[dabigv13]

Neither the US nor Israel have any intention of using ground troops in Iran, except possibly special forces (Israeli ones are probably already there in small numbers). . The military objective of getting Iran off the nuclear threshold can certainly be accomplished by a B-2 strike. It may be possible for Israel to accomplish it by themselves. A raid may be the methodology. That would be the biggest risk yet if Israel tries it. The political objectives of Israel (whatever they actually are) may not be accomplished. IMO Israel would be satisfied but not ecstatic with that outcome.

Clearly Israel and the US would prefer not to use ground troops. But you're opening the door to that when you get involved militarily. You break it, you buy it.

Could B2 bombers completely eliminate the Iranian risk? Maybe, but I don't think that's certain. And if you can't be 100% or close on that, it's not worth it IMHO. If you fail, they will definitely try to break out since they know Israel and the US cannot be negotiated with, and once you have the nuke, your regime security is much greater. North Korea is watching this all go down, glad to be sitting on some nukes. 

Israel has clearly developed good intelligence assets within Iran, maybe they are 100% certain of where all the enriched uranium is. But maybe they aren't, and telling us they are to encourage us to get involved. You may need ground troops to definitively eliminate their nuclear program, maybe a lot of them if Iran has dispersed their enriched uranium well.

We can only speculate, and yes Iran has not demonstrated a ton of competency. But the recent history of US military involvement in the Middle East should give pause to the idea we can do some limited strike and then wash our hands of things.

This Economist article lays out the state of play on the nuclear weapon front. It's a gift article but it says only one person can see it, so whoever gets to it first can read the whole thing.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-an...ed_article

[dabigv13]

Neither the US nor Israel have any intention of using ground troops in Iran, except possibly special forces (Israeli ones are probably already there in small numbers). . The military objective of getting Iran off the nuclear threshold can certainly be accomplished by a B-2 strike. It may be possible for Israel to accomplish it by themselves. A raid may be the methodology. That would be the biggest risk yet if Israel tries it. The political objectives of Israel (whatever they actually are) may not be accomplished. IMO Israel would be satisfied but not ecstatic with that outcome.

Clearly Israel and the US would prefer not to use ground troops. But you're opening the door to that when you get involved militarily. You break it, you buy it.

Could B2 bombers completely eliminate the Iranian risk? Maybe, but I don't think that's certain. And if you can't be 100% or close on that, it's not worth it IMHO. If you fail, they will definitely try to break out since they know Israel and the US cannot be negotiated with, and once you have the nuke, your regime security is much greater. North Korea is watching this all go down, glad to be sitting on some nukes. 

Israel has clearly developed good intelligence assets within Iran, maybe they are 100% certain of where all the enriched uranium is. But maybe they aren't, and telling us they are to encourage us to get involved. You may need ground troops to definitively eliminate their nuclear program, maybe a lot of them if Iran has dispersed their enriched uranium well.

We can only speculate, and yes Iran has not demonstrated a ton of competency. But the recent history of US military involvement in the Middle East should give pause to the idea we can do some limited strike and then wash our hands of things.

This Economist article lays out the state of play on the nuclear weapon front. It's a gift article but it says only one person can see it, so whoever gets to it first can read the whole thing.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-an...ed_article

[BostonCard]

I think you and I both gifted the same article, so two people can get the link.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think you and I both gifted the same article, so two people can get the link.

BC

[TrumpCard]

IMO the current Israeli government sees the current correlation of forces to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. 

This seems correct.  Israel has been under existential threat since the moment it declared independence, but Iran's race to develop a nuclear weapon made the complete devastation of Israel seem more of a real possible outcome than in any previous era in my memory (which spans multiple decades).  If opinion in the US is sympathetic to the Israeli government's decision, then the Israeli population is almost completely united in its fervent support.  The heads of all major Israeli parties also support the decision.  This was not a rash decision against the will of the people.  No one can guaranty a satisfactory outcome, and I'm sure many will judge Israel's military action, but I can assure you that: (1) the decision comes from a place of existential dread; and (2) Israelis don't think the opportunity to create a safer homeland will get any better than it is now.

[TrumpCard]

IMO the current Israeli government sees the current correlation of forces to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. 

This seems correct.  Israel has been under existential threat since the moment it declared independence, but Iran's race to develop a nuclear weapon made the complete devastation of Israel seem more of a real possible outcome than in any previous era in my memory (which spans multiple decades).  If opinion in the US is sympathetic to the Israeli government's decision, then the Israeli population is almost completely united in its fervent support.  The heads of all major Israeli parties also support the decision.  This was not a rash decision against the will of the people.  No one can guaranty a satisfactory outcome, and I'm sure many will judge Israel's military action, but I can assure you that: (1) the decision comes from a place of existential dread; and (2) Israelis don't think the opportunity to create a safer homeland will get any better than it is now.

[dabigv13]

"Iran’s 400 kilograms (880 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium could fit into as a few as 16 cylinders measuring 36-inches (91.4 centimeters) in height...Even if Israel destroys Iran’s enrichment infrastructure, the location of that material would still need to be verified."

https://x.com/lookner/status/1934738330635145407

Destroying the HEU is the most important step in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Determining the status of the HEU is the sort of thing that could require troops on the ground.

.....

Trump just tweeted that "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran". I'm guessing this is because he saw a tweet from Israel several hours ago where they warned residents of central Tehran to evacuate prior to planned airstrikes, but who knows.

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1934747873289093214

.....

Trump returning early from G7. I think the US is about to get involved directly.

[dabigv13]

"Iran’s 400 kilograms (880 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium could fit into as a few as 16 cylinders measuring 36-inches (91.4 centimeters) in height...Even if Israel destroys Iran’s enrichment infrastructure, the location of that material would still need to be verified."

https://x.com/lookner/status/1934738330635145407

Destroying the HEU is the most important step in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Determining the status of the HEU is the sort of thing that could require troops on the ground.

.....

Trump just tweeted that "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran". I'm guessing this is because he saw a tweet from Israel several hours ago where they warned residents of central Tehran to evacuate prior to planned airstrikes, but who knows.

https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1934747873289093214

.....

Trump returning early from G7. I think the US is about to get involved directly.

[M T]

BBC (17:30 PDT) is reporting  Trump is convening the National Security Council.

[M T]

BBC (17:30 PDT) is reporting  Trump is convening the National Security Council.

[Goose]

BBC (17:30 PDT) is reporting  Trump is convening the National Security Council.

IMO Trump is certainly not going to announce an invasion of Iran. He may well intend to announce the US is evacuating all our military bases in the Middle East and leave it to those nations to work it out, but I don't think US public opinion would let him abandon Israel. It may be just a discussion with no immediately discernible results. However, again IMO I think the most probable outcome is  air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, including Iranian enriched Uranium (if Israel really does know where it is). Hopefully the announcement of such strikes (if any) comes simultaneously or after the event. Also, I hope all US government employees stay off Signal.

---

Before Iran sprints to complete their bombs, they might want to consider this: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202...s-in-sail/ I would bet a lot of money she is in the IO right now. Probably at least two Dolphin II class submarines are at sea in the Med right now as well. Their cruise missiles (Popeye Turbo) can reach Tehran from the Med. If Iran has the bombs, what do they do with them? This situation has been analyzed to death for years. It is arguably true that having nuclear weapons can intimidate non-nuclear states, but only if said states believe you will use them.  Other nuclear states are in a MAD posture that closes off more options than it provides to both parties. Nuclear weapons are mostly useless in pursing national goals because you can't actually use them.

[Goose]

BBC (17:30 PDT) is reporting  Trump is convening the National Security Council.

IMO Trump is certainly not going to announce an invasion of Iran. He may well intend to announce the US is evacuating all our military bases in the Middle East and leave it to those nations to work it out, but I don't think US public opinion would let him abandon Israel. It may be just a discussion with no immediately discernible results. However, again IMO I think the most probable outcome is  air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, including Iranian enriched Uranium (if Israel really does know where it is). Hopefully the announcement of such strikes (if any) comes simultaneously or after the event. Also, I hope all US government employees stay off Signal.

---

Before Iran sprints to complete their bombs, they might want to consider this: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202...s-in-sail/ I would bet a lot of money she is in the IO right now. Probably at least two Dolphin II class submarines are at sea in the Med right now as well. Their cruise missiles (Popeye Turbo) can reach Tehran from the Med. If Iran has the bombs, what do they do with them? This situation has been analyzed to death for years. It is arguably true that having nuclear weapons can intimidate non-nuclear states, but only if said states believe you will use them.  Other nuclear states are in a MAD posture that closes off more options than it provides to both parties. Nuclear weapons are mostly useless in pursing national goals because you can't actually use them.

[TrumpCard]

 Also, I hope all US government employees stay off Signal.

Correct, Discord seems like the better choice.  When an American shared highly classified info about the Ukraine war there, no one even discovered it for days or weeks.

[TrumpCard]

 Also, I hope all US government employees stay off Signal.

Correct, Discord seems like the better choice.  When an American shared highly classified info about the Ukraine war there, no one even discovered it for days or weeks.

[BostonCard]

A little bit hard to take them seriously when they write “Even more noticeable is the ginormous sail” and have a subhead that reads “ Needing A Bigger Boat”. I’ll admit having giggled a little at the pop culture references, but we are talking about nuclear armed submarines, are we not?


BC

[BostonCard]

A little bit hard to take them seriously when they write “Even more noticeable is the ginormous sail” and have a subhead that reads “ Needing A Bigger Boat”. I’ll admit having giggled a little at the pop culture references, but we are talking about nuclear armed submarines, are we not?


BC

[Goose]

A little bit hard to take them seriously when they write “Even more noticeable is the ginormous sail” and have a subhead that reads “ Needing A Bigger Boat”.  I’ll admit having giggled a little at the pop culture references, but we are talking about nuclear armed submarines, are we not?


BC

Indeed we are. I thought the graphic was pretty good though. "Needing a bigger boat" is perfectly good Subspeak. The "ginormous sail" was a bit over the top, I agree.

[Goose]

A little bit hard to take them seriously when they write “Even more noticeable is the ginormous sail” and have a subhead that reads “ Needing A Bigger Boat”.  I’ll admit having giggled a little at the pop culture references, but we are talking about nuclear armed submarines, are we not?


BC

Indeed we are. I thought the graphic was pretty good though. "Needing a bigger boat" is perfectly good Subspeak. The "ginormous sail" was a bit over the top, I agree.

[M T]

BBC (17:30 PDT) is reporting  Trump is convening the National Security Council.

Before Iran sprints to complete their bombs, they might want to consider this: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202...s-in-sail/ I would bet a lot of money she is in the IO right now. Probably at least two Dolphin II class submarines are at sea in the Med right now as well. Their cruise missiles (Popeye Turbo) can reach Tehran from the Med. If Iran has the bombs, what do they do with them? This situation has been analyzed to death for years. It is arguably true that having nuclear weapons can intimidate non-nuclear states, but only if said states believe you will use them.  Other nuclear states are in a MAD posture that closes off more options than it provides to both parties. Nuclear weapons are mostly useless in pursing national goals because you can't actually use them.

I pray we continue to be in a position that no nation again uses a nuclear weapon.  (For those that didn't read the article, the missiles on the new Israeli sub are said to be nuclear capable)

Could Israel try to pressure the US into dropping the bunker busters or else Israel will be "forced" to use a nuclear device?   I hope I'm being overly worried.

[M T]

BBC (17:30 PDT) is reporting  Trump is convening the National Security Council.

Before Iran sprints to complete their bombs, they might want to consider this: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/202...s-in-sail/ I would bet a lot of money she is in the IO right now. Probably at least two Dolphin II class submarines are at sea in the Med right now as well. Their cruise missiles (Popeye Turbo) can reach Tehran from the Med. If Iran has the bombs, what do they do with them? This situation has been analyzed to death for years. It is arguably true that having nuclear weapons can intimidate non-nuclear states, but only if said states believe you will use them.  Other nuclear states are in a MAD posture that closes off more options than it provides to both parties. Nuclear weapons are mostly useless in pursing national goals because you can't actually use them.

I pray we continue to be in a position that no nation again uses a nuclear weapon.  (For those that didn't read the article, the missiles on the new Israeli sub are said to be nuclear capable)

Could Israel try to pressure the US into dropping the bunker busters or else Israel will be "forced" to use a nuclear device?   I hope I'm being overly worried.

[gocard14]

Thanks for the gifted article. 

One thing I did not see addressed in the article is the step going from "we have a nuclear weapon" to "we have a nuclear warhead that fits on a ballistic missile"

My impression is going from one to the other is far from trivial. If so, there would still be a window where they lack a viable delivery system needed for deterrence and could prompt an even more vigorous response to prevent them from acquiring one.

[gocard14]

Thanks for the gifted article. 

One thing I did not see addressed in the article is the step going from "we have a nuclear weapon" to "we have a nuclear warhead that fits on a ballistic missile"

My impression is going from one to the other is far from trivial. If so, there would still be a window where they lack a viable delivery system needed for deterrence and could prompt an even more vigorous response to prevent them from acquiring one.

[Goose]

Thanks for the gifted article. 

One thing I did not see addressed in the article is the step going from "we have a nuclear weapon" to "we have a nuclear warhead that fits on a ballistic missile"

My impression is going from one to the other is far from trivial. If so, there would still be a window where they lack a viable delivery system needed for deterrence and could prompt an even more vigorous response to prevent them from acquiring one.

Good points. The sequence is actually a bit longer. It goes from "We have a nuclear weapon" to "We have a nuclear weapon that we have tested and it worked" to "We have a nuclear weapon that we have tested several times and it works reliably". A declaration of "We have a nuclear weapon" could be a total bluff. Such a declaration would indeed prompt (and justify) a more vigorous response from Israel and possibly others. It makes no sense for Iran to make such an announcement unless sheer desperation drives them to attempt deterrence in this manner. Once Iran has detonated a nuclear device (which would be detected by Israel and lots of others), then they are officially a "player", although still minor league. Setting of a device underground once doesn't mean a nation can reliably build a functioning device. North Korea demonstrated that early on with its squib detonations.  However, it does mean that nation can do it once, which may be enough.
 
Building a bomb that can ride on a ballistic missile is indeed a separate step and would not be easy starting from scratch. Iran probably has access to lots of information from other countries (probably Russia, perhaps others) on how to do this. Unlike the US efforts in the 1940s Iran would ab initio design/build a bomb that was appropriate to their intended delivery vehicle. However, Iran doesn't need to use a missile. They could smuggle the bomb into Israel and drive a truck to where it will be detonated. They could also carry the bomb on a civilian airliner or ship. All these alternate methods have risks associated with them, but what is Israel's risk tolerance? What is Iran's, and what are Iran's alternatives if they are in extremis? A sub-critical detonation would result in a "dirty bomb". How would Israel respond to that, given that Iran possibly has another 9 (or so), some of which may actually go off? It is a very unpredictable situation.
 
The problem for Iran has always been that even if they have a fully functional deliverable bomb using it against Israel is presumably signing their own death warrant and that of millions of Iranians. Iran probably isn't that crazy. The fear always was they would give a bomb to somebody like Hamas, who would actually use it. Israel would then be faced with the fact wiping out Gaza would be cold comfort for Haifa or Tel Aviv. It would be the classical "crazy man" usage of nuclear weapons. Iran could then say "It wasn't us" and hope to avoid destruction. Probably wouldn't work, but maybe it would be attempted.

[Goose]

Thanks for the gifted article. 

One thing I did not see addressed in the article is the step going from "we have a nuclear weapon" to "we have a nuclear warhead that fits on a ballistic missile"

My impression is going from one to the other is far from trivial. If so, there would still be a window where they lack a viable delivery system needed for deterrence and could prompt an even more vigorous response to prevent them from acquiring one.

Good points. The sequence is actually a bit longer. It goes from "We have a nuclear weapon" to "We have a nuclear weapon that we have tested and it worked" to "We have a nuclear weapon that we have tested several times and it works reliably". A declaration of "We have a nuclear weapon" could be a total bluff. Such a declaration would indeed prompt (and justify) a more vigorous response from Israel and possibly others. It makes no sense for Iran to make such an announcement unless sheer desperation drives them to attempt deterrence in this manner. Once Iran has detonated a nuclear device (which would be detected by Israel and lots of others), then they are officially a "player", although still minor league. Setting of a device underground once doesn't mean a nation can reliably build a functioning device. North Korea demonstrated that early on with its squib detonations.  However, it does mean that nation can do it once, which may be enough.
 
Building a bomb that can ride on a ballistic missile is indeed a separate step and would not be easy starting from scratch. Iran probably has access to lots of information from other countries (probably Russia, perhaps others) on how to do this. Unlike the US efforts in the 1940s Iran would ab initio design/build a bomb that was appropriate to their intended delivery vehicle. However, Iran doesn't need to use a missile. They could smuggle the bomb into Israel and drive a truck to where it will be detonated. They could also carry the bomb on a civilian airliner or ship. All these alternate methods have risks associated with them, but what is Israel's risk tolerance? What is Iran's, and what are Iran's alternatives if they are in extremis? A sub-critical detonation would result in a "dirty bomb". How would Israel respond to that, given that Iran possibly has another 9 (or so), some of which may actually go off? It is a very unpredictable situation.
 
The problem for Iran has always been that even if they have a fully functional deliverable bomb using it against Israel is presumably signing their own death warrant and that of millions of Iranians. Iran probably isn't that crazy. The fear always was they would give a bomb to somebody like Hamas, who would actually use it. Israel would then be faced with the fact wiping out Gaza would be cold comfort for Haifa or Tel Aviv. It would be the classical "crazy man" usage of nuclear weapons. Iran could then say "It wasn't us" and hope to avoid destruction. Probably wouldn't work, but maybe it would be attempted.

[Goose]

"Iran’s 400 kilograms (880 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium could fit into as a few as 16 cylinders measuring 36-inches (91.4 centimeters) in height...Even if Israel destroys Iran’s enrichment infrastructure, the location of that material would still need to be verified."

https://x.com/lookner/status/1934738330635145407

Destroying the HEU is the most important step in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Determining the status of the HEU is the sort of thing that could require troops on the ground.

IMO you may be correct. Israel claims to know where the HEU is, but that could be disinformation or could now be OBE. However those troops would be Israeli and would not be intended to stay very long. They couldn't even if they wanted to. It may take a day or so but Iran can still muster enough bodies to contain a raid, even under air attack. They have a playbook from their war with Iraq. Stacks of bodies. I can see an Operation Thunderbolt scenario playing out one or more times in Iran. I am quite sure Israel is realistic enough to realize they can't stay in Iran in force for any length of time, 24 hours absolutely tops. Longer and the troops DIP. They are also heavily committed on the ground in Gaza.

As far as the US goes, there is no chance we commit ground forces to Iran while Israel is still fighting there. That doesn't mean we will necessarily refrain from any kinetic action. Bill Clinton at least three times ordered Tomahawk missile strikes on Afghanistan, Sudan, and Iraq. One may question the efficacy of these actions, but they absolutely didn't lead to troop deployments. The US could bomb Iran without sending troops. The US is currently aiding Israel by shooting down ballistic missiles. We are deploying ships that presumably will be used to assist Israel's ABM effort. It has also been asserted that Israel is using US government satellite communication facilities to control drones and air to surface missiles in Iran. I don't know if this is true.

IMO our "policy" is not well thought out. It smacks of a "happening". Unfortunately policies that do not have defined goals and methods often result in mission creep or worse. I hope that can be avoided. The administration wants to keep us out of a war, which is a very good thing. The administration also doesn't "like" Iran and does "like" Israel. What scope these likes and dislikes actually have is unknown, and seems to be quite variable. That is IMO the danger area. We may end up going further than we wish or doing less than we should based more on the gut feelings at a given moment than a policy.

---

I am a bit disturbed by the fact Israel hasn't announced any aircraft losses. Iran is claiming 3 F-35s were shot down but presented no evidence. Israel has denied it. I am quite willing to believe the Israeli denials. These would be easily falsified if the F-35s were actually down. However, I seriously doubt Israel has no losses of any aircraft. If they in fact have none it would be unprecedented. After several days of intense sortie generation losses due to operations are almost unavoidable. Human error gets you even if the enemy doesn't. Netanyahu brags about establishing air superiority over Tehran that is 1,500 km away. He should in fact be very worried. The wear and tear on both men and aircraft flying such missions extracts a heavy toll. It isn't like flying to Damascus or Cairo (400 km) and back. It also isn't Udon to Hanoi (about 500 km depending on the actual route). How long Israel can maintain their operational tempo (without "breaking") is IMO a big issue.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospa...025-06-17/

One very important statement from the above article

A senior Western defence source said Israeli warplanes have been refuelling over Syria - a bastion of Iranian influence until Bashar al-Assad was toppled in December. Israel is now operating over Syria with "near-total freedom", the source said.

This ability allows F-15s and F-16s to take off with maximum ordinance but only half their fuel. They can then refuel for the run in and allow themselves lots more time over the target. They can also refuel on the way home if needed. They are a lot lighter in that direction :-).
Another quote

Emily Harding from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said conventional wisdom held that Israel could not completely eliminate the deepest buried parts of Iran's nuclear program.
"But Israel has strongly hinted that it has more capability than that conventional wisdom would suggest. For example, the ability to operate freely over the target allows for multiple sorties that could do a lot of damage," she said.

Hope that's true, but I expect that if the US does not attack the deeply buried facilities Israel will attempt commando raids. I can't imagine them walking away with any doubts about Iran's residual capabilities. Let's hope it isn't "a bridge too far" if they do.

[Goose]

"Iran’s 400 kilograms (880 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium could fit into as a few as 16 cylinders measuring 36-inches (91.4 centimeters) in height...Even if Israel destroys Iran’s enrichment infrastructure, the location of that material would still need to be verified."

https://x.com/lookner/status/1934738330635145407

Destroying the HEU is the most important step in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Determining the status of the HEU is the sort of thing that could require troops on the ground.

IMO you may be correct. Israel claims to know where the HEU is, but that could be disinformation or could now be OBE. However those troops would be Israeli and would not be intended to stay very long. They couldn't even if they wanted to. It may take a day or so but Iran can still muster enough bodies to contain a raid, even under air attack. They have a playbook from their war with Iraq. Stacks of bodies. I can see an Operation Thunderbolt scenario playing out one or more times in Iran. I am quite sure Israel is realistic enough to realize they can't stay in Iran in force for any length of time, 24 hours absolutely tops. Longer and the troops DIP. They are also heavily committed on the ground in Gaza.

As far as the US goes, there is no chance we commit ground forces to Iran while Israel is still fighting there. That doesn't mean we will necessarily refrain from any kinetic action. Bill Clinton at least three times ordered Tomahawk missile strikes on Afghanistan, Sudan, and Iraq. One may question the efficacy of these actions, but they absolutely didn't lead to troop deployments. The US could bomb Iran without sending troops. The US is currently aiding Israel by shooting down ballistic missiles. We are deploying ships that presumably will be used to assist Israel's ABM effort. It has also been asserted that Israel is using US government satellite communication facilities to control drones and air to surface missiles in Iran. I don't know if this is true.

IMO our "policy" is not well thought out. It smacks of a "happening". Unfortunately policies that do not have defined goals and methods often result in mission creep or worse. I hope that can be avoided. The administration wants to keep us out of a war, which is a very good thing. The administration also doesn't "like" Iran and does "like" Israel. What scope these likes and dislikes actually have is unknown, and seems to be quite variable. That is IMO the danger area. We may end up going further than we wish or doing less than we should based more on the gut feelings at a given moment than a policy.

---

I am a bit disturbed by the fact Israel hasn't announced any aircraft losses. Iran is claiming 3 F-35s were shot down but presented no evidence. Israel has denied it. I am quite willing to believe the Israeli denials. These would be easily falsified if the F-35s were actually down. However, I seriously doubt Israel has no losses of any aircraft. If they in fact have none it would be unprecedented. After several days of intense sortie generation losses due to operations are almost unavoidable. Human error gets you even if the enemy doesn't. Netanyahu brags about establishing air superiority over Tehran that is 1,500 km away. He should in fact be very worried. The wear and tear on both men and aircraft flying such missions extracts a heavy toll. It isn't like flying to Damascus or Cairo (400 km) and back. It also isn't Udon to Hanoi (about 500 km depending on the actual route). How long Israel can maintain their operational tempo (without "breaking") is IMO a big issue.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospa...025-06-17/

One very important statement from the above article

A senior Western defence source said Israeli warplanes have been refuelling over Syria - a bastion of Iranian influence until Bashar al-Assad was toppled in December. Israel is now operating over Syria with "near-total freedom", the source said.

This ability allows F-15s and F-16s to take off with maximum ordinance but only half their fuel. They can then refuel for the run in and allow themselves lots more time over the target. They can also refuel on the way home if needed. They are a lot lighter in that direction :-).
Another quote

Emily Harding from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said conventional wisdom held that Israel could not completely eliminate the deepest buried parts of Iran's nuclear program.
"But Israel has strongly hinted that it has more capability than that conventional wisdom would suggest. For example, the ability to operate freely over the target allows for multiple sorties that could do a lot of damage," she said.

Hope that's true, but I expect that if the US does not attack the deeply buried facilities Israel will attempt commando raids. I can't imagine them walking away with any doubts about Iran's residual capabilities. Let's hope it isn't "a bridge too far" if they do.

[Goose]

I pray we continue to be in a position that no nation again uses a nuclear weapon.  (For those that didn't read the article, the missiles on the new Israeli sub are said to be nuclear capable)

The ballistic missiles in the sail are almost certainly nuclear capable. The Popeye Turbo cruise missiles that are fired from the torpedo tubes of the "new" and older boats of this class are are known to be nuclear capable. Indeed we all pray that no nation ever again uses nuclear weapons. So far, so good.

Could Israel try to pressure the US into dropping the bunker busters or else Israel will be "forced" to use a nuclear device?   I hope I'm being overly worried.

They might try that, but 1) I doubt it would work and 2) it might fracture the relationship. It is important to note that while Israel is assumed to have nuclear weapons, it does not acknowledge that it does. Therefore they can't make public such a threat before the fact without "blowing their cover". Israel has demonstrated a great reluctance to the first use of nuclear weapons. It has fought wars that didn't go well while refraining. I can't imagine them deviating from that policy short of a verifiable imminent existential threat, and maybe not even then. That condition presently does not exist.

[Goose]

I pray we continue to be in a position that no nation again uses a nuclear weapon.  (For those that didn't read the article, the missiles on the new Israeli sub are said to be nuclear capable)

The ballistic missiles in the sail are almost certainly nuclear capable. The Popeye Turbo cruise missiles that are fired from the torpedo tubes of the "new" and older boats of this class are are known to be nuclear capable. Indeed we all pray that no nation ever again uses nuclear weapons. So far, so good.

Could Israel try to pressure the US into dropping the bunker busters or else Israel will be "forced" to use a nuclear device?   I hope I'm being overly worried.

They might try that, but 1) I doubt it would work and 2) it might fracture the relationship. It is important to note that while Israel is assumed to have nuclear weapons, it does not acknowledge that it does. Therefore they can't make public such a threat before the fact without "blowing their cover". Israel has demonstrated a great reluctance to the first use of nuclear weapons. It has fought wars that didn't go well while refraining. I can't imagine them deviating from that policy short of a verifiable imminent existential threat, and maybe not even then. That condition presently does not exist.

[Leftcoast]

Eventually there will be an "arab bomb". After all, it's been treated as "within the next ten years" for twenty-five years now.  

In my humble opinion it's time to deal with this politically rather than militarily.  I don't see a round of US. bombing as making my family any safer when the inevitable inevitably happens.  It would probably make us less safe and the US would be less influential outside of Israel. That's my realpolitik.

(Hey, thank goodness we mostly went the political carrot and stick (with constant pressure) route over direct military confrontation in the dangerous cold-war, right?)

[Leftcoast]

Eventually there will be an "arab bomb". After all, it's been treated as "within the next ten years" for twenty-five years now.  

In my humble opinion it's time to deal with this politically rather than militarily.  I don't see a round of US. bombing as making my family any safer when the inevitable inevitably happens.  It would probably make us less safe and the US would be less influential outside of Israel. That's my realpolitik.

(Hey, thank goodness we mostly went the political carrot and stick (with constant pressure) route over direct military confrontation in the dangerous cold-war, right?)

[dabigv13]

Uhhhhh

We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/193...3214030931

[dabigv13]

Uhhhhh

We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/193...3214030931

[M T]

Uhhhhh

We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/193...3214030931

Anyone else notice that Trump has switched to first person plural about the situation in Iran?
as in  "we have complete and total control of the skies over Iran" (BBC)

[M T]

Uhhhhh

We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/193...3214030931

Anyone else notice that Trump has switched to first person plural about the situation in Iran?
as in  "we have complete and total control of the skies over Iran" (BBC)

[BostonCard]

Ian Bremmer (from the Eurasia Group) had this to say about it:

https://bsky.app/profile/ianbremmer.com/...tu5h3wks2i

BC

[BostonCard]

Ian Bremmer (from the Eurasia Group) had this to say about it:

https://bsky.app/profile/ianbremmer.com/...tu5h3wks2i

BC

[Goose]

https://www.twz.com/news-features/israel...pabilities

Quite a bit of good information from a fairly reliable source. It does appear Netanyahu is explicitly seeking regime change. This article outlines how a "western" air force operates. Israel is pushing its air superiority further to the east while at the same time increasing the bomb loads it can carry into western Iran. So far, Israel hasn't attempted to establish an air base in western Iran. If this war lasts much longer, they may have to do so. Going east of Tehran absolutely can't be done without using a tanker at least once. 1,500 km radius is tough on everybody. Israel only has 9 707 based tankers. They aren't new and aren't KC-135s. They are a local conversion of an airliner. They too have limited endurance and have pretty high maintenance requirements. Four old engines to keep running.

[Goose]

https://www.twz.com/news-features/israel...pabilities

Quite a bit of good information from a fairly reliable source. It does appear Netanyahu is explicitly seeking regime change. This article outlines how a "western" air force operates. Israel is pushing its air superiority further to the east while at the same time increasing the bomb loads it can carry into western Iran. So far, Israel hasn't attempted to establish an air base in western Iran. If this war lasts much longer, they may have to do so. Going east of Tehran absolutely can't be done without using a tanker at least once. 1,500 km radius is tough on everybody. Israel only has 9 707 based tankers. They aren't new and aren't KC-135s. They are a local conversion of an airliner. They too have limited endurance and have pretty high maintenance requirements. Four old engines to keep running.

[dabigv13]

Establishing an airbase in western Iran sounds like something that would require a lot of troops on the ground.

I do imagine a lot of the tankers we are sending to the ME would be used by Israel as well especially if we join in the bombing.

Regime change in the Middle East....

[dabigv13]

Establishing an airbase in western Iran sounds like something that would require a lot of troops on the ground.

I do imagine a lot of the tankers we are sending to the ME would be used by Israel as well especially if we join in the bombing.

Regime change in the Middle East....