Gaza - War does not determine who is right - only who is left

[HoonDing]

Cyrus the Great liberated the jews, Bibi will restore the Persian Empire

[Gorgon]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Yes the long-term problem of Iran and Israel ever being friends and not being  hostile to each other  is not likely at least with the current governments on both sides 

But again and I dont mean  to keep repeating myself but this  current military campaign can and will end if Iran capitulates and abandons its nuclear program 

Im not sure why anyone thinks this is such a difficult objective to achieve?

Its like the Israeli military campaign into Lebanon, that ended when Hezbollah agreed to stop firing rockets into Israel, it was a relatively easy objective to understand and achieve

Here's an interesting link about the military benefits with Israel having air supremacy over Iran 

https://time.com/7294919/israel-air-supremacy-tehran-iran/

The only reason I can think of that would change Israel achieving its stated objective is Iran is able to do massive damage to Israel with its missile counter-offensive and then Israel also agrees to end this war because of the cost to them?

 

 

 

 

What happens when MAGA loses the next election and the calls to get untangled from the middle east increase. If the US goes to war, it will be massively unpopular.

Aren't you just assuming Iran will fold because of early successes. 

[Elerond]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Yes the long-term problem of Iran and Israel ever being friends and not being  hostile to each other  is not likely at least with the current governments on both sides 

But again and I dont mean  to keep repeating myself but this  current military campaign can and will end if Iran capitulates and abandons its nuclear program 

Im not sure why anyone thinks this is such a difficult objective to achieve?

Its like the Israeli military campaign into Lebanon, that ended when Hezbollah agreed to stop firing rockets into Israel, it was a relatively easy objective to understand and achieve

Here's an interesting link about the military benefits with Israel having air supremacy over Iran 

https://time.com/7294919/israel-air-supremacy-tehran-iran/

The only reason I can think of that would change Israel achieving its stated objective is Iran is able to do massive damage to Israel with its missile counter-offensive and then Israel also agrees to end this war because of the cost to them?

This campaign will most likely ensure that Iran will acquire nuclear weapon. Only full invasion and occupation of Iran will prevent that in this point.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorgon said:

What happens when MAGA loses the next election and the calls to get untangled from the middle east increase. If the US goes to war, it will be massively unpopular.

Aren't you just assuming Iran will fold because of early successes. 

Yes, the current US government is the most pro-Israel military government we have seen  in ages 

And the next US president will have different views on supporting Israel around Iran

But I assume this war will be long over by then, I cant imagine any country continuing a war where its getting  bombed on a daily basis and Iran has lost air supremacy so it has no way of stopping Israel's airstrikes

 

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

This campaign will most likely ensure that Iran will acquire nuclear weapon. Only full invasion and occupation of Iran will prevent that in this point.

Based on what evidence? This is a  unique situation where a country is getting attacked because it wants to get nukes and  the way you end this war is agreeing to end that nuke program  

I gave you an  example earlier around Hezbollah and I remember at the time of Israel launching its campaign into Lebanon some people were saying "Israel is going to annex Lebanon and this is going to be a long and complicated  and unwinnable war for Israel  " and yet that war ended the moment Hezbollah agreed to stop firing rockets into Israel which was exactly what Israel wanted to achieve 

And this Iran war is no different, Iran can agree to end its  nuke program and allow unrestricted access to the IAEA who can monitor this commitment.  You dont need to invade or occupy Iran to achieve this military objective

Why turn something simple into something complicated?

Regime change would be a different story, that would be unrealistic and complicated 

 

 

[Gorgon]

There have been no wars in recorded history that were won solely from the air, at least I don't think there have. 

The Iranian leaderships consider this an existential war.  Russia's existential war in Ukraine lost them a million casualties and they are still not deterred. 

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Based on what evidence? This is a  unique situation where a country is getting attacked because it wants to get nukes and  the way you end this war is agreeing to end that nuke program  

Iran has knowledge of how to make nukes. They have tried to make deals to trash their nuclear program several times and each time other countries have broken the deals. They have seen that non-attack and promises to protect deals are not hold by countries. And they were in process to negotiate of to end their nuclear program only to be attacked when main part of negotiation was meant to start. And they know from Russian example that nukes are reason why western countries avoid becoming parts of the conflict and avoid giving too much help to Ukraine.

Israel's bombing campaign at most has delayed their nuke program for month or two, according to military experts.

So why would they not continue and speed up their nuke program, when they know that with bombs only Israel and even US can't prevent them from producing nukes, considering that they already have everything they need to make them? And longer Israel is allowed to bomb Iran without sanctions more Iran will see that there is no benefits from the negotiations and that Israel and west are seeking of total destruction of Iran.

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This is a  unique situation where a country is getting attacked because it wants to get nukes and  the way you end this war is agreeing to end that nuke program  

To quote you: "Based on what evidence?" Please do a better job than Gromnir providing it.

The analysis of everyone except Israel is that Iran has no active nuclear program to end.

The last inspection deal got abrogated by Donald Trump, the guy now wanting to make a new deal that there's no guarantee he won't decide to abrogate arbitrarily in two years time. Trump who also surrendered to the Houthis, a bunch of stereotypical drug addicted sandal wearing goat farmers with a negligible fraction of the resources of Iran, after his bombing campaign singularly failed to achieve anything except a pledge not to attack specifically american ships (ie less than 1% of world freighter capacity). 

[Gorgon]

A more compelling answer to "why now" is momentum, rather than nuclear apocalypse. Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran. Besides, Netanyahu is like a shark, he dies if he ever stops moving. 

The good outcome is regime change, but I'm not convinced it's possible. 

[uuuhhii]

17 minutes ago, Gorgon said:

A more compelling answer to "why now" is momentum, rather than nuclear apocalypse. Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran. Besides, Netanyahu is like a shark, he dies if he ever stops moving. 

The good outcome is regime change, but I'm not convinced it's possible. 

 

successful coup of syria maybe the most important factor

syria will not stay nato proxy forever

best target strongest local opposition before syria cut their string

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Gorgon said:

A more compelling answer to "why now" is momentum, rather than nuclear apocalypse. Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran. Besides, Netanyahu is like a shark, he dies if he ever stops moving. 

The good outcome is regime change, but I'm not convinced it's possible. 

I don't think you need look any further for 'why now' than Israel thinking it's doable. Same general reason as for the US and Britain invading Iraq.

Their calculus is pretty simple. The west is what matters to them internationally and what can stop their aggressiom, and they simply won't do anything to stop them. Haven't stopped the warcrimes in Palestine, haven't imposed even the most basic of consequences, label Israel repeatedly attacking other countries as self defence and all the old Orwellian tropes.

Indeed, once the attack is made the west has to end it. It effectively cannot end in a negotiated settlement, since the west abrogated the last one. Israel has just made the situation an existential one for Iran, and that means nukes. Whether or not they really wanted them last week, they certainly want them now. And as soon as they have them, per North Korea, the leverage of conventional military aggression is gone (or the west has to go nuclear. Would be interesting watching the attempts to try and spin that as defensive and responsible. I'm not even sure you'd get condemnation from Starmer/ Macron/ Mers and the other jellies for Israel or the US nuking Tehran, let alone consequences).

(And that last sentence is the crucial one really for why this has been such a disaster for the west. Their defence of Israel's conduct has been straight out of 1984* and they've provided yet another example of how the one thing that will protect you from them and their proxies is the very thing they don't want you to have. Not because you're irresponsible or whatever or because of international law/ The Rules Based Order- reduced to a joke even among many westerners- but because that is what will protect you from being attacked, by the west. They've proved that the Iranian and Libyans were idiots, and the North Koreans not.

*"The West told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears" is pretty literal policy from western governments)

Edited Wednesday at 11:27 PM by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

15 hours ago, Gorgon said:

There have been no wars in recorded history that were won solely from the air, at least I don't think there have. 

The Iranian leaderships consider this an existential war.  Russia's existential war in Ukraine lost them a million casualties and they are still not deterred. 

Yes conventional wars need more than airstrikes if the objective is to occupy a country but this is about getting Iran to change a policy direction and its not about regime change as much as Israel would love that

Serbia was bombed twice because of Kosovo and Bosnia and as far as I know there was no NATO invasion but the airstrikes had the desired outcome and Serbia changed direction 

And words like existential often get misused by different leaders to justify military actions, for example Russia  never faced any existential threat from Ukraine that justified the invasion

Irans leadership can claim abandoning there nuclear program is existential but they well known for fiery rhetoric and grandstanding. This is the first time since  the Iran vs  Iraq war that they have been directly attacked in a war so I question if they will maintain that stance facing regular airstrikes 

 

14 hours ago, Elerond said:

Iran has knowledge of how to make nukes. They have tried to make deals to trash their nuclear program several times and each time other countries have broken the deals. They have seen that non-attack and promises to protect deals are not hold by countries. And they were in process to negotiate of to end their nuclear program only to be attacked when main part of negotiation was meant to start. And they know from Russian example that nukes are reason why western countries avoid becoming parts of the conflict and avoid giving too much help to Ukraine.

Israel's bombing campaign at most has delayed their nuke program for month or two, according to military experts.

So why would they not continue and speed up their nuke program, when they know that with bombs only Israel and even US can't prevent them from producing nukes, considering that they already have everything they need to make them? And longer Israel is allowed to bomb Iran without sanctions more Iran will see that there is no benefits from the negotiations and that Israel and west are seeking of total destruction of Iran.

It will be very difficult for Iran to continue its nuclear program if there nuclear sites are destroyed or damaged or they getting constantly bombed 

And I have  to assume that any ceasefire would include full access by IAEA to Iran to confirm they have ended the program because how else would you monitor the agreed on ceasefire?

So Iran would have to agree to that and then the IAEA would report on that

But of course if Iran doesnt agree to that then the Israeli military campaign will continue 

9 hours ago, Gorgon said:

A more compelling answer to "why now" is momentum, rather than nuclear apocalypse. Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran. Besides, Netanyahu is like a shark, he dies if he ever stops moving. 

The good outcome is regime change, but I'm not convinced it's possible. 

 " Why now " is a good question. Israel has always considered Iran and its proxies there main enemy in the ME and Iran considers Israel its main enemy in the ME 

And after 7 October Israel and Netanyahu have a legitimate reason to act around Israel's  security  which is exactly what they done as far as Iran and its proxies is concerned which is why we have seen the dismantling both directly and indirectly of Irans proxies that include both Hamas, Hezbollah and Assad 

Of course the Israeli far right have also hijacked this legitimate security concern around  the heavy handedness of how the Palestinians have been treated and the ongoing war in  Gaza

But Iran and its nuclear program  is still a  threat to Israel outside of the Palestinian conflict and thats what this military campaign is about 

I also think Israel was surprised how relatively easy it was to defeat Irans proxies and also how they were able bomb Iran a few months ago, I think most of us over-estimated Irans anti-aircraft defences

So in summary Israel decided the best way to end the threat of  a nuclear Iran is to attack Iran directly and force them change course  as opposed to waiting for negotiations and not having accurate information around how far Iran really is around enriching Uranium

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gorgon]

Bosnia vs NATO wasn't really a war, they weren't shooting back. It was bomber diplomacy, a method essentially unchanged since gunboat diplomacy which goes back probably 500 years.  Don't see that working here. 

[HoonDing]

"Why now"

Because Shas was about to pull out of Bibi's coalition and Bibi didn't want to risk an election.

[Zoraptor]

Interesting article from the BBC on why they only cover Israeli hospitals being bombed extensively and it isn't a double standard. All it actually does is give a very good indication of how bad the media coverage is and why BBC Persian is seen as a bit of a joke.

Quote

In recent days, many Iranians have voiced frustration over the stark contrast in global media coverage of two similar tragedies. A hospital bombing in Beersheba, Israel, received swift, extensive international attention. A hospital in Kermanshah, Iran, was struck three days earlier — and went largely unnoticed.

Among the reasons for this is that Israel grants media access: foreign journalists are quickly taken to sites, briefed by officials, and allowed to report freely. In contrast, Iran blocks journalists, censors domestic media, and restricts internet access — leaving only blurry, unofficial footage from civilians.

[..]

With no media access or transparency, Iran’s narrative has been lost. Grieving families have tried to fill the void online, but personal posts cannot replace coordinated coverage.

[..]

Ah, it's all Iran's fault.

There is literally no comment about all the Palestinian medical facilities that have been bombed and Israel has restricted access to because it's a bad look for them. That is particularly ironic because this is the final paragraph:

Quote

 

In a war where perception shapes response, the silence around Kermanshah shows how censorship and isolation can erase even the most devastating tragedies from global view.

 

Well yes, but not in the way you think.

I'd also note that the BBC did not visit and give extensive coverage to all the medical facilities bombed, by Israel, in Lebanon either.

Quote

Since the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon on 17 September 2024, WHO has verified 23 attacks on health care in Lebanon that have led to 72 deaths and 43 injuries among health workers and patients.

Via WHO, and after one month of Israel's attack. 

There's a pattern there about who's hospitals have value and who's don't, and it isn't anything to do with Israel not practicing censorship.

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Interesting article from the BBC on why they only cover Israeli hospitals being bombed extensively and it isn't a double standard. All it actually does is give a very good indication of how bad the media coverage is and why BBC Persian is seen as a bit of a joke.

Ah, it's all Iran's fault.

There is literally no comment about all the Palestinian medical facilities that have been bombed and Israel has restricted access to because it's a bad look for them. That is particularly ironic because this is the final paragraph:

Well yes, but not in the way you think.

I'd also note that the BBC did not visit and give extensive coverage to all the medical facilities bombed, by Israel, in Lebanon either.

Via WHO, and after one month of Israel's attack. 

There's a pattern there about who's hospitals have value and who's don't, and it isn't anything to do with Israel not practicing censorship.

Im not sure what your point really is, the BBC covers the IDF heavy handedness and its killing of civilians constantly and consistently and that includes hospitals being targeted in Gaza

No idea what you mean by " There's a pattern there about who's hospitals have value and who's don't" because thats not what the BBC does

This was just from a 30 second search of the hits from "BBC  israel bombs gaza hospitals " 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c4g28z483eko

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr7l123zy5o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mg4ld5951o

 

 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

...such an easy search that your third link isn't even about an attack on a hospital, but on an aid site where the victims got taken to hospital? Ho hum. For the sake of argument I'll assume that they actually were all relevant articles though, the BBC certainly has done some coverage of it.

So, how many of their articles had BBC reporters on the ground in Palestine? None? because Israel wouldn't let them there?

You can't say your coverage isn't biased and it's because of Iranian censorship while Israel is open when Israel also censors stuff, when it makes them look bad. All he had to do is point out that fact instead of making the bias look even worse by using Israel as a positive example.

If you want to do a useful search, try how many bombed hospitals or medical facilities the BBC visited in Lebanon, which wasn't under censorship.

Edited Friday at 09:21 AM by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

...such an easy search that your third link isn't even about an attack on a hospital, but on an aid site where the victims got taken to hospital? Ho hum. For the sake of argument I'll assume that they actually were all relevant articles though, the BBC certainly has done some coverage of it.

So, how many of their articles had BBC reporters on the ground in Palestine? None? because Israel wouldn't let them there?

You can't say your coverage isn't biased and it's because of Iranian censorship while Israel is open when Israel also censors stuff, when it makes them look bad. All he had to do is point out that fact instead of making the bias look even worse by using Israel as a positive example.

If you want to do a useful search, try how many bombed hospitals or medical facilities  the BBC visited in Lebanon, which wasn't under censorship.

Thats fine, as long as you not suggesting that BBC doesnt cover Israel killing civilians or targeting civilian infrastructure then we agreement 

That was the impression you created when you said "  There's a pattern there about who's hospitals have value and who's don't"

[BruceVC]

Here is  a good analysis about the reasons behind Irans military failures and current situation 

The Russian military expert Ruslan Pukhov wrote a great article about Iran. Subtext of the article is about Russia.
Imitation of Power
Director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov on the Causes of the Crisis of Iranian Defense Policy

The first days of the Iran-Israel war clearly demonstrated the deep crisis of Iranian defense policy and building of defense. The reasons for this crisis are obvious and make the whole story very instructive. The basis of the crisis is the subordination of foreign and defense policy not to practical, but to chimerical ideocratic goals, for the implementation of which Iran does not have enough (and will never have enough) economic, military and technological resources. Instead of really promoting its influence (which it did not have), Iran was largely engaged in its imitation. Moreover, this imitation suited both the ruling elite of Iran, allowing it to sell this as a "great power" to the Iranian "deep people", and the numerous implementers of this policy in Iran, first of all, of course, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The IRGC, representing a typical oprichnina, naturally turned, in fact, into a semi-mafia organization interested in the constant expansion of its political and economic influence, in the development of the maximum amount of state resources.

As a result, the IRGC has effectively “privatized” Iran’s foreign and defense policy, and to a large extent “privatized” the Iranian state itself, subordinating its policy to the narrow and corporate interests of the IRGC’s top brass.

As a result, the example of Iran has become a clear example of how an attempt to portray and pursue a great power policy without the corresponding level of resources and development only leads to an imitation of a “great power”, to the construction of Potemkin villages in foreign policy, military construction, etc. This allows for some time to successfully bluff, intimidate, and trade influence (within the country and abroad), but this system falls apart as soon as someone seriously decides to test its strength. This is exactly what we are seeing.

In an effort to compete with the US-Israel coalition in the Middle East, Iran has invested colossal resources in allies and satellites in recent decades - primarily Shiite countries and movements (primarily the notorious “Axis of Resistance”). At times, such a policy seemed successful and felt like a serious challenge, but as soon as Israel seriously took on such key elements of the Axis as Hezbollah and Hamas, it quickly and successfully neutralized them. The Iranian intervention in Syria also ended in disaster. As a result, Iran's colossal expenditures on all sorts of proxies went down the drain and all Iranian "influence" was quickly nullified by the powers that be in a real clash.

In the military sphere, Iran was engaged in imitation of the construction of supposedly high-tech armed forces, while not having a sufficient level of technological and industrial development for this.

As a result, when real modern technologies (Western and Israeli) came to the battlefield, the Iranian armed forces suffered a fiasco. Well, yes, they hit Israel with missiles several times, but even Saddam Hussein could do that in 1991. The accumulation of a diverse arsenal of, as we can see, not the most sophisticated and not highly accurate ballistic missiles has become the main Iranian achievement, and this arsenal could not even remotely compete with the power of the modern Air Force. It is now clear that many Iranian weapons, even those that looked quite modern, were built on primitive and low-quality components, because Iran had nowhere to get modern ones from.

From the very beginning of the military conflict, Iran in many respects turned out to be an archaic "paper tiger".

This does not mean that it is doomed to complete defeat in a clash with Israel or even the United States - backward and archaic societies have demonstrated a high degree of resilience in such situations many times in history.

However, from the point of view of its long-term national interests, Iran needs a radical change in the guidelines of its foreign and defense policy, bringing this policy into line with its real interests, capabilities and resources. Among other things, an important element of this must apparently be a conscientious refusal to give up the suitcase without a handle in the form of the Iranian nuclear program. If this does not happen, Iran will be doomed to repeat catastrophes and further degradation. It is unclear whether the Iranian anachronistic regime will be able to undergo such a transformation. In fact, this is the main issue of both the current war and Iranian policy in general.

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/7801167 

 

[Zoraptor]

Poor analysis.

Iran is text book Regional Power. A list of even their attempts to capital I Influence the wider world outside the ME is negligible compared to any genuine Great Power, even borderline ones like India. Their influence is strictly limited to and targeted at Shia muslims. 

They've also precisely hit multiple targets that we know about. Israel's biggest refinery. Their premier science park. The HQ of Microsoft. We don't know about military hits because of the Military Censor.

Comparison to Saddam Hussein is ludicrous since he was 33 years ago now and far closer to Israel.