There's talk that this attack by Iran, they wanted to be seen as retaliating, but it was meant to fail. Essentially it was symbolic. The only casualties were people banging their heads on their way into shelters, panic attacks, and in one case a girl injured by shrapnel from an Iron Dome projectile.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2023 Israeli-Gazan War
Collapse
X
-
They retaliated as their El Supremo leader said they would! That the sheer lack of damage and injuries would tend to bear out that it was meant to fail!
I guess the big question is going to be if Israel will play along????
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Amled View PostThey retaliated as their El Supremo leader said they would! That the sheer lack of damage and injuries would tend to bear out that it was meant to fail!
I guess the big question is going to be if Israel will play along????
Out of interest though you have to wonder what if anything the current state of tension between Israel and Iran is going to do to it's ongoing supply of drones to Russia?If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Shouldn’t the US and allies have some more political standing considering the US, UK, France, Jordan all shot down a hefty amount of these drones and missiles? If they weren’t there, how many more would have gotten through?
OTOH, would anyone be surprised if the Israelis use a response to finally get their hands on parts of the Iranian nuclear program?
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostThere's talk that this attack by Iran, they wanted to be seen as retaliating, but it was meant to fail. Essentially it was symbolic. The only casualties were people banging their heads on their way into shelters, panic attacks, and in one case a girl injured by shrapnel from an Iron Dome projectile.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
If it was "meant to fail" they could have launched 30 drones and missiles instead of over 300 and lied to their own people about how many there were. Why waste so many?
But a deliberate attack? Failure to respond to a deliberate attack by an overtly hostile nation would have made the Iranians appear weak, especially at home where support for the regime is marginal - at best. But the Iranians also had to calibrate their response carefully because they do not want open war to erupt with Israel. (Netanyahu might but that's another story.) This is because a damaging Israeli counterstrike would probably see the regime fall given unofficial surveys have repeatedly shown that the Iranian populous in general, especially younger Iranians have almost zero interest in the pursuing hostilities with Israel. If it was up to them? They'd sign some kind of accord normalizing relations in heart beat.
So, given the above starting conditions i.e. a pressing need to show 'strength' vs an extreme reluctance to risk open war? Basically they 'Goldilocksed' the problem. If they went in too 'hot' and launched thousands of drones and missiles in a full scale assault? They risked their own destruction. If they went in 'cold' and just launched a dozen or so drones and missiles? It would look just like what it was i.e. a weak attack for 'show'. This is because the worlds governments (and the media) all know that Iran could have launched a much stronger attack if it really wanted to. So instead they went in with what they hoped was the 'just right' approach. And launched just enough weapons (300 or so) to force the Israelis into making serious efforts to stop the attack but with the likelihood that in reality very few drones would actually make it through. Given how little damage was done? They guesstimated right (this time). Next time?Last edited by Monash; 16 Apr 24,, 08:47.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
I have seen some reports on Twitter that Israel received tracking data on the inbound missile streams from Saudi & UAE. I think everyone in the region sees an all out war between Israel & Iran as a no win for all. And this includes going after their nuclear program kinetically.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
- 1 like
Comment
-
I find this an interesting higher-level discussion on this war as far as Biden interaction than we normally get:
David Frum, The Atlantic
Biden making the same error w/r/t Israel that he previously made with Ukraine: trying to micro-manage from a distance somebody else's defensive war by limiting categories of weapons. This error doesn't limit war. This error prolongs war, by denying the ally the means of success.
A quick word on this. And I say this as someone who has been very critical of Biden for months. But this thread is sort of a funhouse-mirror reality in which Biden has been too restrictive of Israel rather than too indulgent of what has become an aimless war.
Biden hasn't "micro-managed" the war. He gave Israel carte blanche for months of ruinous fighting. Even when it came to Rafah, his position was that America would support an offensive if Israel came up with a plan to evacuate civilians. Which Israel, for months, did not do.David Frum, The Atlantic
I often think the Biden foreign policy would produce more success if its architects were less clever. "Give the Ukrainians/Israelis enough that they don't lose, but not enough to win" is an idea to baffle all lesser minds.
The micro-management of Israel's war is one part of a much bigger scheme: an Arab force to police Gaza, reform of the Palestinian Authority, a Saudi-US defense agreement, etc. etc.
Less clever people would have arrived at a simpler plan: fight Hamas until it's beaten.
Where David Frum is correct is the idea that many of Biden's post-war plans for Gaza were too clever by half. Any observer of the region could have told you they were unlikely to ever come to fruition (many of us have been doing that since October).
But this isn't a binary choice between Biden's fanciful plans and "let Israel fight until victory". Look at the past few months. Israel finds itself going back, over and over, to fight Hamas in areas of northern Gaza it had already conquered (it's doing so again this week).
Why is that? Because Israel withdrew most of its troops without any plan for post-war stabilization and governance. It left a power vacuum Hamas is inevitably trying to fill. Military force without political strategy doesn't mean lasting victory. It means endless whack-a-mole.
Yes, Biden is pursuing unrealistic ideas for post-war Gaza. But Israel isn't pursuing anything at all. Ask almost anyone in the Israeli military, and they will tell you the war has been adrift for months now because Israeli politicians refuse to even talk about what comes next.
If Biden had wanted to "micro-manage" the war, he would have understood months ago—as many analysts did—that the war would not achieve either of its stated objectives so long as Netanyahu refused to contemplate the day after. The logical conclusion from that analysis would be to restrain Israel. But he didn't do that. He indulged months of aimless fighting and expended huge amounts of time and energy trying to ameliorate Israel's own lack of strategic vision. You can call that many things, but "micro-managing" isn't one of them.
Biden will seek re-election in November on a foreign policy record that includes the fiasco of the Afghanistan exit, inconclusive wars in Europe and Middle East, no new trade agreements. He needed one clear success. Israel's war could have been it. But no. Too simple.
Comment
Comment