Strategic Comments - Volume 14, Issue 10 - December 2008

Can Obama re-engage Iran: What might Israel do?

The Israeli angle adds to the challenge facing Obama. During 2008, some media and Internet commentators suggested the transition period between the US election and the presidential inauguration would be the ideal time for Israel to take matters into its own hands with a military strike on Iran. 

However, this is unlikely for several reasons. In June, America's most senior intelligence and military officials told Israel not to attack because of the impact that this could have on over-stretched US forces. They said the US would also oppose Israeli overflights of Iraqi airspace.

In any case, none of Israel's strike-force aircraft could fly the minimum 2,100km round-trip from air-force bases in the Negev to Natanz and carry a meaningful weapon load without refuelling. Israel only has seven KC-707 and four C-130 air tankers, and these are insufficient for the repeated sorties necessary to ensure the destruction of the hardened Natanz facility.

In September, outgoing Israel PM Ehud Olmert said, with respect to the question of military action against Iran, that Israel needed to be more modest and 'act within the bounds of our realistic capabilities'. Although attitudes may change if Likud comes to power during next year's elections, Israel's capabilities will remain the same.

In December 2007, Iran's defence minister said Russia's vaunted S-300 air-defence system would be delivered to Iran soon. But Moscow's announcement on 9 October 2008 that it would 'not supply such weapons to countries located in what we call volatile regions' has lessened the sense of urgency in Israel. The S-300 platform is designed to counter aircraft at a 195km range, and would have made air raids on Iranian nuclear facilities more difficult.

Close this window to return to the main article.