DOCSLIB.ORG

Outline of Study on an Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Outline of Study on an Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Facilities 1800 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 1.202.775.3270 Fax: 1.202.775.3199 Email: [email protected] Web: www.csis.org/burke/reports Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities Abdullah Toukan, Senior Associate Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy March 14, 2009 Page Introduction 3 Israeli Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles 5 Iran Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles Program 19 • Timeline when Iran produces it’s first Nuclear Weapon 26 • Options to deal with Iran’s Nuclear Program within the Time Frame 33 Iran Nuclear Targets 34 • Mission Planning Payloads 37 • Israeli Strike Force Required 45 • Iran Missile Sites 46 Israeli Air Force: Aircraft Mission Capabilities 51 Scenario I: Israeli Air Force Strike against Iranian Nuclear Facilities and Ballistic Missile Sites 59 • Strike Mission Route Profile 69 • Mission Force Allocation 70 • Mission Analysis 71 Scenario II: An Israeli Ballistic Missile Attack against Iranian Nuclear Facilities 72 Iranian Ground and Airborne Defense Means against an Israeli Strike 76 • Iran Ground Based Air Defense Systems 79 The Environmental Damages of an Israeli Attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. 89 Israeli Air Defense and Ballistic Missile Defense System Vs An Iranian Retaliatory Ballistic Missile Attack using the Shehab -3 93 Military and Political Consequences of an Israeli Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities 99 • Suggested Steps Towards Iran 102 Appendix 104 2 Introduction: • It is always difficult to evaluate a nuclear weapons program without access to concrete intelligence information. This study is based on open sources and we do not claim to be one hundred percent accurate and complete. The aim of the study is to try and get some insight into the level the Iranian Nuclear Program has progressed, and if the intent of the leadership is to produce nuclear weapons then what would the possible timeline be. •Based on these estimates the study then addresses the possibility of an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities, with the objective of either destroying the program or delaying it for some years. The success of the Strike Mission will be measured by how much of the Enrichment program it has destroyed, or the number of years it has delayed Iranian acquisition of enough Uranium, or Plutonium produced from the Arak reactor, to build a nuclear bomb. •It is not known whether Iran has some secret facilities where it is conducting uranium enrichment and a nuclear weapons program. So far no concrete intelligence information points to this being likely. However, this study refers back to the vast literature on Iran‘s nuclear program, and on some interviews of the Iranian leadership, such as the VOA of August 29, 2008 ―Iran claims to have 4,000 working nuclear centrifuges‖ and the April 8, 2008, (Time on Line), ―Iran: now we have 6,000 nuclear centrifuges‖, and ―Iran‘s Nuclear Chief Explains Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Comments on US Concerns‖. (Source: Tehran Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network C2 in Persian-state run television) •This study does not claim that if Iran might have accumulated over 1000 kg of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU), which is sufficient to produce Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), that it has done so, and now possess nuclear weapons. •The Israeli time frame as to when Iran will have a Nuclear Weapon is between 2009 and 2012, whereas the U.S. time frame is after 2013. Israel states that Iran should not be allowed to obtain any nuclear capabilities that could eventually allow it to produce nuclear weapons. Israel views Iran as an Existential Threat and must be dealt with in the immediate future. • New US policy, under Obama Administration, is to leave all options on the table, and presently favors diplomacy against any military strikes. Containment could be the future course of U.S. Policy if Diplomatic Engagement does not work, and after all other options have been exhausted. 3 •A military strike by Israel against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible and the optimum route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back the same route. However, the number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate. With regard to the Arab States, they have become extremely frustrated with the U.S. and the West double standard when addressing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East. Most probably they will not condone any attack on Iran under the pretext that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and a security threat to the whole region, whilst Israel has some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons, and the delivery means using the Jericho missiles, in addition to Israel still occupying the West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights. • The more there is an Israeli threat to the survival of the regime in Iran, the more Iran will be determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran would withdraw from the NPT based on the argument that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty and any further aggression by Israel and the U.S. • A strike by Israel on Iran will give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism. • Iran should be engaged directly by the U.S. with an agenda open to all areas of military and non-military issues that both are in agreement or disagreement. Any realistic resolution to the Iranian nuclear program will require an approach that encompasses Military, Economic, Political interests and differences of the U.S vs Iran. • The U.S. will have to try to make Comprehensive Verification of Iran‘s Nuclear Development Program as one of the priorities in any diplomatic dialogue, while trying at the same time to persuade Iran to stop its enrichment program. However, in this area the U.S. will have to walk and negotiate along a very fine line between Israel‘s WMD and Ballistic Missiles capabilities and the Iranian Nuclear development program. The U.S. must recognize that both are very closely inter-related and are fueling each other. So the U.S. should be prepared to address both issues simultaneously while trying not to be perceived as though it has double standards when it comes to Israel. 4 Israeli Nuclear and Ballistic Missiles Weapons 5 . Israel‘s National Security Doctrine: This is based on the perception that Arab countries are determined to destroy Israel; that Israel has no reliable international allies and must take care of itself; there is an asymmetrical balance of resources versus the Arab Countries in Demography, Geography, Economic Resources, Structure of Armed Forces in terms of man power. Israel‘s Operational Military Doctrine: That Israel must have the capability to deter any possible Arab attack, and if deterrence fails then Israel must strive for an early war termination if war breaks out. That any war with the Arab countries would have to be short and decisive. That the war must quickly be carried into and fought on Arab territory giving rise to a rapid offensive and high degree of mobility to sustain continuous forward movement. Israel‘s Nuclear Policy: A nuclear capability is needed to deter threats to Israel‘s existence. The possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by any Arab or non-Arab Muslim State in the region is considered as a direct existential threat to Israel. Israel should prevent all States in the Middle East Region from developing a nuclear program that it sees as a threat, or attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel has deliberately maintained a nuclear policy ambiguity about it‘s own nuclear weapons program. The purpose of the nuclear ambiguity policy was based on the belief that it had introduced an effective ―deterrence through uncertainty‖. Arab states were never sure that Israel would use a nuclear weapon in retaliation to it‘s survival in the event of a major war, or if any of the Arab states try to acquire a nuclear capability. Israel‘s nuclear ambiguity policy has been stated by a number of Israeli leaders in such statements as: ― Israel will not be the first to use nuclear weapons‖ and ― Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East‖ • The Arab States‘ view is that such nuclear doctrines can never be considered binding in case of war. • Israel has never officially admitted that it possesses Nuclear Weapons, and is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Many see the present status of Israel as an ―Undeclared Nuclear Weapon State‖, at the same time it has become to be recognized as possessing a very sophisticated arsenal of nuclear weapons. 6 Israel: Nuclear Facilities Yodefat: Eilabun: Possible assembly and Possible Storage Facility dismantling Haifa: Rafael-Israel Armament Development Authority. Reported Nuclear Dimona Design and Assembly. Negar Nuclear Research Center (KAMAG): Houses a Reactor, Soreq: Enrichment and Nahal Soreq Nuclear Reprocessing Facilities. Research Center (MAMAG) 5 MW safeguarded pool type reactor; possible Mishor Rotern: weapon design and Negar Phosphates Research Facility. Chemical Company. Uranium Mining from Phosphate Deposits. Tirosh: Possible Storage Facility (Source: Anthony Cordesman. Israeli Weapons 7 of Mass Destruction‖ CSIS June 2, 2008) • Uranium exploration began in Negev as early as 1949; Israeli Atomic Energy Commission began to discuss nuclear option in 1952. Cooperation with France in nuclear reactor design and technology began in 1950s. French-Israeli construction of a reactor in Dimona – whose actual capacity was much larger than its announced capacity, began in 1957.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Open Page 2017
    Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. 2017 Sustainability Report 20172016 in ina nutshella nutshell of procurement billion$ of procurement 3.6billion$in Sales 61% is local 3.5 in Sales 62% is local st in local patent 1 registration Record customer at 5.8 Backlog contracts billion$ Backlog of orders at 9 of billion$ of orders at 11 of billion$ Largest 14,857 high-tech company 15,359employees in Israel employees 18,23716,233 volunteeringvolunteering hours hours Sustaining over th 50,000 rankingth in the “best place to work” list households nationwide 9 6 ranking in the “best place to work” list 54%54% hazardoushazardous waste waste recycledrecycled or reused or reused 58%56% non-hazardousnon-hazardous waste waste recycledrecycled or reused or reused 435 500 GWh GWh Saved Savedsince 2007 since 2007 Message from our Board of Directors 102-14 IAIs 2017 sustainability report is a detailed record of our The very existence of IAI directly contributes to the strength and ongoing progress as a resilient, long-lasting, and extraordinary resilience of the local communities in which we operate across company. Our operations and products enable us not only to Israel. Our business model is built on identifying long term advance and achieve our business objectives, but also to fulll mega trends, and partnering with our customers to offer top our responsibilities towards our customers, employees, the quality technology excellence and innovations in every area communities in which we operate and society as a whole. they look to grow in. We report here in detail on the management of our environmental impact and the principles of We make this commitment actionable through specic pollution prevention and continual improvement integrated organizational mechanisms, starting with IAIs board of into our business.
    [Show full text]
  • A US-Iraq Strategic Dialogue
    MENU Policy Analysis / Fikra Forum A U.S.-Iraq Strategic Dialogue: A Question of Interests and Expectations by Karl Kaltenthaler, Munqith Dagher, Anthony Cordesman May 14, 2020 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Karl Kaltenthaler Karl Kaltenthaler is a professor of political science and director of security studies at the University of Akron. Kaltenthaler is a contributor to Fikra Forum. Munqith Dagher Dr. Munqith Dagher is MENA director and a board member of Gallup International. Dr. Dagher is a contributor to Fikra Forum. Anthony Cordesman Anthony H. Cordesman is the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS. He directed the CSIS Middle East Net Assessment Project and codirected the CSIS Strategic Energy Initiative. Brief Analysis n April 7, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for a “Strategic Dialogue” between the United States O and Iraq on the future of the bilateral relationship. The dialogue, meant to be a series of meetings between high-level U.S. and Iraqi officials, is intended to put all aspects of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship on the table. In order to understand what said strategic dialogue may entail, and what results it might produce, it is crucial to understand what the United States and Iraq—as well as Iran, as the other major interested party—see as their interests as Iraq and the United States look to restructure their relationship. It is also necessary in defining the dialogue’s goals to look beyond the United States’ past focus on ISIS and the present challenge from Iran that have characterized the U.S.-Iraqi relationship over the past few years.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation CAST LEAD
    BACK TO BASICS A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation CAST LEAD Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Farquhar General Editor Combat Studies Institute Press US Army Combined Arms Center Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Form Approved Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2. REPORT TYPE 2009 00-00-2009 to 00-00-2009 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Back to Basics. A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation 5b. GRANT NUMBER CAST LEAD 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION US Army Combined Arms Center,Combat Studies Institute,Fort REPORT NUMBER Leavenworth,KS,66027 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Hezbollah's Missiles and Rockets
    JULY 2017 CSIS BRIEFS CSIS Hezbollah’s Missiles and Rockets An Overview By Shaan Shaikh and Ian Williams JULY 2018 THE ISSUE Hezbollah is the world’s most heavily armed non-state actor, with a large and diverse stockpile of unguided artillery rockets, as well as ballistic, antiair, antitank, and antiship missiles. Hezbollah views its rocket and missile arsenal as its primary deterrent against Israeli military action, while also useful for quick retaliatory strikes and longer military engagements. Hezbollah’s unguided rocket arsenal has increased significantly since the 2006 Lebanon War, and the party’s increased role in the Syrian conflict raises concerns about its acquisition of more sophisticated standoff and precision-guided missiles, whether from Syria, Iran, or Russia. This brief provides a summary of the acquisition history, capabilities, and use of these forces. CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & middle east INTERNATIONAL STUDIES program CSIS BRIEFS | WWW.CSIS.ORG | 1 ezbollah is a Lebanese political party public source information and does not cover certain topics and militant group with close ties to such as rocket strategies, evolution, or storage locations. Iran and Syria’s Assad regime. It is the This brief instead focuses on the acquisition history, world’s most heavily armed non-state capabilities, and use of these forces. actor—aptly described as “a militia trained like an army and equipped LAND ATTACK MISSILES AND ROCKETS like a state.”1 This is especially true Hwith regard to its missile and rocket forces, which Hezbollah 107 AND 122 MM KATYUSHA ROCKETS has arrayed against Israel in vast quantities. The party’s arsenal is comprised primarily of small, man- portable, unguided artillery rockets.
    [Show full text]
  • A Ballistic Missile Primer
    A BALLISTIC MISSILE PRIMER Steve Fetter The Rocket Equation Consider a single-stage rocket with a lift-off mass Mlo and a burn-out mass Mbo. In the absence of gravity and air resistance, the change in the rocket's velocity from lift-off to burn-out (the "delta-v") is given by " Mlo % !v = ve log e $ ' (1) # Mbo & where ve is the exhaust velocity of the propellant. If the rocket has n stages, the total delta-v of the rocket is given by n # M & !v = !v + !v + """ + !v = v log lo (2) t 1 2 n ) ei e % ( i=1 $ M bo 'i th where vei is the exhaust velocity of the i stage and (Mlo/Mbo)i is the ratio of the rocket mass when the ith stage ignites to its mass when the stage burns out. The mass ratio of the ith stage is given by ! $ M + M + ''' + M + m ( M (1( s ) M (1( s ) M bo t1 t2 ti p pi i pi i # & = = 1( i (3) " M lo % M t + M t + ''' + M t + mp i 1 2 i M + m ) t j p j=1 where M is the propellant mass in the ith stage, s is the fraction of propellant in pi i th th the i stage that remains unburned, M ti is the total mass of the j stage before it is ignited, and mp is the mass of the rocket payload. The unburned fraction is very low in modern boosters (e.g., s = 0.0012 in the Minuteman-II first stage) and can therefore usually be ignored.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from the Second Lebanon War
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Browse Reports & Bookstore TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. All Glory Is Fleeting Insights from the Second Lebanon War Russell W. Glenn Prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command Approved for public release; distribution unlimited NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Joint Forces Command Joint Urban Operations Office.
    [Show full text]
  • A Security System for the Two-State Solution
    MAY 2016 ADVANCING THE DIALOGUE A Security System for the Two-State Solution Ilan Goldenberg, Major General (Res.) Gadi Shamni, Nimrod Novik, and Colonel Kris Bauman About the Authors Acknowledgements Ilan Goldenberg is a Senior Fellow and This report was the product of numerous consultations Director of the Middle East Security and workshops with former and current Israeli, Palestinian, Program at the Center for a New American Jordanian, and American security officials and negotiators. Security (CNAS). Prior to CNAS, he served We are deeply grateful to all of them for their time, insights, at the U.S. Department of State as Chief and creativity. A special thank you goes to our colleagues of Staff for the small team supporting at Commanders for Israel’s Security and the Amman Center Secretary John Kerry’s initiative to for Peace and Development for their close collaboration on conduct permanent status negotiations between Israelis this effort, as well as our colleagues at Israel Policy Forum, and Palestinians. Goldenberg previously served as a Special whose advice and support have been invaluable. We thank Advisor on the Middle East and then as the Iran Team Chief Loren Dejonge Schulman for her thoughtful inputs, Nicholas in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. A. Heras and Peter Kirechu for their research support, and Maura McCarthy and Melody Cook for assistance with Major General (Res.) Gadi Shamni is editing and design. Finally, we would like to thank the Smith Vice President for Land Systems at Richardson Foundation, Peter A. Joseph, Gideon Argov, Israel Aerospace Industries. He served in the Goldman Sonnenfeldt Foundation, and the Morningstar the Israel Defense Forces for 36 years, Foundation for their generous support of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel
    U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel Jeremy M. Sharp Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs December 4, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33222 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel Summary This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and an analysis of current issues. The report will be updated annually to reflect developments over the previous year. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and Relations with the United States, by Carol Migdalovitz. For information on overall U.S. assistance to the Middle East, see CRS Report RL32260, U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2010 Request, by Jeremy M. Sharp. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance. In the past, Israel also had received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel’s receiving benefits not available to other countries. For example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, all U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Peter J. Roskam of Illinois Testimony on U.S.-Israel Missile Defense Cooperation House Armed Services Committee April 9, 2014
    The Honorable Peter J. Roskam of Illinois Testimony on U.S.-Israel Missile Defense Cooperation House Armed Services Committee April 9, 2014 Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished Members of the Committee: thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for this critical hearing on our national defense priorities for the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Chairman, a cornerstone of the historic relationship between the United States and Israel is our cooperative missile defense systems. An increasingly volatile Middle East highlights the urgent need for these advanced defense capabilities. Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens regional and global security, while its terror proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, and others— pose a growing threat to not only Israel, but our servicemen and women overseas. And the destabilizing impact from ongoing political upheaval in Egypt and Syria’s bloody civil war represent new security challenges for the United States and our regional allies. Tens of thousands of rockets are pointed at Israel at any given time, not including increasingly sophisticated missiles from Iran and its allies. We know the nature of these threats all too well. Just last month, Israeli naval forces intercepted a Gaza-bound arms cache from Iran that included Syrian-made M302 rockets and 80 mortar shells. Days later, Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza launched dozens of rockets into southern Israel—the largest barrage in over two years. While the attack fortunately yielded no casualties, it underscores the very real dangers Israel continues to face from its neighbors. We are all familiar with the unprecedented success of Iron Dome, which has intercepted hundreds of short-range rockets with near-precision accuracy since its deployment in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Evolving Political Landscape in the Middle East Affects Israeli Strategic Thinking
    Note de recherche stratégique n°7 How the evolving political landscape in the Middle East affects Israeli strategic thinking Pierre Razoux1 Research Director, IRSEM Today, more than ever before, Israeli strategic thinking is engaged in a tug-of-war between the pragmatic, realist vision of military strategists who have long been entrusted with this task, and an ideological vision that reflects the discourse of a political class that has gradually superseded the military institution. Neither the media nor the academic worlds are capable of imposing an alternative strategy for the time being. No White Paper exists to lay the foundations. With this dual context, Israeli strategists – whether from political or military backgrounds – remain attached to the concept of the ratio of forces, certain that in order to command respect in the Middle East, they must not hesitate to show their power and use it. Taking an extremely Clausewitzian approach, they consider war and military operations to be merely the pursuit of politics by other means. Afraid of losing control of the situation, they maintain the status quo, as can be seen in the Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian cases. This paradoxical lack of foresight pushes them to opt for an ambivalent strategy that is offensive, even pre-emptive, at the tactical level and defensive at the strategic level. As a result, we have an increasingly prevalent “citadel under siege” syndrome that the recent geopolitical developments in the Middle East have merely worsened (Arab uprisings, multiplication of no-go areas near Israel’s borders, worsening of the Syrian civil war, change in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Nuclear Deal and American Strategy in the Middle East
    HIGH RISK – HIGH REWARD: THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEAL AND AMERICAN STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST Cdr M.D.L. de Savoye JCSP 42 PCEMI 42 Exercise Solo Flight Exercice Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs do not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used Ministère de la Défense nationale ou des Forces without written permission. canadiennes. Ce papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2016. le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2016. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 42 – PCEMI 42 2015 – 2016 EXERCISE SOLO FLIGHT – EXERCICE SOLO FLIGHT HIGH RISK – HIGH REWARD: THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEAL AND AMERICAN STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST Cdr M.D.L. de Savoye “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L'étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions, which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l'auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel
    Order Code RL33222 U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel Updated January 2, 2008 Jeremy M. Sharp Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel Summary This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and an analysis of current issues. The report will be updated annually to reflect developments over the previous year. For the most recent action on aid to Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and Relations with the United States, by Carol Migdalovitz. For information on overall U.S. assistance to the Middle East, see CRS Report RL32260, U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2008 Request, by Jeremy M. Sharp. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having recently been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Over the years, Israel has developed an advanced industrial economy which, according to the World Bank, places it among the top 50 richest nations in terms of per capita income (between Cyprus and Slovenia respectively). With Israel becoming more economically self-sufficient, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a joint session of Congress in 1996 that Israel’s need for economic aid would be reduced over time. In 1998, Israel proposed gradually eliminating the $1.2 billion economic aid and increasing the $1.8 billion in military aid by $60 million per year over a 10-year period beginning in the year 2000.
    [Show full text]