TacticalMiddleEast

HAARETZ’S REUVEN PEDATZUR publishes a review of a recent study by CSIS’ Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman, regarding Israel’s ability to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and implications of such move. Both claim that such an attack would be complex and dangerous, result cannot be guaranteed (and it is unlikely IDF would achieve 100% hit rate) and Iran’s resulting policies could affect the entire region and the United States.

It seems to me, from Pedatzur’s review, that the analysis is clear-minded and fair, although it is transparent that authors used data available to the public and have no knowledge of any secret possibilities IDF might hold.

What prompts questions is Pedatzur’s own worlds, following the review. Clearly scared stiff of possibility of such attacks, Reuven advocates “weighed policy”, advising Israeli leaders to forget military options and go for diplomacy instead. Pedatzur ignores main threat in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, while dismissing IDF’s offensive and defensive capabilities.

First of all, the threat: Pedatzur writes that Iran is unlikely to launch missiles against Israel:

He is, of course, correct. Iran’s launching missiles against Israel would turn the world against Ahmadinejad (or his successor), going as far as dispatching NATO forces into the dictatorship. The real threat, though, is the ability of Tehran to pass on such weapons to both Hizb Allah and Hamas, effectively hold Israel hostage to its will. Giving Iran control over Israel’s decision making is a bad idea on any day.

While Pedatzur advises halt of “belligerent statements”, I can hardly understand how Iran’s calls to wipe Israel off the map are less “belligerent”. While he obviously advises Israel to be shrewder than violent madman, history teaches us that those madmen do become violent eventually, using it to achieve their political goals (Yasser Arafat, for example). Iran’s political goal is control of Middle East; Ahmadinejad already fights with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to achieve it. If he would indeed hold atomic weapons, the entire Middle East would be endangered. Egypt – currently in strong opposition to Iran – would be first Arab state to suffer greatly from Iran’s possession of WMDs, as Iran’s radical regime would threaten Mubarak and his government into submission. If Egypt would decline, it too would face imminent danger from extremist Muslim Brotherhood.

Not alone in danger

IT IS TRUE, however, that Israel should not hurry to attack Iran alone. Israel has just as much to lose as Egypt or Saudi Arabia, thus attacking alone would not be advisable. As an alternative, Israel should force its neighbors into allied attack on Iran – even if US stays out of it. Israel should continue development of the Arrow missile system – defensive anti-ballistic missile, able to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles in flight. Israel should invest in intelligence, that would give government an early warning when Iran develops WMDs and when Ahmadinejad transfers such weapons to Palestinians. Last – but not least – Israel should invest in equipment able to detect radiation emitted by small and large nuclear weapons, such as warheads and ‘dirty bombs’.

The intelligence segment is particularly important – have direct intelligence of Iran ready to produce (or actually producing) nuclear weapons, could spur Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to join forced to thwart such acquisition. While Egypt already announced its plans to build its own nuclear facilities, it hardly has the ability to obtain the hardware before Iran, thus making itself vulnerable for several vital years. While Saudi and Egyptian armed forces are far from excellence, they could provide fundamental support – both political and military – in case Israel has no option but to strike.

Air raid not the only option

Possible IAF flight path in case of attack on Natanz, Iran (courtesy: Google)

While most commentators focus on an option of Air force attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, there is another option, more complex, but less prone to losses, and way more effective: ground assault by special forces.

Complications first: prospect of such an assault would largely be hinged on support – even covert one – by several Arab states, mainly Saudi Arabia. If Israel would be capable to present viable intelligence to the Saudis that Ahmadinejad has WMDs – or ready to have those – the former might seriously consider their options, in light of the fact that they would not want to lose their influence in the region; moreover, they certainly wouldn’t prefer Iran to be the deciding force in Middle East. Egypt would have same considerations, although they would only provide political support, due to their distance from the scene of attack.

Iraq would be unlikely staging area for forces ready to deploy into Iran. If the Americans could be persuaded such attack is necessary, they would attempt to influence the Iraqis – those, however, would be unlikely to support such move, despite Iraqi dislike of Iran, due to sectarian violence. Pro-Iran groups are still very active in Iraq, and could bring new tidal wave of attacks on Iraqi government officials and civilians.

The other route around Iraq is closed – it is way longer, and requires passage through Syria and Turkey.

Thus, the only viable option is Saudi Arabia. Deploying special forces would require helicopters – either for deployment, or – in case the forces were deployed from aircraft – for extraction. The way from Israel to Natanz, through Saudi Arabia is almost 2000 km (1242 miles) long. Such distance would require helicopters to refuel twice in midair, each way, twice over Iranian airspace. Such mission would be a serious threat to hundreds of men. Placing the staging area in Saudi Arabia, however, would considerably lower the risk.

The feasible option to deploy forces in such an attach is the CH-53 helicopter (pictured above). With flight range of 1,000 km (621 miles), these helicopters were used by the Israeli Defense Forces to attack Hizb Allah in Beqaa valley in 2006. With its ability to carry up to 55 soldiers (excluding the crew), these machines could easily deploy IDF troops over 670 mile distance from Saudia Arabia to Natanz. Helicopters, having the ability to fly lower than aircraft – in part due to lower speed – will be harder to spot by Iranian Surface to Air Missile batteries. Sadly, such prospect does not eliminate the need to refuel the gunships over Iranian territory.

(I should add that above several paragraphs obviously do not cover all aspects of such operation)

Now the major upside: attack by ground troops would largely eliminate the problems stemming from SAM and Anti-Aircraft sites set up by the Iranians. While Israelis would still have to use jamming equipment against the SAMs, ground forces could exterminate Russia-supplied S-300/SA-20 sites – currently posing greatest threat to Air forces. The SA-20, with its range of 195 km (121 miles), ability to detect low-flying aircraft and attack small to medium range ballistic missiles makes it a serious adversary in case of air assault. Thus, it should be up to boots on the ground to detect these launchers and destroy them, before Air force can make its pass.

Overall, use of special forces could provide a better answer to the problem than use of Air force. Iran located many of its nuclear sites underground, with several meters of concrete separating the facility from the outside world. Thus, it is unclear if bunker-buster bombs, such as the GBU-28, would provide sufficient penetration and destruction power, particularly if Iran’s facilities have several floors (they probably are) separated by several meters of concrete from each other. The ‘boots’ could minimize threat to the air force, minimize civilian casualties and make sure the facility is actually destroyed. While threat to each particular man is great, IDF soldiers are professional and trained enough to succeed in such a mission.

Operation by ground troops would obviously take more time than attack from the air. Even when the mission consists of several hundred men, the operation still would take at least three hours – deployment to extraction. Israeli Air force’s presence will be imperative to protect troops on the ground from incoming convoys and fighter aircraft. Still, ground troops, arriving by choppers, should neutralize the AA systems – then the air support can come in. Fighters in the air could protect the troops from incoming hostiles for the duration of the entire operation.

No doubt, such a move would be a daring one. Yet, in 1981 Israel made a daring move no one could believe – attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq. It seemed impossible back then, but the damn Israelis did it. Now, the threat is farther – in Iran – yet closer – in Lebanon and Gaza. Today, Israel is in position to prove to its Arab neighbors that move against Iran is crucial.

Pedatzur might be correct on one point – air strike against Iran is not a good option. Yet, Israel should not be scared off attack on Iran. Only determination of Israel’s government could keep nuclear weapons off terrorist’s’ hands.

In 1973 Israel had all the bells ringing of an approaching war – and Golda did nothing. Israel should not make that mistake again.

EGYPT CONTINUES ITS fight against Hamas in Sinai desert, uncovering 266 Qassam rockets on border between Egypt and Gaza today, according to news reports. Egyptian security forces also discovered additional arms and explosives at the scene.

According to the report, forces found 266 rockets, 40 mines, 50 mortar shells, 20 hand grenades and at least three anti-aircraft missiles.
No suspects have yet been arrested in the incident, security forces told the paper.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustakbal reported Friday that earlier this year Egyptian forces arrested four members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard suspected of organizing an espionage ring on Egyptian territory.

The ring was apparently headed by an Iranian intelligence official who entered Egypt using a forged Iraqi passport, according to the report.

While at some points relations between Israel and Egypt were deficient, now both states have the chance to tighten relations, thanks to Hamas control of Gaza. While the two will never be close friends, normalization of relations is all that’s needed right now.

CHIEF OF LEBANESE Hizb Allah terror group – Hassan Nasrallah – attempted to present his organization’s defeat in Egypt as victory today, by stating that Egypt’s endeavor to prevent Hizb Allah operatives to attack on Egypt’s soil has made the group stronger in eyes of many.

“The crisis with Egypt, which erupted three weeks ago, began with a media campaign starring the Egyptian regime – aided by other elements in the Arab world. Today we are witnessing a media war and a political war being waged by one side – the Egyptian regime. Hizbullah has not entered the media or political arena with the Egyptian regime,” Nasrallah said.

Nasrallah also responded to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s recent attacks against him: “What has the Egyptian regime gained from its campaign against Hizbullah? The Egyptian regime has not gained anything from this campaign. They failed to tar the face of Hizbullah.”

Nasrallah’s attempts are futile, however, as Egypt’s goal was never to ‘tar’ Hizb Allah, but to prevent its activities against targets inside Egypt.

While Nasrallah talks tough, it is clear that his organization – responsible for hundreds of deaths all over the world – might lose many options it had previously in helping Gazan terrorist group Hamas, as Egyptian security forces will now dig into Hizb Allah’s activities.

Previously on TME:

Egypt considers legal action against Hassan Nasrallah, Clashes continue between Egypt, Hizb Allah

Egyptian daily al-Ahram attacked Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today in its editorial, saying, among other things:

“Since (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad rose to power, Iran has taken a loud and provocative tone to realize its rights to hold nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

“Instead of acting quietly and responsibly in the regional and international arena, and easing the concerns of its neighboring countries, the West and United States, Iran has chosen to do the exact opposite.”

…

“It [Iran] has even refused to hold talks on the United Arab Emirates’ three islands (that are disputed between the two nations) and has refused to take this matter to international arbitration.

“Instead of reassuring its neighbors of its intentions, it has decided to address Bahrain as if it belongs to the Iranian state, while Bahrain, Yemen and Morocco have begun to complain about its interference in their territories. Iran has also begun to make threats and talk about its desire to run the world’s matters.”

Ynet’s report is worth reading, to reach this conclusion:

“But, Tehran’s leaders must learn their lesson from the experience of Saddam Hussein, who reached his end alone, after losing the support of his brothers and neighbors.”

While Egyptians obviously have their own agenda, it should be noted that overall Egypt took careful steps throughout recent history, attempting to ease tensions, instead of creating them.

Al-Ahram was not the only one to attack Ahmadinejad, with al-Sharq al-Awsat joining suit, albeit in a different dimension (emphasis mine):

“How will the Iranian president’s speech contribute to the Palestinian issue or the good of the occupied Arab lands?”

“We have also promised in the past to dump Israel into the sea, but what does Ahmadinejad have to add? After all, all he did yesterday was push the international community to rally around Israel, to boycott the conference for it, and anyone who didn’t boycott it walked out of the hall in protest.”

“What Ahmadinejad said yesterday about Israel was nothing more than the refined version of things he used to say repeatedly in the past, and the Iranian president did promise to wipe Israel off the map in the past, described it as illegitimate, said it could not exist and said that the Holocaust was nothing more than a legend.

“If we remember all this today, we can see that his speech yesterday was a softer version of his words. It is obvious that this speech was intended mainly for the Arab and Islamic street,” he wrote.

“The Arabs fought six wars with Israel, not to mention the other battles that cannot be described as anything short of wars. We lost hundreds of thousands of dead and injured in them, our cities and our lands were occupied and we lost great treasures.”

“Is talk enough for us today? Did Iran lose even one tree for Palestine? Did Tehran sacrifice a single dead man on the front against Israel? Memory of the recent past teaches us that the Iranians refrained from participating in the last war on Gaza, under the orders of the highest authority in Iran.”

To say the truth, Iran does aid Hamas and Hizb Allah, by training its operatives and providing monies and arms to both.

Palestinians waiting behind gates at Rafah crossing with Egypt

In a report about Egypt discovering five underground tunnels into Gaza, we find this statement by Adel Zourob, Hamas spokesperson:

“The policy of long-waits and piling up the travelers on the crossing would increase the suffering of 1.5 million Palestinians.”

No, he is not talking about Israel’s evil deeds: he speaks about Egypt’s policy of locking down the Rafah crossing into Egypt. According to the report, Egypt opened the Rafah crossing today – for two days – for ‘limited number of humanitarian cases’, as well as students, patients, and citizens of other countries.

Don’t get me wrong here: I am not implying here Egypt should also be blamed for Gazans’ situation – not just Israel. I am saying that apparently, Egypt and Israel both know something about Gaza – something the rest of the world does not know or does not want to know. It is true that Hamas wants the crossings open, for two reasons: it would allow the faction to transfer arms freely from outside world; it would also give Hamas the ability to strike easily within Egypt or Israel.

Another fact, mentioned in the report, would belong to my Setting Facts Straight section and touches highly disputed subject. According to many, Israel and Egypt started Gaza’s blockade when Hamas won democratic elections. Buzzzzz! Wrong. Israel and Egypt closed off their borders with Gaza when Hamas violently took over Gaza, shooting people (especially from rivaling Fatah faction) and rounding up ‘collaborators’ with Israel for execution.

Hamas' Gazan chairman Ismail Haniyeh

That is whom some in the West want us to negotiate with: One of Hamas’ top leaders –Mahmoud al-Zahar – repeated Hamas’ charter today in saying the terrorist group will never recognize Israel:

“We cannot, we will not, and we will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form”, Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the two leaders, said in a mosque sermon broadcast on the Islamist movement’s radio station, referring to Israel.

Hamas’ chief – Ismail Haniyeh – on his part, tried to look nice to both Egypt and Iran, who nowadays clash due to Hizb Allah’s botched operations in Cairo and Sinai:

The Ma’an news agency quoted Haniyeh as saying following prayers at a mosque in Ash-Shati refugee camp that he was “deeply concerned over the media crisis between Egypt and Hizbullah” and that “Hamas respects the stability of Arab nations, as their security is part of Palestinian security.”

Al-Zahar said nothing new – Hamas’ charter states that the terror group will not recognize Israel and seeks its destruction. Haniyeh, however, tries to play nice, particularly with the Egyptians. According to news reports, many Egyptian officials waited for a moment such as the current clash with Lebanese Hizb Allah in order to harm Hamas, mainly after Hamas’ breach of Gaza-Egypt border.

According to news reports, Egypt plans indicting Hizb Allah chief Hassan Nasrallah for “conspiring to commit a crime and planning acts of aggression and terror on Egyptian soil”. Apparently, a group of jurists would finish the document in the upcoming days, and would be presented to “highest authorities”:

Egypt has accused Hizbullah of plotting terror attacks on Egyptian soil with the aim of advancing Iran’s interests in the region. Authorities have detained 25 men with alleged ties to the Shiite group, and an Egyptian prosecutor’s statement said 49 people are still wanted in the alleged Hizbullah plot.

According to Egyptian sources, the document should be completed in the coming days and be presented to “the highest authorities.” Cairo will then decide whether to add Nasrallah and Qassem to the list of Hizbullah members who are facing indictment.

The sources said Cairo would not hesitate to issue an official arrest warrant application for the Hizbullah leaders, and may even turn Lebanese authorities and Interpol and ask that they take the necessary measures to arrest Nasrallah and Qassem and have them extradited to Egypt.

A senior Egyptian official told the El-Gomhuriah newspaper that the results of the investigation into the alleged Hizbullah terror plot is expected to have “dangerous and earthshaking consequences,” adding that charges may be brought against senior Hizbullah and Iranian figures.

In related news, Egyptian investigators release new details about detained Hizb Allah group. According to reports, several members planned to carry out large-scale attacks, reaching up to Tel Aviv:

According to the report, two of the cell’s members are Fatah operatives, who confessed to having planned to enter Israel and carry out massive suicide attacks, “maybe even in Tel Aviv”.

Sources close to the investigation told the newspaper that two Fatah members, Muhammad Ramadan Barakeh and Nidal Fathi Hassan were arrested under suspicion of ties with the Hizbullah cell.

Egyptian security forces arrested the two in Sinai a few weeks ago, while they were making their way to one of the underground tunnels leading into Gaza.

Egypt’s Supreme State Security Prosecution began questioning the two on Tuesday, and in their investigation, they confessed to planning to travel first to Sudan, and then to Syria and Lebanon, where they were to train for suicide missions in Israel.

Fatah, mind you, is Mahmoud Abbas’ organization.

Related:

News roundup: April 15, 2009 – Gazans attack Israel

Egypt alleges Hizb Allah planned three attacks

Clashes continue between Egypt, Hizb Allah

Gazan terrorists have fired a rocket towards Israel today – first such attack since April 1^st. The rocket hit empty ground in Eshkol region; no casualties or damage reported. However, this was first rocket attack in past two weeks – on April 13, Palestinians botched an operation to blow Israeli vessels with unmanned boat.

Iran blames Israel today – again – this time for its spoiled relations with Egypt. Iranian officials labeled Egypt’s accusations against Hizb Allah as ‘old trick’, aiming to influence upcoming Lebanese elections. Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki also added “The Zionist regime will not succeed in this political plot”, referring to unsubstantiated claims that Israel attempts to influence Lebanese elections. To me, however, it is clear that what started as a minor quarrel at Doha summit now becomes serious problem for Iran and its backers.

In related news, al-Ahram daily quoted Egyptian official today saying Hizb Allah “will pay a heavy price for plotting terror attacks aimed at undermining Egypt’s sovereignty”. Same anonymous official also claimed that Egypt has “all the means and options to punish Hizb Allah”.

Meanwhile, Egypt reinforces security on Egypt-Gaza border, increasing numbers of patrols and policemen and checkpoints.

Jordan sentenced three Hamas activists for up to five years in prison for trying to acquire “information that should remain confidential”. Defendants’ attorney claimed the case was an attempt to undermine support for Hamas.

Egypt arrested three Palestinian youngsters, aged 16 to 18, in village of Sheikh Zweid near Gaza border. The three are being held on charges of illegally crossing into Gaza. In a separate discovery, Egyptian authorities found 900 kg (1,984 pounds) worth of TNT explosives.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that his government prepares a new deal proposal to the West regarding its nuclear program – one “which guarantees peace and justice in the world”. The new package is apparently a revised version of one already offered in May 2008. According to Al Jazeera, previous package “suggested setting up consortia, including one in Iran, to enrich uranium and manufacture nuclear fuel.”

Following previous reports – including one on my blog – Russians do not currently supply Iran with S-300 SAM systems, despite signing contract in March.

Conflicting reports come out of the press regarding US’ possible attendance of Durban 2 summit. The conference, which might be boycotted by several governments around the world, including those of Canada, Italy, and Australia, is criticized by many for its anti-Israel stance, while mostly ignoring other atrocities around the world. According to some sources, Obama administrations leans to decline the invitation to participate, while other sources claim US will attend.

Barack Obama’s administration explores another tactic of achieving calm in Middle East, by providing 12 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to Lebanese army. Washington believes the UAVs will strengthen Lebanese military, thus giving them the option of fighting Hizb Allah.

Finally, last but not least, Hamas and Fatah to resume reconciliation talks with each other on April 23. The talks will probably be tough, especially after Hamas rounded up Fatah men and Gaza and shot them.