I've blogged previously about Israel's capacity to hit Iran. Now comes a report from the Washington Times that claims Israel has the legs to do it. This is probably true, but they overlook a few key points.

First, although they claim the KC-707 could nurse the strike aircraft on the way over, it would have to loiter over Iraqi airspace. A flying gas station makes a very inviting target, so it would not be safe to take it into Iranian airspace. That means the Iraqis would have to answer to their neighbors for letting the Israelis use their airspace, not just letting them penetrate it.

Further, an Israeli airstrike through Iraqi airspace would do serious damage to our credibility with the Iraqis. It would infuriate them, and likely incite more attacks against our men on the ground. We are not well liked, but the Israelis are liked even less. The only question left is, how much do the Iraqis hate the Iranians? If they like them less than the Israelis, a deep strike by Israel could be possible. But I doubt that.

Also, with Israel beating up on Hezbullah in Lebanon, they have their hands full. A deep strike would trigger dangerous reactions from Israel's neighbors, which would mean assets that could have been used in a sustained attack against Iran would have to be allocated to local defense. Even if Israel was lucky and their neighbors don't want Iran to have the bomb - a not entirely unlikely occurrence - the resources would still have to be shared against Hezbullah. That means that a first strike would not easily be followed by a second. That means that anything missed in the first attack would not get hit.

All this points to Iran as the likely instigator of the most recent disturbance (as if we needed more evidence). Iran has probably correctly assumed that Israel or the US was willing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, and they feared Israel's willingness to act more than the weakened George Bush (thanks to the NY Times and company for that). They figured that if Israel was too busy and the US was too weak, they could proceed with their Tel Aviv Project.

All this means that W must be willing to threaten Iran with whatever force is necessary if they do not respond to the most recent ultimatum.

The mullahs should remember: because of Lend-Lease and Diego Garcia, we can credibly say that we can deliver total destruction in 30 minutes or the next one is free, thanks to Ronald Reagan, Northrup Grumman, and the 509th Bomb Wing.

Further reading:
Global Security info on Israel's Air Force

Something has been bugging me about the President's press conference from last week. To quote from the transcript:

Q Mr. President, if I could follow up, you say diplomacy takes time --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it does.

Q -- but it was four years ago that you labeled North Korea a member of the "axis of evil." And since then it's increased its nuclear arsenal, it's abandoned six-party talks and now these missile launches --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question. It's increased it's -- that's an interesting statement: "North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal." Can you verify that?

Q Well, intelligence sources say -- if you can -- if you'd like to dispute that, that's fine.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not going to dispute, I'm just curious.

This is a very curious way of asking the question, no? It's almost as if GWB is hinting that he knows something about North Korea that the press doesn't.

Tell me, what does North Korea have in common with the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan? The Conventional Wisdom answer is "a nuclear bomb". But assuming that's true, what sets it apart from those nations?

The NorKs haven't test-detonated it, assuming they have one in the first place. All they have done is claim to have one.

Now, I'm no Henry Kissinger when it comes to foreign policy. Heck, I'm not even Jack Ryan in that regard. But don't you think that the best way to demonstrate your military might is to cook off a nuke, not launch a missile that may or may not work?

I am going to go out on a very thin limb here. I think North Korea doesn't have the bomb, not because they lack the nuclear material (Bill Clinton assured they have enough of that), but because they lack the grey material needed to construct it. Their unsuccessful missile launch is evidence of this. I think GWB has decent intelligence to support this, and doesn't want to launch a war on the presumption of WMD when they aren't there. He got burned before, and doesn't want to touch the hot iron again. Big surprise, since the press would love such a story, and would do their best to ignore the despotism that would be swept away.

On the other hand, GWB realizes that the entire Pacific is at risk if the NorKs do manage to get a nuke attached to a missile that actually works. That's the reason why he's addressing the issue now and not waiting until they have a working rocket. He deserves more praise for trying to solve the problem and risking failure than he is getting, especially since his predecessor was willing to do nothing and not know either the glory of success or the bitterness of defeat.

That being said, if they don't have a nuke, he can push them a lot farther in terms of extracting what he wants from them, without risking major damage to American credibility. But he has to be able to completely trust his intelligence sources, and the past decade and a half of intelligence funding have almost guaranteed that he cannot do so, at least fully.

[mike tap]

It appears to be working...

This will be the new place where I post political rants. Check my other blog for less vitriolic stuff.