Iran's illegal Nuclear Weapons Program

I wasn't aware of the fact that Israel violated Turkish airspace in their attack on Syrian territory.......................

I stated my ignorance of Russian air defense systems technology, ....................

Finally, the F-15 isn't the only US made attack aircraft at the IAF's disposal. They also have the more advanced F-16, with, according to Wikipedia, more (50) F-16I "Sufa" (the latest version developed for the Israeli market) on order.

The boats got within 200 to 500 yards of the American ships before splitting into two groups. At least one of the fast boats then dropped several white boxes in the water in the pathway of the Ingraham, which successfully dodged them, considering them potential floating mines. Commanders of the US ships also received radio communications thought to be from one of the Iranian boats in which they heard an individual say in English, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes."

A Navy official said it was impossible to determine if the radio transmission actually came from one of the five boats.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0108/p02s01-usfp.html

I wasn't aware of the fact that Israel violated Turkish airspace in their attack on Syrian territory.......................

I stated my ignorance of Russian air defense systems technology, ....................

Finally, the F-15 isn't the only US made attack aircraft at the IAF's disposal. They also have the more advanced F-16, with, according to Wikipedia, more (50) F-16I "Sufa" (the latest version developed for the Israeli market) on order.

Infra - I appreciate that you're unfamiliar with the range and weapons payload of various aircraft, or with air defenses, so can assure you that the F-15 has a vastly greater range, and weapons payload, than the F-16 - the latter would never make a bombing round trip from Israel to Tehran.

Oralloy - Israel has no in-flight refueling capability.

High Seas wrote:

Oralloy - Israel has no in-flight refueling capability.

Where did you hear that? I've always heard that they do.

Infra - I appreciate that you're unfamiliar with the range and weapons payload of various aircraft, or with air defenses, so can assure you that the F-15 has a vastly greater range, and weapons payload, than the F-16 - the latter would never make a bombing round trip from Israel to Tehran.

As far as I know, the F15 and F16 are about the same generation of technology -- the F15 is just a heavy fighter and the F16 is a lightweight fighter.

Quote:

The boats got within 200 to 500 yards of the American ships before splitting into two groups. At least one of the fast boats then dropped several white boxes in the water in the pathway of the Ingraham, which successfully dodged them, considering them potential floating mines. Commanders of the US ships also received radio communications thought to be from one of the Iranian boats in which they heard an individual say in English, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes."

A Navy official said it was impossible to determine if the radio transmission actually came from one of the five boats.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0108/p02s01-usfp.html

This last sentence is baffling: directional antennas aren't available on USN ships? Does anyone know?

Thursday January 10, 2008 14:49 EST
The U.S. military inflicts more damage on its own credibility
(updated below - Update II)

It seems increasingly clear that the U.S. military's initial claims about its interaction with those five Iranian speed boats in the Strait of Hormuz was exaggerated in significant ways, approaching Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman/Iraq-is-going-great territory. It's impossible to resolve all of the conflicting details of each side's self-serving version, but the most inflammatory facts which the Navy originally asserted, and which the American news media uncritically regurgitated, are quite dubious, if not demonstrably false.

Here, for instance, was the first paragraph of Tuesday's Washington Post story by Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson, highlighting the most dramatic and scariest part of the U.S. military's narrative:

Quote:

We're coming at you, the Iranian radio transmission warned. Your ships will explode in a couple of minutes.

The next paragraph summarized the Navy's version that "five Iranian patrol boats sped toward the USS Port Royal and two accompanying ships as they crossed the Strait of Hormuz" and then "'maneuvered aggressively' on both sides of the U.S. ships." The next paragraph recounted:

Quote:

After the radio transmission, two of the Iranian boats dropped "white box-like objects" into the water, [Vice Adm. Kevin J.] Cosgriff said.

Those are the two "facts" that infused the story with such a sinister tone -- explicit threats from the Iranian boats to destroy the American ships, followed by their dropping of unidentifiable boxes, which, one was supposed to infer, could easily have been explosive devices.

But the first "fact" seems almost certainly false, and the second one is highly questionable. Iranian Hooman Majd at The Huffington Post noted that the voices on the tapes issuing the melodramatic threats were unquestionably not Persian. As he put it: "the person speaking doesn't have an Iranian accent and moreover, sounds more like Boris Karloff in a horror movie than a sailor in the elite branch of Iran's military." A regular Iranian commenter at Cernig's blog made the same point. Listen for yourself to the audio and see how credible the threats sound.

Since then, additional facts have emerged strongly negating the claim that that message came from those Iranian boats. The audio of the threats is crystal clear in sound quality, with no ambient noise -- something highly unlikely to be the case if delivered from a small, speeding boat. Moreover, as the New York Times' Mike Nizza reports today, quoting a reader claiming to be a former Naval officer, the channel that was used to convey the transmission is easily accessible to all sorts of private parties and is often the venue for hoaxes, pranks, and false messages.

Even the Pentagon itself is now acknowledging the lack of proof for the initial version, "saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship." As Nizza put it: "The list of those who are less than fully confident in the Pentagon's video/audio mashup of aggressive maneuvers by Iranian boats near American warships in the Strait of Hormuz now includes the Pentagon itself."

The video released by the U.S. military contained video and audio that were patched together, and as Cernig notes, the audio containing the threatening messages was suspicious from the start:

The section of the released tape which contains the actual threat to "blow up" anyone, as I noted yesterday, comes at the very end and is very much unconnected in any causal sense to the rest of it. The sound is clearer and less cluttered by background noise, while there is no video accompanying it -- the only such section of the tape -- just an ominously black screen. The accent of the alleged Iranian threatener is way wrong. I've known several Iranians well in the UK and their accents when speaking English were all very different from that on the tape -- less gutteral.
Moreover, the audio and video released by the Iranians, from the vantage point of one of the Iranian speed boats, shows verbal interaction between them and one of the American ships, in which each is identifying themselves to the other.

The bit about the "white boxes" being dropped into the water seems almost equally dubious. Neither the video of the incident released by the U.S. military, nor the video version released by the Iranian government, includes any such event, nor are there any references to it at all on the audio.

Legal mist stokes US-Iran tensions in strait
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Jan 15, 2008

The recent, and escalating, tension between Iran and the US in the narrow corridor of the Strait of Hormuz has once again drawn attention to the strait's international maritime status, and to the ramifications of this tension as a flashpoint in the Middle East.

In a significant raising of the temperature, US President George W Bush on Sunday accused Iran of threatening security around the world by backing militants and urged his Gulf Arab allies to confront "this danger before it is too late".

Speaking in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates during his seven-nation tour of the Middle East, Bush said the US is strengthening its "security commitments with our friends in the Gulf" and "rallying friends around the world to confront this danger". He also called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terror".

Tension spiked markedly last week when Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speedboats were involved in an "incident" with three US Navy vessels, which claimed they were international waters.

Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats. This was followed by the Pentagon's release of a videotape of the encounter, where in response to Iran's request for ship identification, we hear a dispatch from one of the US ships stating the ship's number and adding that "we are in international waters and we intend no harm".

Thus there is the issue of the exact whereabouts of the US ships at the time of the standoff with the Iranian boats manned by the IRGC patrolling the area. According to Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgiff, the US ships were "five kilometers outside Iranian territorial waters". Yet, this is disputed by another dispatch from the US ships that states, "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law."

Given that the approximately three-kilometer-wide inbound traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran's territorial water, the US Navy's invocation of "transit passage" harking back to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) is hardly surprising. [1]

Although the US has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, it has been a strong advocate of its provisions regarding navigational rights, thus explaining the US officers' availing themselves of "international law". [2]

It is noteworthy that in May 2006, Bush urged the US Congress to "act favorably on US accession to the convention". But, in light of the legal ramifications of the US-Iran standoff in the Persian Gulf, discussed below, opponents of the UNCLOS may have become emboldened. According to them, the convention "prohibits two functions vital to American security: collecting intelligence and submerged transit of territorial waters".

However, irrespective of how Congress acts on the pending legislation on UNCLOS, the fact is that the US cannot have its cake and eat it. That is, rely on it to defend its navigational rights in the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously, disregard the various limitations on those rights imposed by the UNCLOS - and favoring Iran. These include the following:

**Per Article 39 of the UNCLOS, pertaining to "duties of ships during transit passage" US ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz must "proceed without delay" and "refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of states bordering the strait".

**Per Article 40, "During transit passage, foreign ships may not carry out any research or survey activity without the prior authorization of the states bordering the straits." And yet, by the US Navy's own admission, it has been conducting sonar activities in the area, to detect submerged vessels. This, in turn, has harmed the Persian Gulf's aquatic mammals. In light of a recent US court ruling limiting the US Navy's sonar activities off the California coast, Iran now has greater political leverage to seek information regarding the activities of US warships transiting through its territorial waters.

**Given the US's verbal acrobatics, of trying to depict as "international waters" what is essentially Iran's territorial water in the inbound traffic channel of the Strait of Hormuz, it collides with Article 34 of UNCLOS. This regards the "legal status of waters forming the straits used for international navigation", that strictly stipulates that the regime of passage "shall not affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits". Following the UNCLOS, Iran's territorial water extends 12 nautical miles at the Strait of Hormuz.

**The Pentagon videotape of the incident shows a US helicopter hovering above the US ships, which is in clear contradiction of Article 19 of the UNCLOS, which expressly forbids "the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft" during transit passage.

**Article 19, elaborating on the meaning of "innocent passage", states that "passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". And that means a prohibition on "any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind" and or "any act of harmful and serious pollution".

In other words, US warships transiting through Hormuz must, in effect, act as non-war ships, "temporarily depriving themselves of their armed might". And any "warning shots" fired by US ships at Iranian boats, inspecting the US ships under customary international laws, must be considered an infringement on Iran's rights. This technically warrants a legal backlash in the form of the Iranians temporary suspending the US warships' right of passage. Again, the US could be technically prosecuted by Iran in international forums for conducting questionable activities while in Iranian territorial waters.

**Under Article 25 of the UNCLOS, a "coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its of security, including weapons exercise."

**Per Article 30, "If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal state may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately."

**Pursuant to Article 42 of the UNCLOS, "states bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage" and "foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations." In this connection, Iran's 1993 maritime law echoes Article 20 of the UNCLOS: "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on surface and to show their flag." Yet, disregarding both international law and Iran's laws, the US Navy until now has refused to comply with the requirement of surface passage of its submarines through the Strait of Hormuz.

In light of the above, the Strait of Hormuz has now turned into a most fertile source of tension and conflict between Iran and the United States, touching on the larger issue of international law of the sea and the navigational regime through the strait(s).

Iran could conceivably use its privileged geographical position to tap into the complex set of rules pertaining to the navigational regime, as a form of (geo) political leverage to wring concessions from the US Navy, and its regional allies, with respect to security and maritime affairs of the Persian Gulf.

Note 1. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea strikes a balance between the sovereign rights of coastal states and the right of passage of foreign ships, requiring concessions from both sides. It prohibits passing ships from "any act aimed at collecting information or use and threat of force".

2. The Iranian press have complained of the US's intention to use the man-made, artificial islands by the United Arab Emirates for military purposes, to complement the US's forward base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. They wonder if this has been one of the unstated purposes of Bush's visit to the region, given the brisk operational tempo of the US Navy with regard to Iran. This includes the US's plan to implement the provisions of its multilateral PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) , such as ship interdiction, already exercised with regard to North Korea, with respect to Iran. Yet, the PSI initiative collides head-on with the UNCLOS-based limitations on the US Navy's activities in the semi-landlocked Persian Gulf and, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, discussed in this article.

This makes things a little interesting.

Quote:

Legal mist stokes US-Iran tensions in strait
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Jan 15, 2008

The recent, and escalating, tension between Iran and the US in the narrow corridor of the Strait of Hormuz has once again drawn attention to the strait's international maritime status, and to the ramifications of this tension as a flashpoint in the Middle East.

oralloy wrote:

As far as I know, the F15 and F16 are about the same generation of technology -- the F15 is just a heavy fighter and the F16 is a lightweight fighter.

The F15 was first developed in the mid sixties. The F16, which was developed as a Lightweight Fighter (LWF) alternative to the F15 was developed in the mid seventies.

It's design was so radical at the time, what with its unstable but efficient design that required fly by wire technology, that it is far from obsolete, and is still produced in large numbers. The F15 was last produced in 1999.

According to fas.org the F16 could handle the payload of a 5,000 pound bomb, but of course it would need inflight refueling as its range would be limited.

Combat Radius [F-16C]

740 nm (1,370 km) w/ 2 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks

340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks

200 nm (370 km) + 2 hr 10 min patrol w/ 2 AIM-7 + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks

Still roughly the same era in fighter development.

How does the F35A not make the F16 obsolete? I'd be surprised if any F16s were produced after 2011.

Four 2,000-pound bombs aren't necessarily the same as one 5,000-pound bomb.

Where would they put it, on the center mount below the engine?

oralloy wrote:

Still roughly the same era in fighter development.

A decade is roughly the same era in fighter development. Yeah, right.

oralloy wrote:

How does the F35A not make the F16 obsolete? I'd be surprised if any F16s were produced after 2011.

The F-16 is not obsolete because it is still being produced. The F-35 hasn't supplanted it just yet.

oralloy wrote:

Four 2,000-pound bombs aren't necessarily the same as one 5,000-pound bomb.

Where would they put it, on the center mount below the engine?

Actually, the GBU-28 isn't large in diameter, it's large in length at 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The F-16's drop tanks are larger in diameter.

High Seas' argument about the US' "F-15 Eagles falling apart" affecting Israel's deployment of it's fleet is a valid one.

The F22 has only supplanted the F15C.

The F15E will not be supplanted by the FB22 for the foreseeable future, and will thus be in use long after the F35A has replaced the F16, so perhaps it isn't obsolete yet either.

. . . if they didn't mount such a heavy bomb dead center, they'd have to mount two of them.

I haven't closely followed the news about the F15s failing. Are they ageing F15C's, or newer F15E's?

Israel would use F15E's to carry the 5,000-pound bombs.

On 2 November 2007, an F-15C from the 131st Fighter Wing crashed during a training operation in Missouri. The pilot ejected safely. The crash is initially believed to have been the result of an in-flight breakup due to structural failure. On 3 November 2007, all non-mission critical models of the F-15 were grounded pending the outcome of the crash investigation.[51] The following day, the grounding was extended to include non-mission critical F-15s currently engaged in combat missions in the Middle East.[52] By 13 November 2007 over 1,100 were grounded worldwide after Israel, Japan and Saudi Arabia grounded their aircraft as well.[53] By January 8, 2008, the USAF cleared the F-15E fleet and 60% of the F-15A-D fleet for return to flight.[54][37] On January 10, 2008, the accident review board released its report stating the November 2 crash was related to the longeron not meeting drawing specifications.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle#Notable_accidents

The natanz facility is 75 feet underground and protected by many feet of reinforced concrete.

The gbu 28 wont touch it.

As far as I know the Massive Ordnance Penetrator is not ready and only for US use.

Anyway the whole excercise is pointless, because now they know how to do it the Iranians will rebuild. Probably down a mine.

And of course having attacked Iran, it gives them the moral high ground

and the justification of retalliation against Israel.

We don't need allies like Israel.