The Jewish state must adopt an “Israel First” doctrine.By Jonathan Pollard – Special to World Israel NewsAccording to Israeli intelligence sources, Israel would only enter the current conflict between the US and Iran under two conditions: (1) it was hit first, or (2) the US “asked” us to enter the war.Personally, I don’t see the logic of letting someone hit us first. That’s just plain foolish. I also don’t like the Americans essentially ordering us to commit our forces to help them, as if we’re some tribal levy called up to serve their colonial overlords in a border dispute with a rival colonial power.In light of my opposition to these two conditions for our entering the American war against Iran, I propose a third option based on what I call an “Israel First” doctrine.What does this involve? Simply put, instead of waiting like some pawn to get hit first or politely awaiting an order from the US to start fighting the Iranians on its behalf, we should initiate our own independent campaign against Iran – without asking the Americans for permission to do so.As you can imagine, our entry would be a surprise to both the US and Iran. And, as most military strategists know, surprise can be an incredible force multiplier if implemented properly.First, the objective of our campaign should be to totally destroy Iran’s missile production plants, its main electrical generators, and its oil and gas industry. Transportation fuel storage facilities and bridges, in particular, should also be targeted, which would severely limit the IRGC’s ability to move units and equipment around the country.The Americans are currently doing this in southern Iran to prevent the IRGC from reinforcing the area, and we should do the same in western and central Iran. This would be of critical importance if the Kurds decide to join the war.As far as major airfields are concerned, while many were hit during our last campaign, the cratering damage to runways was quickly repaired. However, there might be a way to permanently destroy the runways if some of the bombs used were filled with a liquid chemical agent that actually dissolved the concrete. This would essentially require the Iranians to completely rebuild the targeted runways, which would take an enormous amount of time and resources.Of course, if Iran’s major concrete and steel manufacturing plants were destroyed, it’s likely that the targeted airfields would be closed indefinitely.To ensure maximum destruction, each target should be hit by enough aircraft to completely destroy it.Looking at after-action satellite imagery of those Iranian facilities that were hit during our last attacks, it was clear that relatively few buildings were destroyed. This was because we had limited numbers of aircraft and weapons with which to hit the targeted facilities. We therefore concentrated on what we thought were the key buildings in any given complex. Since the Iranians had stockpiled replacement equipment for what was lost, all they had to do was rebuild a relatively small part of a much larger production plant.We shouldn’t allow that to happen again. The next time around, we must take out an entire targeted facility – not just part of it. If that means the campaign will take longer to complete, then we’ll have to accept this as the cost of not having invested in unmanned Collaborative Combat Aircraft, ballistic and HGV missiles and high-Mach, long-range cruise missiles, all of which could have significantly multiplied the destruction wrought by our manned fighter-bombers.One out-of-the-box idea to compensate for our lack of bomb capacity involves asking the UAE whether we could borrow its fleet of 18 C-17 Globemaster III transports. These planes can lift about 85 tons and are equipped with a rear ramp that can be lowered while the plane is in the air. If we load around 50 rocket-assisted 1-ton bombs that have been fitted with wings and inertial navigation systems on an ejection rack system, all the C-17s have to do is lower their rear ramps, slightly tilt their noses, and let the bombs slide out the back. Once out of the plane, the bombs can deploy their wings, fire their rocket boosters and glide 100-200 kilometers to their targets.If adequately guarded by Israeli escorts, this type of jury-rigged heavy bomber force would likely shorten our campaign to less than a week.This use of transports as bombers is not hypothetical. It has been tested and validated.Let’s not delude ourselvesAssuming we were successful in destroying Iran’s war-making ability and reducing its overall industrial capacity to that of the Stone Age, what would become of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps? Even if it survived when the dust settled, it wouldn’t be able to build or import anything of value.In the meantime, Iran’s proxy network, consisting of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, could finally be decisively destroyed without the possibility of being resupplied by Iran. And there would also be a chance of regime change if the Kurds managed to assist a popular uprising.But let’s not delude ourselves about the success of such an insurrection. There is a better-than-even chance that an uprising would be crushed by an IRGC equipped with only tanks and machine guns. If the outcome of that confrontation left the IRGC in control of Iran, we would have to ensure that it remained unable to threaten us ever again. This would require constant, comprehensive surveillance of the country involving both ground- and space-based assets.We would also have to develop what’s called “prompt strike” weapons, such as hypersonic glide vehicles, ballistic missiles with multiple maneuvering warheads, and unmanned strike aircraft capable of carrying medium-bomber payloads. This force would have to be ready at all times to destroy any effort by the IRGC to rebuild its military capability.Of course, whether the Air Force would ever allow such weapons is an open question. Its insistence on employing manned long-range strike assets has taken on the nature of an obsession, even though we cannot afford to lose any pilots in such dangerous missions so far from home.The only alternative might very well involve the use of weapons most Israelis are not yet ready to even contemplate using, let alone actually authorizing. I have a feeling, though, that given our impending two-front war with Turkey and Egypt, our people will have no choice but to drop their squeamishness about the preventive use of such weapons.Granted, the consequences of employing them could end up being a diplomatic nightmare. But dealing with that would be far preferable to having to bury an entire generation of our soldier children.The post Jonathan Pollard: Israel’s third option for Iran appeared first on World Israel News.