The question is would they want to use the Rampage or the LORA equivalent?
Based on the statements it seems they want to make it very visual for Iran - call it “shock and awe” retaliation for what their population experienced.
But the key is the targets because that factors in both distance, terrain and type of assets needed.
ALBMs may not suffice to hit mountain bunkers facing a certain direction and you need to either have a more maneuvering cruise system that can come around to hit a target or use PGMs.
Petrochemical facilities are a different question and for that ALBMs are enough.
I don’t think QRAs will have an impact or anything IRIAF has will in such a scenario.
But I would not discard the constant news stream on decisions and measures and so on - these are now hollow and whatever their content have a purpose through their manipulation of media.
Without USAF/USN's e-jamming (likely) or kinetic intervention (unlikely), Israeli jets can't come close or cross into Iranian skies to deliver PGMs, and if they do by refueling, many will be shot down by IADS. When IRIAF was being budget strangled, Iranian IADS was being built at rapid pace so atleast they can guard the skies or make it difficult for enemy to go without paying a price.
https://defencepk.com/forums/thread...sets-of-iran-current-and-possibilities.14225/
Even with refueling, to deliver a package of 2000 lbs PGMS (MK-84), the jets will then have to land in UAE/KSA which is extremely unlikely. Knowing Israelis they won't risk it, so ALBMs or SOWs from distance do seem like the right choice where US directs e-warfare from distance while Israel does a "Dog and Pony" show strike at some base of missile factory just like what Iran did.
Iran even with 400 x SU-35S and S-400s spread around the entire geography can not stop it!
............ But wars are strategic in nature like a game of chess. Iran basically demonstrated that it can violate the Israeli airspace and target anything inside Israel upon will, all those expensive air defense layers will not be any help. My own assumption is that Iranian strike was aimed to the strategic goal of "demonstration" of capability more than causing actual damage, a signal of extreme capability (180 modern RVs, HGVs) but also of "we did not cause damage, we control the escalation ladder". The paralysis we are seeing in Israeli decision-making is because of this, if they cause actual damage to Iranian nuclear facilities or oil infrastructure then they are the ones who are themselves enabling Iran to climb up the ladder of escalation by:
(a) Testing nuclear devices in some pre-prepared read to trigger tunnel systems in the south or east, even right now it has enough enriched WGU to make roughly ~20 small to mid-tier yield fission devices and that's what IAEA knows officially. Clergy's "Taqiyeh" capabilities can not be underestimated. States do that. Problems for Israel come later though, the moment Iran announces tests, Egypt, Turkey, Saudis, UAE will be paying any amount for the "off the shelf" weapons or may work towards developing them for their safety. Suddenly Israel is surrounded by nuclear-armed states that it won't be able to influence any longer. Strategically speaking, this is a scary and unacceptable scenario for Israel which authors often point to as the deterrent Iran created in 2000s, triggering the chain "nuclearization" of the entire middle-east.
(b) What stops Iran from again doing the same kind of strike at Israel, this time with stronger warheads on HGVs and MaRVS, aimed at ports, industrial sites, oil terminals, power stations, airports etc ? Yes Israel will again retaliate with ALBM or SOWs or whatever but now that image of "invincibility" is thrashed to pieces. Now Israel is the country that "gets it" every few months by Iran from distance.
In short, Iranian defence against Israel is retaliation at strategic levels, thats where it can win which is more important than anything else.
