[Goose]

One big thing missing on that list for the Israelis is any sort of longer range heavy bomber, which limits the ordinance they can deploy. Any chance they try to use their C130s in that role?

Good insight. The lack of a "heavy bomber" doesn't matter for most missions. Israel can just use "more" F-15s. The one place that may not/doesn't work is the deeply buried nuclear facilities. A large ground perpetrator requires a larger aircraft. I do not know if Israel has any, as they theoretically can't carry them. Iran probably has some surprises hiding to protect these deeply buried buy very high valued facilities. I don't think Israel could get a C-130 in there reliably and a "jury rig" bombing system is also risky. It may be a real problem for them.
 
https://www.twz.com/air/armada-of-usaf-t...peculation provides another possibility. It is only a "possibility". As part of Scenario 4

American B-2s are the only known conventional assets that have the potential capability of badly disabling or destroying Iran’s deepest underground components of its nuclear program. We have constantly highlighted this scenario for many years. Pre-positioning a tanker bridge spanning the Atlantic to the Middle East would be needed to support those heavily-laden B-2 operations.

Certainly a possibility. However, there are B-2s already forward-deployed in Diego Garcia. That is a different direction of approach, but it requires many fewer tankers. Coming from the west is "safer", as Israel controls that airspace, but maybe the B-2 guys don't care about that :-) The administration could simply say "We tried to negotiate. That didn't work, so we took care of it ourselves". Perhaps also creating a credible threat to allow the administration to jump in and end the conflict with a "mutually acceptable" (gun to head) agreement.

[Goose]

One big thing missing on that list for the Israelis is any sort of longer range heavy bomber, which limits the ordinance they can deploy. Any chance they try to use their C130s in that role?

Good insight. The lack of a "heavy bomber" doesn't matter for most missions. Israel can just use "more" F-15s. The one place that may not/doesn't work is the deeply buried nuclear facilities. A large ground perpetrator requires a larger aircraft. I do not know if Israel has any, as they theoretically can't carry them. Iran probably has some surprises hiding to protect these deeply buried buy very high valued facilities. I don't think Israel could get a C-130 in there reliably and a "jury rig" bombing system is also risky. It may be a real problem for them.
 
https://www.twz.com/air/armada-of-usaf-t...peculation provides another possibility. It is only a "possibility". As part of Scenario 4

American B-2s are the only known conventional assets that have the potential capability of badly disabling or destroying Iran’s deepest underground components of its nuclear program. We have constantly highlighted this scenario for many years. Pre-positioning a tanker bridge spanning the Atlantic to the Middle East would be needed to support those heavily-laden B-2 operations.

Certainly a possibility. However, there are B-2s already forward-deployed in Diego Garcia. That is a different direction of approach, but it requires many fewer tankers. Coming from the west is "safer", as Israel controls that airspace, but maybe the B-2 guys don't care about that :-) The administration could simply say "We tried to negotiate. That didn't work, so we took care of it ourselves". Perhaps also creating a credible threat to allow the administration to jump in and end the conflict with a "mutually acceptable" (gun to head) agreement.