Israel hits Iran. What next?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Israel struck Iran overnight killing several senior military leaders and nuclear scientists - and presumably other people living close by - damaging uranium facilities and declaring a state of emergency to counter an expected Iranian response.
The US denies involvement.
The situation could easily escalate and spiral out of control. Retaliatory strikes on Israel. Attacks on US bases in Iraq.
We need diplomacy urgently.
And if you are one who prays, pray, pray, pray ...
What do Shipmates expect will happen next? Can things be de-escalated?
The US denies involvement.
The situation could easily escalate and spiral out of control. Retaliatory strikes on Israel. Attacks on US bases in Iraq.
We need diplomacy urgently.
And if you are one who prays, pray, pray, pray ...
What do Shipmates expect will happen next? Can things be de-escalated?
Comments
One of the people targeted had been leading the nuclear talks, I think the assumption that diplomacy is being sought is mistaken.
Israel has been taught in Palestine that it does not need diplomacy if it has carte blanche from the US, even more so if reaction from other allies is limited to bleats of "we'd rather you didn't".
The Guardian reports:
As has been reported widely, some of the cabinet ministers in Israel want to depopulate Gaza. That's not the policy of the government of Israel as far as I know, but they're not exactly saying anything much against it or acting in the opposite way.
Israel has a "iron dome" security system. If Iran send missiles towards Tel Aviv, the chances are that they will do minimal damage. But if they (Iran) were to send a cloud of them some will miss. And as far as I know the iron dome won't protect Gaza.
Anyway, if the bedraggled Gazans finally flee into Sinai, they're never going to go back. Having Iran being the aggressor who finally caused this migration of misery would suit the purposes of the worst people in the Israeli government.
Similarly perhaps with other Iranian proxies, although their weapons are even less accurate.
On what basis? Makes more sense that their object is what they say - destroy Iran's nuclear capability. @chrisstiles talks about the US giving Israel carte blanche, but the reality is that US policy is not that clear right now. It's more that the Trump administration is fairly isolationist and also has little negotiating prowess, having already pulled out of an agreement with Iran the first time Trump was president.
That was @Arethosemyfeet rather than me; but it didn't need particularly fancy footwork to send a message that this wasn't something acceptable to the administration.
I think Trump is an old man who is only interested in Trump. So understanding his actions are as simple as seeing what would make him look good. He's interested in "winning" which means being on the "winning side" in a conflict.
He's ambivalent about Ukraine because Russia is (in his mind if not reality) the stronger party that is winning the war.
Other conflicts only interest him as far as they can be resolved under pressure from him, so he can come out of it believing he solved the problem.
So what would make him look good in a military conflict between Israel and Iran? Nothing. There's nothing to be gained there whatsoever.
What he has or hasn't said to Israel in the recent past is irrelevant because he only lives in this present moment. The Israelis might believe that a phonecall yesterday gave them a greenlight but that means nothing when Trump denies that it ever happened because (for whatever reason) he doesn't think it would play well on Fox.
If there is a God or god somewhere who is interested, and who answers prayer, maybe this would be a good time to demonstrate that interest.
However, a discussion on the efficacy or otherwise of intercessory prayer is for another thread, I think.
Absolutely this.
Who is assuming that diplomacy is being sought?
I said that we need it.
Which is rather different.
I'm not sure Iranian dissidents nor journalists currently imprisoned by the regime or writers and artists currently in exile would consider their government 'relatively moderate.'
I no more like the idea of Tehran with nukes than Netanyahu with them or Putin or Trump or ...
Okay, so regime change it is, is it ?
Only to then have his boss talk as if the US was fully behind it. Quotes like: and and I notice that the line that Rubio tried to present has basically been dropped out of most of the media coverage now. Because Trump's reckless tough-guy talk has buried it. I don't have any sympathy for Rubio, but I recognize it is tough to be "America's Top Diplomat" when you have a President like Trump undermining all attempts at diplomacy.
The last time the Iranians launched a mass attack on Israel, the US and a number of its allies set up a defensive shield which knocked down most of the missiles and drones launched by Iran even before the Iron Dome was activated. I bet they will come to Israels aid again.
It would take a coherent position on the Middle East, and the Trump administration doesn't have one. Apologies for the misattribution.
I said exactly this in a conversation late last night. Spot on.
That thought also occurred to me.
I guess they probably have enough on their plate right now, though.
Where did I say that?
According to Channel 4 News Iranian dissidents are hoping for that as an outcome.
As they would, of course.
All I'm saying is that the Iranian regime isn't squeaky clean. Neither is the Netanyahu regime.
You will notice I mentioned Putin and Trump. I'd like to see regime change with both of them.
I felt Alan's meaning was relatively obvious and didn't really require the ritual disclaimer. Namely that they aren't North Korea, and that they have - at least in the past - been amenable to agreements with the US for inspection regimes in return for sanctions.
Technically yes, I think, but I suspect NATO assistance would be things like allowing US forces to cross their territory or use their bases. I doubt the US would want to launch a ground war.
Apparently according to CNN they were aimed at the headquarters of Mossad.
Actual US territory in North America? Yes. On US forces outside Europe, North America or the Med? No. Does Hawaii count as North America for these purposes? Answers on a postcard.
The scope of Article 5 is, at least in theory, bounded by the geographic limits outlined in Article 6: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
ISTM the default answer would be 'No'.
So each nation can render whatever assistance it feels is necessary up to and including military assistance.
Meaning - America can send thoughts and prayers to the Baltics if it feels like it.
It's by no means a blanket or compulsory call to arms, more like a strongly recommended suggestion.
Who knew?
AFF
*waves* I did. But then all international treaties are only as good as the willingness of the parties to implement them. NATO has always been about deterrence, about giving the impression that if *someone* tried to roll into W Germany it wouldn't just be the Bundeswehr they'd meet but the whole of NATO. This is why Trump's equivocations about NATO matter, because there is nothing in the treaty to force any particular level of support and it's wholly on the leaders in power in the member states to keep it believable. It's a bit like fiat currency in that sense - it's worth something only because people believe it is.
Trump has apparently told residents of Tehran to leave and has also been loudly denying reports from the French government that he left the G7 meeting to broker a ceasefire. I think I heard a reporter say that Trump said he had more important things to be doing, but I don't know if that was referring to the G7 meeting or brokering for peace.
Elsewhere I have read that the Iranians are already broken and are seeking Arab partners who can help stabilise the situation. I'm not sure this would or could work because the influential Arab countries tend not to be particular fans of the Iranians.
So it looks like Israel has the upper hand in terms of the bombardment of Iran.
Personally at this moment I doubt that they would attack American bases or assets. It seems hard to guess whether the Americans, British and Europeans would get sucked into a wider conflict. Maybe not as the MAGA loyalists probably wouldn't stand for it.
What it says to me is that the BBC reporter doesn’t know the difference between Arabic and Persian, or hasn’t had their first coffee of the day.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-857933
My guess is that MAGA loyalists are really Trump loyalists. If Trump decides that regime change in Iran is what he wants, then MAGA voters will back him on that no matter how inconsistent with their previous position that might seem.
Americans are moving aircraft carriers into the region and it's not looking like anybody is going to be standing down anytime soon.
Iran is a gigantic country with 90 million people, close to a million in the army and reserves, and widespread infrastructure. It's like Ukraine - built to sustain a prolonged attritional conflict. Israel, on the other hand, is a densely compacted population and is much less suited to sustaining large amounts of damage over time.
This is not looking good, y'all. I'm praying hard for some kind of sense to prevail. Here's DJT telling his chief of intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard to take a hike, her information regarding Iran's compliance with IAEA isn't worth a hill of beans, and running to pour oil on the fire Israel started. There are not many off-ramps here.
God help us all.
AFF
He doesn't. He just wants an excuse for when they get killed. It's what Israel does all the time.
The result of this is that if/when Tehran is flattened with the likely resulting high loss of life Trump can say "well I told you to evacuate didn't I?"
It seems like this is another part of his warped personality. If he thinks something is going wrong, he preemptively disowns it. If he thinks something is going right, he owns it even if it is nothing to do with him. He has a lot of faith in the power of his words. He contradicts world leaders in public, presumably on the basis that he thinks it boosts his powers if he ridicules others.
I suspect he genuinely doesn't know what he wants at this point, it's in the constant changes in tone, the sullen trudging around etc.
Which is cold comfort for the rest of us, especially those in Gaza, Ukraine etc. etc. etc.
Yes. Netanyahu's playbook.
Which is a dangerous moment because there isn't really anywhere for the Iranians to go. If they surrender they obviously look really weak. And they really don't want to look weak.
Oh boy. If Trump thinks that dealing with the Ayatollah is problematic, there is an entire echelon of mullahs below him who are much more eager for a fight than he is.
Israel and America want to install a regime that will cancel all agreements with Russia and China and give them central authority over the region. This isn't about nukes, it's about Iran's pivotal position at the heart of Russia and China's new bypasses of the west's trade routes. It's about cutting BRICS in half and neutering it.
Thirty years ago Iran might have been like Iraq. Iran has powerful new local friends and other friends who have a vested interest in the coming new world trade alliances.
AFF
I think the president of Israel is, in a sick way, very skilled at playing a truly horrifying game, up there with Joseph Stalin. I think it's the kind of game Donald Trump fancies that he's good at, but he really isn't. And I think a lot of us are going to suffer for their combined "competence."
I also feel a lot for Iran because they're stuck between a contemptible anti-colonialist dictatorship and a contemptible colonialist power and as far as I can tell all of the options suck, which I think is a recipe for nihilistic terrorism and - perhaps justified - politically motivated hate.
Even as someone who believes in grace, and I can understand why some white people really deeply believing race out of self interest - because we are all absolutely damned by association otherwise - I struggle with how you can take that kind of abuse and not act on it.
"I want to see my Lord tear a hole in the skies."
Being a Christian in these times gives me some uniquely unpleasant feelings.