- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,002
- Reaction score
- 4,117
Someone made Ben an offer he couldn't refuse and Michigan polling must be very bad.
Thoughts on the middle east conflicts.
- Thread starter jderimig
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
There are too many possibilities. They might be pulling back to respond to a future Iranian attack.
30,000 troops were in south Gaza, Now they are virtually all gone while there are still many Hamas battalions in Gaza and ~130 hostages. There has to be sound reason(s). The Israeli right wing might consider this some kind of defeat.
Possibilities:
- It's the end of the beginning; the bombing and invasion resume shortly. This war is nowhere near the end.
- It's the beginning of the end; Israel is battening the hatches for rapid escalation regionally.
- Too many civilians are currently in Rafah and need to be moved elsewhere for the bombing to resume there.
- Tomorrow is the end of Ramadan and Israel is expecting a massive attack somewhere.
- Sensitive negotiations in Qatar require give on the Israeli side.
- US pressure has gotten through to Netanyahu.
- Domestic political and legal pressure has gotten through to Netanyahu.
- Killing is hard work; the troops urgently need rest.
- The troops are urgently needed on the Lebanon border.
- A ceasefire in Gaza would halt Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
- The current tenuous "ceasefire" between Iran-backed militia and US troops in Syria and Iraq may be jeopardized without a ceasefire in Gaza.
- Longshot: the U.N. resolution that passed last week de-linked the hostage release from a ceasefire and treated both as independent imperatives. This would be more effective in saving the lives of civilians in Gaza, saving the lives of U.S. troops by avoiding regional escalation, and saving the lives of the Israeli hostages.
just a PSA: please keep the discussion civil. This thread has already had a few posts pulled.
Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Politics, etc. subforum.
And wealthier, and more technologically sophisticated, and with a larger land area. The Afghan Taliban government feel very easily (and then we screwed up the aftermath). The Iraqi Bath party government fell very easily (and then we screwed up the aftermath). Don't expect Iran to go the same way.
Don't forget a lot of that land area is nastily mountainous.
A combination, I think. A temporary cease fire is an opportunity both to retrieve hostages and pay more than lip service to evacuating civilians. It is also an opportunity to regroup, "catch their breath" as it were, before starting the push into Rafah.
dr wogz
Fly caster
NTP2
Well-Known Member
The government falling, yes you are, the messing up the aftermath, no you’re not.
Ps or you are talking about not falling easily, in which case yes it would be Vietnam 2.
According to many reports, Rafah will indeed be assaulted at a date certain. IMHO, Rafah is currently "home" to thousands of women and children. And I've seen reports that the Israeli soldier's leaves are cancelled.
Iran has vowed vengeance (in kind?) for the attack upon its consulate in Damascus. Neil Cavuto reported less than 2 hours ago that Israel will respond to Iranian attack upon its territory with attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities. Biden was reported to be distressed. Haven't seen much confirmation, but this is not looking terribly well at the moment.
Update:
As I understand it, alternatives to immediate war between Israel and Iran have emerged in the last few hours.
#1: Consultations between Iran and the US have it that if the US can get Israel to stand down in Gaza, there will be no revenge attack.
#2: In lieu of a vengeance attack against Israel, Iran will simply shut down the Straits of Hormuz, thus depriving planet Earth of 20% of its oil and petroleum distillates. This has got to be the tree-huggers choice!
Last edited:
If Iran does that, it's war, and they know it.
A direct drone and missile attack from Iran on Israel has reportedly begun. We are on the precipice of something - we do not know what.
I don't think the leadership in Iran knows what kind of hell is going to come out of the Pandoras Box they have opened. Earlier tonight a news man was saying Iran has said this was a one off. Did they learn nothing by the Israeli response to the Hamas attack. This is how I see this playing out. If there isn't already Israeli submarines off the Iranian coast there soon will be. First the Israelis will send a swarm of cruise missiles to take out Iran's air defense. Then F35's and F15's come in from all directions. 5000 pound deep penetrators hit all the nuclear sites, underground bases and weapon storage sites. Every air base. Fixed missile sites. Command and control sites. The IRGC is going to get hit with a very big hammer. The submarines sink Iran's navy. And for good measure, good by Khrag Island and that's the end of Iranian oil exports. And then it gets real ugly because Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon. Syria and Iraq get involved. Jordan won't get involved, they may even help Israel. I don't think Egypt will either. Turkey is a wild card. I don't know what they might do. The Taliban might attack Iran too. I expect the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Mines is my guess. The Houthi will double down on attacks on shipping. I remember hearing a very very long time ago that Armageddon will start in the Middle East. Hold on tight, the ride is about to get bumpy.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,772
- Reaction score
- 1,462
Those are all possibilities but the likely course of action against Iran will be in the form of aerial attacks on key facilities. Pretty much as you describe in the early parts of your post. I doubt there will be serious attacks in the area (water) of the Persian Gulf as the area is too valuable to the world. It would be a "last ditch effort" by Iran to sabotage the region, not as an attack on Iran. The same is true for Kharg Island. If someone pops Kharg Island, it will definitely get Japan and China's attention. None of the other countries have the capacity to attack Israel in any meaningful way, and that includes "willingness". Turkey won't likely get involved (maybe way after the fact) in this matter other than to move on northern Syria and that is for other reasons.
The key is "government". Until Iran failed miserably in attacking Israel, there was no cogent government really involved in the skirmishes with Israel. Even the leftist media machines out there don't consider Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houties legitimate sovereign governments. That has a large bearing on how this will turn out.
My guess, and all this is my guess, is Iran will simmer down. A lot of the Iranian population is modernizing and moving or have moved away from Ayatollah government. Aerial attacks on key infrastructure will cause the Ayatollahs to start to fear their own people more and focus their attention more inward. This latest failed attack and all of the "L"s they've been taking will cause them to reconsider. There will be lots of blustery talk, aided by complicit media, but in the end, they just proved to themselves they are not strong enough militarily to take on the west. Besides, Israel doesn't have the same constraints the US does about providing some artificial sunshine to the Alborz Mountain region.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,488
- Reaction score
- 8,117
My slightly-more-cynical view is that the Damascus embassy attack was a wag the dog action by Netanyahu to take attention off of the World Central Kitchen debacle. Two weeks ago, that's what all that the news was about. Now it's all about a war with Iran and the US has declared itself foursquare behind Israel. I agree with @Bravo52 that it's likely to simmer down. On Israel's side because all that air defense is expensive, and on Iran's side because they didn't really accomplish anything in the mass attack. There's been a tit-for-tat and everyone can now go back to their regularly scheduled programming.
I remain of the view that neither Israel nor Iran want an actual war, but they both benefit from a low-simmer conflict. The IGRC has a pretty good gig going right now with a lot of money flowing in, and relatively few of them are at any immediate risk of getting killed. That changes entirely if there's an all-out war. Israel benefits because when there's a conflict with Iran, Israel is the good guy in comparison. Since we as a species are really terrible at handling shades of gray, that means that many of Israel's flaws get buffed out.
Not to mention, neither side really wants to find out if Iran has nukes and what the exact red line is where either side would use them.
Israel has nukes too.
From the '60s I think.
They don't advertise it.
But it's available.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
What sort yield does Israel and Iran’s nuclear weapons have, small fission or full on fusion? From what I’ve read is that it’s probably just small fission so it’s not as bad as it might seem.
Just my .02...they have been fighting since biblical times. So none of this is really "news" and is not likely to ever "end".
My bet is that Iran needed to respond to the attack in Damascus or look weak. So, they launch an attack that Israel's Iron Dome can likely blunt (but did so better than Iran likely expected). Next, Israel, who is already busy with Gaza, does nothing at all except to make a public condemnation and announce an intent to retaliate "at a date and time of our choosing."
NTP2
Well-Known Member
Yup this thread will be popular for the rest of time…
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,488
- Reaction score
- 8,117
I originally had written that neither side wanted to find out that the other had nukes, but then re-wrote it to account for Israel being known to have nukes.
Lets not forget the Persian emperor Darius who helped Isreal to rebuild the temple.
Islam appeared around 610AD, after biblical times. I think the fighting between Christians, Jews and Muslims really started around the time of the Crusades. Before that the religions 'of the Book' had tolerably good relations most of the time.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,772
- Reaction score
- 1,462
I wouldn't trust what you read regarding Israel's capabilities...
NTP2
Well-Known Member
That’s why I asked, it’s not unlikely that we gave them some of our stuff (I mean it’s not like we have a shortage).
NTP2
Well-Known Member
I think we need to call in the expert, paging @Antares JS
Correct, except for a few. Like that time that Nebuchadnezzar decided to take Israel down. Ironically by prophecy from the hand writing on the wall of the King; the Medes and Persians took over Babylon from Nebuchadnezzar's son who was then king.
"That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two."
You can read more of that book if you chose and see he did help rebuild.
It may have been Cyrus , as said in chapter 6
"Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian."
Last edited:
Similar threads
