WarSclerotic

New smart bombs with extended ranges and greater penetration and landing rights on aircraft carriers are just some of the requests that would appear on an Israeli military wish list, if one was presented to the Obama administration as a way to ensure that Israel succeeds in a potential attack against Iran.

While US President Barack Obama voiced clear opposition earlier this week to such a strike, Israel has been noncommittal. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC comparing Iran’s nuclear facilities to Auschwitz leaves little doubt about Israel’s seriousness when it comes to the military option.

And while the question of whether Israel can go at it alone against Iran remains up in the air, it would likely request some specific assistance from the United States ahead of a strike in order to make one – if it is launched – more effective.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz will head to the US in late March and if he had to present a wish list to the Pentagon, it might look something like this:

Currently, one of the main pitfalls of Israel’s strike plan is in its mid-air refueling capability, based on a small fleet of Boeing 707 aircraft. The last 707 arrived in Israel in early 2011 and while the official size of the fleet is classified, various reports have placed it at around nine.

Due to the distance the Air Force’s F-15 and F-16 fighter jets would need to fly to attack Iran, the need for mid-air refueling is critical, particularly considering the possibility that the planes will be engaged by Iranian interceptors or air defense systems and will need to burn fuel to outmaneuver them.

If the US loaned Israel or quickly sold it a few tankers, that could increase Israel’s ability to reach Iran and carry out the required number of sorties needed to do the necessary damage to its nuclear facilities.

The second gap is in Israel’s arsenal of bunker buster weapons. The IAF has a relatively significant stockpile of GBU-28s that are said to be capable of penetrating either 30 meters of earth or over six meters of reinforced concrete before detonating its warhead. Israel is also believed to have developed some of its own penetrators, which it has manufactured only a small amount of in recent years due to the high costs.

Israel has, however, closely followed Boeing’s development of the GBU-43 nicknamed the “Mother of all Bombs” (MOAB) as well as the more recent disclosure of the GBU-57, better known as the “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” (MOP).

While the MOAB is not specifically designated to penetrate hardened targets, it would make the destruction of targets above surface easier since it can be done in one sortie with a C-130 Hercules. The MOP though, was specially developed to eliminate underground and fortified targets in North Korea and Iran and is said to be able to penetrate around 60 meters.

In other weapons, Israel could potentially ask for additional Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits and particularly ones with an extended range called the JDAM-ER.

This kit, which is installed on bombs like regular JDAMs, comes with an additional set of wings which extends the bombs range from about 30 km to close to 100 km, meaning that aircraft would be able to attack Iranian facilities from a greater standoff position and possibly even out of range of Iran’s surface-to-air missile systems.

The third request that Israel could potentially ask of the US would be to station search and rescue teams – possibly from the IAF’s 669 Unit – aboard aircraft carriers the US Navy has stationed in the Persian Gulf or alternatively in bases it maintains nearby. This would help Israel tremendously if it needed to launch a rescue mission to retrieve a downed pilot.

Due to the possibility of mechanical malfunctions in such a complicated mission, the ability to land, repair, refuel and rearm its aircraft in bases near Iran could also be something Israel would ask for.

But why would Obama agree to any of this?

This would depend on the timing of Israel’s request. While the president currently appears to be opposed to military force, he did stress at AIPAC that Israel has the right to act in self defense and to do what it feels it needs to do as a sovereign state.

In addition, if Israel informed the president that it had decided to attack and that there was no alternative, it would ultimately be in the US’s interest that Israel succeeds and that the damage it causes be surgical but also extensive. All of these different capabilities would increase the chances.

US President Barack Obama has made it clear on numerous occasions that with regard to stopping Iran, “all options are on the table.” In recent days his message has become more emphatic.Last week, he told The Atlantic that “when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” In a speech on Sunday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he declared that his policy was not to contain Iran, it was “to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu noted in his speech to AIPAC on Monday, “Israel has the same policy. “We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We leave all options on the table. And containment is definitely not an option.”

Nevertheless, US and Israeli interests are not identical. The US timetable for waiting to see if increasingly stringent sanctions coupled with diplomacy and covert actions seriously delay Iran’s nuclear program stretches beyond the time frame in which we in Israel feel it is imperative to act in our own defense.

Also, due to our geographical proximity to Iran, we in Israel feel all the more vulnerable. This feeling is amplified by the fact that we are in a constant state of conflict with terrorist organizations that are Iranian proxies – Hamas on our southern border and Hezbollah to our north. A nuclear-armed Iran, in addition to being a menace to the entire civilized world, would have an immediate destabilizing impact on Israeli security. By providing Hamas and Hezbollah with what Netanyahu referred to as a “nuclear umbrella,” the Islamic Republic would embolden these two terror organizations intent on Israel’s destruction to launch increasingly daring and more murderous attacks on Israel. Israel simply cannot afford to let that happen.

True, the US president assured Israel of his support. “There should not be a shred of doubt by now: When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.” Obama’s statement should be taken at face value for what it is: a sincere promise to provide Israel with the moral and security backing needed in case of war with Iran.

At the same time, our prime minister has an obligation to his own people. And that obligation includes exercising Israel’s sovereignty and military might in a way that best protects the citizens of the Jewish state. As Netanyahu movingly noted, the Jewish people’s status in the year 2012 is radically different from what it was on the eve of the Holocaust or, for that matter, what it was during the nearly two millennia preceding the massacre of European Jewry.

With the establishment of the State of Israel, the centuries of Jewish powerlessness – when the Jews were devoid of sovereignty, stateless and without military might – came to an end. The Jewish people has “reentered history” as a protagonist responsible for its own fate. This conviction lies at the heart of the Zionist ethos.

Indeed, if our prime minister did not reserve the right to use force to stop the Islamic Republic from achieving an atomic bomb, he would be reneging on Israel’s right, and the right of every sovereign nation, to protect itself from the aggressive actions of maniacal enemies such as Iran – which both denies the Holocaust and vows to repeat it. More significantly, he would be recklessly ignoring the tyrannical threats of a mullah regime that vows to “wipe Israel off the map.”

So if Netanyahu and our other leaders are under the impression that Israel cannot afford to wait much longer to see if diplomacy and sanctions will work, they cannot simply place the fate of Israel in the hands of the US as Jews have been forced to do for so long.

Not only do they have the right as heads of a sovereign state to take action, they have a moral obligation – to the nearly eight million citizens of Israel and to the generations of Jews over the centuries who tragically lost their lives because they lacked the means to defend themselves.