 and 2013. Israel can do the job, I thought--but not as well as America:
They can't do as good a job as we could, but this is a change from the assumption that Israel could not do the job. Whether Israel has increased their ability to do the job the way we would--by either focusing available resources on fewer critical targets or by expanding their capabilities--or by thinking outside the box with methods we wouldn't bother to use but which get the job done anyway, is the question. Or is it?
And this is separate from the question of whether even an effective strike that destroys every nuclear target in Iran would do the job. Iran knows there are red lines that will prompt Israel or America to strike. The Iranians might be smart enough to figure out how to cross the red line safely.
And this late year addition to the mix of options.
Although some options are clearly no longer on the table, like staging some forces out of Turkey.
But Israel also has a new option with the F-35, although it lacks the legs without aerial refueling or closer basing.
But it is interesting that the discussion is back in the open. That adds another variable for Iran to worry about.
I'd rather have a revolution in Iran that makes the issue of whether they have nukes as worrisome as France's possession of nuclear weapons.
