Thoughts on the middle east conflicts.

[ALPHAROCKETGUY]

Those are all possibilities but the likely course of action against Iran will be in the form of aerial attacks on key facilities. Pretty much as you describe in the early parts of your post. I doubt there will be serious attacks in the area (water) of the Persian Gulf as the area is too valuable to the world. It would be a "last ditch effort" by Iran to sabotage the region, not as an attack on Iran. The same is true for Kharg Island. If someone pops Kharg Island, it will definitely get Japan and China's attention. None of the other countries have the capacity to attack Israel in any meaningful way, and that includes "willingness". Turkey won't likely get involved (maybe way after the fact) in this matter other than to move on northern Syria and that is for other reasons.

The key is "government". Until Iran failed miserably in attacking Israel, there was no cogent government really involved in the skirmishes with Israel. Even the leftist media machines out there don't consider Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houties legitimate sovereign governments. That has a large bearing on how this will turn out.

My guess, and all this is my guess, is Iran will simmer down. A lot of the Iranian population is modernizing and moving or have moved away from Ayatollah government. Aerial attacks on key infrastructure will cause the Ayatollahs to start to fear their own people more and focus their attention more inward. This latest failed attack and all of the "L"s they've been taking will cause them to reconsider. There will be lots of blustery talk, aided by complicit media, but in the end, they just proved to themselves they are not strong enough militarily to take on the west. Besides, Israel doesn't have the same constraints the US does about providing some artificial sunshine to the Alborz Mountain region.

Read about the prophesied #Ezekiel38 was where #Iran (Persia) #Turkey Russia Libya Sudan...and other form a coalition and attack #Israel

 

[boatgeek]

Read about the prophesied #Ezekiel38 was where #Iran (Persia) #Turkey Russia Libya Sudan...and other form a coalition and attack #Israel

Sudan and Libya have enough internal problems. They're not going to go out looking for trouble. Russia likewise has plenty of issues in Ukraine without adding to their level of hurt. They definitely don't need to pick a fight with a nation flying modern fighter aircraft and operating an excellent air defense. Turkey and Iran forming an alliance? Hard to imagine in the near future.

PS I don't think that hashtags have any function on TRF other than making stuff hard to read.

 

[Bravo52]

I generally take any modern "journalism" with a grain of salt but having said that, I read today where Russia is actively advising Iran not to continue with attacks against Israel or other western aligned countries.

I tend to believe this report as Russia is Iran's biggest backer and currently has its hands full in Ukraine. This would mean Iran has little or no backup if things really get thick. I believe Putian would see this as an opportunity for Russia to fail on two important fronts. First, the ability to support simultaneous conflicts, and secondly, "backing out" on supposed allies. As it stands, Iran's attacks were horribly unsuccessful and even failed in the "save face" category. All it did do was acknowledged they will try to respond to anything they deem offensive. Key word being "try".

 

[OzHybrid]

Iran knows how many objects it takes to partially defeat the Iron Dome. The bombardment it sent was all low grade and well below the break through threshold. It was intended as a message that they won't be bullied and that bombing them in Iran won't be tolerated. It was also a defence penetration test of Israels capabilities.
Nothing more. Unless someone thinks they don't have nuclear capability.
Israel has to decide....Do they feel lucky?

 

[Dotini]

Israel has to decide....Do they feel lucky?

Currently Israel is thinking more with its heart than its head. They feel compelled.

 

[boatgeek]

I generally take any modern "journalism" with a grain of salt but having said that, I read today where Russia is actively advising Iran not to continue with attacks against Israel or other western aligned countries.

I tend to believe this report as Russia is Iran's biggest backer and currently has its hands full in Ukraine. This would mean Iran has little or no backup if things really get thick. I believe Putian would see this as an opportunity for Russia to fail on two important fronts. First, the ability to support simultaneous conflicts, and secondly, "backing out" on supposed allies. As it stands, Iran's attacks were horribly unsuccessful and even failed in the "save face" category. All it did do was acknowledged they will try to respond to anything they deem offensive. Key word being "try".

Not to mention that Russia doesn't want to imperil the supply of Iranian Shahed drones that it's currently using in Ukraine.

 

[Dotini]

How many bases does Russia have in Syria and the Golan Heights?

 

[Bravo52]

Iran knows how many objects it takes to partially defeat the Iron Dome. The bombardment it sent was all low grade and well below the break through threshold. It was intended as a message that they won't be bullied and that bombing them in Iran won't be tolerated. It was also a defence penetration test of Israels capabilities.
Nothing more. Unless someone thinks they don't have nuclear capability.
Israel has to decide....Do they feel lucky?

Not really. All they know is it will take more than they sent (not counting the allies support).

 

[cwbullet]

Currently Israel is thinking more with its heart than its head. They feel compelled.

I don't think that is true. They are juggling with the decision of how much this attack sets the precedence for future attacks. What is the line? If Russia shot 200-300 missiles are the US and we shot them down, would we turn the other cheek? I doubt it.

 

[NTP2]

I don't think that is true. They are juggling with the decision of how much this attack sets the precedence for future attacks. What is the line? If Russia shot 200-300 missiles are the US and we shot them down, would we turn the other cheek? I doubt it.

They won’t get shot down, as far as I’m aware we have nothing in the way of missile defense. We’re to big!

 

[Dotini]

I don't think that is true. They are juggling with the decision of how much this attack sets the precedence for future attacks. What is the line? If Russia shot 200-300 missiles are the US and we shot them down, would we turn the other cheek? I doubt it.

Yeah, maybe so. Their war cabinet has been meeting incessantly without coming to a decision, it might seem.

In the meantime, per google:

Iran shut down its nuclear facilities last Sunday over “security considerations,” UN nuclear chief Rafael Grossi has said, expressing concern over the “possibility” of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites.

I have little doubt Israel will hit Iran with everything its got short of nuclear, then Iran will respond with another attack like before, only much bigger, this time designed to really hurt.

 

[Tyeeking]

Yeah, maybe so. Their war cabinet has been meeting incessantly without coming to a decision, it might seem.

How would you possibly know that they haven’t come to any decisions? Just because they haven’t publicly announced any decisions doesn’t mean that they haven’t been made.

 

[OzHybrid]

Not really. All they know is it will take more than they sent (not counting the allies support).

Yes really. They know how many were fired from Palestine where they broke through. The number is larger than that. Israel will have rearranged their defence since then and probably stocked up as a serious attack has to be accounted for.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
The number seems to be 5000 in a concerted attack.
Iran sent 300 slow moving with plenty of warning. NOT a serious attack.
That said, Israel is currently surrounded with 11000 missiles pointed in its direction just from Irans allies. If push comes to shove, will they fire them? Who knows.
Lastly.
When you enter into a war with any country, there are survivors. People who have done nothing wrong and are now requiring refugee status in a country that accepts refugees. (Like the US) Those people may now have different views and may want to commit harm to whoever attacked them. You've now got them distributed globally. Genius-not.

 

[cerving]

Currently Israel is thinking more with its heart than its head. They feel compelled.

The entire excursion into Gaza was that. After the attack on Israel last October, somebody commented that Hamas had put Israel into a no-win position... if they go after them in Gaza it will be a bloody mess, if they show restraint the government will get roasted at home. Politicians being what they are, they elected to save their jobs.

 

[OzHybrid]

The entire excursion into Gaza was that. After the attack on Israel last October, somebody commented that Hamas had put Israel into a no-win position... if they go after them in Gaza it will be a bloody mess, if they show restraint the government will get roasted at home. Politicians being what they are, they elected to save their jobs.

I suspect the Palestinians got fed up playing The Spoon Game with the small spoon. Changed the game. Went on too long.

 

[jqavins]

Read about the prophesied #Ezekiel38 was where #Iran (Persia) #Turkey Russia Libya Sudan...and other form a coalition and attack #Israel

Ah, but consider the book of Foundation, which tells of the fall of the galactic empire as foreseen by Seldon. One is as relevant to reality as the other.

 

[Peartree]

I don't think that is true. They are juggling with the decision of how much this attack sets the precedence for future attacks. What is the line? If Russia shot 200-300 missiles are the US and we shot them down, would we turn the other cheek? I doubt it.

Israel also has an interest in sorting out the Gaza problem before "moving on" to another conflict. They have also been known to bide their time and choose a time and a place for retribution a year or three later such that everyone has forgotten about it, moved on to other interests, and then... SURPRISE!

 

[Dotini]

Reports indicate the Israelis continue in a state of dither and confusion over their next steps. There is no agreement across the board. The approach of Passover is a complication.

 

[Zeus-cat]

The only thing that I will add is that I believe that the Palestinians have suffered from horrible leadership for decades. Imagine if Yassar Arafat had brokered a serious peace deal with Israel instead of vowing to destroy it. The Palestinians and many others could be living in peace and prosperity. True leadership is accepting that you need to accept what you can obtain for your people at reasonable cost. Instead, he went for personal fame and glory and sold out his people for a pipe dream that has brought misery to his people for decades.

I feel bad for most Palestinians who just want to live their lives like most of us; have a home, job, family. Instead, they are pawns being used by their leadership. I find the situation in Gaza tragic, but I don't know if I would have done anything different if I was in charge in Israel.

 

[boatgeek]

Now that the attack (on the Damascus embassy compound), counterattack (Iran's drone-and-missile strike), and counter-counter-attack (Israel's limited strike on air defense systems) are over, a few more thoughts from various articles over the last few days.

It's possible that Iran didn't really intend to do significant damage to Israel in the counterstrike. Intelligence gained about the missile defense systems might have been worth it. It's also possible that Iran used older, non-state-of-the-art missiles in the attack to tune systems for the state-of-the-art ones later. I'm not sure how plausible I find these takes. On the one hand, I can definitely see someone saying "We spent all this money to buy this warehouse full of missiles, when are we ever going to use them?" On the other, the fact that so few missiles got through was an embarrassment to Tehran. I don't really see the hit to prestige being worth the intelligence gained, but I'm also Some Dude On The Internet with no skin in this game.

I do think that the counter-counter-strike was deliberately limited and intended to convey a simple message: "We have an effective air defense system and you don't." The air defense batteries that were destroyed are low enough value that Tehran doesn't necessarily need to mount an attack as a matter of honor, but they clearly communicate that Israel can strike anywhere in Iran with relative impunity. There are some reports out today that Israel originally planned a broader strike, but decided to tone it down.

 

[Dotini]

Now that the attack (on the Damascus embassy compound), counterattack (Iran's drone-and-missile strike), and counter-counter-attack (Israel's limited strike on air defense systems) are over, a few more thoughts from various articles over the last few days.

It's possible that Iran didn't really intend to do significant damage to Israel in the counterstrike. Intelligence gained about the missile defense systems might have been worth it. It's also possible that Iran used older, non-state-of-the-art missiles in the attack to tune systems for the state-of-the-art ones later. I'm not sure how plausible I find these takes. On the one hand, I can definitely see someone saying "We spent all this money to buy this warehouse full of missiles, when are we ever going to use them?" On the other, the fact that so few missiles got through was an embarrassment to Tehran. I don't really see the hit to prestige being worth the intelligence gained, but I'm also Some Dude On The Internet with no skin in this game.

I do think that the counter-counter-strike was deliberately limited and intended to convey a simple message: "We have an effective air defense system and you don't." The air defense batteries that were destroyed are low enough value that Tehran doesn't necessarily need to mount an attack as a matter of honor, but they clearly communicate that Israel can strike anywhere in Iran with relative impunity. There are some reports out today that Israel originally planned a broader strike, but decided to tone it down.

In my humble opinion, the Iranian strike on Israel was a massive success in that it put the fear of God into the Israelis who were forced to put on only the most timid and lackluster response they could imagine - quadcopters!

 

[Bravo52]

In my humble opinion, the Iranian strike on Israel was a massive success in that it put the fear of God into the Israelis who were forced to put on only the most timid and lackluster response they could imagine - quadcopters!

Finally, someone is interested in buying a bridge I have for sale in Arizona! I would like you to forward the purchase price to my friend (who happens to be a Nigerian Prince.) However, in order to protect you, please send only WalMart gift cards.

The Israelis already fear God. It's the otherside that appears to be questionable.

I have a different take. The Israelis were protecting the US investment of $17B they are getting. This is about politics, not capabilities (isn't all wars?).

P.S. You got me with your troll. I appear to be the first to laugh out loud and respond! Well done!

 

[boatgeek]

In my humble opinion, the Iranian strike on Israel was a massive success in that it put the fear of God into the Israelis who were forced to put on only the most timid and lackluster response they could imagine - quadcopters!

While some quadcopters or other drones may have been in the air (possibly to distract air defenses a la sinking of the Moskva), it appears that the missiles were launched by aircraft. Since the plausible missiles have noticeably less range than the distance from Isfahan to Iran's border, IDF planes overflew Iran, apparently without triggering any air defense alerts. Of course, they also overflew Iraq and Syria too, also apparently without drawing any fire. It's theoretically possible that Iraq decided not to notice something flying over, but Syria would have if they could. It's also possible that the Saudis gave Israel permission to overfly their territory, but that still requires IDF planes to overfly some parts of Iran, likely with more extensive air defense systems.

Plus, if you haven't noticed in Ukraine or on 10/7, armed quadcopters are quite capable of taking out a wide range of armored vehicles.

 

[Dotini]

While some quadcopters or other drones may have been in the air (possibly to distract air defenses a la sinking of the Moskva), it appears that the missiles were launched by aircraft. Since the plausible missiles have noticeably less range than the distance from Isfahan to Iran's border, IDF planes overflew Iran, apparently without triggering any air defense alerts. Of course, they also overflew Iraq and Syria too, also apparently without drawing any fire. It's theoretically possible that Iraq decided not to notice something flying over, but Syria would have if they could. It's also possible that the Saudis gave Israel permission to overfly their territory, but that still requires IDF planes to overfly some parts of Iran, likely with more extensive air defense systems.

Plus, if you haven't noticed in Ukraine or on 10/7, armed quadcopters are quite capable of taking out a wide range of armored vehicles.

The bottom line is that Iran has now, in theory, achieved deterrence for future attacks on the Syrian embassy annex, etc. They should have already had it per international law, but Israel became accustomed to violating it. Not anymore. We hope.

 

[boatgeek]

The bottom line is that Iran has now, in theory, achieved deterrence for future attacks on the Syrian embassy annex, etc. They should have already had it per international law, but Israel became accustomed to violating it. Not anymore. We hope.

I believe that you are completely misreading the situation. I don't think Israel scaled back the counter-counter-attack because it was concerned about Iran's capability to mount a missile barrage. They nearly went whole-hog (so to speak) immediately after the Iranian strike, but slowed down a little after allies advised restraint. How much impact that advice had is open to question. The Israeli military prepared a full range of response options, and the war cabinet chose more or less the minimum.

In the end, Israel sent a very clear military message without it being big enough to be a political message as well. The IDF may as well have asked Iran "Do you feel lucky?"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nd-drones-how-israels-attack-on-iran-unfolded

 

[Bravo52]

....They nearly went whole-hog (so to speak) immediately after the Iranian strike, but slowed down a little after allies advised restraint. How much impact that advice had is open to question. The Israeli military prepared a full range of response options, and the war cabinet chose more or less the minimum.

This is a very important statement. It shows just how willing several coalition countries are to prevent a massive strike in Iran. Nothing short of going "all in" on the defense of Israel during Iran's failed attempt to strike them, shows the world the coalition fully supports Israel.

I thought it was a very savvy move on part of the coalition to jump in because as you point out, if there had been a modicum of success in the Iranian strike, NGOs world-wide would now be calculating when it would be "safe" to go into Iran with relief efforts for the citizens. (Not sure if it was intentional, but the irony of the "whole-hog" comment is not lost )

My question is when this response was coordinated. It had to be well in advance if you consider multiple countries coordinating a plan of action to execute on short notice. Was it an Israeli demand or was it an offer from the other countries....

 

[boatgeek]

This is a very important statement. It shows just how willing several coalition countries are to prevent a massive strike in Iran. Nothing short of going "all in" on the defense of Israel during Iran's failed attempt to strike them, shows the world the coalition fully supports Israel.

I thought it was a very savvy move on part of the coalition to jump in because as you point out, if there had been a modicum of success in the Iranian strike, NGOs world-wide would now be calculating when it would be "safe" to go into Iran with relief efforts for the citizens. My question is when this response was coordinated. It had to be well in advance if you consider multiple countries coordinating a plan of action to execute on short notice. Was it an Israeli demand or was it an offer from the other countries....

I see there being two halves of this. On the defense against the Iranian missile attack, there was some warning so there was time to coordinate to some degree. I'm getting out of my area of expertise, but I assume it's possible to assign assets already in the area to protect certain axes of attack from Iran. There must have been pretty serious intelligence coordination to sort out what those axes of attack would likely be and who was best placed to intercept them with what tools. You know better than I do how much advance coordination that requires. The fact that most of the intercepts happened outside Israel may have made it easier since US troops in Syria and Iraq presumably have some anti-air capability that they could use well away from Israeli forces.

I envision the meeting with Israeli, US, and UK generals going something like Israel saying that they welcome US and UK help in fending off an attack, and they of course are welcome to decide how "all-in" they're going to go in that defense. But they should know that if Iran does serious damage to Israel, Israel will respond in kind. If their goal is to prevent a wider regional war, then they need to be all-in on Israel's defense to ensure minimal damage in Iran's strike. The response can be dealt with later if Iran's attack fails. In other words, not a demand but a clear statement of what will happen, made between professionals. Note that this is my imagination. I have no inside knowledge or particular insights into the personalities involved.

The second half was Israels' response. I think that the US and UK being all-in on Israel's defense gave them more influence in asking for restraint in the response. There was definitely some political theater (Biden: "Take the win." Netanyahu: "No one else gets to decide for us."), but I do think that the successful defense gave time for cooler heads to prevail in the response.

(Not sure if it was intentional, but the irony of the "whole-hog" comment is not lost )

I didn't intend it when I originally typed, but I saw the irony as soon as it appeared on the screen. I decided to leave it in for giggles.

 

[Dotini]

I was watching TV the night of the Iranian strike, when I, the Israelis, and all the world could see the sky full of descending and rising weapons of war. We all saw at least 3 directly strike the airbase with ensuing bright flashes from the ground, and with one making an evasive maneuver immediately before impact. If they fired 300 missiles and 1% hit, there's your 1% right there. But if at least two airbases were hit - one clearly near the Israel nuclear facilities - the success rate must've been much better than 1%, maybe closer to 10%. This was a massive reality check and wake-up call to all present who were viewing. If the attack had come from 1500 modern missiles instead of 300 relics, the destruction could have been massive. But the attack was warned of beforehand, and nobody died and no nuclear targets were hit. If Israel had counterattacked in massive force, WW3 could well have ensued. We all dodged a bullet that day. Biden and Netanyahu did the right thing by pulling their punch on the reprisal. Quadcopters, really.

 

[Peartree]

As it has been pointed out earlier, there was zero intelligence value to Iran's attack. The attack was limited to hundreds of missiles. Iran already has data from attacks on Israel (by their proxies) using thousands of rockets. The capabilities and limitations of Iron Dome are already well known. The only new thing was seeing ICBMs intercepted in the upper atmosphere operationally (this, I think David's Sling).

Interestingly, as much as Reagan's Star Wars projects are poor poo-d and ridiculed, that was the origin of some of the tech that makes interception of ICBMs possible.

 

[jqavins]

In my humble opinion, the Iranian strike on Israel was a massive success in that it put the fear of God into the Israelis...

That attack didn't put the fear of God into anybody. Iran threw lots and lots of armament toward Israel; some of it was shot down by the Jordanians and nearly all the rest by the iron dome. The only casualty was a little girl. In Jordan. Fear of God? It may have put the fear of further embarrassment into Iran, and it put tragic grief into one Jordanian family, and that's all it accomplished.

They should have already had it per international law, but Israel became accustomed to violating it.

Now there, I quite agree. But not that the Iranian attack did anything to change that.