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

I think the problems associated with attrition applies to both sides.

It's quite obvious that if the US decides to engage in an armed conflict vs Iran - even a low-intensity one, it would exacerbate the problem of imperial overstretch for the US. The rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to contain or decisively engage the PRC would be permanently closed, regardless of whether the US can "win" (or claim a "win"). Moreover, any disruption in the West Asian oil supply would benefit Russia immensely in the short term. Regardless of the military outcome, it would be a strategic loss for the US.

That said, a comparable conundrum also applies to Iran. It might very well be able to "win" a conflict vs the US - defined as successfully resisting US aggression & armed regime change attempt, attriting the US armed forces, & expelling all US influence from the Shiite Crescent. However, even if it does so, its economy & infrastructure could potentially be devastated, it might even suffer a nuclear strike (if Israel or the US gets desperate). Even if US global hegemony is effectively ended by this conflict, Iran might take decades to recover. In the meantime, it would be PRC, KSA, & Russia who would benefit the most from such an outcome. Granted these countries are largely non-hostile or friendly. However, from the Iranian perspective, these other countries' rise & prosperity are hardly worth the price of devastating their own country, & diminishing Iran's standing in a post-US world.

Granted both sides have the option of "salami slicing", & responding to each other's provocations in a controlled way. However, once the shooting starts, there's no guarantee that things won't escalate out of control to all-out-war proportions.

EDIT: while we're on the subject, I think the same calculus applies to Russia & the PRC as well. Any of the 3 powers have the ability to draw the US into a war of attrition & exhausting it to the point of no longer being able to maintain hegemony. However, none of them currently have an incentive to bear the associated costs if they can avoid it, since 3rd parties are the ones that benefit the most. This is a classic "free rider" problem in politics.

mister unknown said:

I think the problems associated with attrition applies to both sides.

It's quite obvious that if the US decides to engage in an armed conflict vs Iran - even a low-intensity one, it would exacerbate the problem of imperial overstretch for the US. The rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to contain or decisively engage the PRC would be permanently closed, regardless of whether the US can "win" (or claim a "win"). Moreover, any disruption in the West Asian oil supply would benefit Russia immensely in the short term. Regardless of the military outcome, it would be a strategic loss for the US.

That said, a comparable conundrum also applies to Iran. It might very well be able to "win" a conflict vs the US - defined as successfully resisting US aggression & armed regime change attempt, attriting the US armed forces, & expelling all US influence from the Shiite Crescent. However, even if it does so, its economy & infrastructure could potentially be devastated, it might even suffer a nuclear strike (if Israel or the US gets desperate). Even if US global hegemony is effectively ended by this conflict, Iran might take decades to recover. In the meantime, it would be PRC, KSA, & Russia who would benefit the most from such an outcome. Granted these countries are largely non-hostile or friendly. However, from the Iranian perspective, these other countries' rise & prosperity are hardly worth the price of devastating their own country, & diminishing Iran's standing in a post-US world.

Granted both sides have the option of "salami slicing", & responding to each other's provocations in a controlled way. However, once the shooting starts, there's no guarantee that things won't escalate out of control to all-out-war proportions.

EDIT: while we're on the subject, I think the same calculus applies to Russia & the PRC as well. Any of the 3 powers have the ability to draw the US into a war of attrition & exhausting it to the point of no longer being able to maintain hegemony. However, none of them currently have an incentive to bear the associated costs if they can avoid it, since 3rd parties are the ones that benefit the most. This is a classic "free rider" problem in politics.

Click to expand...

The running joke on Cnet is that China, Russia and Israel/Bibi are actually aligned, their leaders have good relationships anyways. They all want the US to get stuck in another forever war in the middle east. Meanwhile US and Iran are aligned on the other side, both sides are talking tough at each other but secretly want peace and deescalation.

Out of China, Russia and Iran, Iran is the least trustworthy of the three. It has the strongest pro west faction within its government and deep state elites.

Overbom said:

IMO US ofc can win a military campaign against Iran. but the problem is that the global military layout of the US would be overwhelmed if they also have to deter China and Russia. So, no bueno for the American Empire

Click to expand...

^ This, exactly. Iran is no match if US decides its time. However, it'll set US back years in terms of trying to contain China.

phrozenflame said:

^ This, exactly. Iran is no match if US decides its time. However, it'll set US back years in terms of trying to contain China.

Click to expand...

US cannot stop China. They realized that in 2016. US cannot contain China, they realized that after trade war. US is now only inconviencing China at this point, mainly for the domestic optics.

Iran is no match for US, but they dont need it to win defensively. Russia and China will do their part to help. The only uncertainty is Iranian leadership. Too much traitors.

Petrolicious88 said:

Isn't it obvious. In Afghanistan, the Taliban was hard to defeat because it has no center, no military infrastructure. Spread out in the remote mountains, blending in with the population.

Iran is the opposite of that. Plus, can they sustain a war once their oil infrastructure destroyed? How much of their economy depends on oil exports?

Click to expand...

A mountain in Afghanistan is not providing better cover than concrete jungles and air defenses.

Iran has dozens of strongholds like Gaza spread out in the middle east through its proxies. And the home territory of Iran is also huge, it's population size and air defense status is similar or better than Ukraine.

2 years of relentless bombing by a Russia that has almost as large bomber fleet as all of US, has only achieved targeted results. A city like Kiev or Tehran can swallow 10 000s of munitions and remain mostly intact, or with occasional blackouts only.

So only way for US to win is a protracted campaign across Iran's proxies, going house by house, tunnel by tunnel FPV duels outside Iran. Meanwhile inside Iran itself, Iran's air defense and sheer city bulk are eating up US' missile reserves. That's easily 3-5 years of "content" for America to manage, where they'll have to be fully focused on it and nothing else. Not a price US can pay today.

In comparison, Taliban strongholds are nothing.

It's also useful to add that unlike the Taliban, Iran is far from helpless in the face of US standoff attacks, & is far more capable of attriting US forces in West Asia with its missile & UCAV arsenal.

Petrolicious88 said:

Isn't it obvious. In Afghanistan, the Taliban was hard to defeat because it has no center, no military infrastructure. Spread out in the remote mountains, blending in with the population.

Iran is the opposite of that. Plus, can they sustain a war once their oil infrastructure destroyed? How much of their economy depends on oil exports?

Click to expand...

Okay let’s wargame your idea right now. Let’s be real a US/Israel war against Iran will be 90% the US doing the heavy lifting. The reason being Israel will have its hand full dealing with Hezbollah,Hamas and the West fully exploding. Hezbollah is rumored to have 200k rockets and missiles. However an IRGC spokesperson says Hezbollah has a combined arsenal of 1,000,000 rockets,drones,missiles and atgms. And it makes sense. If Hamas is able to mass produce rockets and drones in their tunnels while being besieged then it’s fair to assume Hezbollah can do the same while not under besieged. They recently released a video showing one of the many deep underground tunnels they have. And until Hamas tunnels which has dirt and sand,Hezbollah tunnels have reinforced concrete. It easy to conclude that Hezbollah can mass produce the cheaper rockets like the Katusha and Burkan rockets in those deep tunnels . As well as their drones. What does this mean? It means Hezbollah has the capability to swarm and overwhelm Israel’s pitiful air defense. As well as targeting Israeli air defense batteries. When that happens Hezbollah can fire their devastating ballistic and cruise missiles at critical infrastructure from Kiryat Shmona to Eliat. And they’ll hit their targets very quickly.
Let’s not forget that Yemen and the Iraqi resistance groups who have shown they can strike Israel too. So without Iran Israel will have its hands full. Facing fire coming from everywhere.

If they are foolish to launch a ground invasion against Lebanon they’ll get totally destroyed. And forced to withdraw and then Hezbollah will go on the counterattack towards the Sheba Farms. Let’s not forget there is a large Shia foreign fighting force in Syria whose sole motion is the Golan Heights. These groups have been there since the start of the civil war. Iran is leading this group of Shiites volunteers from Pakistan,Iraq,Afghanistan and even some IRGC/Basij forces. The US has warned Israel that this force is likely 100k. They’ll go on the attack as well. In short Israel will face a catastrophic strategic crisis. Israel will not be able to send any jets to help bomb Iran as they’ll be needed in the home front.

Now let’s see what the US will be doing while Israel is getting pummeled by Hezbollah and Hamas. You say the US can bomb Iran to submission. Let’s look at the reality on the ground on bombing Iran alone. The first thing the US will have focus on a sustained air campaign is to target Iranian air defense. They need to target them first to allow more aerial assets to bomb Iran. And it will be the first time the US will have to do an operation like this. Iran has a massive and redundant air defense network. An operation like this is something the US hasn’t done since the Vietnam war. They haven’t had to deal with contested aerial and naval space in generations. This means they’ll take loses and the cost of the war will be too high for the American public.

And while the US is focused on trying to target Iranian air defense to achieve aerial superiority Iran’s underground tunnels will remain intact. And that means Iran can unleash their massive firepower of ballistic/cruise missiles and drones at US bases all over the region. Cresting another problem for the US. This means an even higher death toll which the American people can stomach. How will the US fifth fleet in Bahrain fair when they get hit with sustained swarms of aerial drones,under water drones, and missiles? Being so close to Iran the impact will be in seconds not minutes. Naval counter measures will get overwhelmed. That means they’ll get him and means heavy losses. Let me tell you the American public will not be able to stomach these losses.

And let’s talk about other areas where the US will be vulnerable in the region. Let’s look at Iraq for example. The Islamic resistance in Iraq has wide range of support in the Iraqi Shia community(60% of the population). The minute the regional war begins you’ll see Iraqi PMF units(they are 230k) joining them to chase out US forces in Iraq. The Iraqi army will join them as many hate the US for their support of Israel. Also the Iraqi resistance militias also have ballistic missiles they gotten from Iran that will rain fire on the scattered presence in Iraq. The US has about 4,000 troops in Iraq and likely same

Number of private military contractors. So that’s about 8,000 armed forces against possible 230k PMF forces and 180k Iraqi soldiers and police. And Iran may send some IRGC/Basij units embedded with these forces to inflict heavy losses on the US.

So the US will have to dedicate serous aerial resources in Iraq and Syria preventing them from being overrun simultaneously bombing Iran’s redundant and deadly air defense systems. Meanwhile Iran’s missile and drone strikes infrastructure are still unscathed. And they’ll continue firing sustained barrages into US bases. See where this conundrum is going? Iran will simply spread the war further straining US resources into this region. And best believe Russia and China will provide Iran all types of support to turn this war into a quagmire for the US.

And I haven’t gotten into what Yemen will do to Saudi Arabia. Or what will happen to Jordan. Or what will happen to Kuwait and Bahrain. And I haven’t gotten into Iran seizing the straits of Hormuz. This is the asymmetrical war strategy that will exhaust the US. The US does not have the stomach for this fight. The cost will be high in casualties and in the economy. There is a reason why the Pentagon does not want this war. If it was so easy they would have done it back in the mid 2000s when American power was at its peak.

mister unknown said:

Granted both sides have the option of "salami slicing", & responding to each other's provocations in a controlled way. However, once the shooting starts, there's no guarantee that things won't escalate out of control to all-out-war proportions.

Click to expand...

This can be a problem for China. Because the Gulf countries host US military bases, in the case of war, Iran will attack those too, along with any freight moving through the Persian Gulf. Trade through the Persian Gulf will be totally wrecked, exponentially worse than what Yemen has done in the Red Sea. The problem for China is that it still imports a huge percent of it's oil from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf countries' economies will be in tatters.

Petrolicious88 said:

What are you talking about??? Greek ship owners control more than one-fifth of the world’s entire fleet or 21% of the global fleet in deadweight ton (dwt) terms.

Click to expand...

Ah yes.. the great Greek ship owners with headquarters in New York and London.

Petrolicious88 said:

The ship that was just attacked was Greek Flagged and owned by Delta Tankers (Greek company). It either did not request or was denied escort (delta tankers have been known to operate "ghost fleets" that smuggle Russian or Iranian oil in the past). It turned off its AIS. So was it even heading to and from Israel or just the Houthis picking off what they can find.

Click to expand...

First learn what "Flagged" means in merchantile marine lingo.

Petrolicious88 said:

Even if the ship was somehow proven to be carrying oil to Israel, how stupid would you be to blow up an oil tanker knowing the obvious environmental risks.

Click to expand...

Obvious common sense says if oil is ignited, it combusts into a giant fireball, as shown by Yemen,

I guess that fire will kill all the fish in the sea. We need George Bush back again to make peaceful coexistence with fish.

Petrolicious88 said:

Oh my lord, you are comparing Afghanistan with Iran. Iran has densely populated cities, oil infrastructure, military industrial complex, an actual economy. This is the kind of war the Pentagon is very good at.

Afghanistan was a bunch of Taliban guerrillas fighting in the mountains.

Click to expand...

You're a special type of nutcase, aren't you? Let me guess, you also think Taliban invaded the entirety of Afghanistan in just one week? You're telling me a densely populated country with oil infrastructure, MIC, and an actual economy will do WORSE than Taliban... lol. Lmao. Even if we assume the drivel you just produced, that's an Iran that can run into the mountains just as Taliban with better weaponry, more fighters, better networks and resources. Do you have any idea at all how many asymmetric guerrilla units are operated by Iran inside Iran, and neighboring Iraq and Syria? I'll give you a hint: it's a lot more than the Taliban-friendly groups in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan that US always complained about to Pakistan.

Another thing to point out again is if the US starts bombing Iranian oil and gas infrastructure Iran will do the same to the Persian Gulf states. Which will take decades to rebuild. Likely meaning they’ll be permanently destroyed leading to the collapse of these nations. Which would most certainly lead to a collapse of the global economy. So would it even be worth it to strike their oil infrastructure if it meant we go through an economic dark age? No it won’t. That’s why no one except the crazies in Tel Aviv want a war with Iran. Where I live gas is $4.17 a gallon. War with Iran means $15-$30 dollars a gallon of gas. The American consumer can’t handle that an it would lead to an economic depression. That will anger the American people in such a way that any government who was for the war will be overthrown. It will make the Vietnam anti war protest look like a tea party.

JJD1803 said:

Where I live gas is $4.17 a gallon. War with Iran means $15-$30 dollars a gallon of gas. The American consumer can’t handle that an it would lead to an economic depression. That will anger the American people in such a way that any government who was for the war will be overthrown. It will make the Vietnam anti war protest look like a tea party.

Click to expand...

So in a nut shell, you seem to be implying that the American people will protest government policies on the streets when they become apparent, rather than because hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have died and continue to die since Israel's inception.

Where is humanity....