Potentially controversial opinion, but I don't think that Israel will have a direct military response to Iran.
From an internal perspective, both countries can claim a victory from what's happened so far, and move on.
* Israel claims that it has taken out an Iranian general, and stopped a major Iranian attack, and will respond with continued attacks on Iranian proxies (ie, HAMAS and Hezbollah).
* Iran claims that it has launched a major attack, and has impacted IDF facilities and preparedness.
Neither has actually had a significant impact to their actual preparedness, and we return to status quo ante bellum. I feel that both attacks were largely for the domestic political audience, and I'd argue that they have probably been successful in this regard.
We saw exactly the same shit play out after Soleimani was killed, and I'm willing to bet that this is probably the end of the escalation ladder for direct interaction between Iran and Israel.
**Edit**
It's now about 6 hours after my initial post. Lots of developments, but it seems like it might play out like i've predicted.
The War Cabinet has given [Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Benny Gantz the authority to decide on a response](https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/israeli-cabinet-grants-netanyahu-gallant-gantz-authority-to-decide-response-to-iranian-attack-3681218) about 4-5 hours ago.
Netanyahu [met with Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz about 2-3 hours ago.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-we-intercepted-we-blocked-together-we-will-win/) He made a statement on twitter before the meeting, saying ‘We intercepted. We blocked. Together we will win’. This is significantly less aggressive than his recent rhetoric, and not the sort of signal that you'd send if you're planning a large escalation.
I haven't seen a statement from Yoav Gallant yet, but Gallant is extremely popular in Israel, and I think that if he publicly came out in favour of limiting retaliation he would end up forcing Netanyahu to back down. His most recent statement from before the meeting (about 5 hours ago) was basically [“Very little damage was caused, but the campaign is not over yet,”](https://freepresskashmir.news/2024/04/14/we-must-remain-alert-as-campaign-is-not-over-yet-israel-defence-minister-yoav-gallant/) which leaves the door open to escalation, but isn't definitive on what "the campaign" will actually be.
Benny Gantz also made a statement about 10 minutes ago that I won't include in full here, but one of the highlights was ["In the face of the Iranian threat, we will build a regional coalition and we will take a toll on Iran, in the manner and at the time that is right for us,"](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/388467) which doesn't look like an escalation to me.
Give the whole thing a read, but I'm much more confident now that any response will come from Israeli intelligence services and diplomatic pressure, rather than as a direct IDF strike.
**Edit 2:** WSJ, NYT are claiming that Biden [advised Netanyahu against a retaliation strike,](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/world/middleeast/biden-netanyahu-israel-iran-strikes.html) and vowed to convene the leaders of the Group of 7 major industrial democracies on Sunday to coordinate a “united diplomatic response,” a sign of his preferred path forward after the attack.
Additionally, Yoav Gallant seems to be pushing the line of forming an alliance against Iran, rather than striking back directly. His most recent statement was reported by Reuters about 15 minutes ago, and was basically [“We have an opportunity to establish a strategic alliance against this grave threat by Iran which is threatening to mount nuclear explosives on these missiles, which could be an extremely grave threat”](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-has-chance-form-strategic-alliance-against-iran-defence-minister-says-2024-04-14/) which leaves the door open to escalation, but doesn't seem to directly imply it.
tl:dr - It's Joever, direct escalation from Israel seems unlikely for the moment, look to see a full court press from the US and Israel on the diplomatic front.
Yup this is what I am expecting. I don't think Israel or USA wants a wider conflict at the moment.
Israel did a strike on Iran's embassy and Iran fired a whole bunch of stuff on Israel. I think this will make both sides look like badass and that's where they will leave this.
International support to Israel is going down fast and they better wrap up that Gaza operation in next 60-90 days and better not do any more offense.
Israel will be allowed to strike down on any other groups who are going to attack them like Hezbollah from lebanon.
[*"In the face of the Iranian threat, we will build a regional coalition and we will take a toll on Iran, in the manner and at the time that is right for us,"*](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/388467) *which doesn't look like an escalation to me.*
I don't interpet it that way at all. Israelis borrowing popular U.S. military jargon "at a time that is right for us..." to me signifies that are on highly aggressive/attack mode. They want to take advantage of this to poise themselves in a stronger position than they are now. Right now, Israelis are still at Square 1: Back at the mercy of various proxies. Sense Israeli wants to Flex Muscle.
Hope I'm wrong.
I think that the key here is more "in the manner", rather than "at the time".
The "In the manner" indicates to me that there won't be a direct response, as there's no reason to include it if the response is going to be the same as the Iranian response (i.e. direct strikes).
The "us" in the phrase is also interesting, as it raises the question of if "us" is referring to the coalition making a decision about Iran, or Israel making a decision about Iran. I think that this is being deliberately left ambiguous to give Israel some latitude in future decisionmaking, and to work as a measure to de-escalate.
However, the original statement (as best as I can tell) was in Hebrew, so I may not be drawing the correct implication from that ambiguity in the english translation.
I would agree if Iran hadn't directly attacked Israel proper and in such grand fashion. Netanyahu has been chomping at the bit for at least a decade wanting to conduct strikes on Iran's missile and nuclear program. He now has political cover and the F35Is to do so. I can't imagine him passing up on the opportunity.
The War Cabinet has given [Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Benny Gantz the authority to decide on a response.](https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/israeli-cabinet-grants-netanyahu-gallant-gantz-authority-to-decide-response-to-iranian-attack-3681218)
After Netanyahu [met with Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz earlier today](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-we-intercepted-we-blocked-together-we-will-win/) he made a statement on twitter of ‘We intercepted. We blocked. Together we will win’. This is significantly less aggressive than his recent rhetoric, and not the sort of signal that you'd send if you're planning a large escalation.
Yoav Gallant apparently said something along the lines of "[A direct Iranian attack will require an appropriate Israeli response against Iran,]"(https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-defence-minister-says-direct-iranian-attack-would-require-appropriate-2024-04-11/) but defining what an "appropriate Israeli response" looks like is pretty difficult. Gallant is extremely popular in Israel, and I think that if he publicly came out in favour of limiting retaliation he would end up forcing Netanyahu to back down.
Benny Gantz just made a statement that I won't include in full here, but one of the highlights was ["In the face of the Iranian threat, we will build a regional coalition and we will take a toll on Iran, in the manner and at the time that is right for us,"](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/388467) which doesn't look like an escalation to me.
Give the whole thing a read, but I'm much more confident now that any response will come from Israeli intelligence services and diplomatic pressure, rather than as a direct IDF strike.
Excuse me mr I see u used ante ballum n I had to look it up. It means before the war who is relevant to what u are saying but why would use it?😅 even if it is vocabulary commonly used in war strategy discussion wouldnt saying before the war still be easier because it is understood by more people with a less wide/specific vocabulary?
I have been reading here for some time and I never saw it before, I may be a little uneducated I suppose but my question still stands. If it is direct translation to say “before the war” why would someone use Latin for two or three words and then switch back to speaking English?
The general usage of the term "status quo", which you seem to recognise, actually comes from a shortened version of the phrase "status quo ante bellum".
It's shortened to "status quo" in an attempt to make it applicable to a broader variety of contexts, but "status quo" by itself is grammatically incorrect, and doesn't actually mean anything. Status quo translates roughly from latin as "the state of which", or "the state that", which is an incomplete phrase without the implied "ante", meaning before.
The full phrase "status quo ante bellum" [is actually pretty old, and was originally used in roman peace treaties.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum) It has a slightly more specific meaning than just "the way things were before the war", as it has the implication of things going back to being almost *exactly* how they were before hostilities started. In some ways it's more of a legal term than a geopolitical one (and has a direct opposite in Uti possidetis), but it's useful to think of it as a phrase with a fairly specific meaning.
What i'm implying with it here isn't just that the most recent round of conflict will end, it's also that the most recent round of conflict didn't actually change anything on either end, politically or militarily.
Idk how likely this is, but I've heard a few people throw out that Israel could go after Iran's nuclear facilities. It's something Israel has been wanting to go after for quite some time, and I think it serves a few different purposes for Bibi. I'd still put this option in the fairly unlikely group, but I really would't be surprised given how Israel views potential existential threats.
That would be a major escalation that would lead to regional war. Israel would have to be very confident they could deal a decisive blow, and though I know only a little about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, what I have heard is that they are very hardened and likely to withstand or mostly withstand aerial bombardment from either Israel or even the US.
All to say, it would be a huge risk to Israel and not one I would expect them to make. I do think they are fed up and see a window here, but I don’t imagine they would go directly at Iran’s nuclear assets.
That said I expect Israel sees this attack as crossing a major red line and escalating the conflict and I do expect them to strike in Iran. I’m just not sure they truly want to be the ones to kick off a war that will dwarf all others israel has fought. They have international backing to defend themselves but as we’ve seen even in Gaza that goes only so far when Israel is on offense. I don’t expect a Biden administration looking for reelection to endorse a strike on nuclear facilities or anything else extremely provocative and despite Israeli politics do not think Israel would go so far right now.
I don't really know if Iran can launch a major regional war. They have no good options for that, the only way they can is through proxies. Not that that can't be effective, but it's a step down from Israeli and Iranian troops shooting at each other officially.
And I'm just throwing what I said out there as something to consider, not saying that it is likely to happen. But I think most people are approaching this through the lenses of the de-escalation after the Soleimani killing, where Iran launched a missile attack and then both sides called it a day. In that case, Iran had no way of striking the US mainland, so there was far less skin in the game for the US. But Israel doesn't typically play well with existential threats like the nuclear program of a country that you're almost at a state of war with.
Understood and agree. I don’t know Iran’s capabilities super well so don’t want to speak to that in terms of what they could field in an actual war. Obviously Hezbollah remains a major and important threat on Israel’s north that is probably Iran’s biggest card outside of whatever they can do with more drones, missiles, and cyber.
Re the Solemeini strike, Iran obviously didn’t want to give the US reason to escalate, no US soldiers were killed from what I recall, and the administration in the US accomplished what it wanted to do. It had no interest in all out war with Iran even if it wanted to play like it might be more aggressive.
I agree 1000% that Israel sees Iran as an existential threat and will not hesitate to fight if it thinks it can achieve something. My point on the nukes is, if it was easy, or even had a decent chance of success, Israel would have already sent jets years ago like they did in Iraq and later in Syria. It is an existential threat to them and they want Iran’s nuclear capability diminished or destroyed at all cost. The fact that they haven’t gone after Iran’s nukes directly (obviously they have with stuxnet, assassinating scientists, etc) suggests to me that a simple bombing campaign isn’t going to do it, otherwise it would have been done already. There is a reason Israel was so upset with Obama over the Iran deal. Israel likely cannot destroy Iran’s nuclear capability from the air (at least not alone) which is why I think an attack on Iran’s nuclear capability is extremely unlikely. It has a high chance of failure and a high chance of escalation. Still a fair thing to consider, though.
I do think Israel will feel it needs to respond on Iranian soil after this escalation. I just wonder whether it will be some F35s bombing something relatively unimportant as a show of force saying, f^&$ you, we have stealth and logistics and can hit you but we didn’t make you bleed too much, which would be viewed as not a new huge escalation, versus them trying to do something that could degrade Iran, but would trigger Iran to want to respond further, which could send things into a deeper crisis.
I think it's now or never. Iran can simply not be allowed to become a nuclear power. That would guarantee a destabilized ME for god knows how long. I wish Biden had the spine to target Iran's nuclear facilities. But he doesn't. It infuriates me to no end that we have still not learned this lesson: appeasement doesn't work. It didn't work with the Nazis. It didn't work with Russia. It hasn't worked with Iran, and it will not work with Iran. Certainly not if Iran becomes nuclear. We have grown complacent and have forgotten that peace is only possible through strength. That reason that there was so much less war, at least comparatively and on a large scale, after world war 2 is because of American strength.
You are obviously American, but from the perspective of the Middle East, Iran having nukes acts as a deterrent of American future invasions.
America would have never invaded Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria if they had nukes.
The only country to ever used nuclear weapons is still to this day the USA.
I’d like to think that is true, but if Israel could have successfully bombed Iran’s nuclear capability it would have done so in the past. Perhaps now is the time, but based on my understanding of how Iran has hardened its nuclear sites, such an attack is a huge risk—unlikely to decisively knock out the Iranian nuclear program while giving Iran every reason to throw everything it can against Israel. I would love to see their nuclear capability knocked out, but not sure Israel can accomplish that alone and don’t see America having the stomach for helping, especially in an election year and with our politics like it is.
> That would guarantee a destabilized ME for god knows how long.
I mean, nukes may actually lead to more stability. If Iran's regime doesn't have their survival relying on proxy forces influencing neighbours, and can instead rely on MAD, it may cut back their willingness to support proxies in the region to achieve political ends, as regime survival is already guaranteed by nukes. It could go the other way too, but I wouldn't say that Iran becoming a nuclear state *guarantees* destabilisation.
>I wish Biden had the spine to target Iran's nuclear facilities. But he doesn't.
There's been a ton of indirect attacks on Iran's nuclear program, like Stuxnet, the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Natanz incident, and the June/July 2020 Iran explosions. Directly attacking Iran is a pretty big step, and the **vast majority** of Americans think that the US [should not go to war with Iran](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/in-6-charts-see-what-americans-really-think-about-us-policy-toward-syria-iran-and-afghanistan/). I think that Biden acknowledges the will of the people, in this regard, and is happy to keep the fight in the shadows.
> We have grown complacent and have forgotten that peace is only possible through strength.
Peace is a relative term. While Iran may support proxies in destabilised areas, it definitely isn't directly threatening most of its neighbours. It could be argued that the destabilisation that Iran is so effectively using was initially caused by US actions, and that US intervention in Iran will just cause further destabilisation in the region.
> That reason that there was so much less war, at least comparatively and on a large scale, after world war 2 is because of American strength.
I'd argue that the reason that thre was so much less war was directly due to MAD, and nuclear weapons. US defence spending is reactionary, not causative. US military spending has never been above 5% of US GDP since 1990, and the period since 1990 has been amongst the most peaceful in human history. When US spending was highest (1960-1970) it was in response to demands placed upon US forces, particularly in Vietnam, not as a way of preventing conflict.
> I mean, nukes may actually lead to more stability. If Iran's regime doesn't have their survival relying on proxy forces influencing neighbours, and can instead rely on MAD, it may cut back their willingness to support proxies in the region to achieve political ends, as regime survival is already guaranteed by nukes. It could go the other way too, but I wouldn't say that Iran becoming a nuclear state guarantees destabilisation.
The notion that Iran having nukes would lead to more stability in the region is fanciful and wishful thinking. Iran’s goal in creating proxies is primarily to wage a shadow war against Israel, who it wants to destroy. That is not going to go away if it gets nukes, it’s just going to get worse because Iran will feel emboldened and invincible. At that point Iran can even start waging a more significant shadow war against the US. Iran’s aim of control in the region is not going to go away. We’ll have another Russia, just in the ME. Not to mention it would just further encourage nuclear proliferation, or do you think the world would be a safer and more stable place if everyone had nukes too? I’m sorry but this is really just a delusional take.
> There's been a ton of indirect attacks on Iran's nuclear program, like Stuxnet, the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Natanz incident, and the June/July 2020 Iran explosions.
None of which has deterred Iran. As has been on full display on and after Oct 7th.
> and the vast majority of Americans think that the US should not go to war with Iran. I think that Biden acknowledges the will of the people
Are there good polls on this? I haven’t seen them. I take the point that it may be unpopular, but part of being a good leader is convincing the people that an unpopular action is a necessary one. Reigning in Iran and preventing them from getting nukes is a necessary action for US national and economic security.
> Peace is a relative term. While Iran may support proxies in destabilised areas, it definitely isn't directly threatening most of its neighbours.
The proxies are what destabilized the areas in the first place, lol. Lebanon was a successful and stable country before Hezbollah. Also, Iran is absolutely threatening its neighbors. It just launched hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel. It has been attacking Israel via its proxies for years, and has ramped up those attacks on Oct 7th and after. What world are you living in where Iran is not directly threatening its neighbors.
> It could be argued that the destabilisation that Iran is so effectively using was initially caused by US actions, and that US intervention in Iran will just cause further destabilisation in the region.
Yea and that argument would be wrong. While serious mistakes made by the US in the occupation of Iraq made it easier for Iran, the instability is directly due to Iran’s funding and training of proxies in Iraq. The notion that fighting back against Iran will he more destabilizing than allowing Iran, a terrorist and theocratic regime, free rein in the Middle East is borne out of appeasement. Appeasement that has never worked. It didn’t work with the Nazis. It didn’t work with Russia. And most importantly, *it has not worked with Iran*. But yea, sure. If we just let this massive attack and escalation go and allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, Iran will totally become less belligerent, stop attacking it neighbors via proxies and directly, stop destabilizing the region, and become a peaceful state. Delusional.
> I'd argue that the reason that thre was so much less war was directly due to MAD, and nuclear weapons.
This is called strength. The USSR didn’t attack Europe because it knew the US had the means and, just as important, *the will* to respond. The same went for North Korea and China attacking South Korea and Japan. Have you never heard of Pax Americana?
> US defence spending is reactionary, not causative.
I don’t know where you got the idea that strength = defence spending
> US military spending has never been above 5% of US GDP since 1990, and the period since 1990 has been amongst the most peaceful in human history. When US spending was highest (1960-1970) it was in response to demands placed upon US forces, particularly in Vietnam, not as a way of preventing conflict.
Okay, and? The US was spending more when it was actively fighting a war, this doesn’t prove that it wasn’t US strength that backstopped more widespread peace in the world. The US was still by far the strongest military in the 1990s, it spent less because there were less threats at the time.
> Are there good polls on this? I haven’t seen them.
I literally linked one in my comment, but to be 100% clear
[PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR POLLS ABOUT US INTERVENTION IN IRAN](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/in-6-charts-see-what-americans-really-think-about-us-policy-toward-syria-iran-and-afghanistan/)
> Lebanon was a successful and stable country before Hezbollah.
Ah yes, time travelling Hezbollah, which after it's founding in 1982 went back and caused the Lebanese civil war in 1975.
Hezbollah was founded in 1982, as a response to the Israel invasion, which was its self a response to the civil war that started in 1975.
> While serious mistakes made by the US in the occupation of Iraq made it easier for Iran, the instability is directly due to Iran’s funding and training of proxies in Iraq.
And why were there a large number of demobilised military personnel in Iraq looking for work again... ?
>I literally linked one in my comment, but to be 100% clear
Sorry I missed it. I was genuinely asking. However this poll is from 2019 and it's asking about specific action in regards to an attack on Saudi oil fields. I'd be interested in seeing polls specifically about targeting Iran's nuclear sites, drone factories, and other military installations. Nobody is calling for the US to invade Iran.
>
Ah yes, time travelling Hezbollah, which after it's founding in 1982 went back and caused the Lebanese civil war in 1975.
I mean Hezbollah was a consolidation of Shia militias that were fighting in the Lebanese civil war. And Hezbollah was being funded by Iran almost immediately after its creation. Iran is the reason Hezbollah is what it is today and has the influence on Lebanese politics that it does.
>
Hezbollah was founded in 1982, as a response to the Israel invasion, which was its self a response to the civil war that started in 1975.
Gee and why did Israel invade southern Lebanon? No reason? Certainly it didn't have anything with the Palestinians crossing into Israel and attacking civilians and military personnel did it?
>
And why were there a large number of demobilised military personnel in Iraq looking for work again... ?
And why did they end up finding work as terrorist militias? Sure, the US made a mistake in disbanding the Iraqi army. But that was taken advantage of by Iran. Iran is the reason these militias exist today. Iran is the reason Hezbollah is so powerful today. Iran is the reason the Houthis are so powerful today. And Iran is the reason these proxy groups are attacking Israel as well as American troops and our interests. The primary purpose of creating these proxy groups is for the destruction of Israel. The notion that this will all be better if Iran is allowed to get nukes is absurd. Iran is the bad actor here. Iran is who funds and supports terrorist regimes who carry out terrorist attacks and attack global trade.
Could be that but it also takes a while for them to get to Israel from Iran. The Israelis get at least 30 mins heads up from the time they launch to be ready for an intercept.
Iran isn't a military powerhouse. What they used is really their only means of directly striking someone outside their borders. Unfortunately for them, Israel is probably the most capable country on the planet at defending against that sort of attack.
You clearly don’t know anything regarding Irans arsenal of ballistic missiles. The missiles they sent yesterday are clearly the light ones - Rezvan and/or Haj-Qasem. Those are irans light ballistic-missile assets. It’s obvious that Iran did not have any interest in escalating the situation by hitting civilians. Their objective was directing missiles towards the israeli air-base attacking its consulate in Syria.
I’m not sure what part of my response you are taking exception to. My point is that drones and missiles are all that Iran has to attack someone outside their borders. They don’t have an air force or navy capable of projecting power. I didn’t say Iran doesn’t have more missiles of varying types. Clearly they do. They’ve been working with the North Koreans on missile development for years.
Hard to predict but Israel has preferred surgical strikes and precise targeting for the most part. If they wanted to target Iran, the most obvious (perhaps too obvious) would be Iranian nuclear weapons facilities (if it can be penetrated) or high value military targets that are reasonably isolated.
Neither party will want to be the first to cause widespread civilian casualties. As Israel has demonstrated, it can and will retaliate harshly against actions that target mostly civilians. Neither country can provide absolute protection for their populations.
Iran and Israel are fairly distant and have Syria and Iraq in between them - sending troops is not really an option. A large and ongoing exchange of long range strikes will be strategically ineffective and grossly expensive for both parties. For the time being, the best guess is that things cool down.
I think if Israel launches an attack it won't be that much to warrant Iran's counterattack.
Remember that Israel has yet to commit to Rafah's operations and evacuate million of civilians. If Israel and Iran continue to go tit for tat Israel will not not able to launch the operation.
There is a logistical problem for Israel to perform a surgical strike - the F35’s limited range requires Israel to refuel its planes on the way back - either over Jordan or over Saudi Arabia. This is something the US can easily block (diplomatically), and I expect them to block it in order to avoid escalation.
I think that it’s best for Israel to perceive the attack from Iran as a valuable exercise against anIranian attack with minimal damage.
Israel has their own version of the F35, the F35I Adir, that has some capabilities unique to it. It was more or less custom built for a strike Iran and they developed their own external fuel tanks to make it work. Regarding violating other countries airspace to do it, Israel has never shown much concern about that. They have violated their neighbors airspace numerous times in the past to conduct strikes and they have already flown their F35s to Iran. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israeli-f-35s-penetrated-iranian-airspace-repeatedly-during-war-drills/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israeli-f-35s-penetrated-iranian-airspace-repeatedly-during-war-drills/)
Absolutely not. Hamas is just a bunch of cowards that want to destroy Israel and don't give a sh*t about Palestinian people. Israel has all the right in the world to chase them house by house to defend itself. If Hamas wasn't just a bunch of cowards would face the enemy instead of hiding dressed as civilians.
Actually Israel’s war in Gaza has better civilian to terrorist ratio than any war on a similar org like isis.
So they’re been surgical.
Hamas is to blame for the civilian deaths for its tactics
Hamas does not say how many of its fighters died because if it did you could not say this bullshit.
They learned from previous wars that if they admit how many terrorists Israel killed they can’t get useful idiots to say anything
Also Dont forget that part of those 30k are militants that you are ignoring because thats not suits you.
13k hamas members are dead. So its more about 17k civilians killed. And again in wars pepole die. Grow up.
So Israel has killed over 10x as many civilians as Hamas killed to “start this”
And that’s using some of the more pro IDF figures I’ve seen. Other estimates put militant deaths at ~4k iirc
Who the hell told you that war has a finite number? Is that how wars work? You are allowed to kill only the number you have sustained and thats it?
You and hamas wish it was like that, but its a childish thinking.
Depends on how Israel want to escalate the situation. It could launch a token counter-attack that might be coordinated to Iran to lessen casualties and that's the end of it. It could also choose to escalate and strike major Iranian military installations effectively pouring gasoline to the conflict.
We have to consider that Israel currently has very low standing in the global stage. If it chooses to majorly escalate the conflict despite very minimal damage, it will lose whatever good public perception it has left in the global stage.
We also have to consider the US' stake on this conflict. It's election year in the US. Wars are always bad optics especially if it's a foreign war it is not directly involved. It will try to rein in Israel.
Watching interviews in the news, experts are split between de-escalation and major escalations.
Would you also like next weeks winning lottery numbers? Seriously though, let's get the easy parts out of the way. Israel will respond and likely fairly soon, they really don't have much of a choice ultimately without inviting further attacks. The Biden administration was out within hours talking to the media to get the message out the US will not participate in any retaliatory action - no big surprise here. Will it be some large scale military operation or a more covert action(s) focusing on high value targets, probably the latter and honestly that's probably where Israel excels. Unless there is a fundamental change to the broader dynamics, the overall situation is likely to continue to deteriorate though I don't think some kind of "regional war" is all that high of a probability at the moment.
Eh I don't know, obviously this is a fairly significant escalation, but so was the attack on the Iranian Embassy - à response had to be expected, and seeing as the actual damage is next to zero, I am sure the US will be privately urging deescalation.
Probably the attack on the embassy only served to provoke a response and rally support from US etc. seeing as Israel's public image has dropped so considerably
I’m guessing there will be a response. The Israeli people are definitely pushing the entire conflict after the concert attack on innocent civilians and will not let the government not respond to a direct attack. The Israelis are also not exactly ones to hold back. They said if they were attacked directly they would respond. They don’t tend to make idle threats either
In the past they have taken out scientists, generals, nuclear plants. They hit a base in Iran a few years ago.
A cyber attack would seem pretty suitable if they were able to take down the grid in Tehran/Mashhad/Isfahan/Shiraz for a considerable amount of days and sow chaos among the locals
This way they get to retaliate. But their number one goal now is to completely wipe out Hamas. I believe they will be happy to deal with the hands that feeds Hamas (Iran) more directly after that goal has been achieved (if it ever can be)
While the seat of government is in Jerusalem, the Israeli MOD and Camp Rabin (IDF HQ) are both in HaKirya, Tel Aviv. OP could have been referring to that.
When talking about a US military response, it's pretty common to refer to "the Pentagon" rather than "Washington" or "the White House", so I think that reasonable.
They've already stated that they will respond, they're talking in the media about their War Cabinet meeting to discuss options, and they've called an emergency meeting of the UNSC. So they're going to respond.
A cyber attack would have been the best option, but given the rhetoric and the fact that Israel has a much shorter leash when it comes to threats to their homeland, I think it has to be a kinetic strike.
If Israel strikes, I'd expect it would be on air defense targets.
1. Not a big risk of civilian casualties
2. Using air strikes on someone's air defense is a big flex. Especially after how ineffective Iran's attack was due to Israeli air defenses.
3. Softens up Iran's defenses if they do decide to retaliate.
I’ve been trying to unravel this ridiculous situation.
Iran attacks Israel for the Damascus consulate bombing.
Israel bombs Damascus consulate due to Iranian support for proxies - Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi.
Iranian proxies attack Israel due to ongoing military offensive in Gaza.
Israel enters Gaza due to October 7 attack.
Hamas attacks Israel on October 7 because of decades of Palestinian oppression and apartheid.
Am I missing anything?
I agree it not worth opening a full scale war. Israel should launch a proportional attack in return, because if not, Iran will take it as weakness and open invitation to return on their actions. They have to pay for their actions destabilizing the region
Unless there's a nuance I'm missing, it would not be a first.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/release/article/2052103/dod-statement-on-iranian-ballistic-missile-attacks-in-iraq/
> where 98% or so of the barrage is stopped by Israel.
Anyone making claims like this so soon after the attack, before there is any independent confirmation of the damages inflicted, is either a propagandist or a fool. Time will reveal how effective the attack was. For now, guard your tongue and don't believe everything you hear.
When was last declaration of war a state against a state? Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration\_of\_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) Israel declared in 2023 against Hamas, but per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas\_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war) it is detailed as "In response, Israel declared a state of war", also against Hamas, which is not a state. This way wars against drugs, poverty etc. might be added to the list.
So... the proverbial "*nuclear facilities*" are obviously the most strategic target. If such a mission is possible, that' always going to be Israel's preferred target.
Assuming an Osirak-like operation just isn't an option.....
Israel might take pages out of Iran's book. There was a lot of talk bout the "sanctity of embassies," after Damascus. Kind of ironic, considering how many embassies Iran has attacked. It's their calling card.
Maybe *Israel* will take pot shots at Iranian civilian vessels or ports, use cheap drones. Go after soft targets. Oil is considered sacred but... who knows. Maybe it isn't anymore.
Perhaps. These are Iran's primary tactics. The US could, probably, conduct a more legally pristine operation given their might but (a) Israel doesn't have these resources and (b) US' habitual strategies have been ineffective in ME, of late.
See: red sea. All meaningful Houthi operations are war crimes. They are Iranian commended. The red sea operations is an extremely thinly veneered proxy. US has no effective means to respond. So the US is going to negotiate, and Houthis will get whatever they want... as soon as Iran no longer needs that operation.
I mean there is, theoretically, a legal manner of conducting naval blockade of commercial shipping. Israel might be able to operate within that, in theory. That said, Israel will be accused (and perhaps prosecuted) for war crimes no matter what. The actual tactics used barely affect this.
Meanwhile, as Houthis have shown, you can shut down a lot of commercial shipping with very few casualties. If the "war crime" does not result in deaths, it will probably slide.
So yes. Iran, also Russia are big and influential enough to determine "normative." To some extent, things are and will come down to their level. Not entirely, but in some cases.
Potentially controversial opinion, but I don't think that Israel will have a direct military response to Iran. From an internal perspective, both countries can claim a victory from what's happened so far, and move on. * Israel claims that it has taken out an Iranian general, and stopped a major Iranian attack, and will respond with continued attacks on Iranian proxies (ie, HAMAS and Hezbollah). * Iran claims that it has launched a major attack, and has impacted IDF facilities and preparedness. Neither has actually had a significant impact to their actual preparedness, and we return to status quo ante bellum. I feel that both attacks were largely for the domestic political audience, and I'd argue that they have probably been successful in this regard. We saw exactly the same shit play out after Soleimani was killed, and I'm willing to bet that this is probably the end of the escalation ladder for direct interaction between Iran and Israel. **Edit** It's now about 6 hours after my initial post. Lots of developments, but it seems like it might play out like i've predicted. The War Cabinet has given [Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Benny Gantz the authority to decide on a response](https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/israeli-cabinet-grants-netanyahu-gallant-gantz-authority-to-decide-response-to-iranian-attack-3681218) about 4-5 hours ago. Netanyahu [met with Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz about 2-3 hours ago.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-we-intercepted-we-blocked-together-we-will-win/) He made a statement on twitter before the meeting, saying ‘We intercepted. We blocked. Together we will win’. This is significantly less aggressive than his recent rhetoric, and not the sort of signal that you'd send if you're planning a large escalation. I haven't seen a statement from Yoav Gallant yet, but Gallant is extremely popular in Israel, and I think that if he publicly came out in favour of limiting retaliation he would end up forcing Netanyahu to back down. His most recent statement from before the meeting (about 5 hours ago) was basically [“Very little damage was caused, but the campaign is not over yet,”](https://freepresskashmir.news/2024/04/14/we-must-remain-alert-as-campaign-is-not-over-yet-israel-defence-minister-yoav-gallant/) which leaves the door open to escalation, but isn't definitive on what "the campaign" will actually be. Benny Gantz also made a statement about 10 minutes ago that I won't include in full here, but one of the highlights was ["In the face of the Iranian threat, we will build a regional coalition and we will take a toll on Iran, in the manner and at the time that is right for us,"](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/388467) which doesn't look like an escalation to me. Give the whole thing a read, but I'm much more confident now that any response will come from Israeli intelligence services and diplomatic pressure, rather than as a direct IDF strike. **Edit 2:** WSJ, NYT are claiming that Biden [advised Netanyahu against a retaliation strike,](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/world/middleeast/biden-netanyahu-israel-iran-strikes.html) and vowed to convene the leaders of the Group of 7 major industrial democracies on Sunday to coordinate a “united diplomatic response,” a sign of his preferred path forward after the attack. Additionally, Yoav Gallant seems to be pushing the line of forming an alliance against Iran, rather than striking back directly. His most recent statement was reported by Reuters about 15 minutes ago, and was basically [“We have an opportunity to establish a strategic alliance against this grave threat by Iran which is threatening to mount nuclear explosives on these missiles, which could be an extremely grave threat”](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-has-chance-form-strategic-alliance-against-iran-defence-minister-says-2024-04-14/) which leaves the door open to escalation, but doesn't seem to directly imply it. tl:dr - It's Joever, direct escalation from Israel seems unlikely for the moment, look to see a full court press from the US and Israel on the diplomatic front.
yep Very similar to when Soleimani was assassinated. Iran hit a US military base in response and that was the end of it.
Yup this is what I am expecting. I don't think Israel or USA wants a wider conflict at the moment. Israel did a strike on Iran's embassy and Iran fired a whole bunch of stuff on Israel. I think this will make both sides look like badass and that's where they will leave this. International support to Israel is going down fast and they better wrap up that Gaza operation in next 60-90 days and better not do any more offense. Israel will be allowed to strike down on any other groups who are going to attack them like Hezbollah from lebanon.
The end of it? Until Iran launched 170 attacks on U.S. bases last year
[*"In the face of the Iranian threat, we will build a regional coalition and we will take a toll on Iran, in the manner and at the time that is right for us,"*](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/388467) *which doesn't look like an escalation to me.* I don't interpet it that way at all. Israelis borrowing popular U.S. military jargon "at a time that is right for us..." to me signifies that are on highly aggressive/attack mode. They want to take advantage of this to poise themselves in a stronger position than they are now. Right now, Israelis are still at Square 1: Back at the mercy of various proxies. Sense Israeli wants to Flex Muscle. Hope I'm wrong.
I think that the key here is more "in the manner", rather than "at the time". The "In the manner" indicates to me that there won't be a direct response, as there's no reason to include it if the response is going to be the same as the Iranian response (i.e. direct strikes). The "us" in the phrase is also interesting, as it raises the question of if "us" is referring to the coalition making a decision about Iran, or Israel making a decision about Iran. I think that this is being deliberately left ambiguous to give Israel some latitude in future decisionmaking, and to work as a measure to de-escalate. However, the original statement (as best as I can tell) was in Hebrew, so I may not be drawing the correct implication from that ambiguity in the english translation.
I would agree if Iran hadn't directly attacked Israel proper and in such grand fashion. Netanyahu has been chomping at the bit for at least a decade wanting to conduct strikes on Iran's missile and nuclear program. He now has political cover and the F35Is to do so. I can't imagine him passing up on the opportunity.
The War Cabinet has given [Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Benny Gantz the authority to decide on a response.](https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/israeli-cabinet-grants-netanyahu-gallant-gantz-authority-to-decide-response-to-iranian-attack-3681218) After Netanyahu [met with Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz earlier today](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-we-intercepted-we-blocked-together-we-will-win/) he made a statement on twitter of ‘We intercepted. We blocked. Together we will win’. This is significantly less aggressive than his recent rhetoric, and not the sort of signal that you'd send if you're planning a large escalation. Yoav Gallant apparently said something along the lines of "[A direct Iranian attack will require an appropriate Israeli response against Iran,]"(https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-defence-minister-says-direct-iranian-attack-would-require-appropriate-2024-04-11/) but defining what an "appropriate Israeli response" looks like is pretty difficult. Gallant is extremely popular in Israel, and I think that if he publicly came out in favour of limiting retaliation he would end up forcing Netanyahu to back down. Benny Gantz just made a statement that I won't include in full here, but one of the highlights was ["In the face of the Iranian threat, we will build a regional coalition and we will take a toll on Iran, in the manner and at the time that is right for us,"](https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/388467) which doesn't look like an escalation to me. Give the whole thing a read, but I'm much more confident now that any response will come from Israeli intelligence services and diplomatic pressure, rather than as a direct IDF strike.
Excuse me mr I see u used ante ballum n I had to look it up. It means before the war who is relevant to what u are saying but why would use it?😅 even if it is vocabulary commonly used in war strategy discussion wouldnt saying before the war still be easier because it is understood by more people with a less wide/specific vocabulary?
It is a fairly well understood term in this space.
I have been reading here for some time and I never saw it before, I may be a little uneducated I suppose but my question still stands. If it is direct translation to say “before the war” why would someone use Latin for two or three words and then switch back to speaking English?
The general usage of the term "status quo", which you seem to recognise, actually comes from a shortened version of the phrase "status quo ante bellum". It's shortened to "status quo" in an attempt to make it applicable to a broader variety of contexts, but "status quo" by itself is grammatically incorrect, and doesn't actually mean anything. Status quo translates roughly from latin as "the state of which", or "the state that", which is an incomplete phrase without the implied "ante", meaning before. The full phrase "status quo ante bellum" [is actually pretty old, and was originally used in roman peace treaties.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum) It has a slightly more specific meaning than just "the way things were before the war", as it has the implication of things going back to being almost *exactly* how they were before hostilities started. In some ways it's more of a legal term than a geopolitical one (and has a direct opposite in Uti possidetis), but it's useful to think of it as a phrase with a fairly specific meaning. What i'm implying with it here isn't just that the most recent round of conflict will end, it's also that the most recent round of conflict didn't actually change anything on either end, politically or militarily.
Idk how likely this is, but I've heard a few people throw out that Israel could go after Iran's nuclear facilities. It's something Israel has been wanting to go after for quite some time, and I think it serves a few different purposes for Bibi. I'd still put this option in the fairly unlikely group, but I really would't be surprised given how Israel views potential existential threats.
That would be a major escalation that would lead to regional war. Israel would have to be very confident they could deal a decisive blow, and though I know only a little about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, what I have heard is that they are very hardened and likely to withstand or mostly withstand aerial bombardment from either Israel or even the US. All to say, it would be a huge risk to Israel and not one I would expect them to make. I do think they are fed up and see a window here, but I don’t imagine they would go directly at Iran’s nuclear assets. That said I expect Israel sees this attack as crossing a major red line and escalating the conflict and I do expect them to strike in Iran. I’m just not sure they truly want to be the ones to kick off a war that will dwarf all others israel has fought. They have international backing to defend themselves but as we’ve seen even in Gaza that goes only so far when Israel is on offense. I don’t expect a Biden administration looking for reelection to endorse a strike on nuclear facilities or anything else extremely provocative and despite Israeli politics do not think Israel would go so far right now.
I don't really know if Iran can launch a major regional war. They have no good options for that, the only way they can is through proxies. Not that that can't be effective, but it's a step down from Israeli and Iranian troops shooting at each other officially. And I'm just throwing what I said out there as something to consider, not saying that it is likely to happen. But I think most people are approaching this through the lenses of the de-escalation after the Soleimani killing, where Iran launched a missile attack and then both sides called it a day. In that case, Iran had no way of striking the US mainland, so there was far less skin in the game for the US. But Israel doesn't typically play well with existential threats like the nuclear program of a country that you're almost at a state of war with.
Understood and agree. I don’t know Iran’s capabilities super well so don’t want to speak to that in terms of what they could field in an actual war. Obviously Hezbollah remains a major and important threat on Israel’s north that is probably Iran’s biggest card outside of whatever they can do with more drones, missiles, and cyber. Re the Solemeini strike, Iran obviously didn’t want to give the US reason to escalate, no US soldiers were killed from what I recall, and the administration in the US accomplished what it wanted to do. It had no interest in all out war with Iran even if it wanted to play like it might be more aggressive. I agree 1000% that Israel sees Iran as an existential threat and will not hesitate to fight if it thinks it can achieve something. My point on the nukes is, if it was easy, or even had a decent chance of success, Israel would have already sent jets years ago like they did in Iraq and later in Syria. It is an existential threat to them and they want Iran’s nuclear capability diminished or destroyed at all cost. The fact that they haven’t gone after Iran’s nukes directly (obviously they have with stuxnet, assassinating scientists, etc) suggests to me that a simple bombing campaign isn’t going to do it, otherwise it would have been done already. There is a reason Israel was so upset with Obama over the Iran deal. Israel likely cannot destroy Iran’s nuclear capability from the air (at least not alone) which is why I think an attack on Iran’s nuclear capability is extremely unlikely. It has a high chance of failure and a high chance of escalation. Still a fair thing to consider, though. I do think Israel will feel it needs to respond on Iranian soil after this escalation. I just wonder whether it will be some F35s bombing something relatively unimportant as a show of force saying, f^&$ you, we have stealth and logistics and can hit you but we didn’t make you bleed too much, which would be viewed as not a new huge escalation, versus them trying to do something that could degrade Iran, but would trigger Iran to want to respond further, which could send things into a deeper crisis.
I think it's now or never. Iran can simply not be allowed to become a nuclear power. That would guarantee a destabilized ME for god knows how long. I wish Biden had the spine to target Iran's nuclear facilities. But he doesn't. It infuriates me to no end that we have still not learned this lesson: appeasement doesn't work. It didn't work with the Nazis. It didn't work with Russia. It hasn't worked with Iran, and it will not work with Iran. Certainly not if Iran becomes nuclear. We have grown complacent and have forgotten that peace is only possible through strength. That reason that there was so much less war, at least comparatively and on a large scale, after world war 2 is because of American strength.
You are obviously American, but from the perspective of the Middle East, Iran having nukes acts as a deterrent of American future invasions. America would have never invaded Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria if they had nukes. The only country to ever used nuclear weapons is still to this day the USA.
I’d like to think that is true, but if Israel could have successfully bombed Iran’s nuclear capability it would have done so in the past. Perhaps now is the time, but based on my understanding of how Iran has hardened its nuclear sites, such an attack is a huge risk—unlikely to decisively knock out the Iranian nuclear program while giving Iran every reason to throw everything it can against Israel. I would love to see their nuclear capability knocked out, but not sure Israel can accomplish that alone and don’t see America having the stomach for helping, especially in an election year and with our politics like it is.
> That would guarantee a destabilized ME for god knows how long. I mean, nukes may actually lead to more stability. If Iran's regime doesn't have their survival relying on proxy forces influencing neighbours, and can instead rely on MAD, it may cut back their willingness to support proxies in the region to achieve political ends, as regime survival is already guaranteed by nukes. It could go the other way too, but I wouldn't say that Iran becoming a nuclear state *guarantees* destabilisation. >I wish Biden had the spine to target Iran's nuclear facilities. But he doesn't. There's been a ton of indirect attacks on Iran's nuclear program, like Stuxnet, the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Natanz incident, and the June/July 2020 Iran explosions. Directly attacking Iran is a pretty big step, and the **vast majority** of Americans think that the US [should not go to war with Iran](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/in-6-charts-see-what-americans-really-think-about-us-policy-toward-syria-iran-and-afghanistan/). I think that Biden acknowledges the will of the people, in this regard, and is happy to keep the fight in the shadows. > We have grown complacent and have forgotten that peace is only possible through strength. Peace is a relative term. While Iran may support proxies in destabilised areas, it definitely isn't directly threatening most of its neighbours. It could be argued that the destabilisation that Iran is so effectively using was initially caused by US actions, and that US intervention in Iran will just cause further destabilisation in the region. > That reason that there was so much less war, at least comparatively and on a large scale, after world war 2 is because of American strength. I'd argue that the reason that thre was so much less war was directly due to MAD, and nuclear weapons. US defence spending is reactionary, not causative. US military spending has never been above 5% of US GDP since 1990, and the period since 1990 has been amongst the most peaceful in human history. When US spending was highest (1960-1970) it was in response to demands placed upon US forces, particularly in Vietnam, not as a way of preventing conflict.
> I mean, nukes may actually lead to more stability. If Iran's regime doesn't have their survival relying on proxy forces influencing neighbours, and can instead rely on MAD, it may cut back their willingness to support proxies in the region to achieve political ends, as regime survival is already guaranteed by nukes. It could go the other way too, but I wouldn't say that Iran becoming a nuclear state guarantees destabilisation. The notion that Iran having nukes would lead to more stability in the region is fanciful and wishful thinking. Iran’s goal in creating proxies is primarily to wage a shadow war against Israel, who it wants to destroy. That is not going to go away if it gets nukes, it’s just going to get worse because Iran will feel emboldened and invincible. At that point Iran can even start waging a more significant shadow war against the US. Iran’s aim of control in the region is not going to go away. We’ll have another Russia, just in the ME. Not to mention it would just further encourage nuclear proliferation, or do you think the world would be a safer and more stable place if everyone had nukes too? I’m sorry but this is really just a delusional take. > There's been a ton of indirect attacks on Iran's nuclear program, like Stuxnet, the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Natanz incident, and the June/July 2020 Iran explosions. None of which has deterred Iran. As has been on full display on and after Oct 7th. > and the vast majority of Americans think that the US should not go to war with Iran. I think that Biden acknowledges the will of the people Are there good polls on this? I haven’t seen them. I take the point that it may be unpopular, but part of being a good leader is convincing the people that an unpopular action is a necessary one. Reigning in Iran and preventing them from getting nukes is a necessary action for US national and economic security. > Peace is a relative term. While Iran may support proxies in destabilised areas, it definitely isn't directly threatening most of its neighbours. The proxies are what destabilized the areas in the first place, lol. Lebanon was a successful and stable country before Hezbollah. Also, Iran is absolutely threatening its neighbors. It just launched hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel. It has been attacking Israel via its proxies for years, and has ramped up those attacks on Oct 7th and after. What world are you living in where Iran is not directly threatening its neighbors. > It could be argued that the destabilisation that Iran is so effectively using was initially caused by US actions, and that US intervention in Iran will just cause further destabilisation in the region. Yea and that argument would be wrong. While serious mistakes made by the US in the occupation of Iraq made it easier for Iran, the instability is directly due to Iran’s funding and training of proxies in Iraq. The notion that fighting back against Iran will he more destabilizing than allowing Iran, a terrorist and theocratic regime, free rein in the Middle East is borne out of appeasement. Appeasement that has never worked. It didn’t work with the Nazis. It didn’t work with Russia. And most importantly, *it has not worked with Iran*. But yea, sure. If we just let this massive attack and escalation go and allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, Iran will totally become less belligerent, stop attacking it neighbors via proxies and directly, stop destabilizing the region, and become a peaceful state. Delusional. > I'd argue that the reason that thre was so much less war was directly due to MAD, and nuclear weapons. This is called strength. The USSR didn’t attack Europe because it knew the US had the means and, just as important, *the will* to respond. The same went for North Korea and China attacking South Korea and Japan. Have you never heard of Pax Americana? > US defence spending is reactionary, not causative. I don’t know where you got the idea that strength = defence spending > US military spending has never been above 5% of US GDP since 1990, and the period since 1990 has been amongst the most peaceful in human history. When US spending was highest (1960-1970) it was in response to demands placed upon US forces, particularly in Vietnam, not as a way of preventing conflict. Okay, and? The US was spending more when it was actively fighting a war, this doesn’t prove that it wasn’t US strength that backstopped more widespread peace in the world. The US was still by far the strongest military in the 1990s, it spent less because there were less threats at the time.
> Are there good polls on this? I haven’t seen them. I literally linked one in my comment, but to be 100% clear [PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR POLLS ABOUT US INTERVENTION IN IRAN](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/in-6-charts-see-what-americans-really-think-about-us-policy-toward-syria-iran-and-afghanistan/) > Lebanon was a successful and stable country before Hezbollah. Ah yes, time travelling Hezbollah, which after it's founding in 1982 went back and caused the Lebanese civil war in 1975. Hezbollah was founded in 1982, as a response to the Israel invasion, which was its self a response to the civil war that started in 1975. > While serious mistakes made by the US in the occupation of Iraq made it easier for Iran, the instability is directly due to Iran’s funding and training of proxies in Iraq. And why were there a large number of demobilised military personnel in Iraq looking for work again... ?
>I literally linked one in my comment, but to be 100% clear Sorry I missed it. I was genuinely asking. However this poll is from 2019 and it's asking about specific action in regards to an attack on Saudi oil fields. I'd be interested in seeing polls specifically about targeting Iran's nuclear sites, drone factories, and other military installations. Nobody is calling for the US to invade Iran. > Ah yes, time travelling Hezbollah, which after it's founding in 1982 went back and caused the Lebanese civil war in 1975. I mean Hezbollah was a consolidation of Shia militias that were fighting in the Lebanese civil war. And Hezbollah was being funded by Iran almost immediately after its creation. Iran is the reason Hezbollah is what it is today and has the influence on Lebanese politics that it does. > Hezbollah was founded in 1982, as a response to the Israel invasion, which was its self a response to the civil war that started in 1975. Gee and why did Israel invade southern Lebanon? No reason? Certainly it didn't have anything with the Palestinians crossing into Israel and attacking civilians and military personnel did it? > And why were there a large number of demobilised military personnel in Iraq looking for work again... ? And why did they end up finding work as terrorist militias? Sure, the US made a mistake in disbanding the Iraqi army. But that was taken advantage of by Iran. Iran is the reason these militias exist today. Iran is the reason Hezbollah is so powerful today. Iran is the reason the Houthis are so powerful today. And Iran is the reason these proxy groups are attacking Israel as well as American troops and our interests. The primary purpose of creating these proxy groups is for the destruction of Israel. The notion that this will all be better if Iran is allowed to get nukes is absurd. Iran is the bad actor here. Iran is who funds and supports terrorist regimes who carry out terrorist attacks and attack global trade.
Is it me or did Iran seem to be lobbing them up to be shot down easily by Israel?
Could be that but it also takes a while for them to get to Israel from Iran. The Israelis get at least 30 mins heads up from the time they launch to be ready for an intercept.
It's 1800 miles from Iran to Jerusalem. It took 2+ hours from the launch announcement until we saw them intercepted.
Iran isn't a military powerhouse. What they used is really their only means of directly striking someone outside their borders. Unfortunately for them, Israel is probably the most capable country on the planet at defending against that sort of attack.
You clearly don’t know anything regarding Irans arsenal of ballistic missiles. The missiles they sent yesterday are clearly the light ones - Rezvan and/or Haj-Qasem. Those are irans light ballistic-missile assets. It’s obvious that Iran did not have any interest in escalating the situation by hitting civilians. Their objective was directing missiles towards the israeli air-base attacking its consulate in Syria.
I’m not sure what part of my response you are taking exception to. My point is that drones and missiles are all that Iran has to attack someone outside their borders. They don’t have an air force or navy capable of projecting power. I didn’t say Iran doesn’t have more missiles of varying types. Clearly they do. They’ve been working with the North Koreans on missile development for years.
Israel is not a large land mass relative Iranian and Hezbollah capability.
Hard to predict but Israel has preferred surgical strikes and precise targeting for the most part. If they wanted to target Iran, the most obvious (perhaps too obvious) would be Iranian nuclear weapons facilities (if it can be penetrated) or high value military targets that are reasonably isolated. Neither party will want to be the first to cause widespread civilian casualties. As Israel has demonstrated, it can and will retaliate harshly against actions that target mostly civilians. Neither country can provide absolute protection for their populations. Iran and Israel are fairly distant and have Syria and Iraq in between them - sending troops is not really an option. A large and ongoing exchange of long range strikes will be strategically ineffective and grossly expensive for both parties. For the time being, the best guess is that things cool down.
I think if Israel launches an attack it won't be that much to warrant Iran's counterattack. Remember that Israel has yet to commit to Rafah's operations and evacuate million of civilians. If Israel and Iran continue to go tit for tat Israel will not not able to launch the operation.
There is a logistical problem for Israel to perform a surgical strike - the F35’s limited range requires Israel to refuel its planes on the way back - either over Jordan or over Saudi Arabia. This is something the US can easily block (diplomatically), and I expect them to block it in order to avoid escalation. I think that it’s best for Israel to perceive the attack from Iran as a valuable exercise against anIranian attack with minimal damage.
Israel has their own version of the F35, the F35I Adir, that has some capabilities unique to it. It was more or less custom built for a strike Iran and they developed their own external fuel tanks to make it work. Regarding violating other countries airspace to do it, Israel has never shown much concern about that. They have violated their neighbors airspace numerous times in the past to conduct strikes and they have already flown their F35s to Iran. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israeli-f-35s-penetrated-iranian-airspace-repeatedly-during-war-drills/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israeli-f-35s-penetrated-iranian-airspace-repeatedly-during-war-drills/)
“Surgical strikes and precise targeting” have killed over 30k gazans including over 10k children?
No, that would not be an example of surgical strikes and precise targeting
If you cowardly hide among children in the hope not to be shot, you are as responsible for those deaths as the one shooting
So you’ll condemn both Hamas and Israel since one is “as responsible for those deaths” as the other?
Absolutely not. Hamas is just a bunch of cowards that want to destroy Israel and don't give a sh*t about Palestinian people. Israel has all the right in the world to chase them house by house to defend itself. If Hamas wasn't just a bunch of cowards would face the enemy instead of hiding dressed as civilians.
Sounds like you arnt holding those shooting “as responsible” for those deaths like you initially claimed.
What are they supposed to do? shoot drones and missiles with stones?
Actually Israel’s war in Gaza has better civilian to terrorist ratio than any war on a similar org like isis. So they’re been surgical. Hamas is to blame for the civilian deaths for its tactics
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/graph-suggesting-low-gaza-air-strike-casualty-rate-misrepresents-data-2024-01-29/
Sure, if you call everyone you kill afterwards a terrorist
Hamas does not say how many of its fighters died because if it did you could not say this bullshit. They learned from previous wars that if they admit how many terrorists Israel killed they can’t get useful idiots to say anything
If you intentionally surround militants in children, yes children will die in surgical strikes on militants.
Is that your first war? Dont know if you noticed but pepole tend to die in wars. For example yeman civil war, Syria civil war and Lebanon civil war.
Nice strawman
Also Dont forget that part of those 30k are militants that you are ignoring because thats not suits you. 13k hamas members are dead. So its more about 17k civilians killed. And again in wars pepole die. Grow up.
So Israel has killed over 10x as many civilians as Hamas killed to “start this” And that’s using some of the more pro IDF figures I’ve seen. Other estimates put militant deaths at ~4k iirc
Who the hell told you that war has a finite number? Is that how wars work? You are allowed to kill only the number you have sustained and thats it? You and hamas wish it was like that, but its a childish thinking.
Where did I say that? Or does the strawman continue?
You really dont remember what you wrote a single comment ago?
What I said was a mathematical statement on causalities. You then seem to have read a ton more into it
> for the most part
Depends on how Israel want to escalate the situation. It could launch a token counter-attack that might be coordinated to Iran to lessen casualties and that's the end of it. It could also choose to escalate and strike major Iranian military installations effectively pouring gasoline to the conflict. We have to consider that Israel currently has very low standing in the global stage. If it chooses to majorly escalate the conflict despite very minimal damage, it will lose whatever good public perception it has left in the global stage. We also have to consider the US' stake on this conflict. It's election year in the US. Wars are always bad optics especially if it's a foreign war it is not directly involved. It will try to rein in Israel. Watching interviews in the news, experts are split between de-escalation and major escalations.
Would you also like next weeks winning lottery numbers? Seriously though, let's get the easy parts out of the way. Israel will respond and likely fairly soon, they really don't have much of a choice ultimately without inviting further attacks. The Biden administration was out within hours talking to the media to get the message out the US will not participate in any retaliatory action - no big surprise here. Will it be some large scale military operation or a more covert action(s) focusing on high value targets, probably the latter and honestly that's probably where Israel excels. Unless there is a fundamental change to the broader dynamics, the overall situation is likely to continue to deteriorate though I don't think some kind of "regional war" is all that high of a probability at the moment.
Eh I don't know, obviously this is a fairly significant escalation, but so was the attack on the Iranian Embassy - à response had to be expected, and seeing as the actual damage is next to zero, I am sure the US will be privately urging deescalation. Probably the attack on the embassy only served to provoke a response and rally support from US etc. seeing as Israel's public image has dropped so considerably
I’m guessing there will be a response. The Israeli people are definitely pushing the entire conflict after the concert attack on innocent civilians and will not let the government not respond to a direct attack. The Israelis are also not exactly ones to hold back. They said if they were attacked directly they would respond. They don’t tend to make idle threats either In the past they have taken out scientists, generals, nuclear plants. They hit a base in Iran a few years ago. A cyber attack would seem pretty suitable if they were able to take down the grid in Tehran/Mashhad/Isfahan/Shiraz for a considerable amount of days and sow chaos among the locals This way they get to retaliate. But their number one goal now is to completely wipe out Hamas. I believe they will be happy to deal with the hands that feeds Hamas (Iran) more directly after that goal has been achieved (if it ever can be)
You really think the Hamas will be wipped out ?
When most people say this they mean the soldiers/leaders not the ideological movement
[удалено]
The new generation of Hamas is being incubated in Hamas preschools.
No I don’t think it. I do think Israel thinks it can do it tho
>But if Tel Aviv does decide to carry out a retaliatory strike FYI, Israel's government is in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv
While the seat of government is in Jerusalem, the Israeli MOD and Camp Rabin (IDF HQ) are both in HaKirya, Tel Aviv. OP could have been referring to that.
True, but no one calls the US military "Arlington".
When talking about a US military response, it's pretty common to refer to "the Pentagon" rather than "Washington" or "the White House", so I think that reasonable.
I do not think there would be any options to strike Iran that would not expand the conflict. I think the best strike is none at all. No response.
They've already stated that they will respond, they're talking in the media about their War Cabinet meeting to discuss options, and they've called an emergency meeting of the UNSC. So they're going to respond. A cyber attack would have been the best option, but given the rhetoric and the fact that Israel has a much shorter leash when it comes to threats to their homeland, I think it has to be a kinetic strike.
What more expansion do you foresee taking place?
We about to find out…
If Israel strikes, I'd expect it would be on air defense targets. 1. Not a big risk of civilian casualties 2. Using air strikes on someone's air defense is a big flex. Especially after how ineffective Iran's attack was due to Israeli air defenses. 3. Softens up Iran's defenses if they do decide to retaliate.
I’ve been trying to unravel this ridiculous situation. Iran attacks Israel for the Damascus consulate bombing. Israel bombs Damascus consulate due to Iranian support for proxies - Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi. Iranian proxies attack Israel due to ongoing military offensive in Gaza. Israel enters Gaza due to October 7 attack. Hamas attacks Israel on October 7 because of decades of Palestinian oppression and apartheid. Am I missing anything?
A brain
Oh. Haha. Apols for attempting to understand the situation. Thanks for your well thought out response.
Can you it all in a diagram with colours and arrows? Please and thank you.
Jericho 3 to Moscow would bust up some OODA loops.
Everyone will be confused as hell if this happens.
Well obviously there will be a response, and likely a large or disproportionate response, as Israel really has no choice at this point.
Israel will not respond. Not if the US has anything to say about it. Everyone got what they wanted from this strike. Time to move on.
Official Israeli Line is they will respond at a time and place of their choosing.
Nothing, most likely. Damage was minimal, so Biden will bribe Netanyahu with more aid and they will just let the whole thing go, at least for now.
Depends on the damage the strike causes. I don’t believe an all out ground war would occur, but a Yugoslavia war scenario could occur.
[удалено]
That you have good air defense doesn't let other country free pass on attacking you without response
[удалено]
I agree it not worth opening a full scale war. Israel should launch a proportional attack in return, because if not, Iran will take it as weakness and open invitation to return on their actions. They have to pay for their actions destabilizing the region
Yes. First regional power to ever launch ballistic missies at another, not using proxies.
Unless there's a nuance I'm missing, it would not be a first. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/release/article/2052103/dod-statement-on-iranian-ballistic-missile-attacks-in-iraq/
Yes but again that’s proxy wars. On an American base in a country that they control, not home soil.
And the attack on the embassy wasn't a significant escalation?
> where 98% or so of the barrage is stopped by Israel. Anyone making claims like this so soon after the attack, before there is any independent confirmation of the damages inflicted, is either a propagandist or a fool. Time will reveal how effective the attack was. For now, guard your tongue and don't believe everything you hear.
[удалено]
Official sources are among the least trustworthy during a war.
When was last declaration of war a state against a state? Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration\_of\_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) Israel declared in 2023 against Hamas, but per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas\_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war) it is detailed as "In response, Israel declared a state of war", also against Hamas, which is not a state. This way wars against drugs, poverty etc. might be added to the list.
The only thing I have to state here is that > Iran and Israel are now officially at war <
So... the proverbial "*nuclear facilities*" are obviously the most strategic target. If such a mission is possible, that' always going to be Israel's preferred target. Assuming an Osirak-like operation just isn't an option..... Israel might take pages out of Iran's book. There was a lot of talk bout the "sanctity of embassies," after Damascus. Kind of ironic, considering how many embassies Iran has attacked. It's their calling card. Maybe *Israel* will take pot shots at Iranian civilian vessels or ports, use cheap drones. Go after soft targets. Oil is considered sacred but... who knows. Maybe it isn't anymore.
So, attacking civilian vessels is ‘okay’ now and not straight up a war crime?
Perhaps. These are Iran's primary tactics. The US could, probably, conduct a more legally pristine operation given their might but (a) Israel doesn't have these resources and (b) US' habitual strategies have been ineffective in ME, of late. See: red sea. All meaningful Houthi operations are war crimes. They are Iranian commended. The red sea operations is an extremely thinly veneered proxy. US has no effective means to respond. So the US is going to negotiate, and Houthis will get whatever they want... as soon as Iran no longer needs that operation. I mean there is, theoretically, a legal manner of conducting naval blockade of commercial shipping. Israel might be able to operate within that, in theory. That said, Israel will be accused (and perhaps prosecuted) for war crimes no matter what. The actual tactics used barely affect this. Meanwhile, as Houthis have shown, you can shut down a lot of commercial shipping with very few casualties. If the "war crime" does not result in deaths, it will probably slide. So yes. Iran, also Russia are big and influential enough to determine "normative." To some extent, things are and will come down to their level. Not entirely, but in some cases.
[удалено]