From Haaretz:
Two days ago the press in Teheran reported on a huge exercise of Iran's air force, including claims of a practice air attack on Israel.
About 100 warplanes, it was claimed, flew 1,200 kilometers and demonstrated their capabilities - something that can be seen as a counter to the reports in June that the Israel Air Force had conducted a similar exercise, which included the simulated bombing of Iran.
The problem with recent statements on a preemptive attack on Israel, and even more so with the reports of the Iranian air force exercise, is that they are not based on any proven capability. A cautious estimate would be that the damage Iran could cause to Israel today is very limited.
The Iranians would have to rely on their local representatives in the region, Hezbollah and Hamas, or to wait until they obtain nuclear weapons - two or three years down the road, even according to the most pessimistic estimates in the West.
Most Iranian warplanes are remnants from the days of the Shah, obsolete American planes. Prof. Anthony Cordesman, a senior U.S. strategic analyst, said in a lecture last July that only a few of the 300 warplanes the Iranians have are capable of flying at all, and that they lack advanced aeronautical systems. It is highly unlikely that a significant number of such planes could penetrate Israeli defenses.
The second possibility for an Iranian attack is with long-range ground to ground missiles. But Cordesman, like other military experts, claims the Iranian missile program is less advanced than it may appear to be. He estimates the Iranians have a few dozen - and no more than a hundred - missiles with a range capable of reaching Israel.
The launch capabilities of Iran's missiles have been tested only a few times and it is very hard to estimate their accuracy. For now, without the ability to mount nuclear warheads on these missiles, an attack would consist of only conventional weapons. In other words, the damage they could cause would be similar to the destruction left by the Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.
It's hard to imagine what good such an attack would do for Iran in the near future. After all, this would be the best way to guarantee an Israeli counter-attack, as well as firm international intervention to halt the Iranian nuclear program, a program that constitutes such an important goal of the Iranian government.
Full story here:
2 comments:
Typical liberal mindset.
Wait until you're attacked, then reason with the world why you should attack back.
Just like Hizbolloh did and all of Canada's liberals shit on the Jews for attacking back.
What a f'in joke liberals are.
After watching you on CTS explaining why murderers should be rehabilitated I don't wonder where this came from.
Well, I do think we should look to the reality. But I agree Hezb is a real danger and not just a tin soldier.
Post a Comment