War with...Iran?

[Snark218]

Agreed. It's also a redefinition that would fit in the mouth of any leader that entertained the genocidal strategy of obliterating a nation, as opposed to reaching a military or political objective.

Trump's too fucking lazy to actually try to obliterate Iran. As always, once the hard-on goes soft and noodly and it's not fun and cool anymore, he's going to puss out and scream for takesy-backsies. He's going to spend a month or two whipping increasingly desperate and indiscriminate violence on Iran before he realizes he's way out on thin ice and he's dicked the economy even worse than it was, at which point he's going to frantically declare victory under some inane definition of same. My guess is he's going to commit some special forces or Airborne troops to ground combat and it's going to go extremely not well, but it might just be running out of Patriots and patience and ammo and attention. And then he's just going to kind of order the military to....stop. And then two weeks later he's going to be bloviating about Cuba or Greenland again.

What he doesn't get is that Iran will never. Fucking. Forget. And they will never forgive. And they will never negotiate again, or accept any kind of deal. But they will absolutely retaliate, at every opportunity, for the next couple of years or decades.

 

[fractl]

That's an Orwellian redefinition of words.

This is Karoline Leavitt we are dealing with after all...

 

[Da Xiang]

This war has already sucked in like two dozen countries. I don't know what the minimum involvement is for a war to achieve 'world' status.

I've been thinking the same thing.

 

[Macam]

Trump's too fucking lazy to actually try to obliterate Iran. As always, once the hard-on goes soft and noodly and it's not fun and cool anymore, he's going to puss out and scream for takesy-backsies. He's going to spend a month or two whipping increasingly desperate and indiscriminate violence on Iran before he realizes he's way out on thin ice and he's dicked the economy even worse than it was, at which point he's going to frantically declare victory under some inane definition of same. My guess is he's going to commit some special forces or Airborne troops to ground combat and it's going to go extremely not well, but it might just be running out of Patriots and patience and ammo and attention. And then he's just going to kind of order the military to....stop. And then two weeks later he's going to be bloviating about Cuba or Greenland again.

What he doesn't get is that Iran will never. Fucking. Forget. And they will never forgive. And they will never negotiate again, or accept any kind of deal. But they will absolutely retaliate, at every opportunity, for the next couple of years or decades.

...2 weeks? It's been 1 week.

 

[Lt_Storm]

I don't know why everyone keeps falling for this schtick. We just saw the same in Greenland. He always amps things up to 11 then gets some middling deal and walks away looking (in his own eyes and MAGA types, at most) like a savvy negotiator.

I'm not sure how much Iran is looking to play his game though. At this point all they have to do is batten down the hatches and lob enough drones and missiles at tankers to keep the Straight effectively closed as oil prices go higher and higher.

Because it isn't a schtick. He's absolutely serious and, if his power permits, he absolutely will. But, of course, the issue is that, outside something insane like nuclear weapons*, he's going to have to invade to do anything that could actually make his way dreams of absolute surrender. And, even then, it's unlikely. So, his power seems severely incapable of carrying through.

But then, he's a narcissist, and that suggests his understanding of the world may not be able to recognize this until he is well past the edge of what his power can reasonably achieve. Which is why it looks like a schtick. The big question regarding this is: how will he overextend himself and when will he realize he's overreached.

* should I be bending over to kiss my as goodbye? Suffice to say that won't have the effect he's looking for either.

 

[schnackenpfefferhausen]

I’m seeing reports that Tel Aviv has quite a bit of damage. That the Israeli government supposedly has restricted any report on this damage so much so that major news outlets have complied.

I’ve tried looking for legitimate sources but most I can’t confirm their biases. Times of Islamabad has a report they claim has been verified by people on the ground.

Then seeing Israel blow up a commercial airport in Teheran kinda supports Israel under Netanyahu has lost the plot.

I supposed Trump will sign a blank check to help rebuild Tel Aviv back up to even better than before.

There is a fair amount of AI-generated propaganda coming from the other side regarding damage inflicted by Iranian strikes. Be cautious not to fall into that trap.

In war, the first casualty is the truth.

 

[Camacan]

Trump's too fucking lazy to actually try to obliterate Iran. As always, once the hard-on goes soft and noodly and it's not fun and cool anymore, he's going to puss out and scream for takesy-backsies. He's going to spend a month or two whipping increasingly desperate and indiscriminate violence on Iran before he realizes he's way out on thin ice and he's dicked the economy even worse than it was, at which point he's going to frantically declare victory under some inane definition of same. My guess is he's going to commit some special forces or Airborne troops to ground combat and it's going to go extremely not well, but it might just be running out of Patriots and patience and ammo and attention. And then he's just going to kind of order the military to....stop. And then two weeks later he's going to be bloviating about Cuba or Greenland again.

What he doesn't get is that Iran will never. Fucking. Forget. And they will never forgive. And they will never negotiate again, or accept any kind of deal. But they will absolutely retaliate, at every opportunity, for the next couple of years or decades.

Wars are much easier to start than stop. The US is attacking in concert with a sovereign nation. Israel's war aims are more unrestrained and extensive than America's and it is much more committed. As has been discussed, recent actions make the Iranians hard to make peace with.

The world economy hinges on an area within drone range. The US can't stop and withdraw without peace of some sort and that will be very hard to get. If it tries, it won't last or make things better. So my point is that Trump, as of today, does not command an off switch. I don't wish to be right.

There is a terrain ahead warning and the US should apply all possible force to deescalation in the hope that negotiation can follow.

As an aside, I think "boots on the ground" seems to be tossed around in the west as if we had forgotten the immense monetary and material cost of the invasion of Iraq, let alone the occupation. By material cost I mean money can't magic the materiel into existence and given US naval power WRT sealift and other required power is in crisis, it's not a given it can get there at the needed tempo even if the gargantuan effort had been made and it was ready to go not years in the making. And as has been discussed much earlier in the thread, Iran is exponentially harder and more costly to invade and hold than Iraq. How could Kurdish forces possibly change that equation?

 

[dio82]

Wars are much easier to start than stop. The US is attacking in concert with a sovereign nation. Israel's war aims are more unrestrained and extensive than America's and it is much more committed. As has been discussed, recent actions make the Iranians hard to make peace with.

The world economy hinges on an area within drone range. The US can't stop and withdraw without peace of some sort and that will be very hard to get. If it tries, it won't last or make things better. So my point is that Trump, as of today, does not command an off switch. I don't wish to be right.

There is a terrain ahead warning and the US should apply all possible force to deescalation in the hope that negotiation can follow.

As an aside, I think "boots on the ground" seems to be tossed around in the west as if we had forgotten the immense monetary and material cost of the invasion of Iraq, let alone the occupation. By material cost I mean money can't magic the materiel into existence and given US naval power WRT sealift and other required power is in crisis, it's not a given it can get there at the needed tempo even if the gargantuan effort had been made and it was ready to go not years in the making. And as has been discussed much earlier in the thread, Iran is exponentially harder and more costly to invade and hold than Iraq. How could Kurdish forces possibly change that equation?

Boots on the ground requires 6 months of build up. If this is Trump's "exit strategy", buckle up ladies and gentlemen. This will be a VERY bumpy ride.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

What was the purpose of reposting Iranian war propaganda with no context?

The context is he's dead and still tweeting.

It's not hard to know where I stand on the conflict. Given I've talked about Iran's influence operations and what was actually happening with Starlink in Iran.

 

[bjn]

Wars are much easier to start than stop. The US is attacking in concert with a sovereign nation. Israel's war aims are more unrestrained and extensive than America's and it is much more committed. As has been discussed, recent actions make the Iranians hard to make peace with.

What American war aims? There clearest thing I’ve heard articulated was “unconditional surrender”, which apparently means whatever Trump wants it to mean, so not very clear at all. It really does seem to be entirely Bibi’s war, and what their war aims are seem to be somewhat unclear. Stopping Iran acquiring nuclear weapons seems to be the main aim of the violence, but short of boots on the ground, how do you do that?

 

[Camacan]

What American war aims? There clearest thing I’ve heard articulated was “unconditional surrender”, which apparently means whatever Trump wants it to mean, so not very clear at all. It really does seem to be entirely Bibi’s war, and what their war aims are seem to be somewhat unclear. Stopping Iran acquiring nuclear weapons seems to be the main aim of the violence, but short of boots on the ground, how do you do that?

I take your point. The Atlantic has an article going through the rationales offered:

More difficult still has been parsing statements from the White House and the Pentagon to figure out, with any exactitude, why we are at war in the first place. So far, the Trump administration has offered at least 10 separate rationales in just six days.

My intent was to suggest that the very high level view of the US plan was, roughly, a brief, intense engagement directed towards selected high profile non-civilian targets that was intended to defeat Iran as if it was a nineteenth century country surrendering when its army was defeated in the field. Something limited in time and space with the assumption it must cause some form of capitulation or defeat. I don't think that initial US plan included creating chaos, civilian death, trauma and civil breakdown via strikes.

 

[schnackenpfefferhausen]

Per CNN: Iran’s president apologizes to gulf neighbours for attacking then.. says attacks will cease if no retaliation.

Gee.. who’d a thought that attacking literally everyone around you would be a bad idea?

 

[wrylachlan]

How could Kurdish forces possibly change that equation?

Do I think this is likely? No. But I think the thinking goes something like this:

• Kurds take their 4 ethnic provinces proving the regime is weak
• Once the ballistic missile capability is neutralized, air campaign turns to destroying every revolutionary guard outpost they can find - reinforcing the idea that the regime is weak
• Magic happens
• The people rise up in revolt and topple the Islamic state

It has a healthy dose of magical thinking on the part of Trump, but I’d wager that’s the rough outline of the White House’s strategy.

 

[Camacan]

Per CNN: Iran’s president apologizes to gulf neighbours for attacking then.. says attacks will cease if no retaliation.

Gee.. who’d a thought that attacking literally everyone around you would be a bad idea?

I don't think that captures Iran's position. From The Guardian.

The announcement by Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran will no longer attack Gulf and neighbouring states if they are not attacking Iran appears on the surface a significant change in tactics, reflecting the overpowering diplomatic pressure Iran was under to change course, or risk uniting the whole of the Arab world against Iran. It would be an admission that Iran’s current military strategy is heading for diplomatic disaster.

But the precise implications of his announcement remains open to interpretation. An Iranian armed forces spokesperson seemed to qualify its meaning heavily by saying:

"Strikes against the US and Israeli assets will continue. So far, we have targeted every base that was the origin of aggression against Iran and we remain committed to this matter. ‌Countries that have not provided space and facilities to the United States and the Zionist regime have not been our target so far and will not be targeted in the future."

If the armed forces believe countries simply providing land, in terms of bases, remain legitimate targets, then effectively nothing has changed since there are US bases in almost every Gulf State. What Pezeshkian seemed to imply is that these countries will not be attacked if the US bases and airspace are not being used to attack Iran, an altogether different proposition.

Yeah, I hear you. Depending on nuanced interpretation to communicate? I'm just thankful some kind of communication is still occurring.

 

[Camacan]

Do I think this is likely? No. But I think the thinking goes something like this:

• Kurds take their 4 ethnic provinces proving the regime is weak
• Once the ballistic missile capability is neutralized, air campaign turns to destroying every revolutionary guard outpost they can find - reinforcing the idea that the regime is weak
• Magic happens
• The people rise up in revolt and topple the Islamic state

It has a healthy dose of magical thinking on the part of Trump, but I’d wager that’s the rough outline of the White House’s strategy.

The US doesn't understand who they are attacking. Recommend this Guardian article.

Nor is Iran’s internal landscape as neatly divisible as outside observers sometimes imagine. Ethnic minorities have real grievances, but most are wary of scenarios that lead to national fragmentation. Even many Iranians who oppose the regime and wanted foreign military intervention to topple it are reluctant to see the state collapse entirely, fearing the chaos that might follow. There is a difference between wanting the system to change and wanting the country to break. Reports that Kurdish militants on Iran’s western borders, backed by the US and Israel, are preparing for a ground assault against the central government play into these fears.

 

[Alexander]

Per CNN: Iran’s president apologizes to gulf neighbours for attacking then.. says attacks will cease if no retaliation.

Gee.. who’d a thought that attacking literally everyone around you would be a bad idea?

The apology is limited to those countries they attacked which have not supported the US/Israeli war effort, so Turkey Oman Azerbaijan.

The Oman attack is claimed to be a local commander acting autonomously (see 'Decentralized Mosaic Defense' from earlier) rather than a conscious decision from the leadership.

 

[wrylachlan]

The US doesn't understand who they are attacking. Recommend this Guardian article.

Not wanting the government to fall, and being pushed into a place where taking the government down is the least bad option are not mutually exclusive. There’s certainly a scenario where enough heads have been cut off that there’s a) political infighting among those who are left and b) enough degradation in the revolutionary guard that discipline crumbles. In that scenario there may be a lot of people who didn’t want the government to fail who come to think it’s the only option.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

The apology is limited to those countries they attacked which have not supported the US/Israeli war effort, so Turkey Oman Azerbaijan.

The Oman attack is claimed to be a local commander acting autonomously (see 'Decentralized Mosaic Defense' from earlier) rather than a conscious decision from the leadership.

The Iranian regime has denied attacking Azerbaijan, but noone believes that.
And Jordan didn't participate either, neither did Cyprus or the UK, or support the war.

Every Arab country in the region announced weeks ago it would not allow its airspace to be used to attack Iran (Israeli aircraft fly over Syria to get to Iran ).

The claim re Oman is bullshit, because there were multiple attacks over several days using UAVs, targeting two different ports as well multiple tankers near Omani ports (at least one person dead, 3-4 wounded).

 

[bjn]

The Iranian regime has denied attacking Azerbaijan, but noone believes that.
And Jordan didn't participate either, neither did Cyprus or the UK, or support the war.

Every Arab country in the region announced weeks ago it would not allow its airspace to be used to attack Iran (Israeli aircraft fly over Syria to get to Iran ).

The claim re Oman is bullshit, because there were multiple attacks over several days using UAVs, targeting two different ports as well multiple tankers near Omani ports (at least one person dead, 3-4 wounded).

The UK MoD reported that the attack on Cyprus was not launched by Iran but by a militant group in either Iraq or Lebanon.

The UK is allowing its air bases to be used by the USAF for raids that target Iranian launch facilities. So its is participating, albeit not directly.

 

[AbidingArs]

Per CNN: Iran’s president apologizes to gulf neighbours for attacking then.. says attacks will cease if no retaliation.

Gee.. who’d a thought that attacking literally everyone around you would be a bad idea?

My understanding is that Iran's president is quite limited in power and does not deal with anything regarded as strategic foreign policy. Al Jazeera's article on the Iranian President's statement seems to agree with that view:

“Political figures in Iran are responsible for running state affairs and ‘non-strategic’ affairs. But when it comes to strategic affairs, such as the country’s foreign and security policies, politicians don’t have a say, including the president, who, according to the constitution, is the number two in charge – this is a very well-known fact in Iran,” Serdar said.

I'm less sure how much authority this "Iranian interim leadership council" that approved Pezeshkian's statement has.

But it seems to me that statements from the IRGC are still the most important.

“Following the statements of the president, the armed forces once again declare that they respect the interests and national sovereignty of neighbouring countries and, up to this point, have committed no aggression against them,” the statement, which was carried by state media, said.

“However, should the previous hostile actions continue, all military bases and interests of criminal America and the fake Zionist regime on land, at sea, and in the air across the region will be considered primary targets and will come under the powerful and crushing strikes of the mighty armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

I'm not sure what exactly is meant be "previous hostile actions" - does that mean an attack from any American base anywhere in the Middle East? Or is it per country? Or just a fig leaf of "our attacks were defensive/retaliatory in nature, blame the Americans"?

 

[linnen]

4,000 kamikaze drones either hit 4,000 targets or force your enemy to expend 4,000 interceptor munitions. Unless they find a really cheap way to take those drones down, that has a value too.

To nitpick, counter-fire never was one-to-one. Even guided anti-missile counter-fire systems, like the Patriot system, cannot get down to one counter per one incoming over a long run.

And that ignores tactics like saturation and decoy, as well as passive (chaff) and active (anti-radar munitions) counter-counter-measures. For example the missiles Iran fired against Israel a few months ago were discussed here on the boards as a only a PR "win" for Israel's missile defense. Many considered the impact favoured Iran as they expended excess older and less reliable missiles against hardened targets in exchange for Israel using up expensive and longer to replace counter missiles.

 

[Soriak]

Iran attacked civilian airports and hotels in Doha, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi, among (many) other places. Bullshit that these were somehow military targets. They overextended themselves, and they're seemingly running low on missiles and drones, having launched most of what they got in the first couple of days. Not surprising: they had to get them out before the launch sites would be destroyed. This was meant to be a credible deterrance against the US and Israel attacking in the first place, it didn't work, and they did fairly little damage in the process. Of course any civilian death is one too many... but losing 40+ naval ships while managing to take down zero of the other side is quite a devastating outcome. They have hit somewhere between 0 and 1 US and Israeli planes and effectively lost control of their skies.

And Trump announced major strikes today. So the US and Israeli operations aren't likely to stop anytime soon. Give it another two weeks, and the rhetoric from Iran is going to change. And probably some of the conflict will widen to also target the Houthis and Hezbollah, both of whom are pests to the region anyway. So I suspect more than a few countries will be happy to see them with a target on their backs, too.

 

[karolus]

And only the US thinks that your President is the leader of the free world.

The free world trope is one many in the US leadership and commentariat have relied upon for years. The irony is that Trump—largely through extracurricular activities such as this Iran incursion—are actively destroying the norms upon which it exists.

 

[cfenton]

speaking of:
View attachment 129865
that's going to be $4 gasoline soon enough. Maybe more.

Hearing Americans complain about gas prices is always funny. Oh no, Americans will have to pay significantly less for gas than almost everyone else, the horror. Also, they'll keep driving the biggest gas-guzzlingest vehicles while doing it.

 

[karolus]

Driving your Canyonero to the shopping center is the purest expression of American Freedom.

 

[redleader]

Boots on the ground requires 6 months of build up. If this is Trump's "exit strategy", buckle up ladies and gentlemen. This will be a VERY bumpy ride.

Rather than the 2nd Iraq War, the model they are working with is probably the invasion of Afghanistan 2 years earlier. The "boots" would be some local insurgent group (Kurds, etc) and a handful of forward air controllers. The objective wouldn't be to storm the capital but to force the regime to choose between ordering the military to assemble and march into concentrated air power (where it could be destroyed or may defect) or risk losing legitimacy by allowing a rival power center to emerge.

(Not saying this is a good idea, but given the people involved I strongly suspect this is what they are thinking)

Hearing Americans complain about gas prices is always funny. Oh no, Americans will have to pay significantly less for gas than almost everyone else, the horror. Also, they'll keep driving the biggest gas-guzzlingest vehicles while doing it.

In economic terms it is not the absolute cost of energy but the relative change in prices that causes hardship for consumers. Someone who has been planned for $2 a gallon but ends up paying $3 a gallon suffers more than someone who planned for and ultimately does pay for $4 a gallon. Besides the simple reality of household budgeting, low costs lead to lower adoption of EVs, more purchasing of large trucks, etc and thus more exposure to price swings. The timing is also especially bad, since it will coincide with large increases in the price of natural gas and electrical power due to AI data centers and other factors. Lots of people are already getting squeezed hard even before this war.

Expect a lot more complaining if this war drags on.

 

[Macam]

Wars are much easier to start than stop. The US is attacking in concert with a sovereign nation. Israel's war aims are more unrestrained and extensive than America's and it is much more committed. As has been discussed, recent actions make the Iranians hard to make peace with.

The world economy hinges on an area within drone range. The US can't stop and withdraw without peace of some sort and that will be very hard to get. If it tries, it won't last or make things better. So my point is that Trump, as of today, does not command an off switch. I don't wish to be right.

There is a terrain ahead warning and the US should apply all possible force to deescalation in the hope that negotiation can follow.

As an aside, I think "boots on the ground" seems to be tossed around in the west as if we had forgotten the immense monetary and material cost of the invasion of Iraq, let alone the occupation. By material cost I mean money can't magic the materiel into existence and given US naval power WRT sealift and other required power is in crisis, it's not a given it can get there at the needed tempo even if the gargantuan effort had been made and it was ready to go not years in the making. And as has been discussed much earlier in the thread, Iran is exponentially harder and more costly to invade and hold than Iraq. How could Kurdish forces possibly change that equation?

I don't know that the bolded is really entirely true.

That was, in part, what JCPOA was doing (and working), especially as a first step on the most extreme concerns and a trust building exercise. But, of course, Trump unilaterally broke the deal in his first term, thereby rendering the US hard to make peace with at that point. And given Israel's disproportionate influence over US policy re:Iran and US policymakers' general unwillingness to exercise their influence over Israel (and, specifically, Netanyahu and his cronies), that compounds the problem.

Beyond that though, I largely agree. Weighing what impact ground troops may make is kind of missing the broader point: there was no plan.

Now, we're trying to retcon the rationale and put a plan in place, but good luck doing that. No one's going to want to put their forces on the ground, least of all when we did this largely unilaterally and at Israel's behest. Israel and the US are going to lean on air superiority and naval supplemental force, but I doubt we're going to see special forces or anything go in with the magical 'discombombulator' (a made up thing Trump said US forces used in Venezuela) and do whatever -- precisely because there's no goal.

They got Khamenei, so now they're just waiting for someone to come in and nominally bend the knee so they can focus on the next thing.

Hearing Americans complain about gas prices is always funny. Oh no, Americans will have to pay significantly less for gas than almost everyone else, the horror. Also, they'll keep driving the biggest gas-guzzlingest vehicles while doing it.

Amen to that. I bought a 50mpg car almost 15 years ago after having a car that comfortably gave 30mpg, after George W Bush's war of choice going into Iraq the 2nd time and the inevitable 'gas so expensive' complaints. Never had any issues in terms of reliability or space and, even in SoCal where we actually tax gas somewhat appropriately and the going rate has been $4+ for ages, I still spend less than $100/mo on petrol. Meanwhile, everyone else is basically driving a living room sized gas guzzler or a $50k+ EV. The car market over here is just a joke.

 

[Shavano]

And only the US thinks that your President is the leader of the free world.

the free what?

This is Karoline Leavitt we are dealing with after all...

It's what she was hired for. That and to make sure there were never any criminal investigations in the US into that whole Epstein thing. Because she was already bought and compromised if anybody ever goes looking for who was involved in the coverups.

What American war aims? There clearest thing I’ve heard articulated was “unconditional surrender”, which apparently means whatever Trump wants it to mean, so not very clear at all. It really does seem to be entirely Bibi’s war, and what their war aims are seem to be somewhat unclear. Stopping Iran acquiring nuclear weapons seems to be the main aim of the violence, but short of boots on the ground, how do you do that?

I don't think stopping nuclear ambitions is what Netanyahu is after. Neutralizing Iran is instrumental for him, not an end goal.

Per CNN: Iran’s president apologizes to gulf neighbours for attacking then.. says attacks will cease if no retaliation.

Gee.. who’d a thought that attacking literally everyone around you would be a bad idea?

Certainly not Trump.

Not wanting the government to fall, and being pushed into a place where taking the government down is the least bad option are not mutually exclusive. There’s certainly a scenario where enough heads have been cut off that there’s a) political infighting among those who are left and b) enough degradation in the revolutionary guard that discipline crumbles. In that scenario there may be a lot of people who didn’t want the government to fail who come to think it’s the only option.

If discipline crumbles, that doesn't lead to democracy. It leads to civil war and the most likely outcome of that is some new or the same kind of autocracy, and probably not a friendly to America kind.

 

[Shavano]

Hearing Americans complain about gas prices is always funny. Oh no, Americans will have to pay significantly less for gas than almost everyone else, the horror. Also, they'll keep driving the biggest gas-guzzlingest vehicles while doing it.

Others pay more for fuel because of taxes, not because of production costs. But the costs are not insignificant to Americans because Americans use more fuel per person than most countries.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

I’m seeing reports that Tel Aviv has quite a bit of damage. That the Israeli government supposedly has restricted any report on this damage so much so that major news outlets have complied.

This is completely false.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

The UK MoD reported that the attack on Cyprus was not launched by Iran but by a militant group in either Iraq or Lebanon.

The UK is allowing its air bases to be used by the USAF for raids that target Iranian launch facilities. So its is participating, albeit not directly.

A Shahed drone launched from the ME means it was either launched by the Iranian regime directly or by one of their proxies. No difference whatsoever, as none of the proxies are independent. They receive their marching orders and nearly all their funding from Iran.

And this happened before the UK allowed their bases to be used. Allowing the bases to be used was a response to the Iranian attack.
As recently as a couple weeks ago, the UK was refusing the US usage of Diego Garcia or airbases in the UK itself for any offensive operations against Iran.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

My understanding is that Iran's president is quite limited in power and does not deal with anything regarded as strategic foreign policy. Al Jazeera's article on the Iranian President's statement seems to agree with that view:

I'm less sure how much authority this "Iranian interim leadership council" that approved Pezeshkian's statement has.

But it seems to me that statements from the IRGC are still the most important.

I'm not sure what exactly is meant be "previous hostile actions" - does that mean an attack from any American base anywhere in the Middle East? Or is it per country? Or just a fig leaf of "our attacks were defensive/retaliatory in nature, blame the Americans"?

What matters is the Iranian regime's actions.
They continued launching missiles and/or drones against every single one of the countries they attacked previously, possibly excepting the UK bases in Cyprus. A major Jordanian air defense radar was hit today, the only purpose of which was to warn of missile launches.

 

[ice9]

........ both of whom are pests to the region anyway. So I suspect more than a few countries will be happy to see them with a target on their backs, too.

The only two pests to the region - and indeed the entire world - are USA/Israel

 

[Shavano]

What matters is the Iranian regime's actions.
They continued launching missiles and/or drones against every single one of the countries they attacked previously, possibly excepting the UK bases in Cyprus. A major Jordanian air defense radar was hit today, the only purpose of which was to warn of missile launches.

Isn't that something you'd expect any country at war to do when those military assets are being used against them? Cyprus might have been excepted more for geographic than other reasons.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

Iran attacked civilian airports and hotels in Doha, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi, among (many) other places. Bullshit that these were somehow military targets. They overextended themselves, and they're seemingly running low on missiles and drones, having launched most of what they got in the first couple of days. Not surprising: they had to get them out before the launch sites would be destroyed. This was meant to be a credible deterrance against the US and Israel attacking in the first place, it didn't work, and they did fairly little damage in the process. Of course any civilian death is one too many... but losing 40+ naval ships while managing to take down zero of the other side is quite a devastating outcome. They have hit somewhere between 0 and 1 US and Israeli planes and effectively lost control of their skies.

And Trump announced major strikes today. So the US and Israeli operations aren't likely to stop anytime soon. Give it another two weeks, and the rhetoric from Iran is going to change. And probably some of the conflict will widen to also target the Houthis and Hezbollah, both of whom are pests to the region anyway. So I suspect more than a few countries will be happy to see them with a target on their backs, too.

Since HizbAllah entered the conflict by launching missiles & UAVs against Israel, the IAF has been retaliating.
500 targets in Lebanon bombed so far, throughout the country, including a targeted assassination in the far north. Estimates are 90 HizbAllah terrorists killed and >1200 wounded so far, and many launchers and weapons silos hit.

 

[Shavano]

I don't think terrorists is the right word for a military force responding to attacks on its ally.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

4,000 kamikaze drones either hit 4,000 targets or force your enemy to expend 4,000 interceptor munitions. Unless they find a really cheap way to take those drones down, that has a value too.

The standard method of bring down Shahed-type attack UAVs (please don't use the vague term drone which can mean anything from a $100 quadcopter upwards) is interceptors of much shorter-range weapons, each of which is cheaper than a Shahed.

 

[wrylachlan]

If discipline crumbles, that doesn't lead to democracy. It leads to civil war and the most likely outcome of that is some new or the same kind of autocracy, and probably not a friendly to America kind.

Sure. But what kind of government emerges after a revolution is a separable question from “will the people revolt”. There’s plenty of historical precedent for revolution leading to worse repression. Yet revolutions still happen.

All of which is to say that I don’t necessarily think that fear of what could go wrong is an absolute barrier to revolution. There’s certainly a scenario in which the air strikes weaken the IRGC and other state institutions to the point of failure/revolution.

 

[wrylachlan]

I don't think terrorists is the right word for a military force responding to attacks on its ally.

A non-state actor launching munitions at a civilian population with the express purpose of cowing that state into changing its state policies (in this case stop attacking Iran) is a textbook case of terrorism.

 

[Deleted member 28951]

I don't think terrorists is the right word for a military force responding to attacks on its ally.

HizbAllah has been targeting civilians to achieve its stated aim (genocide of all Jews) since it was founded by Iran's Jihadist regime.
By definition, that makes every one of its members, or people or organizations that finance or support it in any way, terrorists.

Iran isn't its "ally". Iran determines everything HizbAllah does and provides >90% of its funding (>$1B/year) and all its training, and always has. Hence the term "proxy".