Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
Don’t quote me ever again. I do not know you.
People who don't know each other, quoting each other? It'll never take on.
Don’t quote me ever again. I do not know you.
You've gone a bit chernobyl hereWhat the fuck has it got to do with you you?
Edit to add: and you can address my statement or you can leave me well alone with your ‘finding-returnees’ bollocks.
Don’t quote me ever again. I do not know you.
E2A2: Please.
I have just heard a theory that Netanyahu deliberately attacked the Iranian consulate in order to provoke Iran into war, thus getting further support.
More fool you!You just made me read the most ridiculous shit from The Spectator.
You owe me 5 minutes of my life back.
Don't start Jay/Jo. Take it to pm. Thread has enough vendettas, as I said.
To think that it's standard tit for tat posturing that both Israel and Iran indulge in, when one of the other has caused egregious offence.What exactly are we supposed to think besides what the terrific implications may well be
IDF claim: 324/331 total incoming targets intercepted, with 7 ballistic missiles getting through (103/110 intercepted).BBC have just said over 200 missiles sent in, most taken out but they are still incoming
The wording is very similar to that employed by the US when they struck back against Iranian targets following attacks on their bases in Syria last year, I think ‘the matter is concluded’ is lifted direct. So it’s a bit of a piss take.Iran seem to be saying that it's all done. From the graun:
Iran’s mission to the UN said in a statement released in the early hours of Sunday that “military action was in response to Israel’s aggression against Iran’s diplomatic premises in Damascus” and that now “the matter can be deemed concluded … Should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be more severe.” It also warned the US to not get involved in the conflict.
Yes 9-11 is the perfect analogy as they are both attacks that were manipulated as justification to achieve wider long term geopolitical goals by means of the ultimate human crime, war.October 7th was truly Israeli 9/11 as it's fatally undermined their very carefully constructed image to even the population of countries which are allied to them, their military response has been massively damaging and is causing a wider conflict in other theatres in the region to become inevitable but the US and UK have to act like actually all this is good.
Isn't the Iranian attack likely to be deliberately ineffective? A response from them but not one that makes it easy for Israel to escalate further?Interesting cleft stick both Iran and Israel are caught in - Iran's attack was so obviously signposted that they might have fired 300+ munitions at Israel, that I doubt they wanted 300+ munitions to land in Israel - but on the other hand, if they fire 300+ munitions at Israel, and about a dozen get through to no real effect, while getting the US, Jordan and KSA to act in support of Israel, they no longer look like the Big Dog.
Israel Is in a similar bind - this morning (in no small part due to the actions of their friends/partners) they look like the Big Dog, but if try exercise the Big Dog, and retaliate (biggly, rather than some signposted pin prick stuff that everyone will have already priced in) they risk losing the cooperation that allowed then to look like the big dog...
It could be a good result - honour is satisfied on all sides, no harm no foul - and everyone could go back to their desks with a bit of muttering. Obviously someone will fuck it up - I'm assuming Netanyahu - but if the Iranians (perhaps via one of their proxies?) have another go, then such bets might be off.
We'll see...
Interesting cleft stick both Iran and Israel are caught in - Iran's attack was so obviously signposted that they might have fired 300+ munitions at Israel, that I doubt they wanted 300+ munitions to land in Israel - but on the other hand, if they fire 300+ munitions at Israel, and about a dozen get through to no real effect, while getting the US, Jordan and KSA to act in support of Israel, they no longer look like the Big Dog.
Israel Is in a similar bind - this morning (in no small part due to the actions of their friends/partners) they look like the Big Dog, but if try exercise the Big Dog, and retaliate (biggly, rather than some signposted pin prick stuff that everyone will have already priced in) they risk losing the cooperation that allowed then to look like the big dog...
It could be a good result - honour is satisfied on all sides, no harm no foul - and everyone could go back to their desks with a bit of muttering. Obviously someone will fuck it up - I'm assuming Netanyahu - but if the Iranians (perhaps via one of their proxies?) have another go, then such bets might be off.
We'll see...
So that is my question: is Netenyahu trying to provoke Iran and force the US into that war?Israel has been killing senior IIRG people in Damascus for more than a decade, and the 'consulate' thing is overblown - Iran has so many official buildings in Damascus that it probably rivals the Russian presence in East Berlin in the Cold War. Israel has hit quite a few of them, and the majority of those it hit were as official/diplomatic as the consulate - the Embassy is, if not violable, then only on the list in the most dire of circumstances, but the rest are, to some degree or other, just taking the diplomatic piss.
Netanyahu has been trying to drag the US into a war with Iran since Bush, and the US has been sidestepping that dance with vigour. I'd view it as business as usual, all that's unusual is the openess of the Iranian response. Normally Hezbollah are the reply of choice.
So that is my question: is Netenyahu trying to provoke Iran and force the US into that war?
Isn't the Iranian attack likely to be deliberately ineffective? A response from them but not one that makes it easy for Israel to escalate further?
Israel's government is in a much worse bind than Iran's is. Iran said it would respond and did, with a coordinated attack that signposts to the Israelis and the wider region what its level of capabilities are.
The Israeli government on the other hand has had to rely on its great ally (the US) and regional states (KSA and Jordan) in order to successfully defend against this attack - highlighting its dependence upon them. For a government and leader that has a policy of paying no lip service whatsoever to the concerns or interests of allies or surrounding states this is a painful lesson, and one that is well overdue. Furthermore they have no real way of retaliating either, in the absence of regional support, except by wildly excessive means, The usual idiots are demanding that those means be used, but doing so would both fail to work on a military / strategic level and burn away what little international support remains - even in the US, where the policy would almost certainly involve immediate and permanent regime change in Jerusalem.
I guess from Iran's perspective it was the least worst option. Doing nothing would make the look weaker, a larger attack and they risk a serious response, and not just from Israel.Yes, but he's be trying that for heading towards two decades and achieved nothing whatsoever - previously he'd been using the Iranian nuclear programme (about which Israel - and I don't mean Netanyahu - is genuinely scared, and the US was also astoundingly unhappy), and that didn't work, now he's using the rockets/drones, cruise and ballistic missiles threat. In a (imv, big) way, last night was a setback for Netanyahu because the threat was almost completely negated - Israel doesn't need to attack in order to successfully defend, it can defend quite happily by defending, and diplomatically knock holes in Iran by the formation of this anti-Iran coalition on its doorstep.
Dunno - Israel Is going to burn through it's partners if it retaliates outside of the set parameters, but Iran has also got a real problem - as emanymton says, the attack was designed to fail, but it has failed - no one looking at Iran this morning is saying 'lets be mates with them because they're the Big Scary Dog on the street' - they launched a huge attack that had a very public 99% failure rate.
Neither side can fight the other alone - Iran can sustain a longer war at an intensity that Israel can't cope with, and Israel can make a short war the intensity of which would almost destroy the offensive military capability of the Iranian state.
Both sides know that in order to overpower the other they need help, and that the only way to get that help is to be/play the victim - but victim hood has its own dangers, and if you look too weak, others decide that you can't win, and no one wants to be mates with the loser.
It's a tangled web, with lots of nuance, and lots of contradictions.
I would think it quite out of character if Netanyahu does not go on the offensive against Iran in short orderI guess from Iran's perspective it was the least worst option. Doing nothing would make the look weaker, a larger attack and they risk a serious response, and not just from Israel.
Tbh this is largely my take, that this was a reconnaissance rather than revenge. And eg Jordan have perhaps made a rod for their own back by helping out - I wonder what pressure they might come under both to act similarly and to ignore things flying iranward from the zionist entity. But for the zionists to up the stakes they need resupply by the Americans. And atm much of what the Americans can make goes to Ukraine, if the house approves the bill. Now the zionists will want more. And the US military want weapons too. Yet while China is rolling out weapons America is still on a peacetime production line. Should this develop into something bigger I think you'll see the ducks falling into a row for the big one next yearAn interesting analysis on what happened last night:
'On Iran’s strike: At Stanford, I attended a masterclass on military strategy led by a person with decades of experience, including serving at the highest levels in the military and government. One lesson he thought that I always remember was this:He asked us:“Say the US decided to attack Iraq with a new stealth jet it hadn’t used before that evaded all radars? The attack was a success. Was it strategic?”Many in the class raised their hands to say “yes, it achieved its goal”. But the professor said: “It may not have been”. Why? “Because now your adversaries know your capabilities and it’s a matter of time before they find ways around them. If this attack could be done with conventional weapons, it’s better to keep your top weapons until you need them. Using them creates a disadvantage.” My analysis is that the scale of Iran’s attack, the diversity of locations it targeted, and weapons it used, forced Israel to uncover the majority of anti-missile technologies the US and it have across the region. The Iranians did not use any weapons Israel didn’t know it had, it just used a lot of them. But the Iranians likely now have almost a full map of what Israel’s missile defence system looks like, as well as where in Jordan and the Gulf the US has installations. It also knows how long it takes to prepare them, how Israeli society responds…etcThis is a huge strategic cost to Israel, while Arab regimes now are being blasted by their peoples, particularly the Jordanian monarchy, for not doing anything to protect Gazans but then going all out to protect Israel. Crucially, Iran can now reverse engineer all the intel gathered from this attack to make a much more deadly one credible. While the US and Israel will have to re-design away from their current model which has been compromised. Its success in stopping this choreographed attack is thus still very costly.Moreover, with the threat of a regional war that neither the US nor the Arab regimes want feeling nearer, it’s likely their pressure on Israel to back down will increase, making a ceasefire more feasible. Anyone assuming this is just theatrics is missing the context of how militaries assess strategy versus tactics. Theatre is an important factor, but gathering intelligence of the “enemy’s” posture is more valuable, especially if one believes they’re in a long war of attrition. Netanyahu and the Israel government prefer a quick hot and urgent war where they can pull in America. The Iranians prefer a longer war of attrition that bleeds Israel of its deterrence capabilities and makes it an ally for Arabs and the US that’s too costly to have. Lastly, if you are a person who hates war, if you want peace, the best and only way to get there in the region is to support the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and dignity. There is no sustainable peace possible as long as Palestinians live under an oppressive system of apartheid.'
Source
See it bit different....Israel has been killing senior IIRG people in Damascus for more than a decade, and the 'consulate' thing is overblown - Iran has so many official buildings in Damascus that it probably rivals the Russian presence in East Berlin in the Cold War. Israel has hit quite a few of them, and the majority of those it hit were as official/diplomatic as the consulate - the Embassy is, if not violable, then only on the list in the most dire of circumstances, but the rest are, to some degree or other, just taking the diplomatic piss.
Netanyahu has been trying to drag the US into a war with Iran since Bush, and the US has been sidestepping that dance with vigour. I'd view it as business as usual, all that's unusual is the openess of the Iranian response. Normally Hezbollah are the reply of choice.
Lets, for the sake of humanity hope that you are wrong. A big one now is a totally different thing in comparison to WW2.Tbh this is largely my take, that this was a reconnaissance rather than revenge. And eg Jordan have perhaps made a rod for their own back by helping out - I wonder what pressure they might come under both to act similarly and to ignore things flying iranward from the zionist entity. But for the zionists to up the stakes they need resupply by the Americans. And atm much of what the Americans can make goes to Ukraine, if the house approves the bill. Now the zionists will want more. And the US military want weapons too. Yet while China is rolling out weapons America is still on a peacetime production line. Should this develop into something bigger I think you'll see the ducks falling into a row for the big one next year
I think you've supped too deeply at the two tribes tumblerLets, for the sake of humanity hope that you are wrong. A big one now is a totally different thing in comparison to WW2.
Regardless, there are no winners in war.
An interesting analysis on what happened last night:
'On Iran’s strike: At Stanford, I attended a masterclass on military strategy led by a person with decades of experience, including serving at the highest levels in the military and government. One lesson he thought that I always remember was this:He asked us:“Say the US decided to attack Iraq with a new stealth jet it hadn’t used before that evaded all radars? The attack was a success. Was it strategic?”Many in the class raised their hands to say “yes, it achieved its goal”. But the professor said: “It may not have been”. Why? “Because now your adversaries know your capabilities and it’s a matter of time before they find ways around them. If this attack could be done with conventional weapons, it’s better to keep your top weapons until you need them. Using them creates a disadvantage.” My analysis is that the scale of Iran’s attack, the diversity of locations it targeted, and weapons it used, forced Israel to uncover the majority of anti-missile technologies the US and it have across the region. The Iranians did not use any weapons Israel didn’t know it had, it just used a lot of them. But the Iranians likely now have almost a full map of what Israel’s missile defence system looks like, as well as where in Jordan and the Gulf the US has installations. It also knows how long it takes to prepare them, how Israeli society responds…etcThis is a huge strategic cost to Israel, while Arab regimes now are being blasted by their peoples, particularly the Jordanian monarchy, for not doing anything to protect Gazans but then going all out to protect Israel. Crucially, Iran can now reverse engineer all the intel gathered from this attack to make a much more deadly one credible. While the US and Israel will have to re-design away from their current model which has been compromised. Its success in stopping this choreographed attack is thus still very costly.Moreover, with the threat of a regional war that neither the US nor the Arab regimes want feeling nearer, it’s likely their pressure on Israel to back down will increase, making a ceasefire more feasible. Anyone assuming this is just theatrics is missing the context of how militaries assess strategy versus tactics. Theatre is an important factor, but gathering intelligence of the “enemy’s” posture is more valuable, especially if one believes they’re in a long war of attrition. Netanyahu and the Israel government prefer a quick hot and urgent war where they can pull in America. The Iranians prefer a longer war of attrition that bleeds Israel of its deterrence capabilities and makes it an ally for Arabs and the US that’s too costly to have. Lastly, if you are a person who hates war, if you want peace, the best and only way to get there in the region is to support the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and dignity. There is no sustainable peace possible as long as Palestinians live under an oppressive system of apartheid.'
Source