Israel-Iran-Proxies Conflict

[bfng3569]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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 think there's a pretty big faction on the left in U.S. politics that would welcome that, it would only help speed up there policy points and the climate change 'initiative'.....

[glenn239]

2 hours 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. 

https://www.newarab.com/news/iran-vows-strong-and-complex-attack-israel-wsj

Iranian rhetoric after the previous Israeli attack was starkly different - at that point they said the matter was ended.  This time, they're talking counterattack.

[Josh]

1 minute ago, glenn239 said:

https://www.newarab.com/news/iran-vows-strong-and-complex-attack-israel-wsj

Iranian rhetoric after the previous Israeli attack was starkly different - at that point they said the matter was ended.  This time, they're talking counterattack.

Their funeral. They did not achieve very decisive accuracy last time, and Israel made it clear they can easily hit a variety of Iranian targets with precision in response.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

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.

It makes perfect sense for Iran to mix old and new missiles, with various trajectories and guidance systems, to both test them for vulnerabilities and effectiveness, and expend older expiring ones.

But disregarding that, an MRBM flying on an INS alone, at a range of 2,000km, is not going to be very accurate. GNSS is used to provide calibration up to a point in order to increase accuracy but anti-jam GNSS are expensive enough to defeat Iran's concept of very cheap MRBMs. At least for now.

[bojan]

33 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...But disregarding that, an MRBM flying on an INS alone, at a range of 2,000km, is not going to be very accurate...

As evidenced by attack on US base, Iranians use photo contrast guidance for at least some of their missiles. That is good enough to hit any specific building.

[Josh]

33 minutes ago, bojan said:

As evidenced by attack on US base, Iranians use photo contrast guidance for at least some of their missiles. That is good enough to hit any specific building.

Is that confirmed by wreckage or just assumed by accuracy?

In any case, I would assume it requires a MaRV to achieve high accuracy - simply knowing where you are is not enough if the weapon has control mechanism. Certainly some of the Iranian weapons seem to have control surfaces on their upper stage/RVs. Whatever peppered the area of that AB (name please?) clearly either did not know where it was or did not have any controls to do anything about it. It looks like 70-80% hit sand.

I wonder if the defense system cannot differentiate missile types by their altitude and speed and prioritize higher accuracy systems?

[bojan]

My guess based on accuracy. It is early '80s tech after all.

[seahawk]

As they mostly used the old liquid fuel missiles, this has to be expected.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Trump won. The implications for Israel, Iran, and the regional warring parties, are not clear yet. But if Trump is indeed more hawkish as expected, we may see the conflict concluding more quickly. 

Although Trump and Netanyahu are in many ways similar, a hawkish US administration is exactly what could threaten Netanyahu and bring about a quicker change of power in Israel. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

What seems to guide the opinion of many Israelis regarding Trump, are the following events:

1. Recognition of Golan as sovereign Israeli territory. In 1967, Syria ceded the Golan Heights area to Israel. For 52 years, the international community regarded the territory "occupied", perhaps intent on keeping it that way indefinitely. For Israelis, this was seen as motivated by hate and double standards.
   Trump ended this by recognizing the Golan as a legitimate territory.
    
2. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This issue was controversial because the Arab world, at the time, pushed the idea of Palestinian capital in Jerusalem. Trump recognized Jerusalem existed and moved the embassy there. Practically, it's very difficult to drive from Jerusalem where all government institutes were, to Tel Aviv where most embassies are. For Israelis this was a big deal because it's very weird when other countries refer to Tel Aviv as the capital when it's factually not.
    
3. "Deal of the Century". That was Trump's plan for a political solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. It ultimately didn't materialize as planned, but it did lead to several tremendous accomplishments, including:
   1. Laying the foundation for the Abraham Accords, with the UAE being first to normalize relations with Israel as a direct response to the "Deal of the Century".
   2. Highlighting real Palestinian grievances instead of artificial land claims, such as perpetual refugee-ism, under-development and oppression in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries.
   3. Pressure on terrorist organizations and financiers, and thus encouraging moderate voices.
       
4.  Ending JCPOA. Iran poses 2 main threats - conventional, and nuclear. Both need to be addressed. But the JCPOA pushed back the nuclear breakthrough, while providing Iran the relief necessary for a massive force buildup and exponential increase of threat to Israel on all fronts. It did not really address the nuclear issue, because it improved Iran's breakout capability which is IMO worse, and at best was just kicking the can down the road with no strategy later on, as seen with North Korea which obtained nukes with no opposition.
   Trump cancelled JCPOA, cutting important cash flow to Iran. The ideal solution was ending the JCPOA AND striking Iran's nuclear program. Iran failed on the latter. But had he not withdrawn from JCPOA, it's highly likely the damage Hamas and Hezbollah caused in this war would have been significantly amplified.

 

It remains to be seen if on Israel, Trump remains on course. Trump says he wants to end wars. This is what Israel wants too. It needs the relief, it can't handle long wars well. The way to end this war quickly is to release all the hostages, find a day-after solution for Gaza, find a political solution for Lebanon, and conduct strikes on Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, missile arsenal, and MIC. Similar to Israel's September strikes on Hezbollah. 

To do all these, Trump would have to shift away from the status quo and move things that weren't moved for a long time. This is something Biden didn't do, because he believed in the status quo. This is going to be a test for Trump.

Will he pressure Qatar to in turn pressure Hamas to accept a hostage deal? Will he put military pressure on Iran? Will he talk to sympathetic Lebanese factions to set up an anti-Hezbollah, pro-Israel-normalization rule? Will he pressure Iraq to take action against the PMF? Will he pressure Putin to end the war in Ukraine by ending restrictions on delivered weapons to Ukraine? Will he pressure China out of a Taiwan invasion by permitting a Taiwanese military buildup?

All remains to be seen. I am optimistic on at least some of these.

[Yama]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Trump won. The implications for Israel, Iran, and the regional warring parties, are not clear yet. But if Trump is indeed more hawkish as expected, we may see the conflict concluding more quickly. 

Remains to be seen how 'hawkish' he is: during his first term he was not hawkish at all, and actively avoided getting US involved in conflicts.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 minute ago, Yama said:

Remains to be seen how 'hawkish' he is: during his first term he was not hawkish at all, and actively avoided getting US involved in conflicts.

Warfare can be conducted more than just kinetically. If 2 politicians decide not to engage kinetically with an enemy, but one of them proposes to impose sanctions, then that one is more hawkish. 

[Yama]

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Warfare can be conducted more than just kinetically. If 2 politicians decide not to engage kinetically with an enemy, but one of them proposes to impose sanctions, then that one is more hawkish. 

Sure, but Biden already placed more Iran sanctions, and helped Israel against Iranian attacks. At least based on his first term, Trump is unlikely to do more.

Trump's foreign policy initiatives are often incredibly cumbersome and amateurish - remember his letter to Erdogan "I will destroy Turkish economy", or attempt to buy Greenland. Really I don't expect him to be very proactive.

As for 'recognitions', they can always be reversed by future administrations.

[Markus Becker]

7 hours ago, Yama said:

Remains to be seen how 'hawkish' he is: during his first term he was not hawkish at all, and actively avoided getting US involved in conflicts.

This time he's also got the opinion to not stand in the way of Israel doing to Iran what Israel thinks needs to be done. 

[Yama]

16 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

This time he's also got the opinion to not stand in the way of Israel doing to Iran what Israel thinks needs to be done. 

But this is little different from current administration. Israel knows that Biden's "strong words" and "concerns" mean nothing.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Four F-16I with each a load of 2 Rampage missiles. Lately we've been seeing more and more official photo releases of these munitions. These could be useful for strikes in Iraq against Iranian ballistic missiles there.

 

[Markus Becker]

5 hours ago, Yama said:

But this is little different from current administration. Israel knows that Biden's "strong words" and "concerns" mean nothing.

Do they? I guess it will be some time before we know why Israel didn't attack the oil and nuclear infrastructure.

[Yama]

But they did attack, although very ineffectively (apparently with just one confirmed hit).

And if anything, Trump is twice as likely to forbid Israel from attacking oil infrastructure, as that would mean another global energy crisis, which Trump would want to avoid like death.

[Mighty_Zuk]

9 minutes ago, Yama said:

But they did attack, although very ineffectively (apparently with just one confirmed hit).

And if anything, Trump is twice as likely to forbid Israel from attacking oil infrastructure, as that would mean another global energy crisis, which Trump would want to avoid like death.

One hit is a symbolic effect, not practical effect. A "we can touch here if we want, piss us off and we might" type of message. Personally I think Israel should have gone for more practical effects including in April, despite Biden asking it to be purely symbolic.

I laid out a theory before, that oil - and all other targets (leadership, MIC, military, nuclear), are mutually exclusive. You strike either, but not both. 

Striking oil is likely to doom attempts to overthrow the regime, making strikes on military targets relevant but not as relevant as we'd like.

And strikes that lead to a regime change will definitely make strikes on oil counter-productive, because a new regime backed by the normals will need money to rehabilitate.

[Yama]

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

One hit is a symbolic effect, not practical effect. A "we can touch here if we want, piss us off and we might" type of message. Personally I think Israel should have gone for more practical effects including in April, despite Biden asking it to be purely symbolic.

That Israel could hit Iran's oil infrastructure cannot be a great revelation, given how effortlessly Iranian proxies could hit Saudi oil. I question the value of such 'demonstration'. I maintain it's more likely that the lone strike (possible there were few more missiles which were intercepted en route) had some tactical purpose.

As whether oil infrastructure is a worthwhile target in an attempt to overthrow regime, I don't claim to know. Economic woes are major source of Iranian dissatisfaction towards the regime, OTOH such issues are often also easily deflected to outside factors (sanctions, bombings etc...).

[Mighty_Zuk]

5 hours ago, Yama said:

That Israel could hit Iran's oil infrastructure cannot be a great revelation, given how effortlessly Iranian proxies could hit Saudi oil. I question the value of such 'demonstration'. I maintain it's more likely that the lone strike (possible there were few more missiles which were intercepted en route) had some tactical purpose.

As whether oil infrastructure is a worthwhile target in an attempt to overthrow regime, I don't claim to know. Economic woes are major source of Iranian dissatisfaction towards the regime, OTOH such issues are often also easily deflected to outside factors (sanctions, bombings etc...).

Since Israel is widely assumed to not touch oil infrastructure, this hit was likely a message to Iran "it's not really off our list". 

Indeed deflection is the threat. Hitting oil will collapse Iran's economy, and the people may put even more pressure on the regime, OR they could rally behind the IRGC to resolve this issue. This is a serious gamble that I don't think anyone finds worthwhile given the alternative easier approach.

[glenn239]

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

One hit is a symbolic effect, not practical effect

The most likely reason why only one tank was hit was because air defenses shot down other missiles.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The most likely reason why only one tank was hit was because air defenses shot down other missiles.

That's not what the term "most likely" means.

[Mighty_Zuk]

It's amazing what effects an election has. No concrete policy by any administration, just a change of power. 

Hamas officials will leave Qatar. 

It's likely they will move to Turkey. Despite what may be a sweeping ban on assassinations inside Turkey, I do think that if they move to Turkey, then Israel should retaliate by permitting assassinations against Hamas figures. 

Turkey escalated vs Israel with no response, and now may be a good time to restore deterrence.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-reveals-that-qatar-demanded-hamas-leave-doha-at-its-behest/

[Markus Becker]

Job opening at Hamas for speaker/press secretary. The incumbent Mohammad Afif got kinetically retired.