Israel-Iran-Proxies Conflict

[Mighty_Zuk]

Israel is now in a race against time to kill as many Hezbollah operatives across south Lebanon and remove as many of their weapons as possible, before a ceasefire.

[glenn239]

Ceasefire?  Israel played its best cards in Lebanon for nothing then? 

[glenn239]

A Ukrainian (??) report saying that the Iranians plan to use proxies in Iraq to deliver large scale drone and missile strikes on Israel,

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iran-plans-to-strike-israel-with-ballistic-missiles-and-drones-from-iraqi-territory-axios/ar-AA1tinwQ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LSJS&cvid=9097530947a04d0db14ef245866f414d&ei=15

The report states that the next Iranian attack will be from Iraq, but that doesn't fully make sense given that the main hitting power of their missile forces is in Iran.  On the last strike, the drone and shorter ranged missile elements were missing for the most part.

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

A Ukrainian (??) report saying that the Iranians plan to use proxies in Iraq to deliver large scale drone and missile strikes on Israel,

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iran-plans-to-strike-israel-with-ballistic-missiles-and-drones-from-iraqi-territory-axios/ar-AA1tinwQ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LSJS&cvid=9097530947a04d0db14ef245866f414d&ei=15

The report states that the next Iranian attack will be from Iraq, but that doesn't fully make sense given that the main hitting power of their missile forces is in Iran.  On the last strike, the drone and shorter ranged missile elements were missing for the most part.

The issue with cruise missiles and drones is the long travel time provides lots of warning. And if you try to coordinate those with a ballistic missile strike, you basically give away the time on target.

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

A Ukrainian (??) report saying that the Iranians plan to use proxies in Iraq to deliver large scale drone and missile strikes on Israel,

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iran-plans-to-strike-israel-with-ballistic-missiles-and-drones-from-iraqi-territory-axios/ar-AA1tinwQ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LSJS&cvid=9097530947a04d0db14ef245866f414d&ei=15

The report states that the next Iranian attack will be from Iraq, but that doesn't fully make sense given that the main hitting power of their missile forces is in Iran.  On the last strike, the drone and shorter ranged missile elements were missing for the most part.

If the report is true then Iran intends to simply transfer them to Iraq via existing land corridors. It has been doing it for years nearly uninterrupted.

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Ceasefire?  Israel played its best cards in Lebanon for nothing then? 

Military victories must eventually lead to political ones.

[glenn239]

21 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If the report is true then Iran intends to simply transfer them to Iraq via existing land corridors. It has been doing it for years nearly uninterrupted.

Makes no sense to transfer ballistic missiles to Iraq if they can already reach Israel from Iran.

Quote

Military victories must eventually lead to political ones.

Hezbollah is not yet defeated, why make a ceasefire?

[Josh]

15 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Hezbollah is not yet defeated, why make a ceasefire?

I think it is pretty clear Hezbollah has been stomped on harder than 2006 and equally clear Iran is no longer in a financial position to rebuild it afterwards.

Also it is possible that a ceasefire enables Israel to focus its air assets on Iran itself.If nothing else, Hezbollah being forced to thrown what is left of Hamas under a bus has some value as well.

Edited November 1, 2024 by Josh

[Markus Becker]

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Israel is now in a race against time to kill as many Hezbollah operatives across south Lebanon and remove as many of their weapons as possible, before a ceasefire.

The political deck might be reshuffled this week. 

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

The political deck might be reshuffled this week. 

That does not change policy for three more months regardless, which might be a long time to wait. I’ll wait and see, I have a hard time believing either side will accept and maintain a ceasefire. I suspect Israel bombs anything that moves back into south Lebanon and they just find themselves back at the current state even if there is a ceasefire.

[Mighty_Zuk]

27 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Makes no sense to transfer ballistic missiles to Iraq if they can already reach Israel from Iran.

The point is to probably get Iran out of the equation. Israel typically responds to the source of fire. If it's Hezbollah then in Lebanon. If it's in Syria then in Syria. It only attacked in Iran in response to attacks originating in Iran. Unless Israel changes its policy, a strike from Iraq would spare Iran from a response.

 

1 minute ago, Josh said:

That does not change policy for three more months regardless, which might be a long time to wait. I’ll wait and see, I have a hard time believing either side will accept and maintain a ceasefire. I suspect Israel bombs anything that moves back into south Lebanon and they just find themselves back at the current state even if there is a ceasefire.

You haven't read the terms of the proposed arrangement, have you?

27 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Hezbollah is not yet defeated, why make a ceasefire?

Israel destroyed Hezbollah's ability to threaten Israel. Over 80% of its rocket and missile arsenal was destroyed. It has residual capabilities only. What remains now is to get Hezbollah removed entirely, but that's something only the Lebanese can do. Israel must therefore hand over this task to the LAF and Lebanese government, and hope for the best. If that fails, we'll see what we can do, but Israel doesn't have the resources to commit to such an effort right now. There's reason to be optimistic the Lebanese people will get the job done with the LAF as the prime enforcer, Israel as backup, and with Israeli CAS and intelligence support.

12 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

The political deck might be reshuffled this week. 

Not sure what you mean. Can you rephrase?

[urbanoid]

44 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Makes no sense to transfer ballistic missiles to Iraq if they can already reach Israel from Iran.

Hezbollah is not yet defeated, why make a ceasefire?

Not all of them have enough range to reach Israel from Iran? SRBMs and low-end MRBMs don't, unless they're transferred somewhere closer they're useless against Israel.

[Josh]

I have not seen the conditions, no.

[Mighty_Zuk]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

I have not seen the conditions, no.

Lots have been discussed in Israeli media already so all I found was commentary articles without the full details. Here's the closest I could find.

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/30/israel-lebanon-war-biden-advisers-visit-peace-deal

The terms, generally speaking, are:

• Israel limits its ground incursion. Probably to the 1st or 2nd line of villages.
• Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) redeploy to southern Lebanon with some 5,000-10,000 troops.
• Inactive UNIFIL units replaced with battalions from Germany, UK, and France.
• LAF and UNIFIL will be in charge of removing Hezbollah assets from southern Lebanon. 
• Should they fail, Israel will have freedom to operate in Lebanon to do it itself.
• Arms siege will be laid upon Lebanon, from the ground, air, and sea. Russia is a likely candidate for controlling the border crossings, which IMO is quite stupid but ok.

 

EDIT: Found better Hebrew source.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14131302

Edited November 1, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[Markus Becker]

55 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Not sure what you mean. Can you rephrase?

Possible Trump victory and Biden's dissatisfaction with his own party that replaced him on very short notice. 

[Markus Becker]

23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

• Inactive UNIFIL units replaced with battalions from Germany, UK, and France. 

Not even Germany would be that stupid! If we had that many troops to deploy. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

5 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Possible Trump victory and Biden's dissatisfaction with his own party that replaced him on very short notice. 

A ceasefire seems to benefit Israel just the same regardless of whether Trump or Harris are elected. Though obviously a Trump victory would mean better ceasefire terms for Israel.

[crazyinsane105]

1 minute ago, Markus Becker said:

Not even Germany would be that stupid! If we had that many troops to deploy. 

Because the EU will totally deploy troops in the Middle East when there’s a war raging in Europe. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 minute ago, Markus Becker said:

Not even Germany would be that stupid! If we had that many troops to deploy. 

Israel queried Germany about it. No answer yet.

1 minute ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Because the EU will totally deploy troops in the Middle East when there’s a war raging in Europe. 

Appealing to logic is itself illogical when talking about European geopolitics.

Example:

"Because the EU will totally elect pro-Russian socialist governments and cut defense spending when there's a war raging in Europe".

 

[Josh]

55 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Lots have been discussed in Israeli media already so all I found was commentary articles without the full details. Here's the closest I could find.

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/30/israel-lebanon-war-biden-advisers-visit-peace-deal

The terms, generally speaking, are:

• Israel limits its ground incursion. Probably to the 1st or 2nd line of villages.
• Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) redeploy to southern Lebanon with some 5,000-10,000 troops.
• Inactive UNIFIL units replaced with battalions from Germany, UK, and France.
• LAF and UNIFIL will be in charge of removing Hezbollah assets from southern Lebanon. 
• Should they fail, Israel will have freedom to operate in Lebanon to do it itself.
• Arms siege will be laid upon Lebanon, from the ground, air, and sea. Russia is a likely candidate for controlling the border crossings, which IMO is quite stupid but ok.

 

EDIT: Found better Hebrew source.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14131302

I cannot fathom Hezbollah agreeing to that, but if so then that’s definitely what defeat looks like.

[Josh]

38 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Possible Trump victory and Biden's dissatisfaction with his own party that replaced him on very short notice. 

The former yes, the latter no. Biden actively hates Bibi.

[Josh]

33 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Because the EU will totally deploy troops in the Middle East when there’s a war raging in Europe. 

The stipulations Zuk posted do seem more like a wish list/fantasy to me. We’ll see.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I think it is pretty clear Hezbollah has been stomped on harder than 2006 and equally clear Iran is no longer in a financial position to rebuild it afterwards.

Oh, it's clear Hezbollah has been battered.  But they ain't beaten.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The point is to probably get Iran out of the equation. Israel typically responds to the source of fire. If it's Hezbollah then in Lebanon. If it's in Syria then in Syria. It only attacked in Iran in response to attacks originating in Iran. Unless Israel changes its policy, a strike from Iraq would spare Iran from a response.

The Israelis are not going to distinguish between Iranian missiles fired from Iraq and those fired from Iran.  So, if they are moving into Iraq to attack, I assume its because the attack is going to be much larger?

 

Quote

Israel destroyed Hezbollah's ability to threaten Israel. Over 80% of its rocket and missile arsenal was destroyed. It has residual capabilities only.

No, Israel has demonstrated to Hezbollah that drones are the way to go, not missiles.  The threat is not destroyed until Hezbollah is destroyed.

Quote

What remains now is to get Hezbollah removed entirely, but that's something only the Lebanese can do. Israel must therefore hand over this task to the LAF and Lebanese government, and hope for the best.

If the Israelis don't have the ability to remove Hezbollah from Lebanon, why would the Lebanese be able to?

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

I cannot fathom Hezbollah agreeing to that, but if so then that’s definitely what defeat looks like.

Yes and no. Big part of this proposal again rests on international force deployment, which is something that between 2006-2023 allowed Hezbollah to flourish in south Lebanon.

That's why the most important part of a settlement is Israeli freedom of action and legitimacy. Israel needs to outsource the fight on the ground to Lebanese factions antagonistic to Hezbollah and that's what the ceasefire deal is all about. 

We cannot really assess what the feasibility of such a deal is, but Israel's positive approach to it is definitely a solid sign that it considers it feasible.

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The Israelis are not going to distinguish between Iranian missiles fired from Iraq and those fired from Iran.  So, if they are moving into Iraq to attack, I assume its because the attack is going to be much larger?

Really? Because Iraq has been firing drones and missiles on practically a daily basis for the last year and Israel never really responded to these, let alone in Iran.

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

No, Israel has demonstrated to Hezbollah that drones are the way to go, not missiles.  The threat is not destroyed until Hezbollah is destroyed.

Ok and?

First you say Israel can't destroy Hezbollah because drones will annihilate its ground forces (which never happened). And now you say Israel must destroy Hezbollah entirely at all costs.

Make up your mind.

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

If the Israelis don't have the ability to remove Hezbollah from Lebanon, why would the Lebanese be able to?

Because they'll be armed and trained, and are the majority and incredibly resentful toward Hezbollah.

It wouldn't be the first time the Lebanese drive out foreign invaders. There were the Syrians and Palestinians. With Israeli assistance, the Lebanese removed them both. 

[Josh]

IMO, there is no way anyone the international community is jumping on this grenade,Zuk. Not sure where that leaves the ceasefire, but you can safely count the U.S., Russia, China, and all of Europe as not getting involved, regardless of regional elections.