Middle East: the annals of misinformation

By Richard North - October 4, 2024

With all that’s going on, it is difficult to pick a single issue and elevate it above the rest, affording the full treatment of my daily blogpost. This is one penalty of this format, in that I have to decide which of the many topics to write on, which carries with it the implication that I see the chosen issue as more important than the rest of the topics presenting themselves in the news.

Most readers, though, will understand that this isn’t the case. By preference, I tend to choose “important but neglected” issues – which is why I started blogging in the first place, writing about the European Union which was rarely given the attention it deserved.

The other deciding factor is whether I can add value. There is no point in me writing about some of the more high-profile issues, where I have no special knowledge or interest, and cannot add anything to the coverage of the hour. I tend to look for issues where I can either impart information, which is not readily in the public domain, or is being overlooked or misreported, or where I feel I can add some special insight.

It doesn’t always work out that way, of course, but fitting my general criteria is a piece in today’s Times from the paper’s defence editor, Larisa Brown, headed: “Iran digs deep to put nuclear facility beyond Israel arsenal”.

This addresses the topical issue of Israel’s retaliation for the Iranian missile attack earlier in the week and covers the practical issue of whether the current generation of weapons would be capable of reaching the well-protected Iranian nuclear processing facilities.

Actually, Brown’s piece is more basic that that, as she writes at a very simplistic level, illustrated by her sub-heading which tells us: “Even US ‘bunker buster’ missiles may struggle to reach the Natanz uranium enrichment complex, which is buried up to 100 metres deep in the earth”.

Of this, I would have thought that most informed people – the sort who would be interested in this sort of report – would already be aware, and I was writing about this point two days ago, crediting my readers with that knowledge.

It was thus that I wrote “it is known”, that Iran’s nuclear facilities are (or have been) transferred to a subterranean site so deep and well protected as to make them impervious to the “bunker buster” weapons that the Israelis could deploy.

Expanding n the topic, therefore, I did refer to an article which suggested that the United States might have developed a new munition – the GBU-72 – which could be capable of doing the job.

With that background, therefore, I was interested to see what Brown made of the issue as she delved into the technical problems as she explored the subject of “bunker buster” bombs.

Unfortunately – as seems so often the case with the legacy media – Brown does not do her own research, accessing a huge range of literature on the subject. Rather, she goes for the “prestige” option and consults talking head, Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Savill tells her that the “main problem is that the two deepest buried enrichment facilities are under the mountains and would probably need massive US bombs only they can use”. The Israelis, he says, would need to have the US’s B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver a 30,000lb class GBU-57/B that is designed to penetrate fortifications up to 60 metres below ground, possibly more.

Brown then relies on research carried out in 2010 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a US think tank, which has it that even the GBU-57/B may not be enough to destroy the facilities, citing unnamed “experts” who believed that nuclear weapons were the “only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels”.

She then refers back to Savill, who points out that Israel could hit lots of other related targets, such as reactors, fuel production and the uranium conversion facilities themselves. The Israelis, we are told, could deploy the GBU-28 bunker-busting bomb, which can penetrate up to about six metres of concrete, and be dropped by F-15Is.

And that is as far as it goes, the best that the resources of The Times can offer, in return for the subscription charges or the cover price for the print edition. In vain will more knowledgeable readers (or even mere blog readers) search for any reference to the GBU-72.

The giveaway here though is the reference to the 2010 CSIS study. Although Brown doesn’t identify it, Reuters does, in a piece dated 12 January 2012 – more than 12 years ago – bearing the title: “Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of “bunker busters”, remarkably similar to the theme chosen by Brown.

The CSIS study in question is entitled “Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program”, by analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman, which is still available online, running to 208 pages. Back in 2010, as Reuters reports, it concludes that the US “the only country that can launch a successful Military Solution”, based on the use of the GBU-57.

The point about this bomb – as noted in Brown’s piece – is indicated by its full name, the GBU-57A/B MOP, the initials standing for Massive Ordnance Penetrator. It is so heavy at 13,600kg that it can be delivered only by the B-52 or B-2 platforms, aircraft not available to the IAF.

But this report was published 14 years ago, and things have moved on a bit since. Specifically, development on “bunker busters” continued, culminating in the production of the GBU-72A which was first test dropped early in 2021 (pictured), the results not being announced until 12 October of the same year.

This weapon is designated the Advanced 5,000 Pound Penetrator, abbreviated to A5K, designed with a lethality “substantially higher compared to similar legacy weapons like the GBU-28”. Details remain classified, but performance is believed to be comparable with the GBU-57 series of weapons.

The crucial difference, of course, is that the 5,000lb weight is within the capacity of the Israeli fleet of F-15I Ra’am fighters, the upgraded version of the US F-15E with increased range and load capacity, making it the IAF’s primary strike aircraft.

Another essential feature of the GBU-72 is that it is a precision weapon, employing the very latest in guidance technology. Therefore, its effect can be enhanced by the simultaneous launch of multiple weapons, all targeted at the same point.

On this basis, Brown’s crude thesis that only US aircraft can deliver a successful strike against Iranian bunkers is probably incorrect, based as it is on out-of-date information. The Times of today is bringing us a story which is 14 years old.

To be fair – if one must – Brown is not the only one to mislead her readers. The Guardian also addresses the subject. Dan Sabbagh, the paper’s defence and security editor, writes that “military experts” believe it would be impossible for Israel to mount a disruptive strike on Iran’s network of nuclear sites without direct military help from the US.

The key sites, he says, where Iran is enriching uranium up to 60 percent purity, Natanz and Fordow, are both underground, below several dozen metres of rock and concrete.

Sabbagh relies on a paper first published in April of this year and republished on 1 October, written by Darya Dolzikova – and Matthew Savill, the very same source on whom Brown relies.

This too declares that, “The only conventional weapon that could plausibly achieve this is the American GBU-57A/B massive ordnance penetrator, which – with over 12 tonnes and 6 metres long – can only be carried by large US bombers like the B-2 Spirit”.

And before one runs away with the idea that my observations are mere pedantry, the difference is that, with the GBU-72, the Israelis could mount a strike on Iran’s protected facilities whereas without it, only the US could mount a successful strike – something which Biden has said he will not support.

Assuming that the IAF has been supplied at an earlier date with the GBU-72, technology becomes an enabler, with significant geopolitical implications. But you won’t hear this from the legacy media. Once again the quote that is often attributed to Mark Twain comes to mind: “If you don’t read the newspapers, you’re uninformed. If you do read them, you are misinformed”.

But then, you could always read a blog.