You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Saudis give Israel clear skies to attack Iran
2010-06-12
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.
I guess this means Turkish air space is closed to Israel ...
You think the rat bastards perfidious Turk would do that to their long time ally favourite arms supplier?
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.
Ummm, does this imply the Saudis will clear the way for the Israelis to return, too?
"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."

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran's nuclear ambitions. "We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing," said one.

The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers' range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: "I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity."

In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran's main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the "violation" of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran's far more substantial -- and better-defended -- nuclear sites.
That wasn't actually a dry run, since they actually destroyed something at the end of it. Very effectively, too.
Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.
Not all of the West. Apparently America -- or President Obama, anyway -- can live with the possibility.
Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.
Posted by:Steve White

#24  Egypt goes back to being the big dog again, if the Iranians are knocked down, since Egypt has the population, the weapons, and the infrastructure, courtesy of the Peace Treaty with Israel. Turkey might be able to install a friendly government in Iran if the Mullahs get damaged enough; Iraq would just like the incursions from Iran to stop.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2010-06-12 22:48  

#23  There are a lot of potential subtleties in this scenario. For example, while the Arab countries would discreetly be all in favor of the Israelis blowing up the Iranians, they would also want to be able to complain about their airspace being violated.

Iran might attack them, but they would prefer it be an aggressive attack, as they can get western backing.

Russia likes Iran, but also likes the Arab nations. So in a fight, who will Russia back?

Turkey is a big wild card in all of this as well. Egypt and Jordan are likewise inscrutable.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-06-12 20:20  

#22  generally, too long, didn't read. but in Shipese, like JoeMspeak.... who the hell knows?
Posted by: Frank G   2010-06-12 18:39  

#21  tl;dr

You use that a lot Shipman. What does it mean?
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-06-12 18:00  

#20  the Waffler-in-Chief has not given Israel the OK

There's a nation state you're leaving out of that equation. Truman didn't give jooooo state the right to exist, he looked at ground facts, as did the 2nd nation to seem same.


tl;dr
if it comes to nut cutting time we ain't got nothing to do with this shit. We will have die pearle shine.

Posted by: Shipman   2010-06-12 15:31  

#19  John QC - a flight down the Gulf of Aqaba and a sharp left turn would avoid putting Jordan in the mix
Posted by: Frank G   2010-06-12 15:09  

#18  In line with the Saudis, don't forget that Egypt gave free transit to 3 Israeli subs and a frigate recently, all heading for the Persian Gulf; and all are nuclear capable.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2010-06-12 15:07  

#17  Nobody in the ME wants a nuclear Iran. Jordan, SA, Qatar, nobody.
It doesn't translate well to the Western mindset, but Iranians are Persian, not Arab. That makes a huge difference to them for some reason.
I think they're all nuts.
Posted by: bigjim-CA   2010-06-12 14:39  

#16  I guess part of the answer to my own question would be that Israel would also have to fly over Jordan to get to Iran.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-06-12 14:15  

#15  Maybe a naive question but why would Iraq not allow Israel to over-fly their airspace?
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-06-12 14:12  

#14  Ummm, does this imply the Saudis will clear the way for the Israelis to return, too?

As tempting (and as Arabic) as betrayal might be, the Saudis will want someone to protect them from Iranian reprisals. Who better than the Israelis?
Posted by: SteveS   2010-06-12 14:01  

#13  But would their commander-n-chief allow it,?

In a related article, TW, I saw that the Waffler-in-Chief has not given Israel the OK to fly though Iraqi airspace. Seems to me, that the Irawi airspace belongs to, um, somebody else. Like the Iraqis. Unless Bambi wants to kick the Israelis ass, too.
When its'go time,' I think the Isrealis are going to do what they need to and if that causes some peripheral dust-ups, then that is the cost of doing business.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2010-06-12 12:35  

#12  not an ally - temporary parallel interests
Posted by: Frank G   2010-06-12 12:16  

#11  So now Saudi Arabia is a better ally to Israel than the US is?
Strange times.
Posted by: Slaimp Munster7801   2010-06-12 12:05  

#10  Oh yes, and the USN, who I am SURE would want to party.

But would their commander-n-chief allow it, Anonymoose?
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-06-12 11:41  

#9  This could be reasonable, with some twists and turns.

First of all, no mention of Iraqi airspace, which is still under US air traffic control, and has no Iraqi AAA.

Second is that the airspace for an Iranian attack would have both combat aircraft and the all-important refueling aircraft.

So picture this situation. The Iraq-Saudi border, with air corridors on both sides, with combat aircraft on one side and refueling aircraft on the other, both of which can cross over the border laterally.

The Iranian AF wants to attack, but is it willing to violate two different nations airspace, both of which have more or less effective AAA, which could end up with it being at war with Israel, Saudi, Iraq, the US, and maybe some of the Gulf States at the same time?

Add to that Bagram AB in Afghanistan, with a lot of very powerful aircraft coming from the East, and this is a major suck scenario for the Iranian AF.

Oh yes, and the USN, who I am SURE would want to party.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-06-12 11:27  

#8  Let's not whisper a word about Israeli missiles, which can travel a good distance from their source, guided by data from Israeli satellites.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-06-12 09:51  

#7  Actually I believe that was Admiral Ackbar who said that.
Posted by: gromky   2010-06-12 06:42  

#6  Wishful thinking.
Posted by: Shipman   2010-06-12 05:49  

#5  it's a trap

like princess leia shouted in ROTJ
Posted by: anon1   2010-06-12 04:53  

#4  Ummm, does this imply the Saudis will clear the way for the Israelis to return, too?

Bingo.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2010-06-12 03:14  

#3  My, my my. Please fly by said the spider to the fly. We won't trap you in our web.

Why, oh why would anyone ever rely on the word of a Middle Eastern nation? How did that work with those wise Turkish generals who would never let the Islamists take power? I'm sure the Saudis will just look the other way for the good of the children.

sheesh. Sucker born every minute.
Posted by: Betty Jerenter8589   2010-06-12 01:20  

#2  "Turkish airspace is closed to Israel" > ISRAEL historically will do as required to accomplish its objective(s), be it US/UN-approved or not.

IOW, WHAT THE TURKS DON'T KNOW, NOR CAN STOP, WON'T HURT 'EM.

ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION [2012?], IRAN andor [Iran-suppor] MILTERRS, IS AS MUCH AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO SECULAR TURKEY AS ANYTHING ELSE.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2010-06-12 00:54  

#1  Of course after this obviously planted article the Saudis know Iran will attack them after any Israeli attack on Iran.

So, would planting this article encourage Saudi to shoot down Israeli planes?
Posted by: 3dc   2010-06-12 00:09  

00:00