Operation Orchard
In today’s edition of the Observer, Peter Beaumont presents some interesting information about the Israeli operation undertaken on the 6th of this month that violated Syrian airspace. Having mentioned it in an entry yesterday, I thought it important to point out Beaumont’s article…
“The head of Israel’s airforce, Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, was visiting a base in the coastal city of Herziliya last week. For the 50-year-old general, also the head of Israel’s Iran Command, which would fight a war with Tehran if ordered, it was a morale-boosting affair, a meet-and-greet with pilots and navigators who had flown during last summer’s month-long war against Lebanon. The journalists who had turned out in large numbers were there for another reason: to question Shkedi about a mysterious air raid that happened this month, codenamed ‘Orchard’, carried out deep in Syrian territory by his pilots.
Shkedi ignored all questions. It set a pattern for the days to follow as he and Israel’s politicians and officials maintained a steely silence, even when the questions came from the visiting French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner. Those journalists who thought of reporting the story were discouraged by the threat of Israel’s military censor.
But the rumours were in circulation, not just in Israel but in Washington and elsewhere. In the days that followed, the sketchy details of the raid were accompanied by contradictory claims even as US and British officials admitted knowledge of the raid. The New York Times described the target of the raid as a nuclear site being run in collaboration with North Korean technicians. Others reported that the jets had hit either a Hizbollah convoy, a missile facility or a terrorist camp.
Amid the confusion there were troubling details that chimed uncomfortably with the known facts. Two detachable tanks from an Israeli fighter were found just over the Turkish border. According to Turkish military sources, they belonged to a Raam F15I - the newest generation of Israeli long-range bomber, which has a combat range of over 2,000km when equipped with the drop tanks. This would enable them to reach targets in Iran, leading to speculation that it was an ‘operation rehearsal’ for a raid on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
Finally, however, at the week’s end, the first few tangible details were beginning to emerge about Operation Orchard from a source involved in the Israeli operation.
They were sketchy, but one thing was absolutely clear. Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel’s most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.”
I urge you to read the rest. The link is above.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Thanks Matt. Like I needed another bad night’s sleep. :P
September 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Interesting read; but nothing really new.
Given the number of aircraft, I would have thought we’d hear more from Syria regarding Radar info gathered by them. Do they have anything to look at and show?
I think as rockets keep falling out of the sky into Israel, you’ll continue to see retaliation by IDF. It’s a shame, but there it is………
September 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Wag the Dog.
This is more deception bullshit of the type we saw in the leadup to the Iraq invasion. Not good because it indicates an operational plan already in motion.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
After the cold war, Russia sold all its nuclear arms and weapons to India, China, Afghanistan, Pakistan (the Middle east and N. Korea?), but is still crippled with poverty (and now they are building their own military), so can someone explain to me what happened there.
Also, I feel that the majority of these Middle Eastern countries need a strong Fa sc ist leader, i mean Iraq was a lot better off with Saddam in power, cause he kept things in order. Now these crazed maniacs in the Middle East are off showing their guns and waving nukes around like retarded children, there is no order. Each individual country should be more worried about their own civil affairs and not trying to blow up everything around them.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
how come every time i type Fa sc ist it comes out like this: t
September 16th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Yes… because Iran is one cuddly, peace loving, tollerant, and totally benign nation. No one should fear if an Islamist and openly anti-semitic government should ever possess nukes.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
[quote comment="26372"]Yes… because Iran is one cuddly, peace loving, tollerant, and totally benign nation. No one should fear if an Islamist and openly anti-semitic government should ever possess nukes.[/quote]
And how did it get that way?
The CIA helped overthrow the legal Iranian government in the early 1950s and replaced it with the Shah who was no respector of human rights either. The Mossad trained Savik brutally put down any political or religious opposition to the Shah and in the process laid the groundwork for the revolution in 1979.
Until the US began operations on both its eastern and western borders, Iran was making strides towards a more democratic system. One more negative effect of the Iraq war has been the hardening of the political line in Iran due to the same fears that Bush and Cheney like to trot out in front of the public any time they need to chip away at the constitution or international conventions. Who poses more of a threat to world peace right now, Iran which has invaded no one and has a limited defensive military or the self-proclaimed “Worlds only superpower”, which doesn’t hesitate to use force to further an agenda which really only benefits a few.
Like I said this is just more of the same “tail wagging the dog” we saw in the leadup to the Iraq invasion. We know for a fact now that Bush and Cheney are not to be trusted at all when it comes to the lives or their own soldiers or citizens of the countries they like to claim pose a threat to us.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I am well aware of world history; you needn’t recite it for me, Mr. Boy. Nor do I need convincing of the folly of US foreign interventionism.
However, we are in the here and now. And regardless… if ever there was a nation that deserved nuclear weapons, or could be trusted with peacefully coexisting with its neighbours, then I’m sure Iran is it.
And of course, the issues run much much deeper than this. But really, do you trust the Iranian leadership?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
That’s a good point………I sure don’t.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:52 am
No more then I trust the Israeli leadership.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:05 am
It is starting to come down to fear and protection. Iran, and many other nations in the Middle East, are seeing that only by possessing nukes can they properly protect themselves from American intervention. They look at North Korea, and China, and figure rightly that the only reason those nations are not pushed harder than they are on human rights and other issues is because of the nukes. So in order to protect themselves they need to emulate the big boys.
Boreal: “However, we are in the here and now.” — Of course we are, but ignoring why we got here won’t help at all. Its like some of the Republicans trying to dismiss now the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, stating that its the her and now, when the situation is so intricately linked you cannot study one and dismiss the other.
And to be honest, at this point, the US has done way more harm to Middle Eastern instability (and so has Israel for that matter), than Iran has.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:23 am
[quote comment="26384"]I am well aware of world history; you needn’t recite it for me, Mr. Boy. Nor do I need convincing of the folly of US foreign interventionism.
However, we are in the here and now. And regardless… if ever there was a nation that deserved nuclear weapons, or could be trusted with peacefully coexisting with its neighbours, then I’m sure Iran is it.
And of course, the issues run much much deeper than this. But really, do you trust the Iranian leadership?[/quote]
This isn’t about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, that’s my whole point, this about Bush and Cheney lying once already about WMDs in Iraq to start an illegal war and now trying to use the same tactic to trigger an even wider conflict.
I trust Bush and Cheney less than I do the Iranian government, as far as I’m concerned they’re the biggest threat to world peace right now, not some fictional Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Once again, we were all lied to about how much a threat Saddam posed to start a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives for no real benefit to anyone except a few in the defence or oil industry, I won’t believe this bullshit a second time.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
There shouldn’t be nuclear weapons, period. Regardless of religious or political stripe, no one person or group of people ought to control enough power to destroy the planet several times over.
But, as I’ve said over and over to no end, war is good for business.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Interesting discussion in many regards looking at history 100 or even 1000 years ago jewish, muslim and christians have fought countless wars against one another. The outcome of WW2 with so many Jewish families deciding to return home to Palestine a Britsh controlled coloney at the time and settle in what they considered their rightful home land. Of course the muslim communities had been their for 100’s of years and they did not feel the same way. Problem is neither side could live with one another. They just stired up ancient old hatred for one another.
If nothing else just maybe … just maybe we can impower a population of people with education and the chance to freely make a choice about how to live their lives. To do that in the middle east parents need to stop teaching hatred to their childern for one side or the other. People need to learn to live together with one another dispite their differences.
North American isnt all that great in some regards but least people have a choice women have rights and given the right tools and situation majority of our childern can grow up to be a productive peopel in society. Maybe in the midist of the information era we can bring people of different back grounds closer together to better appreciate our differences. Course we often fear what we do not understand.
If any of this can come from these wars then in the long run I believe it will be a success in some regards lesat the people who lost their lives could feel like the made a difference.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:23 am
“I trust Bush and Cheney less than I do the Iranian government, as far as I’m concerned they’re the biggest threat to world peace right now,”
That’s instructive.
“There shouldn’t be nuclear weapons, period.”
Not according to some here. They think Iran should have them.
“North American isnt all that great in some regards but least people have a choice women have rights and given the right tools and situation majority of our childern can grow up to be a productive peopel in society. Maybe in the midist of the information era we can bring people of different back grounds closer together to better appreciate our differences. Course we often fear what we do not understand.”
Great thoughts; but some people are intent on hating America no matter what. We live in complicated times; far easier to Hate Bush and Cheney and blame them for all the misery in the World. Some people would complain if you hung them with a brand new rope.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
[quote comment="26403"]“I trust Bush and Cheney less than I do the Iranian government, as far as I’m concerned they’re the biggest threat to world peace right now,”
That’s instructive.[/quote]
Given their record, it’s rational.
[quote]Great thoughts; but some people are intent on hating America no matter what. We live in complicated times; far easier to Hate Bush and Cheney and blame them for all the misery in the World. Some people would complain if you hung them with a brand new rope.[/quote]
You take a very ethnocentric view of the world, like many neo-cons. I think few people hate America, they’re too busy living their own lives, however many do feel anger over the actions of the US government that have and continue to cause a great deal of misery in the world. Go ask someone in South or Central America who’s lost family to US trained death squads or people without limbs in Laos where people are still being maimed and killed by cluster munitions left over from the Vietnam War. Taking a militaristic approach to many confrontations worldwide is at the root of the anger towards the US by many, not some fundamental oppostiiton to our way of life. Few people have done more to restrict freedom and civil rights in the US than Bush and Cheney anyway.
And they don’t hesitate to use force to further their political and economic agenda which is the heart of this topic.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
You have no clue regarding my views. Bye.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I suppose that I should add that nukes in Iran isn’t a suitable reason for invading. Nothing that a well placed thermobaric weapon couldn’t handle. It would be insane for the US to invade, by which I mean that it isn’t out of the realm of possibility with the current administration. Let’s hope that regime change happens next year.
No, the proper course would be to negotiate, very hush hush like, and send a few billion hard earned western dollars over there in compensation. Or a bribe, if you will. Similar to what seems to have happened in North Korea (another peaceful and well intentioned country, no doubt). It’s the burden the US, and indirectly we, pay for being successful, I suppose.
Mind you, if that doesn’t work (and they can’t be bought off of their nuclear aspirations), then I’d rather the thermobarics come out, and they (yes, Iran) be set back a few years that way.
Man, it sucks to be the most powerful nation on Earth. Huge responsibilities, with which come monumental cock-ups at times. But once again, who do you trust? Without nukes, we’d have a very very different world right now. And anyone who believes it would be better … well, it’s hard to reason with those folks.
For better or worse (and by no means is it the best of the best) I would rather trust the US and Israel, who by and large (and yes, I know it hasn’t always been that way with the US) would rather just be left alone.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
[quote]But once again, who do you trust?[/quote]
Here’s a hint, you don’t trust the guys who lied four years ago about WMDs in Iraq. It’s a no brainer, stop thinking so much, it’s painful to watch.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Then don’t watch me, BC Boyo. I could care less.
It’s multiple sources that are on the Iran nuke issue. France, Russia, the UK, China and Germany also agree that Iran should stop its refining of nuclear fuels. Now, perhaps it’s “thinking too much” but when China and Russia both agree with the US on an issue, that’s gotta mean something.
Unless the superpower hegemony thing’s got you down. I try not to think about that.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
It’s the war in Iraq that’s driving most of the tension in the region, not actions in Iran. Is it good that anyone is still building or developing nukes, no it isn’t, but that applies to the US as well as anyone else.
Widening the war into Iran when Iraq is complete chaos is insane, even a limited bombing campaign can quickly get out of control. Given the track record of the Bush administration and their constant disasters, I think it’s time to take away their destructive toys before they get us all killed.
The superpower hegemony is a fantasy, the US military is tearing itself to pieces in Iraq the same way it did in Vietnam. America is going to be left with a shadow of the forces that it went into the invasion with.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
It might mean something, but I don’t hear France, China, and Russia or any of those other countries calling for military action against Iran. We won’t here them say that either because they know it would be incredibly stupid. The nuclear ambitions of Iran should be opposed for the same reason that nuclear proliferation in general should be: because it brings us closer to the precipice. All it takes is one mistake to set off a chain reaction that will result in global annihalation. At the same time, we can’t be surprised that Iran would make that move seeing as how they have been threatened by the US over the years.
BC Boy is right. Most of the tension in the region is being driven by the war and occupation of Iraq. How much tension will exist in Iran in the future depends completely on the actions of the US government.
Wolfowitz and co.’s imperialist dream is dead. The military power of the US will dwindle. Imperial overstretch will very likely result in a collapse of the US economy, citizen disenchantment, and possibly, fascism.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Iran is allowed to create nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as long as it is a signatory of the non proliferation treaty - which they are.
No one has presented any evidence to prove that they are developing anything other than peaceful technologies, regardless of how one might feel about the Iranian leadership. That being the case I think it’s exceptionally arrogant to sanction and chastise them.
I Iran going to develop a weapon eventually? Yes, as would Papua New Guinea given the necessity and the time. Deal with it. Smith and Wesson will eventually make us all equal no?
The best we in the West can do is to delay the inevitable, and by far the best way to do that is to take away the necessity.
The one country that scares me more than all the others is the one that has in excess of 200 nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them anywhere that’s convenient into the Middle East. That country is a Neo-theocracy that believes that god himself gave them their lands and has itself been on a mission for the last 60 years to lay claim to them. That country is also not a participant in the Non Proliferation Treaty.