Israeli planners will need to know if their weapons can go the distance to attack Iran, say analysts
Israeli retaliation against Iran after Saturday’s drone and missile attack could take many forms, analysts tell
The National.
Israel has given little indication of the approach it plans to take in the days ahead.
On the technical side, the Israeli air force would be challenged by a long-range attack against Iran – a complex operation involving aerial refuelling for most of the warplanes, and long flying hours placing strain on crews.
Once over Iran, they would face dense air defences and underground military and nuclear facilities.
Some routes for attacking Iran are about 2,000km one way, giving Israeli jets such as the F-15 little time to carry out missions before having to return to base, even with additional fuel.
That is not to say it is impossible – US jets attacked Libya in 1986’s Operation El Dorado Canyon, flying a 10,000km round trip from the UK taking more than 13 hours. But experts say it is very high risk.
On the political side, Israel will have to weigh up the risk of dragging the US into its war.
“Part of the reason the US helped Israel so much in its air defence on Sunday morning was to not give Israel an excuse to retaliate,” says Yoel Guzansky of the Israeli security think tank INSS.
“If some of those drones and missiles hit in a more significant manner then the urge to retaliate in Israel would be stronger, which would make it harder for the US to maintain the status quo and prevent escalation in the region,” he adds.
Israel has a fleet of ageing air-to-air refuelling tankers which are scheduled to be replaced with high endurance KC-46As next year.
At the same time, Israel’s F-35s Lightning stealth fighters, designed to evade radar, can carry external fuel tanks. These can compromise the stealth aspect of the aircraft, although there are claims Israel has designed low radar profile versions.
The weight of external fuel tanks also limits bomb loads, which are vital if Israel wants to damage underground Iranian drone sites or nuclear facilities. Israel has a number of huge GBU-72, 2,267kg “bunker buster” bombs.
The long distance will influence flight paths, possibly through the airspaces of friendly and hostile countries.
That introduces unpalatable political considerations, says Raphael Cohen, a director at Project Air Force at Rand, a US think tank.
“The tanker gap is a limiting factor on the response but ultimately, if Israel chooses not to respond it will likely be more for political reasons, including keeping western and friendly Arab countries on its side, than for military capacity ones,” he says.
“There is also the question of access, basing and overflight here too, especially for manned aircraft. Some of the contours of response will be determined by which countries, if any, grant the Israelis tacit access to their airspace. I can also imagine retaliation via other means, missiles, naval forces, one-way drones and so on,” he says.
Unlike Iran, Israel lacks a huge arsenal of long-range missiles, although it has a number of Jericho ballistic missiles that could hit Iran.
It is not clear how many of them there are because the devices are thought to be part of Israel’s nuclear deterrent and might not be used with conventional warheads.
Similarly, Israel might opt for a submarine-launched cruise missile attack against Iran, but unlike US nuclear attack submarines, which can carry 154 cruise missiles, Israel’s five Dolphin 2 submarines can only carry a few.
Israel faces a major dilemma as it weighs up whether to heed US calls for calm against what many in its security establishment say is a need to hit Iran hard.
Sima Shine, a former senior Mossad official focused on Iran, says Tehran embraced a “new paradigm” towards Israel on Sunday by becoming the first country to directly attack it since Iraq in 1991.
“Israel can use the situation to start pursuing a new arrangement in the region,” she says.
“This is a very unique strategic opportunity, although I don’t know if this government is able to take it.”