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

obj 705A

obj 705A

Junior Member
Registered Member
Going back to the Iran missiles attack. Finaly we have a video from Scott Ritter giving a very informative insight about what happened:


He believes the Iranian missiles attack was a success. He says Iran likely wanted the US to shoot down the drones which is why they gave notice to the US that they are about to attack.

The real missile attack was done by the ballistic missiles, also he believes some of the missiles were equiped with multiple warheads and decoys. So he says some of the interceptions were fake interceptions against decoys launched by the ballistic missiles. Iran wanted to show their ballistic missiles can penetrate the Israeli airdefence and acurately hit their target and they did just that, they did their best to avoid inflicting casualties on Israel to avoid an escalation to full scale war as best as possible.

Edit: there is also the question of how many ballistic missiles were actually launched by Iran the Israelis say 110 if I'm not mistaken while the "senior US official" is saying between 115 to 135 Iranian ballistic missiles were launched. I believe the US/Israel themselves don't actually know the true number. They are probably counting even the decoys that were intercepted as ballistic missiles. So the number of ballistic missiles launched by Iran could be lower than the Israeli estimate.
 
A

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
obj 705A said:
Going back to the Iran missiles attack. Finaly we have a video from Scott Ritter giving a very informative insight about what happened:


He believes the Iranian missiles attack was a success. He says Iran likely wanted the US to shoot down the drones which is why they gave notice to the US that they are about to attack.

The real missile attack was done by the ballistic missiles, also he believes some of the missiles were equiped with multiple warheads and decoys. So he says some of the interceptions were fake interceptions against decoys launched by the ballistic missiles. Iran wanted to show their ballistic missiles can penetrate the Israeli airdefence and acurately hit their target and they did just that, they did their best to avoid inflicting casualties on Israel to avoid an escalation to full scale war as best as possible.

Edit: there is also the question of how many ballistic missiles were actually launched by Iran the Israelis say 110 if I'm not mistaken while the "senior US official" is saying between 115 to 135 Iranian ballistic missiles were launched. I believe the US/Israel themselves don't actually know the true number. They are probably counting even the decoys that were intercepted as ballistic missiles. So the number of ballistic missiles launched by Iran could be lower than the Israeli estimate.
Click to expand...
Whether successful or not just by retaliating is a victory in itself, it burst the bubble of Israel invincibility and it make a precedent for any Israelis misadventure in the region.

The major losers
1)Israel
2)Jordan
3)Egypt
4)Europe
5)Turkey

the winner
1)Iran
2)Russia
3)China
4)Yemen
5)Hezbollah
6)Syria
and the US with a great relief ;) to able to contained the problem from spreading.
 
Last edited:
Sinnavuuty

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
Minm said:
How likely is it that F35s can cross Syria and Iraq undetected and then cross the mountains to enter Iran? If only a single one is lost, it's a giant failure. Oil infrastructure at the Persian gulf is even further away and easily repaired. The risk reward ratio for Israel and the US is not very good unless it's a full scale war including US forces
Click to expand...
In Syria the chances are close to 100%. Unless Iran strengthened its defense. IAF planes fly freely in Syrian airspace with Russian complacency.

Israel has the option of Jordan > Iraq > Iran
or
Saudi Arabia > Iran
or of course
Syria > Iraq > Iran

All three options are on the table.

@ansy1968
I saw that Egypt just closed its airspace. What else did he do to earn loser status in this situation?

I would also include France on the list of losers because Macron confirmed that he used his fighter jets in Jordan to help intercept Iran's drones.
 
aahyan

aahyan

Senior Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
All three options require USAF tanker support.
Click to expand...

Exactly that's what I highlighted in my answer earlier.

aahyan said:
Given that Israel lacks BMs, it is likely that they will deploy F35s to hit deep into Iran with the help of US tankers in the horizon. They would likely target oil infrastructure and missile installations, but I doubt they will target nuclear locations.

However, Iran's air defense is not strong enough to intercept F35s, and the Iranians know this. As a result, they will plan to use their BMs and CMs to strike deep into Israel, something that the US and Israel are now fully aware of.

So, keep your fingers crossed.
Click to expand...
 
P

Proton

Junior Member
Registered Member
ansy1968 said:
Whether successful or not just by retaliating is a victory in itself, it burst the bubble of Israel invincibility and it make a precedent for any Israelis misadventure in the region.

The major losers
1)Israel
2)Jordan
3)Egypt
4)Europe
5)Turkey

the winner
1)Iran
2)Russia
3)China
4)Yemen
5)Hezbollah
6)Syria
and the US with a great relief ;) to able to contained the problem from spreading.
Click to expand...
The notion of Iran as a perpetual punching bag has likely vanished, 110+ years of established dogma gone. So in terms of diplomacy this entire episode should be in Iran's favour.

Whether it's a military success depends on what the goal is. If it was supposed to destroy a big portion of the Israeli airforce, then it's certainly an Israeli victory. If it's instead a simulated nuclear strike, then hitting some of the most well defended areas in Israel and likely on Earth with their ballistic missiles might count as an Iranian success.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
aahyan said:
Exactly that's what I highlighted in my answer earlier.
Click to expand...

Except it is absolutely not in America’s interests to help Israel escalate this any further just from its own self interest POV, never mind the fact Iran has made it clear America would make itself a belligerent if it helped Israel attack Iran. So Americans providing Israel with tanker support to attack Iran will incur basically the same response and costs as if America bombed Iran alongside the Israelis.

America cannot prevent Israel from attacking Iran on its own, but it would have to be absolutely moronic to actively help them do it.

So ruling out next level crazy stunts from the Israelis like sending their F35s to Iran without sufficient fuel to RTB and giving the Americans an ultimatum of ‘refuel our jets or we ditch them in Syria for the Russians to pick up’, Israel’s retaliation options are actually very limited against Iran home soil. This is something Iran knows full well, and is a key factor behind their attack as they are betting that the Americans won’t actively support a major Israeli retaliatory strike against Iran.

Without American support, Israel cannot launch a counter attack on the same scale as what Iran just hit them with, so Iran is betting that Israel concludes a weak response is worse than no response.
 
aahyan

aahyan

Senior Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Except it is absolutely not in America’s interests to help Israel escalate this any further just from its own self interest POV, never mind the fact Iran has made it clear America would make itself a belligerent if it helped Israel attack Iran. So Americans providing Israel with tanker support to attack Iran will incur basically the same response and costs as if America bombed Iran alongside the Israelis.

America cannot prevent Israel from attacking Iran on its own, but it would have to be absolutely moronic to actively help them do it.

So ruling out next level crazy stunts from the Israelis like sending their F35s to Iran without sufficient fuel to RTB and giving the Americans an ultimatum of ‘refuel our jets or we ditch them in Syria for the Russians to pick up’, Israel’s retaliation options are actually very limited against Iran home soil. This is something Iran knows full well, and is a key factor behind their attack as they are betting that the Americans won’t actively support a major Israeli retaliatory strike against Iran.

Without American support, Israel cannot launch a counter attack on the same scale as what Iran just hit them with, so Iran is betting that Israel concludes a weak response is worse than no response.
Click to expand...

See, I told ya. Israel lacks the guts to attack Iran by itself. Nothing happened, they have backed off as soon as US says they will not participate in any offensive operation.

Also, Israel can never dare to nuke Iran. One Iranian strike and everything is becoming clear now.

It was mostly Israeli's psychological ops. That all are collapsing once the status-quo is dismantled, and this is why the Iranian strike was so important. It had to be attack from Iran itself to Israel.

The United States finds itself mired in the complexities of the Middle East as it aims to shift its strategic focus towards its Pivot to Asia policy.

It intended to prioritize its containment of China's influence in the Far East, the U.S. was focused on redirecting its military resources away from the Middle East and towards bolstering its presence in the South China Sea. This realignment involved a concerted effort to relocate forces and reorganize military assets to effectively counter China's growing dominance in the region while simultaneously reinforcing alliances with key partners in the Indo-Pacific.

However, Netanyahu is has been the biggest thorn in U.S plans. Israel war in Gaza has sabotaged the Abraham accords and killed any chance of a peaceful solution in the middle east. Which means the U.S is gonna get stuck here for a long time, that why you see American hesitation on the Iranian-Israel conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top