Israel, Palestine and Iran

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, Nicho said:

I don’t really understand Israel’s position in terms of saying they will retaliate, surely someone like Iran could just flatten them if they really wanted to. are Iran not in a real position to do so? Or do nukes just trump everything.

 

Netanyahu wants a war with Iran. The only thing that will prevent him retaliating is Washington pulling the leash.

Israel is a comparatively powerful nation militarily, they have weapons that are better than anything any of their enemies have and they have a lot of them, and they also have nuclear capability. Iran has nothing that can compare with Israel like for like, in advancement or ability, but they do have a lot of decent stuff - similar to Russia really. They don't have a lot in the shape of an air force though, and instead focused on missile development, which are fairly good and they have loads of. Israel, however, has the most advanced missile defence in the world, and Iran would need to overwhelm it to hurt them, which would require a huge massed attack which invariably would also include Hezbollah and other proxies also coordinating attacks to assist. Even so it would be a big ask to significantly harm Israel and the attempt even in doing so would essentially guarantee the end of the Iranian regime - such an attack would force the US and other Israeli allies to retaliate as well which would quickly turn into 'solving the Iranian problem' that's been rumbling since 1980, which would quickly become a debacle bigger than Iraq has ever been because it would it chuck the balance of the Middle East in the bin and you'd have a very large and still influential even when hobbled nation turned into a huge vacuum. And it would cause issues with existing relationships as an Iran brought in from the cold is a very different prospect to now. But it would draw a line under Iranian provocation directly and greatly harm a long term Israeli threat.

[magnkarl]

I don't get Washington's stance here. Iran is the US' enemy, Israel is essentially willing to do the US' dirty work here, yet the US are holding them back? If this is how much chaos America is going to tolerate Iran causing (boarding ships, stopping shipping, bombing US allies using proxies ++) then what will they allow when or if Iran gets the bomb?

It all feels a bit like the US isn't sure what to do. Iran is essentially getting rewarded by being a massive bully, they've orchestrated the Hamas attack, fed weapons to proxies which have been used to bomb US troops and ships abroad. What more do Iran need to do before the US knocks them properly on the nose?

I presume this all leads back to the US election and Biden being afraid of being seen as too close to Israel. I can't remember a US president more afraid of putting a nation like Iran in its place than Biden. If China wants to emulate how to break apart US resolve they just need to get enough pro-Chinese groups to cause havoc to international shipping, attack a US ally causing war and then just keep stepping over red lines. The US appears weak over Ukraine and Israel. Both could cause real damage to US enemies but with Ukraine they won't even give old weapons anymore and with Israel they seem to care more about optics than a fundamentalist Muslim dictatorship causing havoc in the ME.

Edited April 14 by magnkarl

[DJBOB]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't get Washington's stance here. Iran is the US' enemy, Israel is essentially willing to do the US' dirty work here, yet the US are holding them back? If this is how much chaos America is going to tolerate Iran causing (boarding ships, stopping shipping, bombing US allies using proxies ++) then what will they allow when or if Iran gets the bomb?

It all feels a bit like the US isn't sure what to do. Iran is essentially getting rewarded by being a massive bully, they've orchestrated the Hamas attack, fed weapons to proxies which have been used to bomb US troops and ships abroad. What more do Iran need to do before the US knocks them properly on the nose?

I presume this all leads back to the US election and Biden being afraid of being seen as too close to Israel. I can't remember a US president more afraid of putting a nation like Iran in its place than Biden.

I wouldn’t presume that this is all Biden led. It has been - since the twin catastrophes of Afghanistan/Iraq - to at all possible - de-escalate and do nothing that will involve US overt commitment, but provide arms in any way possible. 
 
This testing of the waters by both Iran and previously Russia is on the same axis of coordination. You are right that the US essentially is telegraphing their lack of desire in participating in a war while maintaining a “don’t do that”

Instead of speak softly and carry a big stick, it is, “You better not or else we might provide more arms.”

From Obama to Trump to Biden, there is an unwillingness to get drawn to direct conflict but a willingness (to some degree as we’re seeing in Ukraine) to provide arms. 
 
It is an interesting paradigm overall as the US electorate does not want a war but this obvious lack of commitment has emboldened the Russia’s and Iran’s to continue poking and prodding without fear of a true reprisal. 
 
Because a true US reprisal is WW3 and contrary to the commonplace thought, the US electorate does not want war. 

[magnkarl]

6 minutes ago, DJBOB said:

I wouldn’t presume that this is all Biden led. It has been - since the twin catastrophes of Afghanistan/Iraq - to at all possible - de-escalate and do nothing that will involve US overt commitment, but provide arms in any way possible. 
 
This testing of the waters by both Iran and previously Russia is on the same axis of coordination. You are right that the US essentially is telegraphing their lack of desire in participating in a war while maintaining a “don’t do that”

Instead of speak softly and carry a big stick, it is, “You better not or else we might provide more arms.”

From Obama to Trump to Biden, there is an unwillingness to get drawn to direct conflict but a willingness (to some degree as we’re seeing in Ukraine) to provide arms. 
 
It is an interesting paradigm overall as the US electorate does not want a war but this obvious lack of commitment has emboldened the Russia’s and Iran’s to continue poking and prodding without fear of a true reprisal. 
 
Because a true US reprisal is WW3 and contrary to the commonplace thought, the US electorate does not want war. 

I agree, I just don't think it would even need to be a war. The US could bomb Iran's proxies to pieces and dismantle them with ease. A bully thinks you being in pain is funny, someone needs to make sure the bully feels the pain it is causing.

It brings us back to the point about NATO needing Europe to step up. The US are proving an unstable, fascist-infested (maga) mess. It doesn't feel like Uncle Sam cares about democracy and freedom anymore. If China is so dangerous to the US, the US sure isn't giving China many reasons not to invade Taiwan. Biden might trot out his stern language. Scary.

Edited April 14 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

54 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I agree, I just don't think it would even need to be a war. The US could bomb Iran's proxies to pieces and dismantle them with ease. 

Do you mean like in Libya? Or would Afghanistan be a better example? Or maybe you’re using Iraq as your metric?

[magnkarl]

46 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Do you mean like in Libya? Or would Afghanistan be a better example? Or maybe you’re using Iraq as your metric?

You've listed three nation states, Iran's proxies are not the countries they inhabit. In all cases there's viable groups that oppose them which the US could use to kick them out.

Hezbollah are actually not very popular in Lebanon, and Islamic Jihad (who would've thought), isn't very popular in Syria and Iraq.

For all of Trump's faults the IRGC were on the back foot outside of Iran when he was in the office (largely due to the people at the MOD), as soon as Biden took over the stance towards Iran became how to integrate them in the international system again and now we see the effects of that.

Edited April 14 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

You've listed three nation states, Iran's proxies are not the countries they inhabit. In all cases there's viable groups that oppose them which the US could use to kick them out.

Hezbollah are actually not very popular in Lebanon, and Islamic Jihad (who would've thought), isn't very popular in Syria and Iraq.

 

Then it should even more simple than our absolute supremacy and definitive wins in those nation state conflicts. Weird we haven’t already sorted it all out. 

 

[magnkarl]

28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Then it should even more simple than our absolute supremacy and definitive wins in those nation state conflicts. Weird we haven’t already sorted it all out. 

 

No no, let's keep letting a regime that hangs people in the market square for being gay, beats women to death for dancing and hunts down minorities with absolute scrutiny keep on keeping on.

What's your solution? Biden's solution with Iran makes him look weak, and makes US allies doubt their ability to be supportive.

The battlefield isn't liberal, so if we want to preserve our liberal way of life something's got to be done about Russia and Iran. Stern words don't work. The three last years are proof to that.

Edited April 14 by magnkarl

[DJBOB]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

Netanyahu wants a war with Iran. The only thing that will prevent him retaliating is Washington pulling the leash.

Israel is a comparatively powerful nation militarily, they have weapons that are better than anything any of their enemies have and they have a lot of them, and they also have nuclear capability. Iran has nothing that can compare with Israel like for like, in advancement or ability, but they do have a lot of decent stuff - similar to Russia really. They don't have a lot in the shape of an air force though, and instead focused on missile development, which are fairly good and they have loads of. Israel, however, has the most advanced missile defence in the world, and Iran would need to overwhelm it to hurt them, which would require a huge massed attack which invariably would also include Hezbollah and other proxies also coordinating attacks to assist. Even so it would be a big ask to significantly harm Israel and the attempt even in doing so would essentially guarantee the end of the Iranian regime - such an attack would force the US and other Israeli allies to retaliate as well which would quickly turn into 'solving the Iranian problem' that's been rumbling since 1980, which would quickly become a debacle bigger than Iraq has ever been because it would it chuck the balance of the Middle East in the bin and you'd have a very large and still influential even when hobbled nation turned into a huge vacuum. And it would cause issues with existing relationships as an Iran brought in from the cold is a very different prospect to now. But it would draw a line under Iranian provocation directly and greatly harm a long term Israeli threat.

 

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I agree, I just don't think it would even need to be a war. The US could bomb Iran's proxies to pieces and dismantle them with ease. A bully thinks you being in pain is funny, someone needs to make sure the bully feels the pain it is causing.

It brings us back to the point about NATO needing Europe to step up. The US are proving an unstable, fascist-infested (maga) mess. It doesn't feel like Uncle Sam cares about democracy and freedom anymore. If China is so dangerous to the US, the US sure isn't giving China many reasons not to invade Taiwan. Biden might trot out his stern language. Scary.

The answer against taking unilateral action may be in @Chindie’s post about the simmering Iran problem, which is not exclusively Israel and the US but also the Saudi’s and UAE. That other nations participated in the defense of Israel whether it’s through radar or information is very significant in the larger scope of cooperation.

The more dangerous actor in all this may be Israel who may take unilateral action to defend themselves. Iran, while encouraging this whole disaster through proxies, knows they cannot win through conventional warfare. 
 
The longer game is reminiscent of a Cold War type effort of proxy wars and maintaining alliances and weapon suprematism. But it’s not exactly a selling message to say, “Wait Iran out, form alliances with your traditional enemies, and then watch them collapse internally.”

 
 After all, the genesis of this current near world war is Iran trying to stop Israel from normalizing relations with the Saudis. 

Edited April 14 by DJBOB

[chrisp65]

39 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

No no, let's keep letting a regime that hangs people in the market square for being gay, beats up women for dancing and hunts down minorities with absolute scrutiny keep on keeping on.

What's your solution? Biden's solution with Iran makes him look weak, and makes US allies doubt their ability to be supportive.

My solution?
oh I don’t think my way of doing things would be very popular. Rather than dabbling in the performative troubles of terror state allies like Israel I think I’d choose my friends more carefully. The sort of ally that doesn’t start fights and then demand others help. But then I’d be all in with the help once it was deserved and needed, not get bored or start worrying about the bills. I’d probably try and get some sort of briefing on the history and culture and geo politics of the area, not just hope a limited bombing campaign would lead to some enhanced capitalism opportunities.

I wouldn’t over promise and under deliver for 40 years.

I’d have an operational aircraft carrier and the ability to fire a deterrent that costs £3billion per annum, or bin it off.

But I’m not sure my solution is relevant to my ability to crit the idea of sending western troops to sort out Middle Eastern proxy armies.

[magnkarl]

36 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

My solution?
oh I don’t think my way of doing things would be very popular. Rather than dabbling in the performative troubles of terror state allies like Israel I think I’d choose my friends more carefully. The sort of ally that doesn’t start fights and then demand others help. But then I’d be all in with the help once it was deserved and needed, not get bored or start worrying about the bills. I’d probably try and get some sort of briefing on the history and culture and geo politics of the area, not just hope a limited bombing campaign would lead to some enhanced capitalism opportunities.

I wouldn’t over promise and under deliver for 40 years.

I’d have an operational aircraft carrier and the ability to fire a deterrent that costs £3billion per annum, or bin it off.

But I’m not sure my solution is relevant to my ability to crit the idea of sending western troops to sort out Middle Eastern proxy armies.

I think we're on the same wavelength. If I was the US secretary of defence I'd have my aircraft carrier camped outside Odessa. I agree that Israel in its current form isn't a great ally, neither is UAE or Saudi Arabia. Iran hasn't just attacked Israel though, they've gone for US troops, Pakistan, civilian shipping and essentially everyone not male or Shia inside their own country. Why can we intercept missiles and drones heading for Israel while Russian missiles are allowed to plow into Ukrainian nurseries, pharmacies, hotels and schools?

I don't think we should send Western troops. I think we should fund the forces that are for democracy, like Ukraine, the Yemeni opposition, Iran's student organisations, women and minorities and so forth. But the cynic in me knows that people who haven't experienced war or the military doesn't really know that our liberal values stop the moment our own soldiers put on their combat load out. War is hell, and Iran knows that our way is weak as we're squabbling in congress about supporting countries who want to be democratic but are bombed to hell by their autocratic neighbours.

Edited April 14 by magnkarl

[sheepyvillian]

Just listening to a "Hawk" minded Yank on BBC news comparing Iran's attack to Pear Harbour. What an insult to viewers intelligence. 

Edited April 15 by sheepyvillian

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

Just listening to a "Hawk" minded Yank on BBC news comparing Iran's attack to Pear Harbour. What an insult to viewers intelligence. 

Absolutely bananas.

[omariqy]

 

[Awol]

During a visit to Jerusalem Cameron seems to have conceded that the Israelis are going to respond. The idea they would let it slide is for the birds, it was only the direct intervention of US (and some UK) assets that prevented far more damage on the ground. 

The Israelis will never be more prepared or (in their estimation) justified in going after Iran’s nuclear programme, the only truly existential threat it faces in the region. 

We’ll likely find out soon enough which way this is going to develop. 

[mjmooney]

 

[maqroll]

Israel bombing Iran, apparently.

 

Edited April 19 by maqroll

[sne]

41 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Israel bombing Iran, apparently.

 

Taking out some nuclear scientists again?

[maqroll]

10 minutes ago, sne said:

Taking out some nuclear scientists again?

An air base.

[desensitized43]

How does a war between 2 countries that aren’t even neighbours work? There’s literally another two countries and hundreds of miles in between them and neither has the ability to launch amphibious invasions of the other so I don’t really get what a conventional war looks like here. Presumably they just lob bombs and missiles at each other but as history has taught us, that’s never enough to win a war outright.