Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)

TK3600 said:

Let's put the 4 pillars in practical terms.

A: propaganda to amplify might
B: intel
C: preemptive strike
D: total destruction

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.

Click to expand...

For Netanyahu, option D would actually be the ideal choice, considering his internal situation. It would be a political gift for Bibi to win this option D, especially if she can count on American support for this arduous task and the political situation is heading in that direction.

TK3600 said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no way this can happen to Hezbollah, they will never face the IDF with the same weapons, the only thing that remains is asymmetric conflict, because Hezbollah is far from being a fully professional and modernized Army, regardless of the IDF's intention, Hezbollah does not will face Israel for a conventional weapons battle, they will use the terrain to mitigate Israel's advance, relying on the network of fortifications built inflicting damage on them, in addition to the various rocket barrages that will fall upon the military and the population in Israel.

TK3600 said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no total victory here, not against Hezbollah. This is simply impossible under current IDF conditions, Hezbollah will not engage in a high intensity war, because Hezbollah was never a purpose built army, they will inflict casualties on the IDF in an asymmetric conflict, this is a Hezbollah capability many times superior to Hamas. If Hezbollah goes into a high-intensity, open war against the IDF, they will lose completely, I really doubt that the Hezbollah leadership will follow this thinking around fighting against the IDF. They won't do that.

Sinnavuuty said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is unrealistic. Hezbollah will resist, and there will be a lot of back and forth. This results in:

1. Heavy cost: there needs to be high force commitment to push out Hezbollah an inch in first place. The cost will be much bigger than 2006 due to Israel weaker and Hezbollah stronger.
2. total waste of time: If Israel is committing that much resource, and somehow managed to push out Hezbollah, it must fortify the territory for the long haul, because Hezbollah will try to push back.
3. total waste of effort: If Israel is committing this much resource and time, what are they getting? A small piece of illegally occupied territory? It is a total waste. The strategic objective is to neutralize Hezbolah, not waste resources for tiny piece of land. If Hezbolah is not neutralized, they just bashed their head on the wall for no meaningful change!
4. questionable chance of success: This will be much harder than 2006. International diplomacy is much more unfavorable, Hezbolah is stronger, Israel is weaker, Israel is facing several more enemy in form of Houthis, Hamas, and Iran proxy support. US is weakened, Russia and China is strengthened and supporting Iran by proxy.

Commiting extreme time, resource, for no meaningful gain, under low chance of success is the proposal here. This is so absurd I am not sure if US joining can turn it greater than 50/50 chance.

Sinnavuuty said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is indeed much more rationale objective (especially compared to 'pushing Hezbollah north of Litani river').

But even then, I honestly question IDF's ability to even execute that.

(Or we might see Hezbollah willingly to retreat back after inflicting heavy casualties, so IDF and Israel can have a 'symbolic win' while in reality, suffering heavy losses).

Michaelsinodef said:

That is indeed much more rationale objective (especially compared to 'pushing Hezbollah north of Litani river').

But even then, I honestly question IDF's ability to even execute that.

(Or we might see Hezbollah willingly to retreat back after inflicting heavy casualties, so IDF and Israel can have a 'symbolic win' while in reality, suffering heavy losses).

Click to expand...

Hezbollah will very likely retreat under severe bombardment, but they will not stop shooting. IDF only can claim a symbolic win when at least getting a ceasefire. They will get no more symbolic win than early WWI Germany push into small portion of France. They are stuck there and enemy is still shooting back!

TK3600 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I mean Jordan is lead by a king who is so westernized that he couldn't even speak arabic and he blames his swiss nanny for it. Not to mention he litterly tried to build a park devoted to Star Trek (he is such a big fan that he was even an extra) and most Jordanians hate him for his and his famiy's collaberation with Israel and the west.

TK3600 said:

Hezbollah will very likely retreat under severe bombardment, but they will not stop shooting. IDF only can claim a symbolic win when at least getting a ceasefire. They will get no more symbolic win than early WWI Germany push into small portion of France. They are stuck there and enemy is still shooting back!

Click to expand...

Does IDF still have enough ammo to spend after the profligate expenditure in Gaza? Even their suppliers US and EU are short of supplies due to Ukraine?

TK3600 said:

That is unrealistic. Hezbollah will resist, and there will be a lot of back and forth. This results in:

1. Heavy cost: there needs to be high force commitment to push out Hezbollah an inch in first place. The cost will be much bigger than 2006 due to Israel weaker and Hezbollah stronger.
2. total waste of time: If Israel is committing that much resource, and somehow managed to push out Hezbollah, it must fortify the territory for the long haul, because Hezbollah will try to push back.
3. total waste of effort: If Israel is committing this much resource and time, what are they getting? A small piece of illegally occupied territory? It is a total waste. The strategic objective is to neutralize Hezbolah, not waste resources for tiny piece of land. If Hezbolah is not neutralized, they just bashed their head on the wall for no meaningful change!
4. questionable chance of success: This will be much harder than 2006. International diplomacy is much more unfavorable, Hezbolah is stronger, Israel is weaker, Israel is facing several more enemy in form of Houthis, Hamas, and Iran proxy support. US is weakened, Russia and China is strengthened and supporting Iran by proxy.

Commiting extreme time, resource, for no meaningful gain, under low chance of success is the proposal here. This is so absurd I am not sure if US joining can turn it greater than 50/50 chance.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense.

How will Israel's strategic objective be to neutralize Hezbollah in Lebanon if they can't even do that against Hamas in Gaza?

I understand what you are saying but I do not agree that Israel will cover this strategic objective if it invades southern Lebanon.

This greater goal of Israel will never be completed because Hezbollah is many times more powerful than Hamas, if they cannot stop Hamas, it will not be with Hezbollah that they can achieve this, there is no way to strategically defeat Hezbollah unless invade all of Lebanon and for this the number of troops that needs to be mobilized is and will have to be greater than the 360k that were mobilized.

Now, if Israel's objective is to push Hezbollah further away from Israel's current borders, it would be a much more achievable objective and the amount of manpower will be much smaller than an operation to strategically defeat Hezbollah, pushing Hezbollah back will increase the zone of security and active combat between the IDF and Hezbollah, this is indeed a very significant gain for Israel.

TK3600 said:

Hezbollah will very likely retreat under severe bombardment, but they will not stop shooting. IDF only can claim a symbolic win when at least getting a ceasefire. They will get no more symbolic win than early WWI Germany push into small portion of France. They are stuck there and enemy is still shooting back!

Click to expand...

And has Hezbollah stopped firing now?

What is the best solution?

Leave northern Israel in that active combat zone with Hezbollah bombing those areas or push that active combat zone by pushing Hezbollah further back into southern Lebanon?

This strategic defeat of Hezbollah that you claim so much is not the best solution because there is no viable solution for it, not in the current conditions of the IDF.

nemo said:

Does IDF still have enough ammo to spend after the profligate expenditure in Gaza? Even their suppliers US and EU are short of supplies due to Ukraine?

Click to expand...

This is a vital point. It does not have.

Michaelsinodef said:

That is indeed much more rationale objective (especially compared to 'pushing Hezbollah north of Litani river').

But even then, I honestly question IDF's ability to even execute that.

(Or we might see Hezbollah willingly to retreat back after inflicting heavy casualties, so IDF and Israel can have a 'symbolic win' while in reality, suffering heavy losses).

Click to expand...

Hezbollah will not give up easy ground like that, the IDF will have to overcome the fortifications and will have many more casualties than they had in Gaza, in addition, it needs to be assessed whether they will have all the weapons and logistics for this, but in theory, it can be accomplished if all these requirements are met. But the point is that this still depends on American support and this is inevitable, the targets that both Israel and the USA reach in Syria and Iraq are mainly routes for the logistical flow from Iran to Hezbollah, this will have to be stopped and only the Americans are who manage to gather enough forces to do this while Israel is busy and concentrates all its efforts in southern Lebanon.

Sinnavuuty said:

Hezbollah will not give up easy ground like that, the IDF will have to overcome the fortifications and will have many more casualties than they had in Gaza, in addition, it needs to be assessed whether they will have all the weapons and logistics for this, but in theory, it can be accomplished if all these requirements are met. But the point is that this still depends on American support and this is inevitable, the targets that both Israel and the USA reach in Syria and Iraq are mainly routes for the logistical flow from Iran to Hezbollah, this will have to be stopped and only the Americans are who manage to gather enough forces to do this while Israel is busy and concentrates all its efforts in southern Lebanon.

Click to expand...

Eh.

Even if they cut the supply line, it's likely that Hezbollah has stocks enough for more than half a year of high intensity conflict, and even ability to manufacture some of the stuff themselves (not to mention, it's likely that they don't only rely on the supply line from Iran only, although it would be a big hit).

And the expectations should be that casualties should likely be higher than what they had in Gaza, in which case, some 60k really aren't enough (seems like they might use some 60k, even if they used a lot more of the reserves, say 160k, it's likely that they won't actually do much in the conflict, like what has historically been the case for reserves).