Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
People who don't know each other, quoting each other? It'll never take on.
Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion
- Thread starter PR1Berske
- Start date
People who don't know each other, quoting each other? It'll never take on.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
The US coming to the aid of Israel
Didn't take them long at all, did it? Again.
Iran launches air strike on Israel in major escalation
Iran had threatened a reprisal raid - and the US says it has helped Israel intercept most of the drones and missiles.
www.bbc.com
Didn't take them long at all, did it? Again.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You've gone a bit chernobyl here
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
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.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
More fool you!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
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
2hats
Dust.
IDF claim: 324/331 total incoming targets intercepted, with 7 ballistic missiles getting through (103/110 intercepted).
Dogsauce
I’ve got Skol but I’m not a Scholar
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.
These sorts of exchanges of fire have been going on for years, I get the impression there are diplomatic channels open and even some forewarning of targets - note how Iran very clearly announced they would strike back.
A few years back there was an incident I think with a US-connected ship attacked in the Hormuz straits, and the US pretty much told Iran which military sites they would strike back at so they could move people out of the way, almost like it was just theatre. I guess this recent incident is different only in scale, and a very expensive fireworks display for both sides. The theocratic nutters running each state seem to have a mutual dependency in keeping their population living in fear.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
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...
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...
ska invita
back on the other side
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.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
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?
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
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.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
So that is my question: is Netenyahu trying to provoke Iran and force the US into that war?
Putin has reasserted his pledge to support Iran. Biden has reasserted he will not get involved in a war with Iran.
Algeria officially declares support for Iran's airstrike on Israel.
Hopefully Netanyahu et al will realise that a ceasefire and immediately aid and medicines into Gaza is the only way forward.
Algeria officially declares support for Iran's airstrike on Israel.
Hopefully Netanyahu et al will realise that a ceasefire and immediately aid and medicines into Gaza is the only way forward.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
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.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
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.
I would think it quite out of character if Netanyahu does not go on the offensive against Iran in short order
teqniq
DisMembered
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
'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
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
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
gosub
~#
See it bit different....
The Hamas attriocity that kicked off this recent round of atrocities (cos they have been) by Israel. The Hamas statements at the time were all fully expecting Iran to step in and back them up. That they didn't...then...was 'I think' largely down Iran being fucked off had kicked off without keeping Iran in the loop
The attack now comes at a time it was becoming clear even the Yanks were losing patience with Netanyahu..also comes at a point when the Ukraine has gone a bit 'naming of parts' with regards 'Patriot'.
On 'Partiriot' is that just BMP=tank journalism? Cos cos that new German ones been looking good as is with last night's stats the israeli varient
hash tag
Books, not bombs
Lets, 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.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I think you've supped too deeply at the two tribes tumbler
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
I agree with the first point - the British Army made this exact mistake at the end of the Battle of the Somme in 1916 with tanks, when a small number of them produced one of the biggest advances of the battle but gave the Germans the opportunity to develop a (rudimentary) defence against them, so much so that it wasn't until someone listened to the developers and used tanks en masse on suitable ground with appropriate support (at Amiens on 8th August 1918) that their potential was realised. Had they been listened to earlier and deployed properly, the war really could have been ended by mid 1917.
With regards to the other bits though, yes Iran (and everyone else) will have learned a lot about Israeli / US capability but so will the Israelis and Yanks - this sort of mass attack has IIRC never been seen before against a multi-layered and networked modern air defence. Defeating an attack of this kind will lead to a whole load of useful information for them and given a lot of experience to those involved, probably more so than the Iranians will have gleaned (as they will have to rely on satellites and telemetry).
As for Jordan, I think the crisis point there is going to be reached if there is an Israeli attack that uses Jordanian airspace. At the moment the Jordanian government can at least say that their airspace was closed, no permission was sought and we had no way of knowing what the targets were and have a lot of logic behind it.
I emphatically agree with the last bit, Netanyahu and the Israeli government must be stopped.
Similar threads
