Israel-Iran-Proxies Conflict

[Stuart Galbraith]

Fine, then show me a clear example of Iran knowing about October 7th, and Israel asking to take retaliatory action based on that. If they cant show that, and they clearly didnt ask for that, it didnt happen. We might WANT it to be true, but it doesnt follow it is.

Now you intend to invade Iran and change the regime. How about getting the hostages back first, is that too much to expect?

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

IAI reveals that its Harop (EO) and Harpy (anti-radiation) loitering munitions have an endurance of 9 hours. 

I've raised these as potential candidates for an Iran strike before, but it was difficult to confirm without any stats available about range. A 9 hour endurance leaves it with plenty enough range to reach Iran. The big issue with such weapons is their detectability and thus available reaction time. So to utilize these reliably, one would have to degrade Iran's air defenses sufficiently.

However, in the given video we see footage from Azerbaijan, so it is likely just marketing for them. 

 

 

Another interesting detail, is that the Sa'ar 5 deployed to the Red Sea, has been fitted with Gabriel missiles. These could in theory allow it to strike in Yemen. Although managing a strike campaign vs the Houthis is not really in Israel's interest, especially with a navy vessel instead of aircraft.

 

[urbanoid]

IMO the hostages are treated as effectively dead. If by some miracle more will get saved, they'll be 'resurrected'. I don't see Israel granting any concessions to Hamas in exchange for freeing them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The hostages are not dead, if Netanyahu gets off his corpulant political ass and puts them first ahead of his political career, as he could have done at any point over the last year. Im not willing to write them off, even if Israeli politicians are happy to put them in the 'Too hard to do' pile. Screw them. They really want to be responsible for the next Munich? They will never wash the stench off.

For me, it comes down to the next President. With Trump, yes, they may as well shoot them now. With Harris?   Far better then to do a deal now whilst there is still some dignity. But then, Netanyahu always was a chancer. His luck will not run forever, particularly with Harris writing his cheques.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Now you intend to invade Iran and change the regime.

Define "invade". For me, getting the job done means dismantling Iran's nuclear program, missile arsenal, and MIC. Even if it's just a 10 year setback for them. Anything beyond that is a bonus. When Israel and the US have more competent leadership, then we can proceed with something like regime change.

[Stuart Galbraith]

If you go and seriously clobber iran, then Iran goes and dismantles our easy access to oil. That might be of supreme indifference to you, but reflect that the US continuing to defend Israel depends upon its economic well being, and Irans capacity to interdict the  gulf oil supply has been well known for decades. Think the Arabs are going to lift a finger to keep it open? Hardly. The only people that might make a difference would be China, and as they get most of their oil from Iran, I hardly think they are going to cross them.

I submit, perhaps finish one  war before you embark another one, and be sure you can finish it before embarking on it. Im detecting none of these traditional approaches towards warmaking from the Israeli Government right now, which is no surprise. Because this is politicians decision making, not military men, and it shows.

I remember at the time of the Iraq war, there were Americans now on the FFZ posing as pacifists, that were callign for war with Iran. Lets knock all over the axis of evil they said, all we need to do is use airpower they said. We can change the world they said.  It was only when it was pointed out how big it was, and how many people it had, and how ineffective airpower subsequently proved was in pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan they finally quietened down.

But not the extremists. But then extremists are the same the world over.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

This type of warmongering is what got the region into this mess. Time to change direction and let Israel finish the job, and it'll be done much quicker if the US got involved.

Sounds from reports of the next attack, that the Iranians are about to give you your wish.  

[Mighty_Zuk]

19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you go and seriously clobber iran, then Iran goes and dismantles our easy access to oil.

Double edged sword. Oil is also Iran's own economical lifeline.

Plus, the gulf nations are not without options. They have defensive systems and the ability to receive defensive support from the US. They have some alternative routes bypassing the two chokepoints (Hormuz + Red Sea). 

23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I submit, perhaps finish one  war before you embark another one, and be sure you can finish it before embarking on it.

You're talking as if it's optional. It's not. You fail to see that it's just different fronts of one war, not several wars.

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I remember at the time of the Iraq war, there were Americans now on the FFZ posing as pacifists, that were callign for war with Iran. Lets knock all over the axis of evil they said, all we need to do is use airpower they said. We can change the world they said.  It was only when it was pointed out how big it was, and how many people it had, and how ineffective airpower subsequently proved was in pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan they finally quietened down.

Israel used airpower to dismantle Hezbollah's arsenal and ability to threaten Israel. You're looking at one event, draw the false conclusions from it, and apply it everywhere it's not even applicable.

You know why Israel must use ground forces in Gaza but can make do with just air power in Lebanon? Because in Gaza, the entire population has this "kill every Jew" thing. But in Lebanon, the people hate Hezbollah much more than they hate Israel. 

The same is true for Iraq and Iran. Iraqis were antagonistic to the west no matter who you asked. But Iranians are not. The general population is majority secular, anti-regime, and pro-west. That is why if you want regime change in Iraq, you need a large army and a ground invasion. But in Iran, you only need to give them a little shove. 

3 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Sounds from reports of the next attack, that the Iranians are about to give you your wish.  

I thought you said the entire Arab world is going to unite and form the Megazord and kill Israel.

Iranians aren't Arabs.

[glenn239]

2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I thought you said the entire Arab world is going to unite and form the Megazord and kill Israel.

Specifically, that the attack is going to be much larger, hit much harder, and that they will use weapons systems not yet revealed.  You should be happy, you're about to get your birthday present, a war with Iran!

The Arab world is trending in that direction, certainly, but no one said a coalition was happening next Tuesday.

 

Edited November 4, 2024 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

If Iran thinks they are going under, and it seems to be you will to make it happen, then fairly clearly they are going to grab the only stick they have left. Then they can say to the iranians, terribly sorry your lives are so miserable, its the evil Americans attacking us, boohoohoo.

Dont you think there is a reason why the American havent clobbered then in the past 45 years? Even though they so deperately wanted to after the hostage taking? Despite coming so damn close to it in 1987-88? Why is it do you think that is, because they are scared? Damn right they are scared. You should be too, but of course for you America is still 20 foot tall and can do anything.

Tell me, dont you think those republicans are going to be pissed at you for dragging America into another middle east war before they have digested the last one? If you want to throw yourself on the mercy of guys what believe in Jewish Space Lasers and want to end the endless wars, you are liable for a disagreeable surprise.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Just now, glenn239 said:

Specifically, that the attack is going to be much larger, hit much harder, and that they will use weapons systems not yet revealed.  You should be happy, you're about to get your birthday present, a war with Iran!

The Arab world is trending in that direction, certainly, but no one said a coalition was happening next Tuesday.

Literally the entire world on October 7th, 2023:

"Oh ok there's a war going on now."

 

You, on the 4th of November 2024, 394 days later:

"Hrrrnngg... There's a war coming. Iran's throbbing missiles are now larger and harder".

 

[urbanoid]

Iranian missiles have never been so erect!

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If Iran thinks they are going under, and it seems to be you will to make it happen, then fairly clearly they are going to grab the only stick they have left. Then they can say to the iranians, terribly sorry your lives are so miserable, its the evil Americans attacking us, boohoohoo.

Big difference between being left with no Israel-range weapons + being set back on getting a nuke, and getting decapitated and overthrown. Certainly the former wouldn't qualify in my book as "going under".

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Tell me, dont you think those republicans are going to be pissed at you for dragging America into another middle east war before they have digested the last one? If you want to throw yourself on the mercy of guys what believe in Jewish Space Lasers and want to end the endless wars, you are liable for a disagreeable surprise.

None's dragging them into anything. They were and still are given 2 choices:

1. Join, and influence the entire way.

2. Don't join, and see if you like the outcome or not.

[Josh]

5 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Or maybe... quite the contrary?

I think Iran wanted conflict but not war, if that makes any sense. Minimally at least was waiting for better timing. Hamas seemed to drag Hezbollah into the war which dragged Oran into the war which has led to a bizarre situation where Israel gets to focus on each one at a time before moving onto the next. The biggest threat of the “axis of resistance “ was that they could threaten Israel from all sides at once; in that regard Irans strategy has totally failed by Hamas jumping the gun and/or Iran not actually being willing to commit to a war.

[Mighty_Zuk]

I remember all too well the claims here that an Israeli strike in Iran will lead to a regional all out war, and WW3, and drag the US into an endless war, and that oil trade will end and blah blah blah.

Israel and Iran exchanged fire several times. 

The US is not in a war with Iran.

Nothing happened outside Israel and Iran.

Oil is traded.

And the birds are singing.

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Josh said:

I think Iran wanted conflict but not war, if that makes any sense. Minimally at least was waiting for better timing. Hamas seemed to drag Hezbollah into the war which dragged Oran into the war which has led to a bizarre situation where Israel gets to focus on each one at a time before moving onto the next. The biggest threat of the “axis of resistance “ was that they could threaten Israel from all sides at once; in that regard Irans strategy has totally failed by Hamas jumping the gun and/or Iran not actually being willing to commit to a war.

They might have been expecting a lot more success for Hezbollah (they armed and supported them themselves, so it's only natural), which would keep Israel too occupied with them to be able to effectively respond to Iran.

[Josh]

I think Iran is going to be in for a shock if it attempts a major response. In two days Biden will not give a fuck about the price of oil.

[Josh]

Just now, urbanoid said:

They might have been expecting a lot more success for Hezbollah (they armed and supported them themselves, so it's only natural), which would keep Israel too occupied with them to be able to effectively respond to Iran.

I think the main thing Iran and Hezbollah were not expecting was that an Israel could maintain open ended military operations of this magnitude for so long. I think the assumption was that the west in general and U.S. in particular were going to interrupt the war at some point and there would be a pause like the last time in Gaza and the last te in Lebanon. I think Israel being politically restrained was central to their goal of less than total war.

[Mighty_Zuk]

14 minutes ago, Josh said:

I think Iran is going to be in for a shock if it attempts a major response. In two days Biden will not give a fuck about the price of oil.

That'd only be true if Trump was elected. If he does this now and Kamaler wins, he'll effectively sabotage her.

[Josh]

3 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That'd only be true if Trump was elected. If he does this now and Kamaler wins, he'll effectively sabotage her.

Harris has four years to get re-elected. I think Biden still is a lot more lenient once Michigan has voted. And yeah, a Trump victory might temped him to leave a mess for the “very big brain” to clean up.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Josh

[crazyinsane105]

50 minutes ago, Josh said:

I think Iran is going to be in for a shock if it attempts a major response. In two days Biden will not give a fuck about the price of oil.

It’s unlikely there will be a major response. Maybe a few drones and missiles from Iraq that will be easily interpreted, just a way to save face. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

15 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

It’s unlikely there will be a major response. Maybe a few drones and missiles from Iraq that will be easily interpreted, just a way to save face. 

I doubt it. But it's not unreasonable in the long term. Iran is expending ballistic missiles far more quickly than it can replace them, out of an arsenal it built over several decades.

While their warheads are devastating, their accuracy is poor, and Iran will have to contend with the option of targeting Israeli civilians and risk emboldening Israel, or attacking military sites knowing it'll have to expend tremendous amounts of missiles per target.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I doubt it. But it's not unreasonable in the long term. Iran is expending ballistic missiles far more quickly than it can replace them, out of an arsenal it built over several decades.

While their warheads are devastating, their accuracy is poor, and Iran will have to contend with the option of targeting Israeli civilians and risk emboldening Israel, or attacking military sites knowing it'll have to expend tremendous amounts of missiles per target.

The 30+ impacts all over that airbase did seem to have a surprisingly wide and random pattern to them…were these perhaps older weapons? It seems like that level of accuracy is not really going to accomplish much militarily, even if there is a vigorous Iranian response.

[bfng3569]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I think Iran is going to be in for a shock if it attempts a major response. In two days Biden will not give a fuck about the price of oil.

Biden doesn't even know what you are talking about at this point....

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, bfng3569 said:

Biden doesn't even know what you are talking about at this point....

Are you implying that he's not one of the lurkers here?