Quote:For a couple days now, Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (ret.) is making the rounds with JINSA's Makovski. Both are promoting the idea of the transfer of MOPs and B-52s to Israel. Punchline from JINSA's OpEd in The Wall Street Journal - April 8, 2014: "The Obama administration has cut a deeply flawed interim deal, forgone new sanctions, and effectively taken the military option off the table. It's time to increase the pressure on Tehran by boosting Israel's military capacity to cripple Iran's nuclear program."
This refers to a nuclear program that isn't proven to be a nuclear weapons program. US intelligence can't find evidence for that believing that Iran's nuclear program may or may not become a weapons program, but that there are no current indications of that change. The conflation of a nuclear program with a nuclear weapons program is not just sloppy language. It is a deliberate deception. Iran's ability to master enrichment is NOT tantamount to a nuclear weapons threat. A theoretical ability in the absence of intent is not a threat. Period. To say otherwise is to engage in deception.
Let's put this in clear language: The advocates of such equipment transfers want that the US should put Israel in a position in which it can flout US policy preferences by making them independent strategically by giving Israel a conventional stategic strike option.The desire to do this demonstrates Israel's current inability to successfully hit Iran.
This is the same idea promoted in 'A Clean Break', which notably stressed the idea that Israel ought to transform its relations with the United States, by making Israel self-reliant, i.e. independent from the US. Now that's an ally! These people want the US to make Israel independent, so that the Israelis can ignore whatever the US wants them to do and and at the same time they want the US taxpayer to foot the bill!
The tail is indeed wagging the dog. And re: 'A Clean Break' - the other major idea in that paper is that Israel, rather than pursuing a "comprehensive peace" with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan (though nowadays it looks they are rather more allied with the Saudis) and Turkey to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" those entities that are threats to all three. Which goes a long way to explain the current enthusiasm and persistent scheming to have the US to bomb Syria to smithereens already. And then Lebanon. And then Iran. Is there a cure for this lunacy? - Confused Ponderer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator


Posted at 09:44 AM in Iran, Israel | Permalink
Reblog (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c72e153ef01a3fceca173970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference B-52s and MOPs for Israel? - by Confused Ponderer:

Comments

JohnH said...
Does Deptula say who will pay for Israel's strategic independence? Uncle Sami, of course. What a strange idea of strategic independence. Uncle Sami is supposed to underwrite whatever crazy plans Israel can dream up. Of course, it's totally consistent with how the US has behaved in every Israeli war since 1967. The stakes just keep getting higher and the weaponry more lethal. If things keep going on like this, what's to prevent some Zionist-beholden president from handing over our entire nuclear fleet to Netanyahu and saying, "Have fun!"

Reply 11 April 2014 at 10:57 AM



Fred said...
"Now that's an ally!"
Best ally in the Middle East, just ask our elected representatives. Then ask them which president signed it, when did the senate ratify it and can you have a copy.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 11:39 AM



Charles I said...
Perhaps a cure could be having the MOPS directly "delivered" to Dimona by the B52's.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 12:28 PM



Fred said...
All,
Meanwhile, talking of arming 'allies':
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/11/exclusive-key-general-splits-with-obama-over-ukraine.html#url=/articles/2014/04/11/exclusive-key-general-splits-with-obama-over-ukraine.html

"The General also told the members and staff that detailed estimates of Russian troops showed the number of forces preparing to invade Ukraine numbered 80,000."
When did the United States Government determine that the Russian Federation was preparing to INVADE Ukraine? Is this based on evidence, secret evidence or just slam dunk evidence?
When did the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States deligate foreign policy announcements to the general commanding NATO forces?
Further quoting General Breedlove:
"On his Twitter feed he wrote, "Russian forces around Ukraine fully equipped/capable to invade. Public denial undermines progress. Images tell story."
"Recent Russian aggression could put in jeopardy Ukraine's ability to contribute to NATO and any U.S. operations and exercises. It is important we continue to support Ukrainian cooperative activities with NATO and U.S. forces to enhance our mutually beneficial relationship."
When did the United States sign a treaty requiring it to defend Ukraine? When did the Sentate ratify that treaty?

Reply 11 April 2014 at 12:49 PM



The Twisted Genius said...
JohnH,
What a fine complement to the fleet of F-35s that we're going to buy for the Israelis for 5 billion dollars or so. How about a real clean break and just cut the greedy bastards loose. Don't embargo them or freeze assets, although those ideas are worth discussing. Just make them pay for what military items we sell them with their own money.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 12:52 PM



oofda said...
I would have to review the relevant treaties and conventions, but the provision of B-52s to another nation might well be in violations of one or more of the strategic arms control treaties to which the U.S. is party. At least it would be in violation of the spirit of several of these treaties. And we would not be thrilled if the Russian Federation- or China for that matter- supplied a long-range, nuclear-capable bomber to a third country. Say the PLA Air Force sold a few Xian H-6K bombers to Iran?

Reply 11 April 2014 at 01:38 PM



SAC Brat said in reply to oofda...
About ten to fifteen years ago a static display B-52 at Willow Run Airport in Michigan was moved as the museum rearranged display aircraft. The move was then protested by the Russian government.
If you zoom in on aerial pictures of the southeast side of Davis Monthan AFB there are still B-52 carcasses displayed for satellite review.
Pretty sure the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine had a article a few years ago on the applicable treaty.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 07:13 PM



kao_hsien_chih said...
This notion of "independence" sounds a lot like the guy who supposedly said " I used to be on welfare. Nobody helped me." I sippose Uncle Sam's help doesn't count ss "help" or "dependence." Geesh....

Reply 11 April 2014 at 01:39 PM



AEL said...
I think Israeli B-52's are a wonderful idea.
They would truly be a perfect white elephant.
The love and attention that the Israeli's would have to spend to keep those elephants flying would undermine their ability to make mischief elsewhere.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 01:56 PM



robt willmann said...
Iran might be moved back to the middle burner, as today there is a report that ... drum roll ... "allegations" have emerged that Syria has carried out more toxic chemical attacks, from the British Daily Mail --
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602463/Has-Assad-carried-new-chemical-attacks-Britain-U-S-investigate-claims-toxic-substances-used-four-occasions.html
The article says that the British Foreign Office replied that it was "aware of the allegations but not able to corroborate them at this time".


Reply 11 April 2014 at 02:29 PM



Matthew said in reply to robt willmann...
Robt: Maybe they should replace "corroborate" the allegations with "create evidence" for the allegations. I'm sure the Usual Suspects have a storeroom full of Assad atrocities that will be leaked each time Assad liberates a town from the head choppers and liver eaters funded by Saudi and Qatar.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 05:40 PM



Imagine said...
Senate Resolution SR65: (May 22, 2013; 91/100 Cosponsors)
"...(4) recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran's continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;*
(7) declares that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel...**
(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action*** in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program*, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support**** to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence."
Code words decoded:
*"Capability" means any kind of peaceful nuclear power. Japan & Canada both have nuclear weapons capability. "Program" means whatever we hallucinate you might have, or might do in the future. As Iran has already had nuclear weapons "capability" for decades, originally provided by the United States, this legally gives license for any attack starting now.
**"vital national interest" = Israel is as important as Washington, D.C.
***"compelled to take military action" = when they feel like it; when they feel ready that they can get away with it
**** "economic support" = blank check. In case Israel starts a war, America will pay Israel whatever it asks for, on top of the ~$10B / year in overt aid and covert under-the-table yearly "loan forgiveness" we are giving already.

More of the big picture:
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear-smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel.html
http://www.redressonline.com/2010/07/from-the-archives-netanyahu-i-deceived-us-to-destroy-oslo-accords/ (with video in Hebrew)
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gets 29 standing ovations from Congress":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGvjbfIASA

Reply 11 April 2014 at 03:37 PM



VietnamVet said...
CP,
The B-52s are almost as old as I am. It would be good riddance to get rid of them except American taxpayers would continue paying the bills to keep them flying for Israel and at some point a real man would take a ride on the Massive Ordnance Penetrator to Tehran.
We've been through this before when Admiral Fallon was commander of CENTCOM. The USA deferred for good reasons starting a Third Gulf War.
Simply stated, Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear program with conventional air campaign. Since they do not have the manpower and tanks to invade and conquer Iran; the only way to destroy Iran's nuclear program is with nuclear weapons which will result in retaliation as radioactive fallout spreads across the Gulf States and Pakistan, killing millions.
When Russia stopped the Syrian NATO bombing campaign, it meant that an Iranian ally would survive. As a result, the Neo-Conservatives and Israel Firsters opened a second front against Russia in Ukraine. B-52s for Israel is a further escalation. Unless, the crazies are reigned in, Russia and NATO will replay 1914 a hundred years later; this time with hydrogen bombs.


Reply 11 April 2014 at 05:15 PM



Matthew said in reply to VietnamVet...
VV: The Neo-Cons seem to believe that the Russians will ultimately back down. This type of thinking launched the Spanish Armada.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 05:42 PM



kao_hsien_chih said in reply to Matthew ...
It took a "divine wind" (a freak storm that was literally called the "Protestant Wind") to stop the Spanish Armada. What will be its modern equivalent?

Reply 11 April 2014 at 10:02 PM



Andy said...
I laughed reading this op-ed. To me it's clearly a political propaganda piece and not a serious proposal for increasing Israeli capabilities against Iran. Deptula, a guy who well understands air campaigns and air capabilities, must know how idiotic this idea is, so I can only conclude that this is political propaganda intended to influence the nuclear negotiations and give illusory reassurances of support to the Israeli population.
Why isn't this a serious idea? Well, for a couple of obvious reasons - First, the US decided not to modify its own B-52's to carry this weapon because the B-52 can only operate in uncontested airspace. It's great for delivering lots of stand-off ordnance outside of enemy air defenses (via long-range cruise missiles) and it's great for dropping lots of gravity ordnance once air supremacy is achieved (see Afghanistan). For the purpose of penetrating an enemy air defense system to drop a 30k pound gravity bomb on a highly defended target it is probably the last aircraft one would choose. That's why the USAF thinks it's pointless to put the MOP on the B-52. The MOP is a weapon one wants to use at the start of an air campaign and not at the end.
This problem is even worse for Israel because Israel doesn't have numbers or types of supporting aircraft necessary to even make a go at defending this big bomber. It doesn't have the capability to conduct a sustain air campaign against Iran to achieve air supremacy. Israel is just barely able to conduct a limited raid given the distances and assets available. In such a raid, Israel would not be able to defend B-52's from Iranian air defenses. In fact, B-52's would be a liability since they are much easier to detect on radar and would likely give the Iranians more tactical warning. I'm sure the Israeli Air Force staff are wondering what Deptula is smoking.
Secondly, the authors say that we should transfer the B-52's and MOP's to Israel "ideally as the current six-month interim deal is set to expire in July." That timeline is a complete fantasy. They want to take B-52's out of mothballs at DM, get them flyable again, modify them to carry MOP's and transfer them to Israel in less than three months? Ha! Again, Deptula isn't a stupid man and he must surely know that simply isn't possible as a practical matter regardless of the politics.
Those are only the most glaring holes in this idea, there are many others. So, no one should take this proposal seriously. Even if it were politically viable (and I think it's pretty clear that it isn't), it's not remotely practical and doesn't provide the military benefit the authors claim. I doubt the Israelis would even accept these aircraft given the resources they'd drain from the rest of their force.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 05:38 PM



Walrus said...
The Russian response to a B 52 export is likely to trump any advantage Israel might think it has.
Modernizing Iran and Syrian air defenses would be the least of the problems.
If Putin, for example, decided to be less than diligent in preventing modern MANPADS from being exported, then you can kiss European civil aviation goodbye.
Then there is Cuba.....

Reply 11 April 2014 at 05:54 PM



charly said in reply to Walrus...
Doesn't Iran make manpads. And the main point of attention of the Iranian MIC is solid fuel rockets so i expect those manpads to be quite good. Not that manpads work against B52's on cruising altitude.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 11:03 PM



Walrus said in reply to charly...
Charley, I'm not worried about B52's and MANPADS. I'm worried about the "gentlemens agreement" revealed via the Wikileaks cables, that has virtually kept these weapons out of the hands of terrorists worldwide with very rare exceptions.
If that agreement were to fail, then at least European civil aviation is in dire trouble. Do I have to spell it out?

Reply 12 April 2014 at 02:20 AM



Dismayed said...
"... Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (ret.) is making the rounds with JINSA's Makovski."
Deptula is a traitor to our country, in the dictionary rather than constitutional sense. How could this happen? What could have started him (or Larry Franklin) down that path? It's almost inconceivable to me that someone whom I would expect to be a patriot would consort with those who are so transparently hostile to America.

Reply 11 April 2014 at 07:13 PM



steve said...
Perhaps it's been posted here somewhere else, but if not:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a rare diplomatic rebuke, the United States has blocked Iran's controversial pick for envoy to the United Nations, a move that could stir fresh animosity at a time when Washington and Tehran have been seeking a thaw in relations.
The Obama administration said Friday that the U.S. had informed Iran it would not grant a visa to Hamid Aboutalebi, a member of the group responsible for the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_AMBASSADOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-11-13-33-04

Reply 11 April 2014 at 11:17 PM



turcopolier said...
All
IMO many of you are over estimating the quality of Iranian air defenses. ECM followed by attacks on radars and airfields would then be followed by massive bombing. What the Israelis have lacked is the platform for the massive part. pl

Reply 11 April 2014 at 11:34 PM



Walrus said...
Col. Lang,
What happens if Russia deploys an air defence regiment to Iran or Syria?
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130528/181379250/S-300-Air-Defense-Systems-Deployed-at-Snap-Alert-Drills.html

Reply 12 April 2014 at 02:25 AM



turcopolier said...
walrus
that would be an absolute game changer in either situation and would probably be checkmate against the the Israelis. pl

Reply 12 April 2014 at 08:01 AM



Ryan said...
Reading this stuff reinforces an opinion I've held for a number of years. It is way past time to abolish the Dept. of the Air Force and fold its duties back into a new version of the old Army Air Corps. Giulio Douhet be damned. The AF seems to be a hothouse of crazy ideas proposed by nuts.

Reply 12 April 2014 at 09:12 AM