Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic

[TwoSheds]

Yes, as long as its done as defensive reaction to something that was done to them, which it clearly was given all the Houthi attacks on military ships in international waters (never mind their attacks on civilian ships as well).

Makes sense I guess to a degree. If somebody attacked NATO military ships, why are we not talking about war and/or Article 5 though?

 

[Raoul]

Makes sense I guess to a degree. If somebody attacked NATO military ships, why are we not talking about war and/or Article 5 though?

Probably because the ships in the region are there as a coalition of the willing to protect civilian vessels, as opposed to fight anyone. The Houthis are proactively agitating for conflict by going on the attack, which is what resulted in last night's response.

 

[nimic]

Makes sense I guess to a degree. If somebody attacked NATO military ships, why are we not talking about war and/or Article 5 though?

It didn't happen in the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic, nor on the territory of a NATO member in those areas, so Article 5 doesn't apply.

 

[TwoSheds]

It didn't happen in the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic, nor on the territory of a NATO member in those areas, so Article 5 doesn't apply.

Interesting, is that what the North Atlantic Treaty defines then? So a Russian attack on French military in Africa wouldn't trigger a NATO response in theory?

 

[nimic]

Interesting, is that what the North Atlantic Treaty defines then? So a Russian attack on French military in Africa wouldn't trigger a NATO response in theory?

Yep. It's also why the UK could not have triggered article 5 for the Falklands War, because the Falklands aren't covered. Nor is Hawaii, very probably.

 

[the_cliff]

Probably because the ships in the region are there as a coalition of the willing to protect civilian vessels, as opposed to fight anyone. The Houthis are proactively agitating for conflict by going on the attack, which is what resulted in last night's response.

You also have to add that this was basically a warning. The houthi's were warned about the incoming attacks beforehand and there weren't many. The US and the UK are treading carefully as they don't want to ignite the whole region.

 

[Suedesi]

Absolutely mental how war starts these days.

No Congressional approval, no discussion, no attempt to justify it, or inform the American people.

It’s just a fait accompli when we learn that we are bombing yet another country.

 

[jadaba]

Yep. It's also why the UK could not have triggered article 5 for the Falklands War, because the Falklands aren't covered. Nor is Hawaii, very probably.

That's interesting. What's the logic of this? Is it to essentially discourage the sorts of conflict that could be considered expansionist adventures in nature rather than real threats to a country's home territory?

 

[Suedesi]

Although to be fair, we've been bombing them from drone bases in Djibouti for awhile.

 

[calodo2003]

Absolutely mental how war starts these days.

No Congressional approval, no discussion, no attempt to justify it, or inform the American people.

It’s just a fait accompli when we learn that we are bombing yet another country.

What happened in Yemen is quite within the legal parameters controlling what a president can do militarily. It doesn't need Congressional approval, Congress just has to be notified within 48 hours.

 

[Suedesi]

What happened in Yemen is quite within the legal parameters controlling what a president can do militarily. It doesn't need Congressional approval, Congress just has to be notified within 48 hours.

Spot the contradiction with Joe's tweet I quoted. I guess we can debate the definition of "war" and whether "bombing a country" constitutes war, but to me those are the same.

 

[Raoul]

Spot the contradiction with Joe's tweet I quoted. I guess we can debate the definition of "war" and whether "bombing a country" constitutes war, but to me those are the same.

If its a defensive reaction to being attacked, which the Houthi attacks on US ships in international waters clearly were unprovoked, premeditated attacks in a warped attempt at affecting the fighting in Gaza, then its completely fair game for the US to respond. If he wants to invade Yemen, then yes, it would require congressional approval.

 

[Suedesi]

This is misleading. They’re going after ships with nothing to do with Israel as well as military ships there to allow safe passage.

Right - and Israel has been bombing fishing ships in Gaza in 20 years to keep the strip under its thumb. Where is the difference?

 

[Raoul]

Right - and Israel has been bombing fishing ships in Gaza in 20 years to keep the strip under its thumb. Where is the difference?

The difference is the power differential. States with the power can do it, those that don't have it cannot; and if they try, they will face a severe penalty from a state with the power to exact it. Such is the nature of living in an anarchic international system that is first and foremost a dominance hierarchy.

 

[Suedesi]

The difference is the power differential. States with the power can do it, those that don't have it cannot; and if they try, they will face a severe penalty from a state with the power to exact it. Such is the nature of living in an anarchic international system that is first and foremost a dominance hierarchy.

Fair enough. Let's observe how powerful states manage in this escalating asymmetric conflict in the Middle East. One thing I know is this will be neither quick nor simple to resolve.

 

[Suedesi]

Its a massive miscalculation of the Houthis in Yemen to think that the West would allow the strait of Hormuz to be compromised in any way. Its a bizarre move to make, the only conclusion is they've been told to do it by their sponsors to achieve some wider goal because attacking boats of other nations, and compromising the flow of oil, was always going to trigger a response they've completely unable to respond to.

How do you spell out the whole basis behind their strategy and still not get it? Blocking international trading routes from everyone is the whole point - the Houthis are putting financial pressure on the international community to denounce Israel. This is not an uncommon practice at all: Apartheid in South Africa didn’t end because the demonic Afrikaners realized black people were actually human, it ended because everyone backed away from them financially & it became too expensive to uphold.

Anyhoo - this is going to be interesting when Russia and China make their countermoves.

 

[maniak]

Honest question: why does Iran like stirring the pot so much? Is there some future the leaders can see whereby destabilising the region even more somehow benefits Iran? Land it can seize, countries it can annex?

It seems to me like the leaders kind of just like being d*cks and f*cking things up, without putting any of their skin into the game.

An irony fairy just died somewhere.

 

[nimic]

That's interesting. What's the logic of this? Is it to essentially discourage the sorts of conflict that could be considered expansionist adventures in nature rather than real threats to a country's home territory?

I don't know the actual answer, but that seems like a solid explanation. It was always intended as a defensive alliance, so they probably needed that wording to ensure that countries in Europe actually wanted to join. None of whom would probably be happy being obligated to join a war over something far from home.

 

[Beachryan]

An irony fairy just died somewhere.

Great contribution, thanks a lot for clearing that up.

 

[Beachryan]

So if I'm reading it right, the Iranians arm and push Hamas to attack Israel. During the Israeli counteroffensive, they arm and encourage the Houthis to attack a major shipping lane, obstensibly 'in the support of Gaza'. Thus using two sets of non-Iranians as cannon-fodder, Iran advances its agenda of fecking things up in the region.

I mean well-played I guess?

 

[Raoul]

So if I'm reading it right, the Iranians arm and push Hamas to attack Israel. During the Israeli counteroffensive, they arm and encourage the Houthis to attack a major shipping lane, obstensibly 'in the support of Gaza'. Thus using two sets of non-Iranians as cannon-fodder, Iran advances its agenda of fecking things up in the region.

I mean well-played I guess?

Hezbollah and various groups in Syria as well. In fact, Syria is basically being used as a transit hub for the Iranians to get weapons into place near Israel. The Iranians wouldn't go through the trouble of arming these groups if they didn't want them to do things on their behalf.

 

[711]

Honest question: why does Iran like stirring the pot so much? Is there some future the leaders can see whereby destabilising the region even more somehow benefits Iran? Land it can seize, countries it can annex?

That's a good question. I would be interested in any serious answers, not because I'm hoping to find something to argue with, I do wonder what people think.
edit: I accidentally skipped over some of the answers, thanks for the food for thought.

 

[Raoul]

How do you spell out the whole basis behind their strategy and still not get it? Blocking international trading routes from everyone is the whole point - the Houthis are putting financial pressure on the international community to denounce Israel. This is not an uncommon practice at all: Apartheid in South Africa didn’t end because the demonic Afrikaners realized black people were actually human, it ended because everyone backed away from them financially & it became too expensive to uphold.

Anyhoo - this is going to be interesting when Russia and China make their countermoves.

The only pressure the Houthis are putting on the international system is to destroy them, which will happen unless they stop attacking ships in International waters.

 

[RedTiger]

On the bright side, at least the US and UK have helped end the Yemeni civil war for the time being.

 

[africanspur]

So if I'm reading it right, the Iranians arm and push Hamas to attack Israel. During the Israeli counteroffensive, they arm and encourage the Houthis to attack a major shipping lane, obstensibly 'in the support of Gaza'. Thus using two sets of non-Iranians as cannon-fodder, Iran advances its agenda of fecking things up in the region.

I mean well-played I guess?

This is an odd take, seeing as the Iranians have been backing the Houthis for a while (though arguably started mostly after the Sunni gulf states intervened in the civil war) and similarly with Hamas.

Hamas' military wing is quite decentralised, to allow it to continue to function even if commanders are killed. Most Palestinians I know think the political wing leaders in Qatar etc probably weren't even aware the attack was coming, let alone the Iranians or Hezbollah. Whether this is true or not, we'll probably never know.

Those groups have their own agency with regards to what to do and their aims and not everything is some major coordinated plot from Iran. If there was a coordinated plan from Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis would have struck at the same time as Hamas and Israel would be fighting an actual war on 2 fronts at the moment (with one enemy vastly more powerful than Hamas), rather than 1 full war on 1 front and another with small exchanges.

 

[calodo2003]

Spot the contradiction with Joe's tweet I quoted. I guess we can debate the definition of "war" and whether "bombing a country" constitutes war, but to me those are the same.

Yes, there is a difference between a retaliatory strike against an adversary who has launched numerous attempts to damage US naval assets in the region & being involved in a 'war.' That's one of the reasons that a president has limited authority to authorize the use of the military in a limited capacity.

 

[TheReligion]

I’m not for destabilising the region but you do have to have a red line regarding the shipping attacks surely.

 

[maniak]

Great contribution, thanks a lot for clearing that up.

This can apply to every single one of the countries involved in the region. I'm sure you know the answer if you ask it about the US or SA, it's the same answer for iran.

It seems to me like the leaders kind of just like being d*cks and f*cking things up, without putting any of their skin into the game.

 

[the_cliff]

This is an odd take, seeing as the Iranians have been backing the Houthis for a while (though arguably started mostly after the Sunni gulf states intervened in the civil war) and similarly with Hamas.

Hamas' military wing is quite decentralised, to allow it to continue to function even if commanders are killed. Most Palestinians I know think the political wing leaders in Qatar etc probably weren't even aware the attack was coming, let alone the Iranians or Hezbollah. Whether this is true or not, we'll probably never know.

Those groups have their own agency with regards to what to do and their aims and not everything is some major coordinated plot from Iran. If there was a coordinated plan from Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis would have struck at the same time as Hamas and Israel would be fighting an actual war on 2 fronts at the moment (with one enemy vastly more powerful than Hamas), rather than 1 full war on 1 front and another with small exchanges.

Contrary to the popular belief in here they are ruled independently, they are allies with Iran and Iran provides them with Military equipment but Iran don't have final say on what Houthi's do. Houthi's are using the whole attacking ships thing they're doing to gain support in their country from their population (and they're achieving this). Especially support from the Sunni's in the West of Yemen.

 

[Kaos]

I’m not for destabilising the region but you do have to have a red line regarding the shipping attacks surely.

I mean call it a matter of perspective, but I thought an active genocide being committed by one of the US and UK's allies would constitute a red line, but apparently not.

The danger is a lot of factions are going to hold the West culpable for their complicity in Gaza on account of their unwavering support for Israel, the Houthis might not be the last group to attempt something as audacious as this. Many in the Arab world likely support these attacks despite not initially liking the Houthis.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Raoul]

Vlad should be sending a few of his military ships from the Black Sea to prevent the Ukrainians from destroying them further.

 

[TheReligion]

I mean call it a matter of perspective, but I thought an active genocide being committed by one of the US and UK's allies would constitute a red line, but apparently not.

The danger is a lot of factions are going to hold the West culpable for their complicity in Gaza on account of their unwavering support for Israel, the Houthis might not be the last group to attempt something as audacious as this. Many in the Arab world likely support these attacks despite not initially liking the Houthis.

It’s not just the UK and US involved in the strikes is it? I think there’s a broader coalition although the US are certainly the lead power.

Anyway I do agree in the sense that I’ve been firmly against Israel’s conduct and would like to see more action taken to force them desist. That said, I don’t think the activity in the Red Sea can be perpetually allowed to go unchallenged.

 

[Raoul]

It’s not just the UK and US involved in the strikes is it? I think there’s a broader coalition although the US are certainly the lead power.

Anyway I do agree in the sense that I’ve been firmly against Israel’s conduct and would like to see more action taken to force them desist. That said, I don’t think the activity in the Red Sea can be perpetually allowed to go unchallenged.

Yes, there are more countries involved, and yet more will probably join once they realize their goods are in peril. None of this of course has anything to to do with Gaza, which with or without nearby maritime transit will continue until the Israelis decide to pull out.

 

[Redplane]

I for one embrace this new era of piracy.

In about 350 years we ll have Disney making Pirates of the Red Sea.

Worth it.

 

[slyadams]

How do you spell out the whole basis behind their strategy and still not get it? Blocking international trading routes from everyone is the whole point - the Houthis are putting financial pressure on the international community to denounce Israel. This is not an uncommon practice at all: Apartheid in South Africa didn’t end because the demonic Afrikaners realized black people were actually human, it ended because everyone backed away from them financially & it became too expensive to uphold.

Anyhoo - this is going to be interesting when Russia and China make their countermoves.

This makes no sense, like, at all. You think the West would see ships get attacked and key trading routes compromised and their response would be to give in to the Houthi's wishes? The West is under no financial pressure at all, they have spent a infinitesimally small % of their monthly budget to bomb them into oblivian.

Are you seriously comparing a huge chunk of the world sanctioning South Africa to the Houthi rebels in Yemen attacking some ships? You think the financial pressure is the same? You think the ability of the 'pressured' to withstand that pressure is the same? This is one of the strangest takes I've seen for a while.

 

[Redplane]

This makes no sense, like, at all. You think the West would see ships get attacked and key trading routes compromised and their response would be to give in to the Houthi's wishes? The West is under no financial pressure at all, they have spent a infinitesimally small % of their monthly budget to bomb them into oblivian.

Are you seriously comparing a huge chunk of the world sanctioning South Africa to the Houthi rebels in Yemen attacking some ships? You think the financial pressure is the same? You think the ability of the 'pressured' to withstand that pressure is the same? This is one of the strangest takes I've seen for a while.

Agreed. To further bolster your argument: In 1990, when the moves to end apartheid began, South Africa's GDP was smaller than Finland to name an example. And since the end of apartheid it has fallen further down the ladder (as has Finland btw).

 

[the_cliff]

This makes no sense, like, at all. You think the West would see ships get attacked and key trading routes compromised and their response would be to give in to the Houthi's wishes? The West is under no financial pressure at all, they have spent a infinitesimally small % of their monthly budget to bomb them into oblivian.

Are you seriously comparing a huge chunk of the world sanctioning South Africa to the Houthi rebels in Yemen attacking some ships? You think the financial pressure is the same? You think the ability of the 'pressured' to withstand that pressure is the same? This is one of the strangest takes I've seen for a while.

That hasn't happened though. I do agree with your overall point but a few air strikes is hardly what you said.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Redplane]

That doesn't sound right based on what I found. Sounds like Raytheon alone can produce about 40 per month, and of course there is a huge stockpile of them already. They may not actually be producing at that rate - but it still sounds like they could.