Problems of an Israeli attack on Iran's nukes

Sunday Times:

...

Yet the real problem for military planners is that no outside agency has a clear idea of where else Iran may have hidden its weapons-related technologies, notably the long-range missiles that might one day deliver nuclear warheads.

“It is doubtful that even the US knows all the potential targets,” said Cordesman. “They may now be in too many places for an Israeli strike to destroy Iran’s capabilities.”

US experts believe that while Israel unquestionably has the military capability — and may have the political will — to mount a long-range attack, it could not sustain the kind of long-term barrage that Washington launched against Baghdad in the early phases of two Gulf wars.

The diplomatic uproar that would be certain to follow any Israeli attack might limit Tel Aviv to a one-off operation that it could never hope to repeat. “That would not be on the scale required to do more than delay parts of the Iranian programme,” said Cordesman.

Only if America joined in would Iran have reason to worry. There is no immediate likelihood of a US military strike; but there are still some in Tel Aviv who believe that an Israeli raid might force Obama’s hand and persuade the Pentagon to join the attack.

The more likely reason the US would be involved is that Iran would strike out at our forces in the area and attempt to block the oil transiting through the Persian Gulf. That would give us little alternative to attacking Iran and destroying her forces.

For some time I have argued that Israel does not have the capacity to sustain the kind of operations really needed to destroy Iran's facilities, much less her other forces that such an attack would unleash. A more rational attack would be to destroy the latter forces first and then go after the nukes.