"A difficult operation" .. For these reasons, Israel may fail to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities

Since Iran launched a major ballistic missile attack targeting Israeli sites a few days ago in response to the assassinations of Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, there has been no end to talk about a possible Israeli response, the nature of this response, and the possible Iranian targets, which may include oil facilities, secret assassinations, and most importantly, striking Iranian nuclear facilities, according to many Western reports.

The world's preoccupation with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities has reached the point of asking US President Joe Biden whether he supports an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, and he answered unequivocally: "The answer is no."

The categorical American refusal not to target Iranian nuclear facilities makes Israel's mission difficult and may make it impossible if America actually adheres to this position announced by Biden.. So why is it difficult for Israel to target Iran's nuclear facilities?

A report published by the British newspaper, Financial Times, on Friday, October 4, 2024, indicated that without US support, a unilateral Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be risky, and at best would only delay its program rather than destroy it, according to analysts.

This also matches what Ehud Barak said that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would not significantly hinder the Iranian nuclear program. We can identify in the following points the most prominent difficulties that Israel might face if it chose to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

Why will the Israeli operation be difficult?

The Financial Times report identified three reasons that make the Israeli forces’ mission difficult, which we summarize as follows:

• Distance: Israel is more than 1,600 kilometers from Iran's main nuclear bases, and to reach them, Israeli aircraft would have to cross the sovereign airspace of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and possibly Türkiye.
• Fuel: According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, flying to the targets and back would exhaust all of Israel's air-to-air refueling capacity and leave no room for error.
• Iranian Air Defense: The country's main nuclear sites are heavily guarded, and Israeli bombers would need protection from fighter jets.

According to the Congressional Research Service report, this would require a package of strikes that would require about 100 aircraft, which is equivalent to one-third of the 340 combat-capable aircraft that the Israeli Air Force possesses.

How well protected are Iran's nuclear facilities?

Destroying Iran's two main nuclear facilities would be the biggest challenge facing Israel, according to the Financial Times.

The massive fuel enrichment plant at Natanz, flanked to the west by the Zagros Mountains, is so deep underground that some of the world's most advanced bunker-buster bombs would struggle to reach it, according to The Times.

While the second largest plant at Fordo is dug into a mountain, destroying both facilities would require weapons capable of penetrating dozens of meters of rock and reinforced concrete before exploding.

The main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz is believed to consist of three underground buildings, two of which are designed to hold 50,000 centrifuges, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit security organization.

There are six other buildings above ground, two of which are 2.5-kilometre-long halls used to assemble gas centrifuges. The facility is protected by anti-aircraft batteries, a perimeter fence and Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Satellite images analysed by Jane's Satellite Imagery over four months this year showed that construction work at the site continued, with two mounds of earth growing at the western and eastern entrances to the tunnel.

Based on the volume of drilling material last year, Iran may be building a facility at a depth of 80 to 100 meters.

What bombs are needed?

While Israel has bunker-busting bombs, such as the 2,000-pound GBU-31 bombs that the Israeli Air Force dropped last week on four buildings in Beirut to kill Hassan Nasrallah, Israeli reports indicate that 80 bombs were used in that strike, and a similar-sized barrage is unlikely to destroy Iran’s more heavily protected nuclear facilities.

Analysts say there is only one conventional weapon capable of doing the job: the GBU-57 Super Hornet. The precision-guided bomb is about 20 feet long, weighs 30,000 pounds and can penetrate 200 feet of ground before exploding, according to the U.S. military.

Has Israel developed its own armor-piercing bombs?

It is unclear whether Israel possesses such capabilities, and some former U.S. policymakers have repeatedly suggested that Washington should supply them.

But Ehud Eilam, a former researcher at the Israeli Defense Ministry, said that even if Israel could obtain the armor-piercing bomb, “its F-15, F-16 and F-35 fighter jets would not be able to carry it.”

Moreover, Eilam said there was “no chance” that Israel would be able to purchase a US strategic bomber, such as the B-2 Spirit, needed to drop such a bomb.

But even the GBU-57 may not be enough to destroy nuclear facilities. A 2010 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a U.S. think tank, noted that some experts believe nuclear weapons are “the only weapons capable of destroying targets deep underground or in tunnels.”

In theory, Israel could instead use one of its C-130J Hercules transport planes to drop an armor-piercing bomb from the cargo doors, a complex process known as “ramp dropping.” But the armor-piercing bomb is not designed for this type of drop.

Are there alternatives to Israel?

Israeli aircraft could disable nuclear sites by bombing air intakes and other supporting infrastructure. This could disrupt the high degree of precision that centrifuges used to enrich uranium need to operate properly, although it would not destroy them.

Sabotage is the last possibility. In 2021, a power outage, apparently caused by a planned explosion, knocked out the internal power system at Natanz that supplies underground centrifuges.

In 2010, the United States and Israel also allegedly stopped Iran's nuclear program with the Stuxnet computer virus. But such attacks did not succeed in stopping it for long.

Ultimately, the scale of force needed to inflict significant damage on key facilities in Iran “would require extensive U.S. support, if not direct engagement,” analysts Yul-Daria Dolzikova and Matthew Saville of the Royal United Services Institute wrote in a recent paper. Even that, they added, “would not guarantee complete destruction.”

This is the conclusion that The Times also reached, saying that Israel, which is considered one of the most powerful and technologically advanced military powers in the world, will find it difficult to destroy Iran's nuclear sites with the conventional weapons it has in its arsenal.

"Israel may not be able to destroy the programme but it can do a lot of damage and set it back a few years," said Matthew Saville, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute.

"The main problem is that the two enrichment facilities buried deep under the mountains may require huge American bombs that no one else can use," he added.

Source: Arabi Post