Middle East Defence & Security

[Big_Zucchini]

US marines land on Israeli beaches for 3 week long exercises:

U.S. Marines 'Storm' Israeli Beaches As Part Of A Major Exercise

The three-week-long exercise highlights ever more public ties between U.S. and Israeli forces in the face of regional threats, especially from Iran.

www.thedrive.com

The WarZone, as always, putting out great material. I highly recommend to read the article directly, and yet, a TLDR:

• Iran said talks will be delayed until the end of November, when some believe a point of no return in nuclear material quantity will be reached (assuming 0 interruptions).
• This statement led to rising tensions including a rush to develop a credible 'plan B'.
• This unprecedented exercise comes amidst debates between Israel and US (and European allies) on how to deal with Iran.
• Yet the exercise is largely due to Israel's shift from EUCOM to CENTCOM, a more natural mix where Israel and the US have a higher potential for cooperation.

Personal note - although often conflated with a conventional war, such 'plan B' operations are seen within the local mil community as a skirmish with risk of subsequent limited proxy warfare. Therefore much of the 3 week long exercise is likely irrelevant to Iran.
Israel itself possesses the means to go at it alone, but an American assistance through unique technologies would greatly de-risk it.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Poll: Almost half of Jewish Israelis support making IDF a professional army.

Poll: Almost half of Jewish Israelis support making IDF a professional army

New biennial survey by Israel Democracy Institute also finds military generally considered to be ethical, good at its job, bad with its money and middling at gender equality

www.timesofisrael.com

Yeah, this is still a poll. And yet, this is a major step forward. The public debate around making the IDF a professional army is ramping up and shows solid support. The trend is natural growth in support due to the IDF's policy of providing soldiers with 'subsistence' payments, rather than a salary. That is, if the minimum wage is 5,300 NIS or 1,700 USD, a soldier gets 830 NIS or 267 USD.
This is supported by 2 trends:
1. Israel is already established as one of the most expensive countries to live in, and it's not slowing down. Average income is severely lagging behind. Parents are increasingly subsidizing their children's service. Many soldiers will spend 25% of their pay on food alone, per week.
2. Draft dodging is only increasing in percentage. At the moment, only roughly 50% enlist, the rest are either exempt since birth or find legal loopholes to dodge.

I'm not saying this government or the next may implement it, but perhaps by the middle of the next decade we could see something very close to having a professional army. This does not have to happen in one sweeping motion.

There is current debate about increasing minimum wage by 15%, but servicemen salaries by 50%, so with a few consecutive measures like this the gap could start to close.

 

[John Fedup]

Poll: Almost half of Jewish Israelis support making IDF a professional army.

Poll: Almost half of Jewish Israelis support making IDF a professional army

New biennial survey by Israel Democracy Institute also finds military generally considered to be ethical, good at its job, bad with its money and middling at gender equality

www.timesofisrael.com

Yeah, this is still a poll. And yet, this is a major step forward. The public debate around making the IDF a professional army is ramping up and shows solid support. The trend is natural growth in support due to the IDF's policy of providing soldiers with 'subsistence' payments, rather than a salary. That is, if the minimum wage is 5,300 NIS or 1,700 USD, a soldier gets 830 NIS or 267 USD.
This is supported by 2 trends:
1. Israel is already established as one of the most expensive countries to live in, and it's not slowing down. Average income is severely lagging behind. Parents are increasingly subsidizing their children's service. Many soldiers will spend 25% of their pay on food alone, per week.
2. Draft dodging is only increasing in percentage. At the moment, only roughly 50% enlist, the rest are either exempt since birth or find legal loopholes to dodge.

I'm not saying this government or the next may implement it, but perhaps by the middle of the next decade we could see something very close to having a professional army. This does not have to happen in one sweeping motion.

There is current debate about increasing minimum wage by 15%, but servicemen salaries by 50%, so with a few consecutive measures like this the gap could start to close.

Average incomes in many countries are lagging behind. In Canada, the price of a detached house rose 18% over the last 12 months. Inflation is really starting to bite into fuel and food here. Rest assured military salaries in Canada are not keeping pace (except at the brass hat level).

 

[STURM]

It's way too early to even consider a rapprochement given the decades of accumalated rivalry and distrust but the fact that the Gulf Arab states and Iran are actively engaged in open dialogue is good for the region. Naturally there will be countries both within and outside the region who do not want to see a warming of relations because it suits their national interests, just as there will be elements within the Gulf Arab states and Iran who desire continued tensions.

The decades long policy of the Arab Gulf states to weaken and isolate Iran, with the full backing of the West, has been a failure. For Iran it has nothing to lose given the position it's in.

"The security chief also emphasised that countries in the region should not be affected by external influence and meddling, and must work to end military and security crises through dialogue and not military action."

UAE’s top security official visits Iran to develop ‘warm ties’

Meeting comes after Saudi Arabia also held direct talks with Iran in an effort to resolve differences.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The decades long policy of the Arab Gulf states to weaken and isolate Iran, with the full backing of the West, has been a failure. For Iran it has nothing to lose given the position it's in.

I disagree. Iran has great economical potential due to its access to natural resources. It is also unparalleled in the region in the aggressiveness of its policies, and nearly unparalleled in determination.
Sanctions have crippled its economy, and so in turn have tremendously limited Iran's potential.
The Arab League are politically and militarily incompetent. They do not seem to be able to act in any way against Iran's nuclear program or its military campaign in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, or Lebanon. They are botched down in Yemen and seem to make no progress.

Had Iran had access to more money and technologies, I'm afraid the situation would be far worse. And any talks would be closer to surrender negotiations than anything else.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program is ramping up in Israel and the US. Early this year the IDF chief announced new plans are being drawn up for a last resort strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and assets. But starting last week, this topic has been constantly in the top news in Israel, and got more attention from the US as well.
Now there are talks of joint drills, and an IDF drill in this spring, reportedly a very long distance into the mediterrannean to simulate operations at long range.

The talks in Vienna have basically stalled, with British, German, and French diplomats saying Iran's terms are "un-serious". This comes after Iran has decided to delay the restarting of the talks until the end of November, and in that time has made even more progress on a nuke.
Source:

Western negotiators tell Iran new nuclear proposals are "not serious"

A diplomat said Iran's draft on sanctions relief was extreme and maximalist.

www.axios.com

A few days ago there were some reports of a third sabotage at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, but the reports are conflicting and it seems they did not get nearly as much attention as the previous two attacks. It is, in my opinion, not a sabotage as the reports talk about an explosion heard several kilometers from Natanz, up in the sky. But the Iranians are trying to cover up something here. It could potentially be an Israeli or American test of Iran's air defense gaps and capabilities. But that's a speculation.

Is third sabotage the charm at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility? - analysis

Was Iran's Natanz nuclear facility just attacked for the third time in two years?

www.jpost.com

Israel and US are discussing military drills to prepare for a strike on Iran. Here's to hoping it's not just talk, because regardless of whether it's military force or diplomacy, this is a topic in which the western world must make gains at a faster rate than Iran, and ultimately prevent it from ever having a nuke. So it has to happen at some point.

Israel, US to discuss military drills to prep for worst-case Iran scenario, US says

As Gantz heads to Washington and negotiations falter in Vienna, American official tells Reuters that military chiefs will talk exercises for possible attack on Iran nuke facilities

www.timesofisrael.com

Israel to launch a drill this spring simulating long distance operations, over the mediterrannean. It is not yet clear whether this is an IDF-only drill, or will this involve the US. Furthermore, at the distance discussed (1,000km) is Italy, which may have some role in this drill. It could, for example, open its airspace for IAF aircraft to train navigation through its terrain.

Israel to launch major exercise this spring simulating strike on Iran

Dozens of planes to participate in the drill, which is due to take place over the Mediterranean

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[STURM]

I disagree. Iran has great economical potential due to its access to natural resources. It is also unparalleled in the region in the aggressiveness of its policies, and nearly unparalleled in determination.
Sanctions have crippled its economy, and so in turn have tremendously limited Iran's potential.

So what is it you disagree about? The fact that the Gulf Arabs are openly acknowledging talks and the fact that both sides are even willing to is a good sign for the region. If Iran/Gulf Arab ties can improve by just a bit; this will be a great framework for future talks and would go a long way to easing tensions in the region. It's a good start. As you're aware the Palestinian/Israeli issue aren't the only source of tension in the region but also the longstanding Shia/Sunni rivalry spanning centuries; Iran on one side with Syria it's only Arab ally [dating back to the 1980's when Syria was the only Arab country which supported Iran during its war with Iraq] and the Sunni Gulf States on the other side.

For Iran it has nothing to lose but all to gain by engaging in talks with the Gulf Arabs and vice versa....

The Arab League are politically and militarily incompetent. They do not seem to be able to act in any way against Iran's nuclear program

It has long been bogged down with inter state rivalry/competition and politics. It issues declarations which are worth nothing and has emergency summits which achieve nothing. Arab unity is a myth; the last the probably came close to it was during the Crusades and even then there was intense rivalry between them. If the Arabs were indeed united and the Arab League was a competent organisation; this would cause issues for certain other countries but this obviously isn't the case.

Even in the Ramadan/Yom Kippur war there was no actual unity. Both Syria and Egypt agreed to go to war and coordinate their actions but neglected to inform each other of their true aims. Sadat went to war believing that he had to regain the Sinai and cause Israel casualties before engaging in peace talks; whilst Assad believed that peace would never be achieved and that the Golan would have to be taken by force. Then we had the situation in Lebanon in the 1970's and 1980's where various Arab states had their own proxies and were fueling the war; to the detriment of ordinary Lebanese. Closer to the present had it not been for the U.S, military presence in Qatar; it probably would have been invaded by its fellow Arabs. This was a major cause of concern for the Qatari leadership.

its military campaign in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, or Lebanon.

What would you expect the Arab League do? When Saudi sent troops across the causeway into Bahrain to suppress Shia demonstrations; the Arab League also did nothing : no surprises there.

Also; sure Iran is actively engaged in Yemen but it was an invasion started by certain Gulf Arab states which failed miserably and has led to the death and destruction of many innocent civilians. There is no black and white when it comes to the Middle East as all the players indulge in hypocrisy and have blood on their hands but like it or not Iran is safeguarding its interests as part of the wider campaign or Cold War against the Sunni Gulf Arabs who started the war in the very first place. As for Iraq; Iran is an immediate neighbour and shares centuries of links to the Shia majority country. Would be unrealistic to suggest that Iran not be involved there or that the Arab League would even be in a position to limit Iranian influence there.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

So what is it you disagree about? The fact that the Gulf Arabs are openly acknowledging talks and the fact that both sides are even willing to is a good sign for the region. If Iran/Gulf Arab ties can improve by just a bit; this will be a great framework for future talks and would go a long way to easing tensions in the region. It's a good start. As you're aware the Palestinian/Israeli issue aren't the only source of tension in the region but also the longstanding Shia/Sunni rivalry spanning centuries; Iran on one side with Syria it's only Arab ally [dating back to the 1980's when Syria was the only Arab country which supported Iran during its war with Iraq] and the Sunni Gulf States on the other side.

For Iran it has nothing to lose but all to gain by engaging in talks with the Gulf Arabs and vice versa....

I am skeptical. Not because Iran-Arab talks may yield no results, but because such talks for the sake of improving relations are nearly impossible. Two countries at war cannot make peace if their respective national interests are so conflicting. Iran has the upper hand. It has proxies now in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and practically has Saudi Arabia surrounded. Saudis on the other hand have not gained anything strategically in that time. The economical disparity is at least somewhat offset by much greater military efficiency of Iran. Therefore Iran has no reason to suddenly make a shift in policy, away from expansion of its revolution across the MENA region.

This has me worried because the Saudis may trade temporary quiet on Iran's side, for a more submissive approach to Iran. Iranian missiles fired by Houthis are putting a strain on Saudi Arabia, as it now struggles to restock its air defenses with new munitions, and Iran is also undeterred from attacking Saudi economical sites, whereas Saudi Arabia is deterred from retaliating similarly.

If it means the Saudis will surrender in Yemen, then as an Israeli it worries me because this year Yemen became yet another frontline for us, from which Iranian missiles can be fired, and to which Iranian strategic infrastructure and assets can be relocated for greater survivability.
If it means Saudi Arabia will refrain from taking any action against the Iranian nuclear program, then it shows me they are an expendable ally at best, as they would disappoint when it matters. They are a major disappointment as allies as-is.

What would you expect the Arab League do? When Saudi sent troops across the causeway into Bahrain to suppress Shia demonstrations; the Arab League also did nothing : no surprises there.

Also; sure Iran is actively engaged in Yemen but it was an invasion started by certain Gulf Arab states which failed miserably and has led to the death and destruction of many innocent civilians. There is no black and white when it comes to the Middle East as all the players indulge in hypocrisy and have blood on their hands but like it or not Iran is safeguarding its interests as part of the wider campaign or Cold War against the Sunni Gulf Arabs who started the war in the very first place. As for Iraq; Iran is an immediate neighbour and shares centuries of links to the Shia majority country. Would be unrealistic to suggest that Iran not be involved there or that the Arab League would even be in a position to limit Iranian influence there.

I expect them to show some competence. Not even union, just military competence for a start. If they want, say, to topple Assad - do it. If they want him in power - help him. But whatever the heck they choose, I want them to actually follow it through. Iran's nuclear program is currently the number one foreign policy issue for Israel. Its regional expansion is second. Everything else is kinda far back. If they can't contribute, then we're wasting energy pursuing anything beyond economical ties.

 

[STURM]

I am skeptical. Not because Iran-Arab talks may yield no results, but because such talks for the sake of improving relations are nearly impossible.

Well certain countries may be hoping they lead nowhere but it's a good start and nobody is under any illusions that quick positive results will be gained. It's certainly better than staying the present course which is highly destructive and benefits neither Iran nor the Gulf Arabs.

If it means Saudi Arabia will refrain from taking any action against the Iranian nuclear program, then it shows me they are an expendable ally

First of all Saudi is not an ''ally'', Yes it may have had back door dealings with Israel and may cooperate with Israel over Iran but it's not an ''ally''. Secondly with regards to ''expendable allies'' it's unfortunately part and parcel of the game. Israel also has experiences with groups or entities which were ''allies'' or ''partners'' for a certain period but weren't the next.

I expect them to show some competence. Not even union, just military competence for a start.

The Arab League is a political/economic bloc. Even if it was a military bloc how could it show competence when there is unity to begin with; let alone a common approach to military affairs? As you're well aware the reason Gulf Arab states invest so much in defence is not is not only because of Iran and because it draws them closer to Uncle Sam and Europe but also as insurance against each other. At one Arab League summit; Gadaffi lambasted the Gulf Arabs; saying they were only interested in making money and scheming against each other : to a very large extent he was right.

Iran's nuclear program is currently the number one foreign policy issue for Israel. Its regional expansion is second

For Israel the Iranian nuke programme is a source of No.1 concern. For the rest of the region however the Sunni/Shia Cold War being waged by the oll rich Gulf Arabs with near unconditional support from the West against Iran is also source of major tension and very destabilising. As for Iranian ''regional expansion''; I don't see it that way. I see it as Iran taking all the necessary steps it feels it needs to safeguard it's core interests; similar to what other countries do.

The fact that certain Gulf Arab states - despite all the rhetoric and sabre rattling - are willing to even engage in open talks with Iran whom like Uncle Sam they lay the blame for almost everything which has gone wrong in the region; is highly telling.

I want them to actually follow it through

Well the U.S. tried to follow through. It fell in with the Gulf Arab line that Assad had to go [he was Iran's only ally] and it supported ''moderates'' who as it turned out weren't 'moderate'' at all. In the end Assad stayed in power; thanks to not inconsiderable help from Russia and Iran. It's often overlooked but way before the U/S. and other countries got actively involved; Iran had ''boots on the ground'' [a cliche I actually dislike] in Iraq and played a major role in first stemming the the tide of IS and later defeating it. No I'm not pro Iranian; nor am I pro American, Israeli or Saudi for that matter. I just say it as it is.

If they can't contribute

Contribute to whom and in what manner exactly? Yes they may share common concerns with Israel but not all of their geo political concerns are in line with Israel's. Also; it isn't only Israel's security issues or its problems that have consequences for the Middle East and the world at large.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Report came in yesterday that a Hamas mosque weapons cache has blown up in Lebanon due to a fire:

Hamas source says weapons cache that exploded in southern Lebanon was ‘for defense’

Source from terror group confirms to Lebanese outlet that explosion was caused by fire; arms depot in mosque detonated after fireball engulfed building in refugee camp

www.timesofisrael.com

This caught me off guard a bit. I knew Hamas had some presence in Syria and Egypt, but didn't think they had in Lebanon.
Will be interesting to see what comes of it.

 

[STURM]

Hamas in Lebanon? Indeed surprsing but I didn't even know they were in Syria. As for Egypt I believe it was there when the Muslim Brotherhood was in power.

 

[ngatimozart]

So was the fire in the tanker accidental or arson? I would think that there would be more than one entity who would not be happy about Hamas having a presence in Southern Lebanon. Besides the obvious one, Israel, are the Christian militias still active? I think that some of them are Maronites aren't they? Would they have a beef with Hamas?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

So was the fire in the tanker accidental or arson? I would think that there would be more than one entity who would not be happy about Hamas having a presence in Southern Lebanon. Besides the obvious one, Israel, are the Christian militias still active? I think that some of them are Maronites aren't they? Would they have a beef with Hamas?

The incident does not bear any signs of intentional action.
And the internal Lebanese conflicts are beyond sectarian.

 

[STURM]

Sectarianism by nature tends to be driven my mutual distrust, competition and hatred, we've seen this the former Yugoslavia, Africa and other places. How in your view is it different in Lebanon? How exactly have things gone beyond sectarianism?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Much of today's internal conflicts are government-related, and people are finding their differences there. Easier to unite under crises.
Hezbollah is suffering from an unprecedented lack of popularity due to their assumed role in the beirut blast, and their attacks inside Beirut, not so much because of their religion.

 

[STURM]

Much of today's internal conflicts are government-related, and people are finding their differences there. Easier to unite under crises.
Hezbollah is suffering from an unprecedented lack of popularity due to their assumed role in the beirut blast, and their attacks inside Beirut, not so much because of their religion.

When you refer to sectarianism are you reffering to Hezbollah specificlly? Unless I'm very mistaken the deep rootrd sectarianism which exists in Lebanon involves various groups and is not confined or mainly because of Hezbollah. It was there when the French sliced it off Syria and created a country and it was there in the 1970's when the civil war erupted at a time when Hezbollah did not even exist.

Like it it not Hezbollah is a organisation which is well established in Lebanon and has widespread and deeprooted support amongst the Shia population. Are you suggesting that support for Hezbollah is slipping? I'm in no way an expert but as a long time Middle East observer I can tell you that news about Hezbollah losing popularity has been making the news since the 1990's.

not so much because of their religion
of their religion

Why would it be over religon? It's an accepted fact by Lebanese that Muslims make up a sizeable portion of the population and a sizeable number are Shias. Compared to the 1970's and 1980's I would argue that religion is much less of an issue now.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In the context of a strike in Iran, some of Israel's strategic assets are its aerial tankers and cargo helicopters. Both are very old, and the latter has been frequently grounded.
Due to the US's interest in continued diplomacy, and Israel's action-driven strategy, a natural clash has occurred and the US uses it now to block Israeli calls for accelerated tanker deliveries. It also appears to reject Israeli requests for the US to provide Israel with refueling services.

Amid Iran concerns, US won't help Israel speed up tanker buy: Sources - Breaking Defense

"The US effort to cool off the Israeli intention to act is portrayed by small delays and longer evaluation of Israeli requests," one Israeli defense source told Breaking Defense

breakingdefense.com

A report also came up saying Biden admin has recently given equal time in meetings with Israeli official to settler violence and Iran's nuclear program. This baffled Israeli diplomats as settler violence is an internal law enforcement issue, and oddly specific in the vast array of topics regarding Israel-Palestine relations, and Iran is a strategic topic of value internationally.

‘Obsessed’ Biden administration put settlements on par with Iran nukes

Blinken insisted on the devotion of equal time to Iran and settlements in his meeting with Gantz.

m.jpost.com

The report cites officialls calling Biden obsessed. I see it as a new stage in which Biden seems committed to diplomacy and no longer wishes to accept input from other countries. Perhaps due to US and Israeli approaches being nearly irreconcilable.
This is understandable, but starts to resemble the pre-JCPOA reports, and we all know how that turned out. With much controversy at home (not ratified by congress) and abroad (Israel and the Arab states), it was doomed to fail, and the new deal seems even far less promising.

 

[STURM]

I see it as a new stage in which Biden seems committed to diplomacy and no longer wishes to accept input from other countries.

I see it a Biden wanting to push the talks as far as they can go in the hope that it might lead to something and him being able to say that the U.S. and other countries involved in the talks gave it all they had, in the event talks break down and leads to eventual military action.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I see it a Biden wanting to push the talks as far as they can go in the hope that it might lead to something and him being able to say that the U.S. and other countries involved in the talks gave it all they had, in the event talks break down and leads to eventual military action.

The two methods are understandable. But from the side it seems like a very unusual clash, and while the US has certainly denied Israel military equipment in the past, whether its own or British, it was back when the relations weren't as developed.

In the JCPOA the US did not show Israel it can be relied upon to make the right decision with regard to Iran, from Israel's perspective.
And now Israel is again battling to enable its own path whilst still letting the US try and solve this diplomatically. But with this incident, it may push Israel to lose even more trust in the US.

All this is further reinforced by the fact that the US has been shifting its focus on China and withdrew both physically and politically from the region. With such political disengagement, the probability the US is doing the right thing versus Iran is reduced.
It's not like Israel has any other reliable ally though. Europeans certainly won't do anything on the issue beyond soft power.

 

[ngatimozart]

All this is further reinforced by the fact that the US has been shifting its focus on China and withdrew both physically and politically from the region. With such political disengagement, the probability the US is doing the right thing versus Iran is reduced.
It's not like Israel has any other reliable ally though. Europeans certainly won't do anything on the issue beyond soft power.

The Europeans don't necessarily see it in their interest too be involved in it. I would suspect that they see the Iranian - Israeli dispute as something that is not of world shattering importance to them. They have higher priority issues to deal with and they have really gone beyond their colonial empire building days. Except for France. The French still seem to think of themselves as being imperial and having an empire.