Israel has done it multiple times in the past, as far as in Tehran and Isfahan.
View attachment 127512
Isfahan is more than 1500km away from Israel. It is where Iran's Natanz nuclear facilities are.
Iraq doesn't really have much control over their airspace, nor Syria. Turkey gives NATO access to both Syria and Iran from the north, and USAF controls south/eastern Syrian airspace from at-Tanf (Syria) and all of Iraq from at-Tanf and al-Kharij (KSA). Saudis would be more than happy to provide a corridor against Iran.
There is still an increase in the possible development of 600 gallon (4,020 lb) tanks for the F-35A. We have no idea if they are the unique shape of the 426 gallon tanks, or what kind of drag they induce, but for an F-35A, 2 600 gallon tanks (8,040 lb total) would result in a 44% increase in fuel . It's possible that this would only result in a 15% increase in range, but a 15% increase, for example, would mean that an F-35A taking off from Nevatim Air Base in Israel could come within about 100 nautical miles of Tehran without aerial refueling vs about 200 nautical miles without external tanks. This difference of approximately 100 nautical miles may not seem like much, but it is the difference between an air-launched Israeli Delilah cruise missile being within range or not, for example. Israel and Lockheed have been working on this development.
Or the IAF would use the F-35 by connecting the two outer wing points that are channeled to carry up to 2 external fuel tanks (EFTs). To date there has not been an external fuel tank certified for use on the F-35, although a 426-gallon tank design has already undergone design work for the F-35, and there is currently a 600-gallon tank design in development.
The 426-gallon (2,850 lb) tank was sized and shaped primarily to provide safe separation behavior for it and adjacent munitions when jettisoned. The program had previously analyzed a baseline 480-gallon tank design, but found that the flow around such a tank would likely have resulted in weapons like JDAMs spinning dangerously when released, and so it had to be redesigned to have a more compact shape bulbous.
For an F-35A, 5,700 pounds represents only a 31% increase in fuel, and for an F-35C it is only a 29% increase, and therefore these variants would experience an even smaller percentage increase in range.
This is just to use as an example.
