Has Israel really failed to fix or work around its aerial refueling tanker shortage for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? And does Israel really believe the Biden administration will help with aerial refueling?
I get a "when near, appear far" vibe from this story:
While stressing that no decision has been made about military strikes, Israeli defense sources tell Breaking Defense that they are hopeful American mid-air refueling capabilities can be secured in case ongoing nuclear talks with Iran break down for good and Israel feels forced to take military action.
With Israeli Minister of Defense Benny Gantz and Mossad head David Barnea in Washington today for meetings with American officials about Iran, and the talks about a new nuclear agreement seemingly on the rocks, Israeli military planners are taking a realistic look at the holes in their war plans and hoping to find supplemental capabilities from the US.
More than a decade ago, I read that Israel needed the equivalent of 100 aircraft sorties to launch a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities with a hope of success. But Israel couldn't put 100 sorties over Iran at once.
So I looked at ways to reach 100 strike sorties without 100 aircraft.
And I added to my speculation a few years later.
Basically, if America had too few tankers for a critical mission we'd probably buy more tankers. But Israel isn't nearly as rich. Although given the importance of preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, that could be a high priority nonetheless.
Israel is now seeking more aerial refueling tankers.
The fact that Israel says it still lacks sufficient aerial refueling capabilities could very well mean that Israel has in fact thought outside the box as I did. And no doubt infinitely better.
Israel also has more options now, including better bombs, cyber capabilities, local assets inside Iran, and anti-Iran allies in the Persian Gulf.
So Israel must have ways to carry out a sufficiently powerful strike if the threat is existential.
The fact that Israel is telling America it needs aerial refueling simply cannot mean Israel expects America to provide that capability. Surely the Israelis understand that Democrats' odd unrequited love for the Iranian mullahs rules out helping Israel. The Democrats truly believe Iran under the mullahs is one deal away from being a responsible regional power.
Yet this part of the story seems off, too:
While Israel has other, more complicated options for how to pull off a strike, getting American refueling support is viewed as the best way forward.After more than a decade of looking at the problem, aerial refueling is still the best option?
Remember, outsourcing that capability means America has a veto on Israel's actions in an area that strikes directly at Israel's "never again" convictions. America has a lot of influence over Israel when push comes to shove because of Israel's reliance on American long-term support. But the long term matters little if in the short term Israel is nuked.
So I don't believe Israel thinks it needs a green light to conduct this kind of mission, as the story states. Israel would rather not strike, but surely they have a plan to strike. But is a revolution to overthrow the mullahs going to take place in time?
So it makes more sense to me that Israel's request for American aerial refueling is a smoke screen to make America thinks it has veto power over an Israeli strike. Or at least to make Iran think America has that veto power.
UPDATE: So who thinks Israel is waiting for tankers?
In late 2021 the United States halted its efforts to get Israel two KC-46A aerial tankers as soon as possible. The reason given was the growing backlog of late deliveries to the U.S. Air Force. Israel suspects the Americans are also trying to make it more difficult for the Israelis to carry out a massive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
I don't see many hands up.
