Iran - Israel's Air Strike Options Update

This is an update to my March 15, 2006 article: Iran - Israel's Air Strike Options.

Last week's power projection exercise by the Israeli air force has been called a possible rehearsal for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. In this exercise, the Israelis flew more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft a distance of 600 miles from their home bases west over the Mediterranean Sea as far as Crete and returned. The exercise involved aerial refueling and practiced search and rescue for downed fliers.

Was this a message to the Iranians? Of course. It was also a message to the rest of the world that if the rest of the world is unable or unwilling to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, Israel may act unilaterally to counter what most Israelis believe to be an existential threat to the Jewish state.

As I wrote in my 2006 analysis, an airstrike from Israel to targets deep inside Iran is a very difficult mission. The main obstacle is the distance the aircraft would have to fly, almost if not all of it through hostile airspace. As I posited earlier, the two likely avenues of approach were either through Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

When I wrote that article, I assessed that attacking through Turkish airspace was not likely. Is that still the case?

Turkey and Israel have had a defense agreement since 1996 and have conducted joint military training exercises. During the Israeli attack on the alleged Syrian nuclear facility at al-Kibar, Israeli aircraft are believed to have used Turkish airspace.

Would such cooperation extend to allowing Israel to use not only Turkish airspace, but Turkish air bases for operations against Iran? Use of Turkish air space would require the attacking aircraft to fly over 1000 miles in Iranian air space.


Let's look at a map. Last week's exercise from Israel to Crete is about 1200 miles roundtrip. Note the similarities in distance from Israel to Crete and from eastern Turkey to the likely primary target at Natanz, the Iranian nuclear enrichment plant near Esfahan. There are numerous small remote Turkish air bases in eastern Turkey that could be used to stage Israeli tankers and search and rescue helicopters.

The distance from Israel directly to targets in Iran - meaning through Iraq or Sadui Arabia - is barely within the unrefueled combat radius of Israel's F-15I Ra'am and F-16I Sufa fighters. These aircraft were designed for long-range interdiction missions such as the one we are discussing. Using Turkish airspace is a much longer, but safer - flight route. To be able to reach the target, let alone carry meaningful ordnance loads, aerial refueling is key. However, refueling in hostile air space is a difficult operation with a low probability that they would escape detection. The fact that the Israelis practiced aerial refueling as well as search and rescue last week indicates to me that they have successfully acquired the use of friendly airspace.

Turkey is the obvious choice as an ingress route for attacking aircraft. Would Iran retaliate against Turkey if this scenario were to play itself out? Probably not directly - Iran still must consider the ramifications of attacking a NATO country.

"Nothing but Heartaches" by The Supremes

No, it’s not the 1965 hit single by the Motown recording group, but a potentially disastrous recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court (Boumediene v Bush). This creative interpretation of the law in effect gives enemy combatants captured in the act of fighting American troops on a battlefield halfway around the world the same rights in federal courts as American citizens.


This is the court's third attempt to hamstring the American military in the fight against terrorism. In 2004’s Rasul v Bush, they ruled that U.S. laws did apply to detainees held at Guantanamo. Although the treaty with Cuba over Guantanamo Bay grants the United States "complete jurisdiction" over the base while Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty,” the court found that Guantanamo was "effectively part of the United States." I wonder if they ran that by Fidel Castro?

In 2006, they sided with Usamah bin Ladin’s former driver, declaring in their review of Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the military commissions proposed by the Department of Defense did not have Congressional approval and were thus an insufficient means of determining the status of individual detainees. In direct response to the court’s recommendation, Congress enacted legislation establishing the military commissions to remedy that finding.

Surprisingly, Congress doing specifically what the court suggested was not enough. In this recent ruling, five of the justices decided that stateless fanatic zealots determined to kill Americans with impunity anywhere in the world, are entitled to challenge their detention in U.S. federal court using the right of habeas corpus - just like the American citizens they were trying to murder. This is the same syndrome that we saw with the Clinton administration - treat terrorists like criminals. The strategy then was to arrest them and try them in court instead of hunting them down and killing them. On September 11, 2001, we saw how well that strategy worked.

What's next? "Mirandize" all detainees? Extend the same protections to enemy prisoners of war? Conduct interrogations only in the presence of counsel? Allow law suits against the soldiers who detain terrorists? We are creating a potential no-win situation for our field commanders.

I see two solutions here:

- Declare the detainees to be enemy prisoners of war, afford them the Geneva Accords protections they are already receiving, and hold them until the war is over. No commissions, no hearings.

- Take no more al-Qa'idah/Taliban prisoners.

Pick one - either works for me.

Iran concerned about Iraq-U.S. troop agreement

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

Iran concerned about Iraq-U.S. troop agreement
Tehran views long-term presence of American forces as a threat

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are drafting an agreement that will determine the role of American forces in the country after the current United Nations authorization expires at the end of this year. As one would expect, the most vocal critics of this agreement are Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chairman of the Assembly of Experts Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and even the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. All have strongly condemned any agreement between Washington and Baghdad as the groundwork for the permanent presence of thousands of American forces on their western border.

It is the possible long-term presence of American troops that has the Iranians concerned – and rightfully so. From the Iranian perspective, the ability to influence events in Iraq is a zero-sum game. If the American forces are there in large numbers, it follows that the United States will exercise substantial influence over the government in Baghdad, at the expense of the Iran’s ability to influence events in Iraq. The more influence Washington has, the less Tehran has.

The Iranians view Iraq and what happens there as a vital national interest. The last thing the Iranian leadership wants is a strong American military presence next door limiting their freedom to do as they wish in the country.

Iran fought a devastating, bloody, eight year war with Iraq, and is rightfully concerned about stability in its neighboring country. Iran wants a stable Iraq to be sure, but a stable Iraq that responds to its influence, not the influence of the United States. When stability finally does come to Iraq, Iran wants to ensure that it emerges as the key power broker in the region. Since they view this as a zero-sum game, that primacy will come at the expense of the United States.

To meet its objectives, Tehran needs an acquiescent government in Baghdad. Given the demographics of Iraq, this is eminently possible. Shiites comprise about 60 percent of the population and will likely dominate the Iraqi government. Despite the losses suffered by many Shiite families in the Iran-Iraq War, most Shiites have a favorable view of Iran, one the few majority Shiite countries in the world..

What stands in the way of having an acquiescent government in Baghdad, in the Iranian view, is the presence of tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. Prime Minister al-Maliki has recently moved against Shiite groups in al-Basrah and Baghdad’s Sadr City, demonstrating that he is not a Shiite leader, but an Iraqi leader. His willingness to take on Shiite groups, virtually all of which are supported by Iran, is bolstered by the presence of U.S. forces. In the absence of that military power, al-Maliki might be forced to accede to Iranian demands that he not pursue their proxy groups in the country.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki visited Iran to reassure the Iranians that the agreement between Iraq and the United States will not pose a threat to Iran, that American forces will be restricted to their bases unless their assistance is needed, and that Iraq will never be allowed to be used as a platform for attacks on Iran.

The United States would be wise to go along with these conditions. Maintaining a troop presence in the region is important. As long as the world’s economies run on oil, and oil flows from the Persian Gulf constitute about one quarter of that oil, it is in the national interest of the United States to have the capability to guarantee that flow. A military presence in Iraq will help maintain pressure on Iran – the country most likely and capable of disrupting oil shipments from the Gulf.

Iraq is ideally situated to provide a great location for a military presence. The country has the potential for decent infrastructure - adequate water, space, roads, rail, etc. It is the location that is important, given the proximity to two of the real "axis of evil" countries - Syria and Iran (the other is North Korea).The Iranians and Syrians might begin to feel a bit surrounded.

If Iran is concerned that we are doing something in Iraq, we’re probably doing the right thing.

Hamas and Israel - Truce or Consequences?

Thanks to Jimmy Carter's meddling in affairs he should long ago have abandoned, the family of kidnapped Israeli army corporal Gilad Shalit received a letter from their son. This was part of a "concession" Carter "achieved" during his April meeting with Hamas political leaders in Damascus.

On the surface, the delivery of the letter appears to be a humanitarian gesture on the part of Hamas. In reality, it is a cold calculating move, playing on the emotions of the Shalit family and the Israeli population. Since all Israelis serve in the military, and they are a small nation in a sea of what they perceive as hostile Arabs, they tend to view all their servicemembers as their own children.

Hamas leaders know full well the effect this letter would have among the Israeli population. They know that their calls for the release of hundreds of Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails are more likely to be met when there is an outpouring of sympathy for the Shalit family.

The letter comes at a time when Hamas is seeking a truce with Israel. In a statement reported by the Associated Press, senior Hamas officials acknowledged that any truce with Israel would not be a prelude to recognition of the Jewish state, but merely a device to give them time to rearm and regroup.

So what does each side want and what are they prepared to give for a truce?

Israel's demands are simple. They demand the release of Corporal Shalit and the cessation of the daily rocket and mortar attacks into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip. These attacks - Katyusha rockets, homemade Qassam rockets as well as 60mm, 82mm and 120mm mortars - have been going on for at least the last seven years. They increased in scope after the Israelis left Gaza in 2005.

On the Hamas side, they demand that Israel lift the blockade of Gaza that has limited imports to basic humanitarian goods. In return, they will stop the rocket and mortar attacks. The release of Shalit is not part of the truce offer.

This "truce" is going nowhere. Now the consequences. Senior Israeli cabinet members, including the two that really count - the defense and foreign minister - are ready to launch an Israeli assault into Gaza.

The Palestinians - Hamas - should take this seriously. Gaza is not Lebanon, Hamas is not Hizballah, and the Israelis will not make the same mistakes they made in Lebanon in 2006. They will attack with a vengeance this time.

"Operation Inform Our Soldiers" – A disgrace

An organization calling itself The Resistance, self-described as a Christian media watch dog group, has launched a program named “Operation Inform Our Soldiers.”


According to information on their website, "America is to blame for the 9/11 attacks." Organization founder Mark Dice also claims the "9/11 attacks were aided by corrupt U.S. officials for political purposes."

Dice goes on to state that many - he cites an implausible number of 24 percent which I think he made up - U.S. Marines and soldiers believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but are "afraid to speak up out of fear of punishment.”

Okay, here's another conspiracy believer. I tend to summarily dismiss anyone who believes the theory that the attacks on the World Trade Center were in reality explosive charges planted by the U.S. government and that the Pentagon was struck by a missile instead of a hijacked aircraft. The evidence that 19 Arab Muslim young men, 15 of whom were Saudis, led by Egyptian Muhammad 'Atta, were responsible for the outrage of September 11, 2001 is overwhelming. Not only is the evidence virtually undeniable, the organization to which all 19 perpetrators belonged took credit for the attacks. All of the hijackers prepared videotapes to be played after their deaths.

Mr. Dice - wake up. They did it. We didn't.

That said, Mr. Dice, you have the right to believe whatever you like, and thanks to the efforts of the American servicemen you are targeting with this ridiculous campaign, you have the right to say whatever you like. What you are really saying to the servicemen is not (as you claim) to ask the question of their superiors if 9/11 was an inside job, what you are trying to do is foment dissent in the ranks.

These young men and women know why they are in Iraq. Virtually all of them have volunteered to serve in the armed forces after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They do not believe your drivel. They have better things to do than be distracted by your efforts to hurt the country.

Freedom of speech is one thing – trying to subvert American troops serving in a combat zone is another. Mark Dice is a disgrace.

Email Mark Dice and tell him what you think.

Memorial Day 2008

I was going to write an article for Memorial Day, then decided that what I said last year still holds true - maybe even more so - today.

From May 29, 2007:

This article appeared on MSNBC.com

'On behalf of a grateful nation'
Let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women
COMMENTARY
By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst - MSNBC
Lt. Gen. Ed Soriano, left, presents Jessica Hebert, sister of Spc. Justin Hebert who was killed in Kirkuk, Iraq, with an American flag during his military funeral (AP Photo/The Herald, Meggan Booker). Comment - Ed Soriano and I served together in Desert Storm - this must be his hardest duty.

Memorial Day weekend – most people associate that with the start of the “summer driving season.” The constant news coverage of record high gasoline prices tends to overshadow the real meaning of the holiday. It’s not about driving or shopping – it’s about remembering the men and women who died while in military service. It is important that we not forget the reason for this holiday – we are at war and lose some our finest young men and women every day.

Yes, we are at war. No one knows this more than the families of those who have fallen on battlefields far from home with names most of us cannot pronounce. Unlike most of the wars America has fought in the past, we are fighting with an all volunteer force – there has been no draft since 1973. Less than one-half of one percent of our people will serve in uniform (in World War II, it was over 12 percent) at any one time.

In the draft era, a much higher percent of the population entered the service, creating a large pool of veterans. Veterans understand the unique demands of military service, the separation from loved ones, the dangers of combat. With far fewer veterans or a veteran in the family, community and government, it is easy to lose sight of the demands military service requires of our men and women in uniform – all volunteers – and to forget too quickly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Sometimes one could get the feeling that foreign countries – especially those that have been liberated by American forces – pay more tribute to our fallen troops than we do. I will never forget standing in a church in rural France – not a fancy cathedral, not a tourist spot, nothing architecturally significant, just a village church. I would not have paid much attention until I spotted a well-maintained corner with a small American flag and a plaque.

I walked over and read the simple but powerful words in French and English, “In gratitude to the United States of America and in remembrance of her 56,681 sons that now and forever sleep in French soil.” A elderly parishioner sitting in a pew nearby saw me reading the inscription and asked if I was an American. I said that I was – she slowly rose, nodded at the memorial and said, “You are welcome in France.”

Over the years, over a million Americans have died in military service. Each fallen warrior is afforded a military funeral. Military funerals symbolize respect for the fallen and their families. Anyone who has attended a military funeral will never forget it – the flag on the coffin, the honor guard in full dress uniform, the crack of the rifles firing three volleys as Taps is played on the bugle, the snap of the flag as it is folded into the familiar triangle of blue, the reverence of fellow warriors.

Before his final salute, the officer in charge presents that folded flag to, in most cases, a young widow. He makes that presentation “on behalf of a grateful nation.”

At some point on this day, let us make sure that we do not forget our fallen men and women, and that we are in fact a grateful nation.


© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

German soldiers in Afghanistan - don't shoot the bad guys!

Germany, with great reluctance and with almost no popular support for anything that resembles helping their supposed American allies, has sent troops to Afghanistan as part of its NATO commitment.

It sounds good on paper. The reality is that they are permitted to be stationed only in the relatively stable northern part of the country where they likely will face limited hostile action. When asked to deploy some units to the more volatile south where American, British, Canadian and Dutch troops are conducting the major combat operations, they refused

Recently, Germany's military operations in Afghanistan were highlighted when mounted an operation to capture a senior Taliban commander, one with British blood on his hands. The Germans got close, but when they were discovered and the Taliban leader slipped away, the German soldiers, part of an elite special operations unit (the Kommandos Spezialkräfte, or KSK) declined to open fire on the hostiles.

It seems that the German rules of engagement do not allow combat forces in the field to use their weapons except in self defense. Politicians in Bonn and Berlin are placing tactical restrictions on what I am sure are fine troops.

The official German statement (from Berlin, of course): "This incident will not change our policy of the 'principle of proportionality.' A fugitive like the Baghlan bomber is not an aggressor and should not be shot unless in self-defense."

A senior Taliban commander with a documented history of killing British troops with roadside bombs is not an aggressor? What planet are you on?

The British press was not impressed. Their headline: The Germans - armed but not very dangerous.

Soldier refuses to deploy to Iraq

After a brief appearance in front of the partisan Congressional Progressive Caucus, U.S. Army Reserve Sergeant Matthis Chiroux openly declared that he intends to refuse a lawful order to deploy with his unit to Iraq in June.

Chiroux will not be the first nor the last soldier (and I use the term loosely) to refuse to deploy to Iraq, usually on grounds that he considers it an illegal war. I have some news for the young sergeant - he does not get to pick and choose the wars in which he wants to serve. I remember a great line from the movie Crimson Tide - "We're here to defend democracy, not to practice it."

Chiroux is a veteran with at least one combat tour to his credit - he served in Afghanistan. Here are his words:

"I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq. My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation. I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation."

Sergeant Chiroux is a volunteer - he enlisted in the Army in 2003 - the United States was already at war. Deployments to combat zones should not come as a surprise. Here is an excerpt from the oath he took when he enlisted in the armed forces of the United States:

"…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic...."

I took that same oath almost four decades ago. These are not mere words – they define who we are, they define the social contract between the armed forces and the people of the United States. In the ensuing decades, I was sent to wars, conflicts and “police actions” in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Bosnia. Did I agree with all these operations or commitments? Maybe, maybe not – it did not matter. When you take the oath, you commit to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of those above you.

Refuse to serve, pay the price. The photo above should be Chiroux's new home - the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

It is interesting that this declaration comes just before Memorial Day, when we honor our fallen comrades. It is insulting that we talk about a potential deserter at the same time.

The Palestinians - Bin Ladin's new cause

Photo - This is the screen displayed by Al-Sahab, al-Qa'idah video production organization during the play of the latest audiotape from Usamah bin Ladin. The text reads, "To the Arab people, a message from Shaykh Usamah bin Ladin (God keep him) - The reasons for the struggle on the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Israeli occupation state."

Over the years, the messages from bin Ladin have been addressed to various audiences and espouse various causes, depending on his current situation. His latest cause is very interesting - the plight of the Palestinian people. His claims that the goal of the al-Qa'idah organization is the liberation of Palestine, specifically the Gaza Strip.

This is relatively new for bin Ladin, but makes a certain amount of sense. Given his failures to accomplish any of his goals in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iraq, he needs a new cause, a reason to continue his war with the west and to justify attacks on Arab governments he believes have been co-opted by the west (Egypt, Jordan and Iraq). That cause is the Palestinian people, and the liberation of Jerusalem, site of Islam's third holiest shrine - the al-Aqsa mosque.

His failures have been underscored by his recent orders to his followers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to leave and head for Yemen. Bin Ladin assessed - correctly - that the climate in Yemen is much more conducive venue to base his terrorist operatives. Since 2003, the Saudis have cracked down on al-Qa'idah operatives in the kingdom after some high-profile attacks on facilities of the Saudi government and on housing compounds of contractors serving the interests of the kingdom. See my earlier article, Yemen walking a fine line.

Bin Ladin will find a willing ally in Hamas, which has virtually established an Islamic state in the Gaza Strip. Both Egypt and Israel have maintained a tight blockade on Gaza. That blockade erupted into a border crisis earlier this year, but the border has been re-established.

Bin Ladin has found one cause that will not go away anytime soon. It's a smart move - he will be able to use this as his raison d’être for years to come.

Yemen walking a fine line

Yemen has finally imprisoned Jabr al-Banah, one of the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists after months of allowing him to roam free unhindered in the country after not only escaping from prison, but appearing in court! It sounds unbelievable, but that is what happened. (See my earlier article, Yemen - State sponsor of terrorism?

Why the sudden change of heart? In addition to pressure from the United States government for allowing a convicted terrorist (and American citizen - he has dual citizenship) to evade justice, Yemen has had some challenges of late. One of the more serious challenges (other than me calling them a state sponsor of terrorism) is the fact that earlier this month, Usamah bin Ladin ordered his al-Qa'idah operatives to leave the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and head for Yemen.

Bin Ladin assessed - correctly - that the climate in Yemen is much more conducive venue to base his terrorist operatives. Since 2003, the Saudis have cracked down on al-Qa'idah operatives in the kingdom after some high-profile attacks on facilities of the Saudi government and on housing compounds of contractors serving the interests of the kingdom.

Although many of us in the intelligence business have often ridiculed Saudi external intelligence capabilities, we have all had a healthy respect for the extremely capable and often ruthless internal security apparatus. That apparatus has been systematically and effectively hunting down and killing al-Qai'dah terrorists to the point that bin Ladin decided it was no longer viable to operate in Saudi Arabia. The best option for al-Qa'idah was to move its operations base to Yemen, one of the poorest and most corrupt countries on the planet.

What happens now? That remains to be seen. Will Yemen allow itself to become a new al-Qa'idah stronghold, or will Yemeni President 'Ali 'Abdullah Salih exercise some backbone and keep his commitments to the United States to be an ally in the war on terrorism. Putting al-Banah in jail is good signal to the United States. Although the United States would prefer that al-Banah be extradited to the United States to stand trial for his role as as one of the "Lackawanna Six" - a terrorist support cell operating in New York state, Yemeni law does not permit sending al-Banah out of the country.

In the meantime, al-Banah has been sent to the same "maximum security" prison that he easily escaped from two years ago. Let's see if he stays there.

This is a test for the Salih government.