Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

Well that got dumb pretty fast didn't it.

Let's bring this back to escalation. Israel blew up an Iranian consulate in Syria. That's an escalation -- a level of conflict that hasn't previously been reached.

If Iran responds, as rumours suggest, with an open strike against Israel then that too would be an escalation.

Escalation doesn't mean total war. An Iranian attack puts the ball back into the court of Israel and the US to decide how to respond. If one or both opted for airstrikes v Iran, it's unlikely they'd go all out on their first try. They'd hit one or two targets. Then it would be back to Iran to respond, and etc.

This tit for tat is dangerous but full on war is far from inevitable. Look up the Tanker War of the 80s where Iran and the US were blowing up each other's poo poo. It didn't lead to all out war because both sides carefully calibrated their responses. This is usually what happens.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

pantslesswithwolves
Oct 28, 2008

The only issue I have with this take is that Israel seems to have cast aside any notion that it will act rationally or proportionately to an attack as seen by its response to October 7. Bibi has been wanting a war with Iran for a long time now and he will retaliate similarly even if Iran’s response is relatively minimal.

Vahakyla
May 3, 2013
Israel's expeditionary capability has always been limited, by design. A war with Iran that isn't that an aerial slapfight would probably take a significant effort.

Comrade Blyatlov
Aug 4, 2007


should have picked four fingers





Just watch out for the sparky swamps

Tiny Timbs
Sep 6, 2008

pantslesswithwolves posted:

The only issue I have with this take is that Israel seems to have cast aside any notion that it will act rationally or proportionately to an attack as seen by its response to October 7. Bibi has been wanting a war with Iran for a long time now and he will retaliate similarly even if Iran’s response is relatively minimal.

Right. Not sure I’m feeling confident this will be another round of Iranians and Israelis winking at each other as they nominate a few folks to throw into the volcano

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

Iran's domestic political situation is pretty dire. They already tried to blame the protests on the West and none of their citizens bought it. I'm not sure they want to risk a major war with Israel that could destroy their regime over a couple of Quds force commanders.

I think it's more likely they'll let Hezbollah off the chain and maybe try to assassinate some Israeli officials in Europe.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Count Roland posted:

If Iran strikes Israel directly then the US can return the favour. Or give Israel the green light to hit Iranian nuclear facilities.

Striking the nuclear energy sector and R&D would be one hell of an escalation…

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

mlmp08 posted:

Striking the nuclear energy sector and R&D would be one hell of an escalation…

Yeah, I don't think that one is likely.

Though I'm not sure what you mean by energy sector-- Iran has no nuclear power plants. The prime targets are centrifuges and enriched uranium storage sites. Which are largely built under mountains to keep things interesting.

Bored As Fuck
Jan 1, 2006
Fun Shoe

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

Just watch out for the sparky swamps

I appreciate this reference.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Count Roland posted:

Though I'm not sure what you mean by energy sector-- Iran has no nuclear power plants. The prime targets are centrifuges and enriched uranium storage sites. Which are largely built under mountains to keep things interesting.

Iran has a nuclear power plant. They've had one for over a decade. Iran is also building more nuclear power plants.

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

mlmp08 posted:

Iran has a nuclear power plant. They've had one for over a decade. Iran is also building more nuclear power plants.

Well I stand corrected!

Kazinsal
Dec 13, 2011


It should be noted that Rosatom is building them (as they did with completing Bushehr I), so given what's going on in Eastern Europe, there's a possibility the two additional VVER units might never get finished.

facialimpediment
Feb 11, 2005

as the world turns
Iranian response on the way:

https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/1779234516856672615?t=6ec8A40LPotWsRaDqWNeLQ&s=19

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1779241269413261535?t=b1H7tfqXX3krCMwAb66LOQ&s=19

hellotoothpaste
Dec 21, 2006

I dare you to call it a perm again..

So did Iran just get a free dry-run of how a drone deployment will be treated in this future hellspace of ours? Did the US just get a free dry-run of the same thing?

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

Yes it gives everyone practice. It seems like the attack is mostly for show. We'll see how Israel responds. I bet the US will by applying heavy pressure to keep the Israeli response to a minimum.

Dandywalken
Feb 11, 2014

Too early to tell imo

Cugel the Clever
Apr 5, 2009
I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

Count Roland posted:

We'll see how Israel responds.
They've still been screaming that they're under existential threat from Hamas in the rubble of Gaza and Bibi is anxious to stay in office, so I'd worry a response is already in the works.

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

Cugel the Clever posted:

They've still been screaming that they're under existential threat from Hamas in the rubble of Gaza and Bibi is anxious to stay in office, so I'd worry a response is already in the works.

Yeah sure but Iran can actually fight back. Getting into a full-on shooting war would carry very serious consequences even if the US supports Israel fully.

Proud Christian Mom
Dec 20, 2006
READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD
It's a shame that nothing is going to stop this nation of deranged genocidal maniacs

bloody ghost titty
Oct 23, 2008

Proud Christian Mom posted:

It's a shame that nothing is going to stop this nation of deranged genocidal maniacs

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


Stringent posted:

This was the first thing Google spit out, there's been a lot of reporting on it. This story is from February, the Houthis are still operational.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/live-updates-rcna137078

Again, lots of reporting on it, I'm not in a position to look things up extensively at the moment, so feel free to do your own research on it.

there was an effort post here but just understand that you do not know what you're talking about

hellotoothpaste posted:

So did Iran just get a free dry-run of how a drone deployment will be treated in this future hellspace of ours? Did the US just get a free dry-run of the same thing?

I think that this is completely irrelevant because it's (1) a relatively small number of (2) non-swarming drones (3) traveling for an entire work day before they even enter the ao

when serious militaries talk about drone warfare, this is not what they're talking about.


Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Apr 14, 2024

not a value-add
Jan 17, 2019

I do think there’s an interesting question related to Stringent’s post, which is if these kind of low intensity operations are legitimately effective as a stand alone measure, or if they just end up generating favorable PR for whoever is on the receiving end. They have been part of America’s recent response to the militia groups in Iraq, but my impression with that was most of the work was done through actual negotiations. If you don’t have a line of communication already built are these just a fool’s errand?

Vahakyla
May 3, 2013
Low intensity fuckery isn't exactly new to warfare or world history. It just looks a bit different, but before the modern times we saw border raids, various local insurgencies being fermented, loving with trade ships on the other side of the globe, dueling for port access with violence and money, etc.

hellotoothpaste
Dec 21, 2006

I dare you to call it a perm again..

Potato Salad posted:

when serious militaries talk about drone warfare, this is not what they're talking about.

Yea that was several orders of magnitude facetious

not a value-add
Jan 17, 2019

I wouldn’t downplay last night too too much. Despite the rather choreographed nature of the whole thing and extended flight times Iran still put a LOT of stuff in the air for what looks like a decently coordinated ToT.

Habibi
Dec 8, 2004

We have the capability to make San Jose's first Cup Champion.

The Sharks could be that Champion.

not a value-add posted:

I wouldn’t downplay last night too too much. Despite the rather choreographed nature of the whole thing and extended flight times Iran still put a LOT of stuff in the air for what looks like a decently coordinated ToT.

I dont think the intent was to launch a fundamentally impotent strike, but rather one that would demonstrate capability (by putting a lot of stuff in the air in coordinated fashion) while mitigating any real harm (by telegraphing the strike and probably using backchannels to ensure interception). It says "look what we could do....if we really wanted."

Vengarr
Jun 17, 2010

Smashed before noon
Went looking for why Israel bombed the Iranian Embassy in the first place and came across this quote:

quote:

“Israel went too far in assassinating the Iranian general, probably, in a diplomatic location,” said Yagil Levy, a professor of military sociology at the Open University of Israel.

“Israel is led by the availability of its weapons systems. And whenever the country or the leadership feels that they have a good intelligence, a good opportunity and available weaponry systems that can do the job, Israel strikes,” he added.

“Israel doesn’t have a really strategic approach … the attempt to identify the [connections] between specific military actions and expected benefits is not in the repertoire of the Israeli leadership.”

Strategic assessment: Yikesaroo

adebisi lives
Nov 11, 2009
Iran is by far the most restrained power in the region. Their most ambitious action outside their borders was helping Iraq and Syria defeat ISIS and the Israelis and Americans will never forgive them for it.

piL
Sep 20, 2007
(__|\\\\)
Taco Defender

Vengarr posted:

Went looking for why Israel bombed the Iranian Embassy in the first place and came across this quote:

Strategic assessment: Yikesaroo


B. A. Friedman (not the other Friedman thr reader is thinking of) put forward an brief deviation in "On Operations" of how the "myth" of the operational level of war probably emerged from some poor translations of Clauswitz, and how the whole model works better as a dichotomy with operation art as a means vice a trichotomy.

I wonder if this war will be used as an example lf what happens when independent and empowered operations level escaping and driving the strategy and tactics vice strategy driving the operations.

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

not a value-add posted:

I do think there’s an interesting question related to Stringent’s post, which is if these kind of low intensity operations are legitimately effective as a stand alone measure, or if they just end up generating favorable PR for whoever is on the receiving end. They have been part of America’s recent response to the militia groups in Iraq, but my impression with that was most of the work was done through actual negotiations. If you don’t have a line of communication already built are these just a fool’s errand?

The Iranian operation was purely for PR. In that, it wasn't intended to militarily degrade Israel.

Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war for many years now. This includes airstrikes, assassinations, bombings, sabotage and more. Iran decided (not unreasonably) that Israel openly blowing up it's diplomatic building was going to far. Thus, for both domestic and international audiences, they had to make a show of force to dissuade further attacks and not appear weak.

If Iran wanted to cause damage to Israel, or if it wanted to provoke further escalation, they wouldn't have telegraphed the attacks so much. I don't know how this was done, but I shouldn't be reading on twitter about the attack before it happens. Launching slow moving drones from thousands of km away also gives a lot of time to respond.

Really though, the goal is to make Israel think twice about attacking Iran so openly. Given all that's going on, its very hard to say if they succeeded.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

Count Roland posted:

The Iranian operation was purely for PR. In that, it wasn't intended to militarily degrade Israel.

Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war for many years now. This includes airstrikes, assassinations, bombings, sabotage and more. Iran decided (not unreasonably) that Israel openly blowing up it's diplomatic building was going to far. Thus, for both domestic and international audiences, they had to make a show of force to dissuade further attacks and not appear weak.

If Iran wanted to cause damage to Israel, or if it wanted to provoke further escalation, they wouldn't have telegraphed the attacks so much. I don't know how this was done, but I shouldn't be reading on twitter about the attack before it happens. Launching slow moving drones from thousands of km away also gives a lot of time to respond.

Really though, the goal is to make Israel think twice about attacking Iran so openly. Given all that's going on, its very hard to say if they succeeded.

I saw a youtube short that suggested the attack represented something like 3% of Iran's capability. I have no way of knowing how true that is, but if that's accurate, then if they were really serious, it wouldn't matter how much they telegraphed a drone attack. You could drat near walk from Tehran to Tel Aviv by hopscotching across Shaheds.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007
I don't think they couldn't have telegraphed it? As far as I know, Iran does not have a particularly good route to firing stuff at Israel. It's why they had to shout at everyone in the path not to shoot them down or they'll get big mad. Pretty much anything they could have gone to Israel directly would be very obvious.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Apr 15, 2024

piL
Sep 20, 2007
(__|\\\\)
Taco Defender

Kchama posted:

I don't think they couldn't have telegraphed it? As far as I know, Iran does not have a particularly good route to firing stuff at Israel. It's why they had to shout at everyone in the path not to shoot them down or they'll get big mad. Pretty much anything they could have done to Israel directly would be very obvious.

I'd be very interested to see the paths of the strikes if that's available OS somewhere. I suspect that one struggle Iran will have, even if Israel continues to isolate itself from the rest of the world, is convincing all the foreign and local forces in Syria, Iraq, Jordan and the Red Sea that these attacks are not for them in a way that is convincing, not going to be leaked to the Israelis and is a focused strike.

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



lol CNN dug up GEN Petraeus to give them expert advice on Iran.

goatsestretchgoals
Jun 4, 2011

Bolton on Fox, not even looking, I was right at some point

not a value-add
Jan 17, 2019

Count Roland posted:

The Iranian operation was purely for PR. In that, it wasn't intended to militarily degrade Israel.

Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war for many years now. This includes airstrikes, assassinations, bombings, sabotage and more. Iran decided (not unreasonably) that Israel openly blowing up it's diplomatic building was going to far. Thus, for both domestic and international audiences, they had to make a show of force to dissuade further attacks and not appear weak.

If Iran wanted to cause damage to Israel, or if it wanted to provoke further escalation, they wouldn't have telegraphed the attacks so much. I don't know how this was done, but I shouldn't be reading on twitter about the attack before it happens. Launching slow moving drones from thousands of km away also gives a lot of time to respond.

Really though, the goal is to make Israel think twice about attacking Iran so openly. Given all that's going on, its very hard to say if they succeeded.

I was thinking more of Yemen, but yeah you could probably fit the recent Iranian strike under this umbrella as well. It’s a crowd pleaser but won’t actually deter Israel, the only thing that will do that is some third party telling the Israelis to knock it off.

hellotoothpaste
Dec 21, 2006

I dare you to call it a perm again..

Count Roland posted:

The Iranian operation was purely for PR. In that, it wasn't intended to militarily degrade Israel.

Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war for many years now. This includes airstrikes, assassinations, bombings, sabotage and more. Iran decided (not unreasonably) that Israel openly blowing up it's diplomatic building was going to far. Thus, for both domestic and international audiences, they had to make a show of force to dissuade further attacks and not appear weak.

If Iran wanted to cause damage to Israel, or if it wanted to provoke further escalation, they wouldn't have telegraphed the attacks so much. I don't know how this was done, but I shouldn't be reading on twitter about the attack before it happens. Launching slow moving drones from thousands of km away also gives a lot of time to respond.

Really though, the goal is to make Israel think twice about attacking Iran so openly. Given all that's going on, its very hard to say if they succeeded.

Just a heads up, what happened wasn’t “telegraphed” so much as is was extremely backchanneled. There were a lot more parties involved to sort of box the whole thing in, versus it all turning into another regional actualwar.

Edit: Caveat, may not be boxed in at all regardless.

Muscle Tracer
Feb 23, 2007

Medals only weigh one down.

hellotoothpaste posted:

Just a heads up, what happened wasn’t “telegraphed” so much as is was extremely backchanneled.

Edit: Caveat, may not be boxed in at all regardless.

And what technology did those folks use to backchannel? The telegraph :smug:

My Spirit Otter
Jun 15, 2006


CANADA DOESN'T GET PENS LIKE THIS

SKILCRAFT KREW Reppin' Quality Blind Made American Products. Bitch.

hellotoothpaste posted:

Just a heads up, what happened wasn’t “telegraphed” so much as is was extremely backchanneled. There were a lot more parties involved to sort of box the whole thing in, versus it all turning into another regional actualwar.

Edit: Caveat, may not be boxed in at all regardless.

telegraphing and back channelling are essentially the same in this case. if they wanted it for any other reason than pr, they wouldve just fuckin sent it, no warning/communications.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dandywalken
Feb 11, 2014

A series of motorbike couriers ferried the message at speeds that were by all accounts impossible to achieve

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply