"US Threatened to Shoot Down Israeli Jets" Topic

Apparently, the Israelis were serious about attacking Iran, to stop their nuke program:

link

In the above report, it appears the President threatened to shoot them down, if they attempted such an attack.

Certainly adds a new wrinkle into coming up with tactics to stop Iran's nuke program with airpower.

Obviously, this could kick off a political fire-storm here, as it should, if we were able to discuss that openly, so please keep your comments to operational/tactical discussions on the subject, relating to real, and/or hypothetical wargame strategies.

AirWar: C21 would work, with 1/600th, or 1/300th scale aircraft, if you want to play out the scenario.

Perhaps flip a coin to see if the Saudis provide basing rights, AWACS, and air-tanker support for the raid, and possibly even fighter cover.

The Gulf states aren't any too happy with the situation in Iran, although they trade with them. They would be plenty happy to see Israel deal with the problem, I'm sure, although that would open its own can of worms as Iran is tight with Hezbollah and some factions in Syria, and could conceivably use southern Lebanon (under Hezbollah's control) at least as a staging point for counterattacks, whereas the Arab states couldn't openly afford Israel the same luxury. It is conceivable that the Saudis would discreetly support an Israeli raid, but it would have to be on a massive scale to deal with (a)the sheer number of sites associated with Iran's nuke program, and (b)the massive underground bunkers where some of their most sensitive work is being carried out. Iran has quietly spread their nuclear work out over a large number of sites to ensure a single strike (as happened to their neighbors, Iraq) could not effectively negatively affect their production. Perhaps an Israel armed with surplus and dated B-52s?

Yes, I agree that it would have to be either a massive raid, and/or a very protracted series of them, the latter of which means knocking out the Iranian AF.

Probably not too difficult for the Israelis to do that, against the majority of the Iranian Air Force, since they've done similar attacks before, to the Egyptians, which I suspect had larger numbers of fighters, back in the day.

The real rub is that even if there is a nuke agreement, it really does nothing to prevent Iran from creating nukes down the road a bit, it just puts that off.

In the meantime, they continue to build and test ballistic missiles (which are really of little use without nuclear warheads), and they can continue to build and use their centrifuges to enrich more material.

As one knowledgeable commentator said on the subject, tonight, it means that when they do break out with their nuclear program, it will just be much larger, since they'll still be able to spin all those centrifuges with impunity, between now and then.

It appears the can is just being kicked down the road, for someone else to deal with, as usual.

Of course, the Saudis will then want their own nukes, so they'll have them shipped over from Pakistan, and I suspect other, very rich, but small nations around the Gulf may want some too.

I think that Irans ballistic missiles could be armed with some sort of gas instead of nukes. So that is still a threat. No?s

I seriously doubt the veracity of that report, but I'll admit that US-Israeli relations haven't been so strained in a long time.

I'd like to think that our pilots would have refused to carry out the orders to shoot down the Israelis (if they had been issued). There has to come a point when you say to yourself, "This just isn't right and I will not do it".

Yes, you can launch gas-tipped missiles, though it's unclear how effective they'd be, since upon landing, if all the fuel/fumes aren't burned off, the explosion could burn up a lot of the gas.

As someone pointed out recently, no nation in the world that's built ballistic missiles, has done so without having nuclear warheads to place on them.

I don't doubt the report at all, and it goes a long way to explaining the deep animosity between the two leaders.

Hopefully, our pilots, and/or their leaders would refuse such an order, but orders are orders, and they are expected to be obeyed.

Of course, on the flipside, the talking heads then say that military personnel should disregard "unlawful orders", so it's always a "Catch-22".

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Here's more info on the Iranian nuke program, and why any deal is a bad idea:

link

It appears we are determined to strike a deal, no matter how bad.

On the flipside, I'm hearing Khamenei may nix it regardless, so it is rather ironic that we may have him to thank, if the deal falls through.

Iran keeps talking deal, but then stretches out the talks as long as possible. And, of course, the chuckleheads on our end let them.

As someone pointed out recently, no nation in the world that's built ballistic missiles, has done so without having nuclear warheads to place on them.

Maybe if you limit that to intercontinental ballistic missiles, but there are a lot of ballistic missiles used in artillery units that are not nuke-tipped.

As far as Israeli strikes on Iran go, I think the Israelis would be better off using their Popeye Turbo SLCMs than an air strike. Iran is far enough that an attack would require at least one mid-air refueling, and the defenses are robust enough that you'd be looking at huge strike packages per target.

Yea, I think they meant ICBMs, and not the little theater, ballistic types.

I'm sure if it comes to that, at least some sub-launched missiles would be in the mix.

…according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper.

Wasn't there some other outlandish story that came from a Kuwaiti newspaper recently, that turned out to be codswallop?

I'd like to think that our pilots would have refused to carry out the orders to shoot down the Israelis (if they had been issued).

Not even if the shoot-down was intended to prevent wider conflict or even a nuclear exchange? If our pilots refuse to follow orders, than they should not be pilots. In fact, they should be court-marshaled. Heck, two F-16 pilots were willing to tske down the American 911 airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania. If they were willing to kill American civilian hostages, then why should we not expect our pilots to shoot down the pilots of an ally that has gone rogue. It's a great story actually:

link

Here's more info on the Iranian nuke program, and why any deal is a bad idea:
link
It appears we are determined to strike a deal, no matter how bad.

On the flipside, I'm hearing Khamenei may nix it regardless, so it is rather ironic that we may have him to thank, if the deal falls through.

Are you implying that the efforts by the current Administration are misguided? What do you suggest? Starting another war we can't win? And you are willing to let Israel make that decision unilaterally?

Besides, how do your comments above fit with this request you made in your first post?

Obviously, this could kick off a political fire-storm here, as it should, if we were able to discuss that openly, so please keep your comments to operational/tactical discussions on the subject, relating to real, and/or hypothetical wargame strategies.

Look. That story is not "info." it is an "opinion" piece. Check out a couple of other sources, and see what they say. But here are two comments made by the author that cracked me up:

A failure of the nuclear talks, they also contend, would sacrifice important temporary agreements that now restrict Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Followed further in the editorial by this:

…Iran has enriched uranium at the same rate since the nuclear talks began early last year and increased its stockpile of enriched uranium.

So what is it? Have the sanctions restricted the Iranian program or not. Seems like the author can't decide.

Here's another:

Such an agreement would destabilize the Middle East — launching a regional nuclear-arms race as Iran's Muslim rivals seek to match its capabilities, and perhaps prompting an Israeli airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

The Middle East is already destabilized. It has been since 2003 and the fall of Iraq. There already is a nuclear arms race there. Iran wants nukes because Israel has them, and because we declared Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil," and we threatened to attack them if we decided that there was even a 1% chance they might attack us.

Sorry, but I think that the situation that has evolved in the Middle East since 2003 has left us with only two options, either we try to engage them, and hopefully get them to see that their current course is is not sustainable, or we go to war.

It's getting harder and harder to treat the author of this thread seriously. Sorry dude, sounds like a game of telephone if one reads the first paragraph of this article.

Judging from this and your other rather ignorant threads, you just baiting people to engage in political discussions. Your last paragraph about military miniatures doesn't full me anymore.

Wow, Mandt.

And yes, they should consider disobeying orders since as officers in the US Armed forces they are oath bound to disobey any order they consider illegal.

I would consider the current push to negotiate with Iran to be horribly misguided and likely to result in both Iran and Saudi Arabia (both terrorist sponsoring states) in possession of Nuclear Weapons.

Thank you Mandt!

Thank you Only Warlock.

It just leaves you empty, eh IGWARG?

Cant access the article since Im at work but wow; how would you rate USN pilots and technology against the israeli AF? Id be tempted to go with the USN, Ive no knowledge base to go on but to me carrier pilots would logically be better fliers than ground based? US pilots would have more opportunity for training etc Id have thought. Its an interesting scenario; could you put US pilots into saudi F 15s for plausible deniability?

As for pilots refusing to engage would they really? What would be the charges cowardice in the face of the enemy? treason? I dont think fighter pilots are the sort not to engage unless ordered not to. With the US onboard there would be no veto at the UN,any intercept would be preventing an illegal attack, presumably against civilians if at a nuke plant or power station.

Cant wait to read that

Coopman- Easy to say when you don't propose a viable alternative policy.

Wasn't there some other outlandish story that came from a Kuwaiti newspaper recently, that turned out to be codswallop?

Yep … like moslem clerics in Kuwait were saying Israel was buying slaves from Deash for sex and field workers, etc., awhile back … Really, and some Arad countries say we don't respect them ?

Not even if the shoot-down was intended to prevent wider conflict or even a nuclear exchange? If our pilots refuse to follow orders, than they should not be pilots. In fact, they should be court-marshaled. Heck, two F-16 pilots were willing to take down the American 911 airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania. If they were willing to kill American civilian hostages, then why should we not expect our pilots to shoot down the pilots of an ally that has gone rogue. It's a great story actually:

And yes, they should consider disobeying orders since as officers in the US Armed forces they are oath bound to disobey any order they consider illegal.

The military follows lawful orders … Shooting down another countries aircraft, even an allies would probably be considered a Lawful order. Even shooting down a US airliner if it for the "greater good" … sadly. I know I may find it hard to do so if it meant killing 100 of our own countrymen to save more in the big picture … Hopefully we will never have to be put in this situation … If we do, we know who to blame … Islamic fanatic jihadi terrorists. Making exterminating Deash and it's affilates with extreme prejudice all the more important … And just as importantly Israel is the USA's best ally in the region … period. Even though we'd had our differences … As the US and the UK, France, etc., have in recent decades.

As for pilots refusing to engage would they really? What would be the charges cowardice in the face of the enemy? treason? I dont think fighter pilots are the sort not to engage unless ordered not to. With the US onboard there would be no veto at the UN, any intercept would be preventing an illegal attack, presumably against civilians if at a nuke plant or power station.

They would be charged with refusing to follow [lawful]orders … again, let hope it never comes to this. And put the priority in exterminating radical islamic jihadis … Cure the disease at the root … Not only to just try to cure the symptoms …

As for pilot experience levels, I suspect the Israeli pilots would be very well trained.

Not sure if they are quite up to snuff with carrier pilots, who may get more sortie hours, to keep them sharp for carrier landings, but I suspect they'd be pretty closely matched, overall.

The differences would probably come down to the man in the cockpit, like in the old days, so you can probably rate them as even in most cases, and/or give a slight quality edge to some of your USN force, if desired.

I'd like to think USAF pilots would follow orders… it's time the Israelis got slapped and told to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Now, given that Mossad have clearly stated Iran is no-where near making a nuclear bomb, it would be perfectly legitimate for the IAF pilots to tell Netanyahu to take a long walk off a short pier.

Netanyahu is simply stoking up fears for electoral advantage. He also disgustingly grandstanded the outrage in Paris for similar reasons.

Hopefully the electorate of Israel will get rid of the clown so we can have some peace.

For one moment there, I thought you guys had finally decided to retaliate for the USS Liberty.

As a matter of interest, exactly how does the USA benefit from its alliance with Israel?

Israel drags the USAs name through the mud on a regular basis. It's intelligence services have less info on the jihhadis than Jordan and Syria.

You have no bases there.

Apart from the fact of the electoral arithmetic caused by the Jewish vote, what does the USA gain?

Apart from the fact of the electoral arithmetic caused by the Jewish vote, what does the USA gain?

And that's not a guarantee anymore, either. The Israelis have lost a lot of friends in the US in recent years, even among the Jewish population.

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

Regardless … If Iran gets nucs … then many in the region will want the same. And no matter what some may say [stu !], many of the governments are not stable in that region. Plus the entire region is "infected" to one point of another with islamic radicalized jihadis. Just note the numbers of jihadis from all the states in region that joined Deash. Plus all the covert support for Deash, AQ, etc. in the area. The Persians still chant and talk of Death is Israel and Death to the USA … Catchy ditties for local consumption or clear intent ? As I have said before. When it comes ot WMDs, it's a 0-Sum game … by the time you know for sure it's too late … It's a Lose-Lose. And regardless of the US-Israel relations not always being a day at the beach. They are the only strong ally the US has in the Mid East. As well as they don't see the US as infidels and Crusaders. You can't trust most if any of the moslem governments to one point or another. The King of Jordan is our best Arab/moslem ally next to Israel, but many Jordanians are islamists overtly or covertly. Think about the Turks, the Saudis, Oman, Qatar, etc. … Even if you don't like Israel, the possibility of a the IDF using Nucs in any form on the US is statisically insignificant. Now … based on what has and is happening in many moslem countries today … you can't say the same. With so much support for Deash. AQ, etc. in the region. What would it take for some one in control of "Islamic Bombs" to let one or two "fall" in to radicallized factions hands. Whose intent is to use them on the US and/or Israel. One way or another … Or even one islamic country using it on another. I have little doubt if Saddam or the Persians had some small tac nucs, that they wouldn't have used them in their decade long war in the '80s. On each other. And of course if UBL had gotten a hold of a nuc or two, if you doubt he wouldn't have used it, that is a fools bet … And again, I highly doubt if there is any reasonable scenario where the US would be shooting down IDF aircraft …

Apart from the fact of the electoral arithmetic caused by the Jewish vote, what does the USA gain?

Several billions of dollars of "foreign military assistance" that needs to be spent in the US. IIRC, the converted Namer APCs were refurbished in the US, while the new-builds were made in Israel. How many F15s and F16s does Israel have, at ~$50mil each? etc.

Legion – I agree the Iran having nukes is a bad idea.

Problem is Mossad states quite categorically they're no-where near getting them, nor is there much evidence they actually want them.

Given the Iranians offered military assistance in Afghanistan and are de facto an ally against ISIS, then perhaps one might achieve more by treating them differently?

Is Israel actually an ally? I think it's using you. How would America's strategic situation be changed if you abandoned them?

You have no bases, you'd be more popular with everyone else….

For all the faults of the Jordanians, they've never killed US servicemen or sunk a US warship.

Where I'm from, firing on aircraft belonging to an ally, that have not committed a hostile act, is an act of war. I'm also not convinced that this would have ended favorably for the US unless F-22s were involved.

I'm with Bangorstu. The sooner we can get the entire middle east (for starters) to submit to Iran, the sooner we can have peaceful ethnic/religious cleansing, slavery, rape, murder and torture. As long as nobody fights back there will be a lasting peace.

I'm with Bangorstu. The sooner we can get the entire middle east (for starters) to submit to Iran, the sooner we can have peaceful ethnic/religious cleansing, slavery, rape, murder and torture. As long as nobody fights back there will be a lasting peace.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere, young man.

Here's my 2¢. Our relations with Israel is at a crossroads right now because she is hellbent on sabotaging any agreement that may be reached between US and Iran to curb the latter's nuclear ambitions. We're not seeking a rapprochement with Iran here that would bring back the good old days during the corrupt Shah era. That will never happen as long as Iran supports terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah, but Iran IS Israel's archenemy and Israel considers her an existential threat, whether or not that is actually the case may be a subject of debate but matters little in the analysis here since Israel perceives her as one.

Israel has nukes but Iran doesn't, so we can certainly understand why Israel doesn't want to take any chances with Iran having ANY nuclear capability at all – peaceful or otherwise – that would leave open even the remotest possibility that she could make nukes down the road.

The US OTOH is willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt and a chance to prove – via verifiable and stringent oversight and intelligence gathering – that she has no intentions to join the elite nuclear club that two countries in the region already had: Israel and Pakistan. Pipe dream, you say? Perhaps, but without giving diplomacy a chance the only option left is to launch pre-emptive first strikes against Iran's suspected facilities that would only further inflame and destabilize the region (as if it needed more inflaming and destabilizing). One thing's for sure. We'll be doing Daesh a favor if we hit Iran.

As the saying goes: "We live in interesting times."

Legion – I agree the Iran having nukes is a bad idea.

Beyond all the polarized rethoric, that is the bottomline …

Is Israel actually an ally? I think it's using you. How would America's strategic situation be changed if you abandoned them?

You have no bases, you'd be more popular with everyone else….

Are you sure the US has no bases ?

For all the faults of the Jordanians, they've never killed US servicemen or sunk a US warship.

I find few faults with Jordan, save they are too small to go after Deash alone. As far as killing US soldiers, how many Jordanians are in AQ or Deash, etc. ? And yes, we all know the USS Liberty attack was a tragic episode. How many Redcoats killed US soldiers in the AWI and War of 1812 ?

The redcoats didn't earn back a friends status on the historical facebook for a century.

Really, thinking about it, in the long run I'm having a hard time seeing what horrible thing will happen if Iran were to get a few nukes. They cannot use them. Israel has hundreds, we have thousands. MAD still works. A nuke can easily be traced to it's source country. One going off with an Iranian home address basically means every Iranian, man woman and child commits suicide in a pretty fireball a short time later, no questions asked. Even the craziest retard wants to be the last guy standing. What you end up with is actually a more stable middle east. Every tin pot dictator will have to way every little action against if it will cause the other tin pots to push their buttons. So, let them waste their resources on useless hunks of metal. Then, if one does decide to push it, then we are done with all of them. Problem solved.

The region will learn to grow up like we had to do.

The redcoats didn't earn back a friends status on the historical facebook for a century.

Yep … Some are still mad about the Redcoats burning down the WH in 1812 … And don't forget the Hessians … it was not until the late '40s – early '50s, the Germans were considered "friends/allies". And that was only about 1/2 of them. It was not until '89-'90 that all the Germans were reunited … and became allies …

If things get icy between the US and Israel over Iran and we stop providing them fighter planes (worst case scenario, unlikely as it may be), Israel can always go back to France.

The French supplied much of the Heyl Ha'Avir from the '50's to '70's.