Iran’s missile attack on Israel was “completely justified” and “a lesser punishment compared to the crimes committed by the Israeli regime.” The line drawn by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the sermon he gave at the Friday prayer and commemoration ceremony for the Hezbollah leader killed in Israel’s raids on Lebanon is clear. Addressing the crowd as he read his short speech, standing with his rifle at his side, the ayatollah threatened that Iran would “strike the Israeli regime again if necessary.”
Israeli officials are reportedly considering “significant retaliation” against Iran for the October 1 attack in which more than 180 missiles were launched by the Islamic Republic.
Now the whole world is wondering whether this “significant retaliation” coincides with Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. It is a possibility that US President Joe Biden has openly opposed, fearing an uncontrollable escalation in the region.
Tel Aviv’s dilemma: which route to choose
Deprived of the military support of its American ally, Israel will have to carry out a difficult operation and overcome various obstacles: Iran has actually dispersed its nuclear facilities in various parts of the country, some of them well hidden in the mountains or strengthened to resist the potential. air raids. This will be the first obstacle for the Israeli air force. The second is about distance and routes. Israeli bombers would have to travel thousands of kilometers before reaching Iran, where they would engage the Islamic Republic’s air defenses.
But first they will need to pass through the airspace of Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Iraq, Syria and potentially Turkey. As the New York Times suggests, Tel Aviv may opt for a route that would pass through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Tel Aviv knows that Baghdad, which does not have strong air defenses, will not have the ability to oppose the passage of Israeli bombers. At 3,200 kilometers (round trip), this would also be the shortest route, but still difficult for Israeli fighters, F-15Is and F-16Is, to cover with a single tank. Eight American KC-707 refueling aircraft could deploy to support them, but these would also require protection from other Israeli fighters. Something that doesn’t currently exist in Tel Aviv.
Attack at the heart of the nuclear program
If the geographical barrier is overcome, Tel Aviv will target the two main nuclear enrichment facilities that represent the heart of Iran’s program: Natanz, located underground in Isfahan province, about 300 kilometers south of Tehran. ; and Fordow, near the sacred city of Qom in the north of the country, was dug up and hidden in a mountain. To destroy them, weapons that can penetrate tens of meters of rock and reinforced concrete will be needed.
Israel has bunker-busting bombs like the 2,268-pound GBU-28 it dropped on four buildings in Beirut last week to kill Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. However, these will not be sufficient for this purpose. Tel Aviv can use the US’s Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which, at 14 tonnes, can penetrate heavily armored or underground targets.
In this case, the condition is a must: This bunker bomb is newly built and still needs to go through several tests before it can be put into use. Then there is another dilemma. Even if Israel receives the US MOP, F-15, F-16 and F-35 jets cannot carry this amount of weight.
Alternatives to avoid disaster
To many observers, striking nuclear facilities in response to an attack that causes minimal damage, such as Iran’s attack on October 1, could be considered disproportionate. Moreover, such an attack has the potential to push Tehran to accelerate its nuclear program and, assuming it actually has the potential, would deter future attacks on its territory.
Israel could opt for less dangerous alternatives that would temporarily derail Iran’s nuclear program, such as bombing the Islamic Republic’s ports and other strategic infrastructure or launching attacks on its power grids.
Source: Today IT
Karen Clayton is a seasoned journalist and author at The Nation Update, with a focus on world news and current events. She has a background in international relations, which gives her a deep understanding of the political, economic and social factors that shape the global landscape. She writes about a wide range of topics, including conflicts, political upheavals, and economic trends, as well as humanitarian crisis and human rights issues.
