The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...
2581
The Global Intelligence Files

### Index pages

List of Releases

### by Date of Document

unspecified
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

### by Date of Release

2001-03-13
2010-03-10
2011-03-05
2011-03-15
2012-01-29
2012-02-27
2012-02-28
2012-02-29
2012-03-01
2012-03-02
2012-03-03
2012-03-04
2012-03-05
2012-03-06
2012-03-07
2012-03-08
2012-03-09
2012-03-10
2012-03-11
2012-03-12
2012-03-13
2012-03-14
2012-03-15
2012-03-16
2012-03-17
2012-03-19
2012-03-20
2012-03-23
2012-03-25
2012-03-26
2012-03-27
2012-04-01
2012-04-02
2012-04-24
2012-04-26
2012-04-30
2012-05-10
2012-06-18
2012-06-20
2012-07-01
2012-07-24
2012-07-28
2012-07-29
2012-07-30
2012-07-31
2012-08-01
2012-08-02
2012-08-05
2012-08-06
2012-08-07
2012-08-08
2012-08-09
2012-08-10
2012-08-11
2012-08-12
2012-08-13
2012-08-14
2012-08-15
2012-08-16
2012-08-17
2012-08-18
2012-08-19
2012-08-20
2012-08-21
2012-08-22
2012-08-23
2012-08-24
2012-08-25
2012-08-26
2012-08-27
2012-08-29
2012-08-30
2012-08-31
2012-09-01
2012-09-02
2012-09-03
2012-09-04
2012-09-05
2012-09-06
2012-09-07
2012-09-09
2012-09-10
2012-09-11

### Our Partners

ABC Color - Paraguay
Al Akhbar - Lebanon
Al Masry Al Youm - Egypt
Asia Sentinel - Hong Kong
Bivol - Bulgaria
Carta Capital - Brazil
CIPER - Chile
Dawn Media - Pakistan
L'Espresso - Italy
La Repubblica - Italy
La Jornada - Mexico
La Nacion - Costa Rica
Malaysia Today - Malaysia
McClatchy - United States
Nawaat - Tunisia
NDR/ARD - Germany
Owni - France
Pagina 12 - Argentina
Philip Dorling - Fairfax media contributor - Australia
Plaza Publica - Guatemala
Publica - Brazil
Publico.es - Spain
Rolling Stone - United States
Russian Reporter - Russia
Ta Nea - Greece
Taraf - Turkey
The Hindu - India
The Yes Men - Bhopal Activists
Sunday Star-Times - New Zealand

### Community resources

Supporters Support Wikileaks Follow us on Twitter Twitter this Follow us on Facebook

courage is contagious

# The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

## RE: ANALYST TASKING - CLIENT QUESTION - Israeli strike against Iran

Released on 2012-03-27 12:00 GMT

Email-ID | 1113282
Date | 2010-02-25 01:39:33
From | burton@stratfor.com
To | analysts@stratfor.com, nathan.hughes@stratfor.com
List-Name | analysts@stratfor.com

When they loose their HUMINT coverage they will move.
Thus far, elements of their disruption strategy has been working from what
I understand.
When the window closes, BB knows what he must do. We won't be given any
warning, similar to their strike on Abu Jihad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Hughes
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:56 PM
To: Analyst List
Subject: Re: ANALYST TASKING - CLIENT QUESTION - Israeli strike against
Iran
The Israelis are wily bastards, so you can't rule anything out.
They should be able to range most targets in Iran with their newer Jericho
ballistic missiles, though that's not going to get you bunker busting
without nukes and they'd only use -- if any -- a handful because that's
part of their nuclear deterrent.
Same deal with the sub-launched cruise missiles. But these are thought to
be more limited in range and also aren't going to get you either the
bunker busting or quantities you need.
So you need the air force. The strike package would be impacted
significantly by the route. This is a big, complex operation no matter how
you slice it. But the shorter the route, the more targets they can hit.
But the US would take several weeks to do this. That isn't realistic for
the izzies. They'll conduct BDA and might be able to get a few follow-on
strikes but they don't have friends and the airspace issue is key.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Zeihan <zeihan@stratfor.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:44:15 -0600
To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
Subject: Re: ANALYST TASKING - CLIENT QUESTION - Israeli strike against
Iran
that's not the question -- the question is that if they go solo, what can
they hit iran with?
Nate Hughes wrote:
If Iran crosses a red line, yes, Israel will act unilaterally if forced
to. Exactly where the red line for Israel is -- that's a key unknown
because Israel is laying on the rhetoric pretty think right now in order
to shift perceptions and get more prompt, effective action.
As far as we know, Israel's Jericho arsenal of ballistic missiles is
equipped primarily as part of the nuclear deterrent -- something it'll
need if it has any doubts about the effectiveness of its attempt to
destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program. At the end of the day, they do,
because they know that unilaterally, they'll only be setting it back,
not making a good shot at destroying it.
Thus even when it comes down to the unilateral strike, there will be
some interest in implicating the U.S. in the conflict and getting it to
come in and act.
But the attack itself will likely center around an air campaign. Some
ballistic missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles may be used to
supplement the attack, but without the use of nuclear weapons, only a
large air campaign has the capacity to haul the ordnance to the number
of sites necessary to even attempt to pull this off -- especially the
heavy 5,000 lb bunker busters Israel would use to attempt to destroy
hardened and deeply buried facilities.
Airspace is an issue, and using Iraq's presents a number of political
problems (not the least that it is controlled by the USAF). How that is
addressed will be a significant factor in how this plays out and the
length of an air campaign that Israel can sustain -- and not just the
practical issue of range, but the political issue of the use of which
airspace.
The Israelis can absolutely sustain air operations at a high rate of
intensity, but at that range, they have very limited tanker assets and
generally go for more of the hit and be gone before anybody knows they
were there angle. But that's not how a complex air campaign works --
they need to be able to carry out battle damage assessments and conduct
follow on strikes. Not clear how long that will be feasible which is
part of the problem to begin with.
Korena, I'll be offline for a bit, but give me a call if you need to
talk this.
On 2/24/2010 5:30 PM, Karen Hooper wrote:
Team,
In regards to an Israeli strike against Iran, we have written that the
range and complexity of such an air campaign means that an air
campaign carried out in coordination with the United States would
likely be significantly more comprehensive and more effective -
something Israel wants. However, should all diplomatic efforts fail
and in the worst case scenario, do we think Israel would strike
against Iran without assistance from the U.S. regardless if it is a
comprehensive attack or not? Does Israel even have the capability to
solely launch strikes against Iran without the assistance of the U.S.?
If so, how long of a strike could Israel sustain with its current
missile load--what capability does Israel have to sustain an air
campaign to strike all desired targets?
Feedback needed by COB. Let me know if you have any questions.
--
Karen Hooper
Director of Operations
STRATFOR
www.stratfor.com
--