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

Interesting clip from Brzezinski from a decade ago on his thoughts on Iran/Israel. I'm paraphrasing one particular point he's making. I wonder if the point is still relevant a decade later, I assume it is.

If Israel would strike the Iranian nuclear facilities, the objective wouldn't be to destroy them because they know they can't do it. The objective would be to precipitate an Iranian reaction to the US because our complicity would be apparent to the Iranians in the sense that we didn't do anything to prevent it.
Click to expand...

 
VorZakone said:
Interesting clip from Brzezinski from a decade ago on his thoughts on Iran/Israel. I'm paraphrasing one particular point he's making. I wonder if the point is still relevant a decade later, I assume it is.



Click to expand...

Some strategist this man was. His views on the region still hold true to this day.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
It wouldn't matter if it is retaliating or attacking. US would counter both.
Click to expand...
It does matter for people sticking to the facts and not the Hollywood narrative.

A full blown war is the last thing both the US and Iran want, and I highly doubt that the US would conduct direct operations on Iranian soil. It is there for defensive purposes.

The only one hell-bent on a regional war is Israel, but only if the US fully joins in as the former has zero chance of winning it alone.
 
That_Bloke said:
It does matter for people sticking to the facts and not the Hollywood narrative.

A full blown war is the last thing both the US and Iran want, and I highly doubt that the US would conduct direct operations on Iranian soil. It is there for defensive purposes.

The only one hell-bent on a regional war is Israel, but only if the US fully joins in as the former has zero chance of winning it alone.
Click to expand...

Do you think Iran will defeat Israel in a conventional conflict?
 
That_Bloke said:
It does matter for people sticking to the facts and not the Hollywood narrative.
Click to expand...
When discussing the middle east I have yet to see anybody on the Caf who favours facts over their personal narrative.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
You are the last person who has any right or constitution to argue this point.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you are? That's the point. I have the capacity to recognise more than one narrative, which is the essential first step towards critical thinking.
 
That_Bloke said:
It does matter for people sticking to the facts and not the Hollywood narrative.

A full blown war is the last thing both the US and Iran want, and I highly doubt that the US would conduct direct operations on Iranian soil. It is there for defensive purposes.

The only one hell-bent on a regional war is Israel, but only if the US fully joins in as the former has zero chance of winning it alone.
Click to expand...

I really wonder how far Israel would have to go for Iran to retaliate. They've already embarrassed them more than a few times with bombings of their embassy and attacks on their own soil. I suppose Israel can also do this with the comfort that the US has their back so Iran wouldn't want to hit can knowing the US would also join in.

But still, Iran really can't save face with how much it's been attacked. I suppose they're r response more likely will be through guerilla warfare rather than conventional attacks.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Do you think Iran will defeat Israel in a conventional conflict?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by defeat. Iran's ground forces are nothing to speak of, it can't project them and basically has no air force. So a ground invasion or bombing campaigns are completely out of the question.

But the thing is that Israel is a very tiny country without any strategic depth and the Iron Dome is not what a lot of people make it out to be. Iran can overwhelm and absolutely inflict massive damage on Israel with its missiles if it goes all out. Especially if it coordinates with Hezbollah, the Iraqi militias and the Houthis which it most certainly will do. And there goes Israel's famed regional deterrence down the drain forever, plus the human casualties to which Israel is very sensible, the massive impact on an already tanking economy, and a probable exodus of a part of the Israeli population. That in itself would a massive victory for Iran, albeit a pyrrhic one because of what will happen afterwards.

Iran's attack last April was a choreographed show with every party knowing when, where, what was going to happen. People like to forget that the US did most of the heavy-lifting when it came to intercepting and shooting drones and missiles. We'll see how it goes without warning and multiple waves of more advanced weaponry, coming from different locations.

As for Israel's abilities to defeat Iran, it couldn't handle Hamas after 10 months of a one-sided massacre in a defenseless, entirely blockaded 140 sqm fleck on the map, and would most likely fare even worse against a much better equipped and trained Hezbollah. Now you want them take on Iran? Alone? Israel can inflict terrible damage on Iran through its much superior air force but I absolutely don't see how it could bomb Iran into sumission or coming out of it unscathed. That's not going to happen, unless it uses its nukes.

It's a war with no winner that would end with tremendous losses on both sides, imo. Iran obviously can't win but without the US, Israel has zero chance either.
 
Last edited:
That_Bloke said:
Depends on what you mean by defeat. Iran's ground forces are nothing to speak of, it can't project them and basically has no air force. So a ground invasion or bombing campaigns are completely out of the question.

But the thing is that Israel is a very tiny country without any strategic depth and the Iron Dome is not what a lot of people make it out to be. Iran can overwhelm and absolutely inflict massive damage on Israel with its missiles if it goes all out. Especially if it coordinates with Hezbollah, the Iraqi militias and the Houthis which it most certainly will do. And there goes Israel's famed regional deterrence down the drain forever. That in itself would a massive victory for Iran, albeit a pyrrhic one because of what will happen afterwards.

Iran's attack last April was a choreographed show with every party knowing when, where, what was going to happen. People like to forget that the US did most of the heavy-lifting when it came to intercepting and shooting drones and missiles. We'll see how it goes without warning and multiple waves coming from different locations.

As for Israel's abilities to defeat Iran, it couldn't handle Hamas after 10 months of a one-sided massacre in a defenseless, entirely blockaded 140 sqm fleck on the map, and would most likely fare even worse against a much better equipped and trained Hezbollah. Now you want them take on Iran? Alone? Israel can inflict terrible damage on Iran through its much superior air force but I absolutely don't see how it could bomb it into sumission or coming out of it unscathed. That's not going to happen, unless it uses its nukes.

It's war with no winner that would end tremendous losses on both sides, imo. Iran obviously can't win but without the US, Israel has zero chance either.
Click to expand...

It depends on how much the US will be willing to help the defense, but not necessarily get involved in the war, like they did last time.

If there was a huge telegraph of a massive wave of missiles from Hezbollah, Houthi's and Iran incoming, US will possibly do the heavy lifting without actually getting "involved" in the counterstrike.

Two DDG's in the Red Sea and Two DDG's in the Persian Gulf coupled with Two Fighter Squadrons in each region is enough to intercept most of the missiles. Add another DDG off the coast of Israel and Iron Dome/Arrow 3/Davids Sling should be enough to mop up the rest without any serious damage.

Dependent on a loadout, and it'll probably never happen but if the USN really wanted to they can load 384 interceptors onto a single destroyer without having to reload. Given the primitive nature of most of the missiles coming in from Houthi's/Iran it'll be a waste of money anyway to use SM-6's, SM-2's or SM-3's.

But you're right that if the US doesn't help, Israel will suffer a lot in the incoming barrage.

That's a weird narrative by the way. IDF casualties are somewhat transparent and they've been very minimal in the ground invasion. It's turned into a COIN/Hunt mission and a very brutal one, but the IDF haven't exactly suffered much losses here.

They could definetely bomb Iran to the point where it doesn't make sense for Iran to continue the war. If Iran has already expended its huge arsenal of missiles, there's no deterrant left for Israel not to start pounding Nuclear research facilities.
 
That_Bloke said:
Depends on what you mean by defeat. Iran's ground forces are nothing to speak of, it can't project them and basically has no air force. So a ground invasion or bombing campaigns are completely out of the question.
Click to expand...

Hezbollah has substantial ground forces. Nasrallah claims 100,000 troops.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


This makes me sick to the teeth

The only time weapon hyping is acceptable is when it's military contractors making decks to pitch to buyers who are nominally governments.

Videos treating fecking war like a anticipated football match is honestly disgusting.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
This makes me sick to the teeth

The only time weapon hyping is acceptable is when it's military contractors making decks to pitch to buyers who are nominally governments.

Videos treating fecking war like a anticipated football match is honestly disgusting.
Click to expand...

That's social media for you. I agree though, it is disgusting, as is the way the IDF have been using it to show heinous war crimes and despicable, horrific death, injusry, destruction & suffering. Especially when the majority of the time it's being covered with laughter or outright hatred and overwhelming joy.

As for weapons, I think Hugh Grant should supply everyone.
 
12th August -
We are deeply concerned by the heightened tensions in the region, and united in our commitment to de-escalation and regional stability. In this context, and in particular, we call on Iran and its allies to refrain from attacks that would further escalate regional tensions and jeopardise the opportunity to agree a ceasefire and the release of hostages. They will bear responsibility for actions that jeopardise this opportunity for peace and stability. No country or nation stands to gain from a further escalation in the Middle East. [President Emmanuel Macron of France Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom]

Today - An Israeli missile strike in the city of Nabatieh in southern Lebanon killed at least 10 people — including two children — and wounded five others, (Lebanese state news agency NNA)
 
VorZakone said:


Click to expand...


This is ironic.

Delta has been placed as one of the shipping companies who are avoiding Russian/Iranian sanctions and are willing to ferry their oil for them.

As the Delta Sounion entered the region, they refused to accept an military escorts from the large Western naval presence there and instead decided to go for it on their own. This is mostly likely because they were carrying oil either from or to sanctioned countries, despite their official designation being from Iraq to South Africa.

So the Houthi's are blowing up ships that are evading western sanctions against Iran/Russia, which is incredibly ironic.
 
berbatrick said:
Click to expand...

They got schooled in 2006 and went home with their tail between their legs and that was 18 years ago. The IDF's an army of war criminals conscripts that only knows how to kill unarmed civilians. As soon as it comes to a real fight, they're nowhere to be seen, bar a few specialized and highly professional professional units.

Without the US there's no chance for Israel to successfully take on Hezbollah.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.