Mighty_Zuk Posted January 11 Author Posted January 11 24 minutes ago, glenn239 said: You made statements that are not correct about my view of Hezbollah's offensive capacity against Israel. In fact I've taken little interest in Hezbollah's offensive capacity because I didn't and don't rate it highly. Judging from the fact that Iran did not fight when Israel attacked Hezbollah, the Iranians themselves do not consider Hezbollah as vital to their missile forces. My opinion is that Iran's national missile and drone forces are, not withstanding recent events, intact. If the United States attacks Iran, then an attack on Iran can succeed. If Israel were to do so on its own, it will fail. That is the situation as it exists. And as of this moment, it is not clear that Trump intends to attack Iran, or why he reposted an anti-Bibi podcast. How can you assess the capabilities of Iran if you say you don't pay attention to them?
rmgill Posted January 11 Posted January 11 (edited) On 1/10/2025 at 9:07 AM, glenn239 said: I don't even know what "Radwan" is, Well, then perhaps you need to post less on the subject short of asking clarifying questions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwan_Force The al-Hajj Radwan Force (Arabic: فوج الحاج رضوان, romanized: Fawj al-Ḥajj Raḍwān, lit. 'al-Hajj Radwan Regiment', also spelled Redwan or Ridwan) is a special operation forces unit of Hezbollah. Its main mission is to infiltrate the territory of Israel, with specific attention to Galileeand northern Israel. Hezbollah has trained special forces fighters since the 1990s, which are today part of the Radwan Force. Originally known as the "Rapid Intervention Force" or the "Intervention Unit", the unit was renamed in 2008 to honor Imad Fayez Mughniyeh, a senior Hezbollah leader also known as "Hajj Radwan." The Radwan Forces have particular experience in raids and small unit tactics. Despite UN Resolution 1701, which demands that Hezbollah withdraw its forces north of the Litani River,[4] the Radwan Force remains deployed along the Blue Line—the border monitored by United Nations peacekeepers—conducting surveillance and gathering intelligence on northern Israel.[5] The unit has been active in various conflicts, including the Syrian civil war and the ongoing skirmishes along the Lebanon–Israel border. The unit has been involved in the fighting since October 7, 2023, and is expected to lead any future Hezbollah incursions into Israel. Mission The Radwan Force is a special operations unit in Hezbollah’s armed forces, tasked with launching offensive attacks into Israeli territory and capturing civilian communities in the Galilee.[6] Israeli officials expect the Radwan Force to lead any future Hezbollah infiltration into Israel, similar to the October 7 attacks by Hamas.[7] In addition, the Radwan Force conducts reconnaissance and intelligence operations against Israeli targets using UAVs.[8][5] The unit's sophistication and advanced weaponry explain how Hezbollah's has increasingly been viewed as a hybrid actor, especially sophisticated for a non-state actor, since the 2006 Lebanon War.[5][9] and according to Hezbollah, perform "ambushes, assassinations, or operations that require deep infiltration."[10] On 1/10/2025 at 9:07 AM, glenn239 said: and half the time I don't you pay the slightest attention to who posts what. My view on Hezbollah is that they have strong defensive capabilities that deter Israeli ground assaults, but I've never thought of their offensive capacity being that important. Watching the Iranians do nothing in the Hezbollah war, I drew the conclusion that the Iranian missile forces doctrinally did not rely on Hezbollah weapons for deterrence posture. Sure, the Iranians were doing nothing. That's why the pagers sent to the Radwan force took out the Iranian Ambassador to Hezbollah. If one put 2 and 2 together, one might realize that there was a connection there. 🙄 Edited January 11 by rmgill
rmgill Posted January 11 Posted January 11 5 hours ago, glenn239 said: You made statements that are not correct about my view of Hezbollah's offensive capacity against Israel. Hezbollah has effectively taken over most of southern Lebanon and has been doing so since Regan was president. This is in the face of UN, Lebanese Military and other international opposition. By all rights, they're a shadow government within Lebanon and it's government. They're a major player in the region and have a great deal of support from Iran, including a great deal of heavy weapons. If someone was making blithe statements about WWII Germany's capabilities but admitted they didn't know anything about the Schutzstaffel, would you give their assertions as to strength, organization and capabolities any sort of credit what so ever? The first rule if Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're IN Dunning-Kruger club.
urbanoid Posted January 11 Posted January 11 To claim that Iran hasn't lost anything substantial and is basically fine is pure copium. Their dreams of becoming a major regional player have been basically shattered. With Syria gone and Hez in Lebanon greatly weakened, Shia axis pretty much doesn't exist. They've lost quite a lot of 'hearts and minds', since they were unable to do anything meaningful to stop Hez from being gutted, Assad from being overthrown or Hamasniks from getting their ass handed to them. Looks like their pet Houthis might be getting theirs too as well. The 'Iranian axis' project is pretty much over. Sure, they can 'shoot some rockets at Israel' and get some airstrikes/missile strikes in return, but what for? For principle? The implied threat of shooting tens of thousands of rockets at Israel from Lebanon in case of Israeli/US attack against their nuclear/military facilities became empty. The land route to supply Lebanon through Syria is gone and won't be restored, whatever concept wins in Syria it's not going to be Iran-friendly, as the majority of the population is sunni. Iran without this axis is like China kept in geopolitical cage by US Navy and local US allies or like Russia would be without Ukraine and Belarus within their orbit - sure, a big state with a quite a lot of population and natural resources, pretty much untouchable like the other two if they decide to build nuclear weapons, but always remaining a second class power, largely irrelevant in the big picture.
crazyinsane105 Posted January 11 Posted January 11 9 minutes ago, urbanoid said: To claim that Iran hasn't lost anything substantial and is basically fine is pure copium. Their dreams of becoming a major regional player have been basically shattered. With Syria gone and Hez in Lebanon greatly weakened, Shia axis pretty much doesn't exist. They've lost quite a lot of 'hearts and minds', since they were unable to do anything meaningful to stop Hez from being gutted, Assad from being overthrown or Hamasniks from getting their ass handed to them. Looks like their pet Houthis might be getting theirs too as well. The 'Iranian axis' project is pretty much over. Sure, they can 'shoot some rockets at Israel' and get some airstrikes/missile strikes in return, but what for? For principle? The implied threat of shooting tens of thousands of rockets at Israel from Lebanon in case of Israeli/US attack against their nuclear/military facilities became empty. The land route to supply Lebanon through Syria is gone and won't be restored, whatever concept wins in Syria it's not going to be Iran-friendly, as the majority of the population is sunni. Iran without this axis is like China kept in geopolitical cage by US Navy and local US allies or like Russia would be without Ukraine and Belarus within their orbit - sure, a big state with a quite a lot of population and natural resources, pretty much untouchable like the other two if they decide to build nuclear weapons, but always remaining a second class power, largely irrelevant in the big picture. It’s a bit too early to tell what exactly will happen either in Syria or Lebanon. I agree that Iranian proxies have been thrashed pretty badly, but if Syria were to collapse again due to internal strife, that would have dire consequences for the region yet again. Too early to tell but it would be unwise to discount it
urbanoid Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Just now, crazyinsane105 said: It’s a bit too early to tell what exactly will happen either in Syria or Lebanon. I agree that Iranian proxies have been thrashed pretty badly, but if Syria were to collapse again due to internal strife, that would have dire consequences for the region yet again. Too early to tell but it would be unwise to discount it Possibly, but whoever comes out on top there, it's not going to be Iran.
crazyinsane105 Posted January 11 Posted January 11 (edited) 2 hours ago, urbanoid said: Possibly, but whoever comes out on top there, it's not going to be Iran. There was no way to predict who’d come out on top after the civil war in Lebanon. No way we can predict in a decade with Syria (and quite frankly, even five years ago nobody would have predicted Al Qaeda affiliated groups would rule Syria and push out Iran by late 2024). Your guess is as good as mine on what will happen Edited January 12 by crazyinsane105
urbanoid Posted January 12 Posted January 12 5 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said: There was no way to predict who’d come out on top after the civil war in Lebanon. No way we can predict in a decade with Syria. Your guess is as good as mine Assad's regime was a Cold War leftover of Arab nationalism (or maybe national socialism), when certain things like the religion of the guy in charge mattered far less. Alawites are a tiny minority of ~10% and they were Assad's power base, also the only group that could be somewhat sympathetic to Iran, being surrounded by 'a sea of sunnis'. Having them back on top is even more improbable than having sunnis back on top in Iraq* after Saddam (another Cold War leftover of baathism) was toppled (and their share of Iraqi population is 3-4 times that of alawites in Syria). *where in turn toppling Saddam by definition meant that their turn towards Iran was likely due to the majority of the population being shia, something the Gulfies tried to warn Bush about and what he decided to ignore
crazyinsane105 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 26 minutes ago, urbanoid said: Assad's regime was a Cold War leftover of Arab nationalism (or maybe national socialism), when certain things like the religion of the guy in charge mattered far less. Alawites are a tiny minority of ~10% and they were Assad's power base, also the only group that could be somewhat sympathetic to Iran, being surrounded by 'a sea of sunnis'. Having them back on top is even more improbable than having sunnis back on top in Iraq* after Saddam (another Cold War leftover of baathism) was toppled (and their share of Iraqi population is 3-4 times that of alawites in Syria). *where in turn toppling Saddam by definition meant that their turn towards Iran was likely due to the majority of the population being shia, something the Gulfies tried to warn Bush about and what he decided to ignore Who needs Alawites to be back on top? While Iran prefers Shia militias, it has no problem backing Sunni groups…aka Hamas. A fragmented Syria, if it happens, will be under the power of various groups and Iran won’t have an issue backing a Sunni based group. A non fragmented Syria is a different ballgame altogether but you are dealing with a jihadist run state. And it doesn’t take a mathematician to realize both Sunni and Shia extremists tend to not like Israel. Right now Julani is acting peacekeeper and savior for the sake of obtaining some sort of legitimacy and unfreezing Syrian funds held abroad. Let’s revisit what happens in a decade or less
urbanoid Posted January 12 Posted January 12 6 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said: Who needs Alawites to be back on top? While Iran prefers Shia militias, it has no problem backing Sunni groups…aka Hamas. A fragmented Syria, if it happens, will be under the power of various groups and Iran won’t have an issue backing a Sunni based group. A non fragmented Syria is a different ballgame altogether but you are dealing with a jihadist run state. And it doesn’t take a mathematician to realize both Sunni and Shia extremists tend to not like Israel. Right now Julani is acting peacekeeper and savior for the sake of obtaining some sort of legitimacy and unfreezing Syrian funds held abroad. Let’s revisit what happens in a decade or less I'm not saying that the situation there won't turn against Israeli interests, it's absolutely possible. All I'm saying is that the beneficiary most likely won't be Iran. Sure, let's revisit it in a decade, I'm planning to still be here by then.
glenn239 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 18 hours ago, urbanoid said: To claim that Iran hasn't lost anything substantial and is basically fine is pure copium. Nobody claimed that Iran didn't suffer a regional setback. I said that the reversals with Hezbollah and in Syria are not that significant WRT the overall capacity for Israel to attack Iran, or for Iran to use its own missile forces against Israel. The Israelis still require the USAF in order to effectively attack Iran, but the USAF does not require the IAF at all for that mission. Nothing has changed on that front. Quote Their dreams of becoming a major regional player have been basically shattered. With Syria gone and Hez in Lebanon greatly weakened, Shia axis pretty much doesn't exist. Hezbollah still exists and the new Syrian government is weak and unstable. I've no idea how things will evolve. Quote The implied threat of shooting tens of thousands of rockets at Israel from Lebanon in case of Israeli/US attack against their nuclear/military facilities became empty. Iran's strike capacity remains intact. It might be the case that the USAF can do a pre-emptive strike to degrade it, but that's Trump's call. The Israelis themselves I don't think can do that much to prevent the Iranians hitting them.
glenn239 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 18 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said: It’s a bit too early to tell what exactly will happen either in Syria or Lebanon. I agree that Iranian proxies have been thrashed pretty badly, but if Syria were to collapse again due to internal strife, that would have dire consequences for the region yet again. Too early to tell but it would be unwise to discount it The Shias and Shiite militias that formed the Crescent are all still there. There are complex dynamics in Syria WRT jostling between Turkey and Israel, what the Russians intend, how the weak new government proceeds, what happen with the Kurds and Turks in the east. Iran's power base in Iraq remains. Tough to see how things will evolve, especially since factors external to the region (China, Russia, USA) are vital to the balance of power in it.
urbanoid Posted January 12 Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, glenn239 said: Nobody claimed that Iran didn't suffer a regional setback. I said that the reversals with Hezbollah and in Syria are not that significant WRT the overall capacity for Israel to attack Iran, or for Iran to use its own missile forces against Israel. The Israelis still require the USAF in order to effectively attack Iran, but the USAF does not require the IAF at all for that mission. Nothing has changed on that front. Hezbollah still exists and the new Syrian government is weak and unstable. I've no idea how things will evolve. Iran's strike capacity remains intact. It might be the case that the USAF can do a pre-emptive strike to degrade it, but that's Trump's call. The Israelis themselves I don't think can do that much to prevent the Iranians hitting them. Hezbollah was for all intents and purposes treated as 'their own' force, with their substantial missile inventory being treated as a deterrent against Israeli attack on Iran. It doesn't exist anymore and there's no way to recreate it, it's gone. The axis/shia crescent is gone and it's not coming back, just like sunni-ruled Iraq like it was under Saddam is not coming back either (the same being even more true for Syria, as there's a much bigger sunni majority there compared to shia-majority in Iraq. Whatever foreign influences will be present in Syria, be it Turkish, Gulfie, sticky Western fingers or some non-state jihad-jihad-derka-derka (or any of the above combined), there's no place for Iran there. And without Syria there's no shia crescent, period. The position of Hezbollah has also largely relied on Assad's Syria being aligned as it was, not they're a clear (though still somewhat organized) minority, that additionally has lost a source of support over the border - Syria being a giant compared to Lebanon and intervening in country's internal affairs many times in the past, if the new Syria (or Turkey) decides to try it, it won't be on the shia side. With their geopolitical project dead they have far less reasons to seek beef with Israel. Toppled Assad, pagered Hezbollah and Gaza in ruins with basically zero consequences for Israel are proofs of their credibility to potential allies.
glenn239 Posted January 13 Posted January 13 21 hours ago, urbanoid said: Hezbollah was for all intents and purposes treated as 'their own' force, with their substantial missile inventory being treated as a deterrent against Israeli attack on Iran. It doesn't exist anymore and there's no way to recreate it, it's gone. We do not know how badly Hezbollah's missile and drone inventory was degraded, or how easily it could be rebuilt. It is the case that the IAF seems able to dominate the tactical airspace over Hezbollah, meaning that it would be difficult for Hezbollah to ever be able to mount the massed drone and missile strikes required to threaten Israel. Quote The axis/shia crescent is gone and it's not coming back, just like sunni-ruled Iraq like it was under Saddam is not coming back either (the same being even more true for Syria, as there's a much bigger sunni majority there compared to shia-majority in Iraq. Apparently the Iranians are already reorganized and starting to push their influence back into Syria, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/news/irans-grand-comeback-in-syria-hts-spooked-from-ashes-to-drones-irgc-enters-erdogans-turf/vi-BB1rlCEH?cvid=974474b5af924137ad5ce9d7e50b95fb&ei=26 Quote With their geopolitical project dead they have far less reasons to seek beef with Israel. Toppled Assad, pagered Hezbollah and Gaza in ruins with basically zero consequences for Israel are proofs of their credibility to potential allies. Shiites will have a better option than Iran? Who would that be? The head choppers? The Israelis that do and will bomb them like talking pigs? The Kurds? Iran has learned a lesson that all Powers learn eventually. It's easy to expand influence into a region dominated by chaos. But the exact same qualities that made it easy also can make it easy for other actors to move in themselves. But, the situation is just as unstable for them. It's a never ending process really, well, until someone builds up the local economy and conditions become unchaotic.
glenn239 Posted January 13 Posted January 13 New Iranian drone reported with large warhead, stealth characterististics, and a claimed range of 2,000km, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iran-acquires-thousands-of-uavs-with-2-000-km-range/ar-BB1rmC6v Iran's army has acquired thousands of new unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with a range exceeding 2,000 kilometers. Tehran is preparing for escalating tensions with Israel and the United States, Reuters reports.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 31 minutes ago, glenn239 said: We do not know how badly Hezbollah's missile and drone inventory was degraded, or how easily it could be rebuilt. It is the case that the IAF seems able to dominate the tactical airspace over Hezbollah, meaning that it would be difficult for Hezbollah to ever be able to mount the massed drone and missile strikes required to threaten Israel. Apparently the Iranians are already reorganized and starting to push their influence back into Syria, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/news/irans-grand-comeback-in-syria-hts-spooked-from-ashes-to-drones-irgc-enters-erdogans-turf/vi-BB1rlCEH?cvid=974474b5af924137ad5ce9d7e50b95fb&ei=26 Shiites will have a better option than Iran? Who would that be? The head choppers? The Israelis that do and will bomb them like talking pigs? The Kurds? Iran has learned a lesson that all Powers learn eventually. It's easy to expand influence into a region dominated by chaos. But the exact same qualities that made it easy also can make it easy for other actors to move in themselves. But, the situation is just as unstable for them. It's a never ending process really, well, until someone builds up the local economy and conditions become unchaotic. Yeah but then you also said you're not interested in learning anything on the topic and retreated to getting ChatGPT replies.
glenn239 Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Yeah but then you also said you're not interested in learning anything on the topic and retreated to getting ChatGPT replies. Nope, never said that either. I said that Hezbollah's offensive capabilities are not something I'd looked into much because I'd assumed that Hezbollah's power is considerably more defensive than offensive in nature.
crazyinsane105 Posted January 13 Posted January 13 3 hours ago, glenn239 said: We do not know how badly Hezbollah's missile and drone inventory was degraded, or how easily it could be rebuilt. It is the case that the IAF seems able to dominate the tactical airspace over Hezbollah, meaning that it would be difficult for Hezbollah to ever be able to mount the massed drone and missile strikes required to threaten Israel. Apparently the Iranians are already reorganized and starting to push their influence back into Syria, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/news/irans-grand-comeback-in-syria-hts-spooked-from-ashes-to-drones-irgc-enters-erdogans-turf/vi-BB1rlCEH?cvid=974474b5af924137ad5ce9d7e50b95fb&ei=26 Shiites will have a better option than Iran? Who would that be? The head choppers? The Israelis that do and will bomb them like talking pigs? The Kurds? Iran has learned a lesson that all Powers learn eventually. It's easy to expand influence into a region dominated by chaos. But the exact same qualities that made it easy also can make it easy for other actors to move in themselves. But, the situation is just as unstable for them. It's a never ending process really, well, until someone builds up the local economy and conditions become unchaotic. Hindustan Times is a very biased news source…they are strangely very pro Russian and pro Palestinian (to absurd levels). I take their reporting with a bit of caution.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 3 hours ago, glenn239 said: Nope, never said that either. I said that Hezbollah's offensive capabilities are not something I'd looked into much because I'd assumed that Hezbollah's power is considerably more defensive than offensive in nature. You didn't. It was explained to you over and over that Hezbollah is an incredibly offense-centric organization and you chose to ignore that. So you can't say your ignorance is because of a misconception. And in your admission you revealed your inability to discuss other related topics.
glenn239 Posted January 13 Posted January 13 3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: It was explained to you over and over that Hezbollah is an incredibly offense-centric organization and you chose to ignore that. So you can't say your ignorance is because of a misconception. As stated, I've not considered Hezbollah or Hamas to be strategic threats to Israel in terms of their rocket and drone forces. Whether you did so or not, that is your business. When Hezbollah declined to attempt a pre-emptive strike at the start of the war, this was no surprise to anyone. When the Israelis were able to bomb a considerable slice of Hezbollah's stocks, this was also no surprise to anyone. The safe money on that war was the same as the last one - Hezbollah will do most of the dying, but will survive.
rmgill Posted January 17 Posted January 17 In the larger context of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen, I'd say that collectively they are a strategic threat.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 17 Author Posted January 17 On 1/14/2025 at 1:56 AM, glenn239 said: As stated, I've not considered Hezbollah or Hamas to be strategic threats to Israel in terms of their rocket and drone forces. Whether you did so or not, that is your business. When Hezbollah declined to attempt a pre-emptive strike at the start of the war, this was no surprise to anyone. When the Israelis were able to bomb a considerable slice of Hezbollah's stocks, this was also no surprise to anyone. The safe money on that war was the same as the last one - Hezbollah will do most of the dying, but will survive. Only someone who clearly doesn't understand Hezbollah in the slightest could make such assessment. Are you sure you asked ChatGPT the right questions? Please make sure next time to mention that Hezbollah is not a village.
urbanoid Posted January 17 Posted January 17 55 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Only someone who clearly doesn't understand Hezbollah in the slightest could make such assessment. Are you sure you asked ChatGPT the right questions? Please make sure next time to mention that Hezbollah is not a village. I'm afraid that from now on whenever one mentions Hezbollah I'll be thinking of Village People.
crazyinsane105 Posted January 17 Posted January 17 1 hour ago, urbanoid said: I'm afraid that from now on whenever one mentions Hezbollah I'll be thinking of Village People. Technically most of Hezbullah’s recruits are from villages. Individuals living in Large urbanized centers tend not to join militant groups
urbanoid Posted January 17 Posted January 17 Just now, crazyinsane105 said: Technically most of Hezbullah’s recruits are from villages. Individuals living in Large urbanized centers tend not to join militant groups You're right, I bet they're also singing YMJA (Young Men's Jihadi Association).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now