There's an interesting post up at Officers' Club by a Mr. Charlie Munn. It it, he opines on what a possible scenario for an Israeli attack on Iran would look like:
"The attack would definitely be a single, massive air strike the likes of which the MidEast has never seen. Here is how I think it would go down. It is widely believed that Iran is out of range of Israeli fighters and bombers. The range problem could be ameliorated by mid-air re-fuelers, but that would cause problems. Israel only has 5 KC-130 re-fuelers, and the idea of refueling over enemy airspace would complicate an already complicated plan. The solution to this problem is to establish forward landing areas close to Iran, in order to “leap-frog” into Iran. This would, of course, be an act of war against (speculating here) either Saudi Arabia or Syria.
I believe that the Israelis would attempt to bypass Turkish, and Iraqi airspace. They would have to either seize an airfield, or construct one themselves. Paratroopers would insert into the area, secure the airfield, and set up a defensive perimeter. Then the transport aircraft would begin to land and set up a FARP (forward area re-arm/re-fuel point). I assume we’ll have passed the “international incident” by this point, and all out war will be declared by one (or many countries against Israel."
I disagreed. It can't be done the way the author proposes. Too elaborate, too exposed, and most of all it is predicated on Israel abandoning control of its immediate airspace for several days (even assuming the IDF doesn't suffer crushing losses executing the strikes) exactly at the moment its neighbors will be determined to attack. All that risk, both military and political, to achieve only a delay in the mullahs' quest for what they (the mullahs) consider the ultimate weapons? The law of diminishing returns looms large here.
No way - and I give my opinion why in my post.