Israel-Iran-Proxies Conflict

[urbanoid]

Khamenei received a community note from twitter

 

[urbanoid]

I haven't seen that one before, with memes like that we truly live in great times.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Truth.

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Glenn thinks Shahed is the solution to all military problems the world over rather than the niche weapon for spread out soft targets that it is.

I have no doubt Hezbollah will use everything at its disposal now to the best of its ability; I think it is just already so badly hurt it will struggle to respond in a unified way. And I do not think Iran is going to be allowed to resupply the organization in any significant way while this fight carries on. They either have to go ballistic and accept the consequences or sit it out and watch their best outside resources go to waste.

No, for naval matters he is partial to the Siebel ferries.

[Josh]

2 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

No, for naval matters he is partial to the Siebel ferries.

Shahed is the new siebel; he made an argument they could be used to threaten the USN despite having a top speed half of that of a WWII torpedo bomber with a much lower flight ceiling. IE, the perfect envelope for 5” DP proxy fuse fire that made torpedo bombers obsolescent before the war was over.

Edited September 28 by Josh

[Mighty_Zuk]

Assad remains the smartest member of the axis, by far.

[urbanoid]

Can someone with good photoshop (or even paint) skills make a Siebel Shahed? 

[RETAC21]

5 minutes ago, Josh said:

Shahed is the new siebel; he made an argument they could be used to threaten the USN despite having a top speed half of that of a WWII torpedo bomber with a much lower flight ceiling. IE, the perfect envelope for 5” DP proxy fuse fire that made torpedo bombers obsolescent before the war was over.

Siebel ferries carrying Shaheeds.... 

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Pumping 83 times with that deep penetration ordnance, finishing with an unprecedented load all over that Nasrallah guy.

 

 

In continuation of my analysis:

1. Israel's siege on Lebanon is the right move. For those unaware, Israel closed off Beirut airport to Iranian cargo planes a few hours ago, and started bombing the border crossings. It is vital to keep these disabled.

2. Atomizing Nasrallah is enough cause for celebration for every Israeli, Lebanese, and Syrian, but it's not the end of this war. Nasrallah has a doppleganger that already took his place. Hezbollah can still fight, and some parts of its force structure are practically untouched. As raised here before, Hezbollah can still choose to YOLO this whole thing.

3. Munitions and funds must be set aside to provide CAS to Lebanese militias should they choose to fight Hezbollah in the coming months/years. Unfortunately, however, the Christians in Lebanon are averse to conflicts, even if it means they're ultimately subjugated.

4. Pressure must be kept on enemy leadership. Funerals must become targets as well, as they contain a large concentration of terrorists. Particularly in J&S where they provide solid opportunities to get rid of large amounts of terrorists at once.

5. Iran clearly has the time and freedom to recalculate. It shouldn't have that freedom. A strategic advantage is obtained by disrupting the enemy's planning capability. By simply annihilating Iran's top leadership, it would be denied the ability to prosecute a coherent strategy vs Israel. In Iran's context, this can be the religious chain of command, the parliament, top IRGC leadership, and Basij leadership and C2. Only the Basij C2 has to be disrupted for there to be significant effect, if options are limited.

 

Going by Col John Warden's Five Rings, one is already out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden's_Five_Rings

[Stuart Galbraith]

Speaking of rings.. say, do you think upped the charge in the beepers?🤔

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

it's worth recalling that Nasrallah was just an asshole.

Given that, I still wonder "why now"?  What changed in Israel's calculus of war that led to this enormous improvement in efficiency? Did Israel grow weary of Washington's ineffectiveness or did a series of random events coincide to make all this possible?  What communications between Hamas and Hezbollah were intercepted that gave away so many Hezbollah secrets?

Is it possible even likely that Israel had the ability to do this all along?  Most liklely not or Oct 7th wouldn't have happened.  I suspect that the signals traffic surrounding the Oct 7th conflagration gave Israel an opportunity for new intelligence and the disaster itself focused the better thinkers (not so much politicians) in the IDF to get better results.

Israel unshackled is bad for many bad actors in the ME but in the long run it is good for the established nation states.  It's not currently advisible to pick a fight with Israel as they are suddenly punching far above their weight.

[Josh]

I suspect there was a unique confluence of will and intel about his location.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Nasrallah's successor, Hashem, has also been eliminated. Looks a lot like Nasrallah. This is whomst I referred to when I said his doppleganger will replace him. Not anymore.

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

Given that, I still wonder "why now"?  What changed in Israel's calculus of war that led to this enormous improvement in efficiency?

Easy. Netanyahu is a dovish leader in a region of warring tribes. For 16 years he employed policies that allowed Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran to balloon to be the threats they were until today. 

Public pressure may have gotten to him. Israel needs a hawk desperately, and he may think that being a hawk now will make the public forget his dovish BS got us October 7th. Maybe he's right. Maybe the public will forgive and forget. I hope not.

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

Did Israel grow weary of Washington's ineffectiveness or did a series of random events coincide to make all this possible? 

The US under Biden's administration has proven to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan that the US may have been a superpower once, but it cannot be depended upon as an ally.

Under Biden, the US damaged Israel's economy quite severely and aimed to subvert its gains. It is also believed in Israel's defense establishment that the Biden admin leaks shared Israeli plans to its enemies to dissuade Israel from taking military action that would ensure its security.

Consequently we're hearing about more and more high profile actions that Israel doesn't notify the US about.

Israel should accept aid money from the US because that's the least the US can do to repay the favor, but otherwise Israel should keep ignoring the US's requests until either the US decides to foot the bill, at least its part of it, or elects hawkish leadership that decides to cooperate with Israel.

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

Is it possible even likely that Israel had the ability to do this all along?  Most liklely not or Oct 7th wouldn't have happened.  I suspect that the signals traffic surrounding the Oct 7th conflagration gave Israel an opportunity for new intelligence and the disaster itself focused the better thinkers (not so much politicians) in the IDF to get better results.

Every intelligence capability you saw deployed in Lebanon, was built long before October 7th.

I won't repeat my long posts from last year but the essence is that October 7th was not an intelligence failure. It was a failure in many other areas, primarily in setting up a proper Gaza border ORBAT.

 

It is also widely assumed the strike campaign was assisted by a mole.

Edited September 28 by Mighty_Zuk

[Josh]

The U.S. is not fighting Israel’s wars under any president. Trump will give you exactly the same answer, as will Kamala. I do not understand why you think the US is under any moral or legal obligation to fight your wars for you; apparently you think somehow you are doing America’s work for them despite the fact the U.S. has no interests outside oil and 5th fleet, and Israel largely has nothing to do with either. More over skyrocketing US oil production, even under Biden, has dramatically changed the oil dynamic.

That said I wish Israel well and am happy with their astounding success of the last couple weeks. I also fully support US munitions being supplied; I just find your criticism of the U.S. unjustified given the fact Israel literally could not succeed without U.S. munitions supplies. That said, it seems likely the entire calculus of the Iranian axis might have been altered in a hard months work by Israel. Congratulations.

[urbanoid]

22 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Nasrallah's successor, Hashem, has also been eliminated. Looks a lot like Nasrallah. This is whomst I referred to when I said his doppleganger will replace him. Not anymore.

Spawn campers!

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

The U.S. is not fighting Israel’s wars under any president.

Didn't say it should. If you're gonna comment, why do you have to insert words in people's mouths just for your point to stand? This is a very bad idea.

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

apparently you think somehow you are doing America’s work for them despite the fact the U.S. has no interests outside oil and 5th fleet, and Israel largely has nothing to do with either.

Oil rights is a myth that was busted a long time ago and has no right to exist in 2024 when people have access to better education. 

If you really think any of this is about oil, you belong to the generation of conspiracy theorists from 30 years ago.

Iran is American responsibility. Plain and simple. It's a regime installed by the US, and so the US has the responsibility to clean up this mess. Furthermore, Iran projects power and Israel is simply stopping it in the middle east, but has already de facto managed to engage militarily in Europe and in global trade routes. It would have extended much further without Israel. 

Anyone who believes Israel should lead the fight against Iran, clearly has no understanding of what Iran is, its history, and the current state of military affairs.

[Mighty_Zuk]

On 9/25/2024 at 5:21 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

My analysis:

Ground incursion will not benefit Israel. Or at least it should be very limited, only to south of the Litani with perhaps the aim of displacing the Shi'ite population. 

Hezbollah poses a threat to Israel in 2 ways:

1. In peak strength, it deters Israel from action in Iran.
2. In reduced strength, rocket fire into cities disrupts the economy.

Israel can bring Hezbollah to a status of vastly reduced strength with an aerial campaign alone. Committing to a ground incursion without the goal of completely annihilating Hezbollah will keep it in a status of reduced strength, and only slightly prolong the time until it can return to a status of peak strength. It would, however, put tremendous strain on Israel's economy and warfighting capability, and thus would be net beneficial to Iran and Hezbollah.

Committing to annihilating Hezbollah necessarily involves setting up another center of power in Lebanon that can keep rival factions in check. For example in the way Saddam kept the Shi'ites in check.

Israel, however, has little capability when it comes to nation building. At least when it comes to the necessary resources. It would need to stay for many more months in Lebanon, if not years, to train and arm a local Christian and Druze population. Similar to 1982. 
The US and France can help with that. But both nations have demonstrated complete lack of appetite in resolving international conflicts and are hard focused on internal policies.

So as long as Israel cannot recruit the US to its cause, it cannot benefit from a ground incursion. Furthermore, if any policy change were to occur in that regard, it would only clarify after the US elections, which is still a long time away in the context of the current state of affairs in Lebanon.

I remind of this analysis. There is some chatter about preparations for a ground incursion. Regardless of current events, preparing for such contingency is healthy and important just in case. It doesn't mean there are plans to invade. But let's assume for the sport that it will happen at some point.

If we factor everything into it, a ground incursion is unlikely if we're talking about a full scope, up to Beirut and Baalbek and back. It is however quite likely if it's a very limited one, no further than the Litani in its main effort. 

What sets the likelihood is primarily the issue of costs. Full invasion at this point would cost a lot and yield not so high gains. It's therefore low on the cost efficiency scale. A limited invasion focused around displacing the Shi'ites and setting up training ground for Christians and Druze, would yield less than a full invasion, but also cost much less. So it's higher on the cost efficiency scale. It's therefore more logical. 

Reasons I'm reminding of this are:

1. Recent events did not neutralize Hezbollah even if they have tremendous impact. 
2. Day-after considerations are more important than just dealing with Hezbollah in the short term.
3. We're already reaching exhaustion of the IDF's operational tempo. It still has a lot to do in dismantling Hezbollah, but the volume of fire has already gone down quite drastically because a lot of the obvious targets were struck.

[Josh]

21 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Didn't say it should. If you're gonna comment, why do you have to insert words in people's mouths just for your point to stand? This is a very bad idea.

Oil rights is a myth that was busted a long time ago and has no right to exist in 2024 when people have access to better education. 

If you really think any of this is about oil, you belong to the generation of conspiracy theorists from 30 years ago.

Iran is American responsibility. Plain and simple. It's a regime installed by the US, and so the US has the responsibility to clean up this mess. Furthermore, Iran projects power and Israel is simply stopping it in the middle east, but has already de facto managed to engage militarily in Europe and in global trade routes. It would have extended much further without Israel. 

Anyone who believes Israel should lead the fight against Iran, clearly has no understanding of what Iran is, its history, and the current state of military affairs.

I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. has a pretty horrible track record of accidentally creating hostile governments and just walking away. You are not special. And Israel is not really economically or strategically important; it just gets huge support for domestic political reasons.

I wish you well, but this is your fight.

Edited September 28 by Josh

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

it's worth recalling that Nasrallah was just an asshole.

Given that, I still wonder "why now"? 

One of possible rational answers is that Israel leadership wants to provoke war with Iran (that will unavoidably led to US stepping in)  - and they need it now, not only because of local PM political survival needs, but because now it is time window for it as Iran have not yet gained enough new weapons/technology from Russia and US is still not too deeply involved on Russian front and in expected conflict with China. Exactly for that reason Iran is visibly dragging its feet to pospone war as long as possible.

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, Josh said:

I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. has a pretty horrible track record of accidentally creating hostile governments and just walking away. You are not special. And Israel is not really economically or strategically important; it just gets huge support for domestic political reasons.

By the way about "why now"  -it worth reminding here that for demographic reasons this domestic political importance of Israel will unavoidably go down, as share of Jewish voters (and even "white" voters in general) is going down.

[urbanoid]

Tfw the chuds have been proven right again.

 

Edited September 28 by urbanoid

[Mighty_Zuk]

US, France, UK, Germany. The top western economies. Now all appeasers of dictators.

What Mrs Bareback doesn't understand here is statements like this only end up hurting Germany's credibility.

[glenn239]

8 hours ago, Josh said:

I have no idea, but so far not enough to matter.

You stated that Iran has no other options than to use its own ballistic missiles.  But when I asked how many Shahed drones the Iranians have yet supplied to Hezbollah, you indicated you do not know.  You write,

Glenn thinks Shahed is the solution to all military problems the world over rather than the niche weapon for spread out soft targets that it is.

You, not I, made the assertion that Iran had no other options but direct attack.  Yet, if it were the case the Iranians have not supplied Hezbollah large quantities of long range drones, on what basis would you state that the Iranians had no other means available to support their proxy?  

Quote

I have no doubt Hezbollah will use everything at its disposal now to the best of its ability; I think it is just already so badly hurt it will struggle to respond in a unified way.

It's not yet clear what Hezbollah or Iran is going to do.  Nor is it clear what level of long term damage has been done to Hezbollah.

Quote

And I do not think Iran is going to be allowed to resupply the organization in any significant way while this fight carries on

The Israelis can degrade, but never prevent, Iranian supply of Hezbollah.  This is not Gaza, the enemy has an open border to the north the Israelis cannot police.

Edited September 28 by glenn239

[glenn239]

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In war there are always many ways to prosecute it. In modern warfare particularly, the topic of a first strike (not the nuclear one) is one of great concern. 

We'd discussed a while back the idea of whether Hezbollah would try a pre-emptive strike or would try to ride out the initial Israeli attacks.  I believed at the time they would try to ride out an Israeli strike, and that is the course they have chosen.  No doubt the amount of damage to Hezbollah leadership is far beyond what Hezbollah considered, but the basic choice for a defensive stance, to not try to pre-empt the Israelis, was the logical one to take.

[glenn239]

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

I know from personal experience that this is patently false. Hamas was less penetrated as a fact. 

Roman has a tendency to see conspiracies where none necessarily exist.  Myself, I simply do not believe that Bibi could know Hamas was going to attack, but would choose to do nothing.