That thread presents such a weak argument, even worse than your average reddit post.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)
- Thread starter phrozenflame
- Start date
You are correct in that thus far the US felt itself safe within places where it was "invited" into the Middle East. If the US bombs Iran, the largest US base in the Middle East is in Qatar. Which is right over the Persian Gulf from Iran. Perfectly within range of Iranian short range ballistic missiles.
To attack a base with a drone like this doesn't require Iranian sponsoring though. I reserve my judgement until more information is provided like which drone was used etc. For all we know it could have been a drone bought off Alibaba with a bomb strapped to it.
You are correct here. The North of Israel was basically evacuated because of the missile attacks by Hezbollah. Lots of Israeli settlers were displaced. They also had to increase the military footprint there. This is costing Israel financially quite a lot.
Agree.
Although I still see a pretty high chance of a response (attack).
And in that case, Iran and its backed forces will ofc retaliate.
And if the above happens, I do see it evolve to the point we're US planes are targeted/destroyed.
solarz
Brigadier
My first thought upon reading this was: "which country's air force is going to attack Israel?".
Then I remembered that we now have drones.
It's not only drones.
It's also various missiles (including short range ballistic ones).
And well, they are rather cheap and easy to produce nowadays. In fact, very much possible to make even as a hobbyist (missile with specs that can rival some 60s and 70s missiles).
I think Iran don't care if US gets hit in place 'invited' or not. The difference is who host them. Jordan is a irrelevant country, that is why their sovereignty is disrespected for hosting Iran's enemy. Qatar is different, that is why Iran do not hit there. As long as host is appropriate, where US gets hit don't matter, invited or not.
I would assert that the IDF needs to resolve the northern border problem now that it is mobilized, everyone knows that Hezbollah is far superior to Hamas, if Hamas did what they did to the IDF, imagine what Hezbollah would do to the IDF in a asymmetric conflict?
In fact, Israel cannot do anything alone against Hezbollah, they will need American support, whether with warplanes in the air or boots on the ground on the ground, the Americans would also have to support Israel by attacking and suppressing the logistics corridor from Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon to Hezbollah, which makes the American presence in Iraq and Syria an obligation, this attack against them in Jordan fit like a glove to allow this mandatory deployment in the Middle East, more precisely in Iraq and Syria. It may even be that the American response that is in an advanced planning stage is in fact to support Israel by cutting off this logistical corridor from Iran to Lebanon for Hezbollah to allow for greater IDF action in southern Lebanon.
In my opinion, Netanyahu needs to extend the war as far as possible to avoid being arrested, in addition to reducing the threat that looms over Israel in the north of the country, throwing Hezbollah beyond the Litani River, which would bring a greater security blanket to Israel . The USA here cannot do anything about this, because Netanuahy seems very out of control in relation to Biden, in which the American president is obliged to endorse everything Israel does.
Furthermore, a very strong reason for them can be evidenced that the IDF Deterrence was extremely harmed by this Hamas attack, which made it apparent how weak and very propagandistic the IDF is.
Israel's defensive strategy is based on 4 pillars:
A - Deterrence
B - Early warning
C - Active defense
D - Decisive victory.
“Deterrence” and “Early Warning” failed, the head of the Shin Bet himself took responsibility, but the other pillars are put into operation to mitigate collateral damage. Of all, “Decisive Victory” is the most dramatic for the attacker, if “Deterrence” fails. Israel may have no choice but to regain this Deterrence by expelling Hezbollah beyond the Litani River.
Like I said earlier in this, it's basically adventurism/gamblers mentality now.
The chance or likelihood of IDF being successful in defeating Hezbollah is very, very slim, and a defeat would worsen their position even more.
(Also, Hezbollah also has tunnels and their base of operations is the area south of the Litani River, basically southern Lebanon. Considering how unsuccessful IDF were in 2006, and how Hezbollah has only gotten stronger since then, well lol).
Let's put the 4 pillars in practical terms.
A: propaganda to amplify might
B: intel
C: preemptive strike
D: total destruction (of enemy capability to fight)
Neither seems helpful now. They lost C, they are only on reaction. D is all thats left on the playbook.
This is a typical playbook of a regime that only considers grand victory, never consequnce of failure. There is no deescalation, damage control, preserverence. Only "If I gamble more I can turn this around". Very similar WWII Japan and Germany.
Whats in for D? Escalate for total destruction of enemy? Enemy will do the same to them! Why would enemy return to status quo if Israel fail, just so Israel can try total destruction again? Israel caused severe damage to their home, should they let Israel go home intact to rebuild with advantage? The logical conclusion is for victor to somehow disarm the aggressor for "total destruction", militarily and economically.
Here is why total destruction is stupid. If they lose, the consequence is severe. So it better have very high certainty of success. But if they have strength for high chance of total success, there is no need to escalate into total destruction in first place. Enemy will either not initiate, or back off after initial failure. So the reality is total destruction is only relevant when chance of success is not high. This is what makes it stupid. They are gambling fate of nation on a war of high difficulty, high consequence of failure. Reward for winning is mediocre at best.
In conclusion, Israel didnt think this through, and refuse to. This is a reciepe for disaster. If Israel go for D, it better have total victory, or risk severe punishment. The catch is it is impossible without many years of high intensity combat. Something Israel never had experience of. It was always a series of short but intense combat, or long but low intensity anti terror mission. This is something they did not prepare for. If they try for this option they will find out the hard way what total war actually is.
Most country avoid total war for very good reasons, to say the least.
Last edited:
I do not believe that Israel will want the total defeat of Hezbollah as its objective, if Israel is having problems with Hamas in Gaza, the problem with Hezbollah in Lebanon is magnified by more than 10x, no one would be stupid enough to believe that a force that was unable to defeat Hamas will be able to decisively defeat Hezbollah. If Israel invades southern Lebanon, I am absolutely sure that maximalist strategic issues will be minimized, perhaps the biggest objective is to expand the security area by pushing Hezbollah further back in relation to Israel's territory, capturing this entire strip of land which should have been demilitarized according to the UN resolution, but neither Israel nor Hezbollah follow UN orders.