Middle East Defence & Security

[Big_Zucchini]

You spoke of how Israel would refrain from.supplying the Ukraine with weapons due to fears or concerns that Russia would retaliate by providing Iran with strategic weapons.

I pointed out Russia would be unlikely to resort to such a risky move which comes with a lot of political baggage and expose it to risk. It can resort to other more subtle and more deniable ways.

Then explain what this political baggage is, and what risk it would be exposed to, and what subtle more deniable ways it could retaliate with.

Maybe at State Department briefings and on PowePoint briefs but in reality they fail to cause the intended effect and it's ordinary citizenship end up paying the price. Sanctions on Iran have nearly crippled Iran but it has failed to lead to the desired political results, either to Iran capitulating to Western demands, to being unable to do what it needs to or to the locals overthrowing their poltical masters. In fact its highly counter productive, [it alienates the locals as it leads to their suffering] despite on the surface appearing to be sound and being politically acceptable to those who impose them.

Iran's regional aggression has been severely mitigated by sanctions, as it lacked the resources needed for this resource-intensive campaign. They may not have achieved all the goals, but they are a net positive.

In the end, the wellbeing of the citizens is a result of their government's policies. If the government embarks on campaigns that it knows will land sanctions on it, then that's the government's responsibility. If resources are lacking, said government can divert resources from military buildup to welfare. The citizens live as well as the government wants them to live, sanctions or not. If Iranian citizens are suffering today, it's because Iran's regime is perfectly fine with that.
I live in a country that's been under sanctions since day 1. It still very much is. We're perfectly fine here, because thankfully I have a government that has welfare at least somewhere in its agenda, rather than expensive military campaigns of choice and domination.

Would this include the use, well intentioned and well.informed world leaders whose policies failed in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, causing immense suffering for the locals? The same world leaders who are so gung ho about Iran but have no clear policy on North Korea? The same world leaders who are noticeably silent about a particular country's nuke capability and who also -despite all the non proliferation talk - failed to prevent Pakistan and India from being nuke armed?

I agree with economical sanctions on any and all regimes that abuse their people and seek to terrorize.

A point be made that its not a richer but weaker Iran which might take certain steps to protect its interests and to retaliate against its enemies in a way it wouldn't has it been in better economic shape. An Iran which was in better economic shape and didn't feel so isolated would be less insecure and desperate and would be less likely to undertake certain types of actions which carry a high degree of risk.

Yes, you've repeated that word for word several times already. But what does it even mean?
You imply Iran's current weakness is what sets its regional aggression, and say wealth could prevent that, as if wealth prevents China from expanding in its neighborhood.
We have tried that. Iran was not always under sanctions. Its regional expansion started long before any sanctions came.

We know that having no sanctions on Iran is bad, because it expands quickly. We know that having sanctions on it slows it down. We also know that removing them again accelerates expansion and increases aggression. All from experience.

We've seen a rich Iran and we've seen a weak Iran, and how they react to different situations. A weak Iran is objectively better.

Iran's motivation is not from insecurity and weakness. When given the chance to get closer to the west and be relieved from sanctions, it decided to gamble on it anyway and continued with blatantly violating the JCPOA in a way that got the deal cancelled and sanctions reinstated. It happily gave away the potential for a status of an 'untouchable' country (within its borders) whose economy is intertwined with the west (and the rest of the world, hence untouchable), for a weapon that only serves to deter regional foes from reacting to its expansion.

 

[STURM]

Then explain what this political baggage is, and what risk it would be exposed to, and what subtle more deniable ways it could retaliate with.

Russia providing Iran with those ''strategic'' weapons you mentioned is risky as it will cause extra friction with the West and if Iran manages to cause enemy casualties with those ''strategic'' weapons Russia will be blamed. Israel in turn might retaliate against Assad in ways which would embarass and be expensive for the Russians.

Subtle and deniable means would include helping Iran circumvent sanctions, supplying Iran with certain Intel and technology, as well as increasing its level of support in certain areas to Syria to make things harder for Israel. Many possibilities.
If you've noticed Russia,at times prefers to operate in the grey zone so to speak.

Iran's regional aggression has been severely mitigated by sanctions, as it lacked the resources needed for this resource-intensive campaign

Are we talking about the same Iran here? A heavily sanctioned and isolated Iran is able to maintain its level of support and commitment to Hezbollah, deployed troops in their thousands to stem the tide of IS in Iraq and Syria, to provide the Houthis with significant material support and despite the ever vigilant Israelis which time after time hits targets with precise/accurate strikes, Iran still keeps sending stuff into Syria. .

Based on Iran's ability to sustain what its doing, sanctions have failed miserably, despite your personal opinions on sanctions and despite them looking and sounding great on PowerPoint slides and at State Department or White House briefings.

in the end, the wellbeing of the citizens is a result of their government's policies. If the government embarks on campaigns that it knows will land sanctions on it, then that's the government's responsibility.

True to but if ordinary citizens die because of sanctions imposed by the West, which BTW shouldn't get to.play God, then the West is accountable. Sanctions should only be applied if it indeed hurts the political leadership of a country and effects their ability to do certain things but ordinary citizens should not be made to suffer and should not be pawns merely because the West has no other means apart from sanctions.

Iran's motivation is not from insecurity and weakness.

You I may think so but Iran's actions are driven by the need to safeguard its interests in ways which are driven by the actual resources it has. If Iran had a air arm comparable in size and capability as Israel's it would not have to use proxy non state groups or rely on various asymmetric means.

I agree with economical sanctions on any and all regimes that abuse their people and seek to terrorize.

Of course you do. Didn't doubt it for a minute. The patents of the Iraqi children who died because they lacked the needed dual use medical machines might disagree with you though, they'd point out that Saddam was to blame but so was the West which imposed those sanctions with the full knowledge that it was ordinary people and not the Baathist leadership.who would suffer. They still got their Chivas scotch, Bollinger champagne, Cubn cigars and imported food.

Ultimately it wasn't sanctions which led to Saddam deciding to.abandon his WMD programme but the need to.preserve his,regime. The only problem is he didn't announce it because he didn't want the Iranians to know.

Whether with the ex Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran Cuba, North Korea or Venezeula, sanctions rarely result in the desired political effect but it does severely affect ordinary citizens. No doubt this doesn't bother the politicians and bureaucrats who want to be seen to be seen to be doing something because they can and because it marks them look good politically.

for a weapon that only serves to deter regional foes from reacting to its expansion

For a weapon it feels will safeguard them against attempts at regime change. Seeing how North Korea remains untouched, and seeing what happened to Saddam and Gadaffi, the Iranians are even more convinced.

Here's something else I'll repeat.The irony is that it was the Shah who initiated the nuke programme which was later scrapped by Khomeini who saw it as a waste of resources. It was only resumed when word got out that Saddam [despite the 1981 Israeli strike] was still at it and was making progress, with the full.knowledge of the West.

I live in a country that's been under sanctions since day 1. It still very much is

Apples to oranges comparison and I suspect you know it. There were periods where Israel was indeed weak, vulnerable and isolated but it was never sanctioned the way Iran is. Israel had the benefit of a diaspora which helped in various crucial much needed ways and from 1967 onwards enjoyed the near unconditional support of a superpower. Iran in contrast is largely alone and ultimately the sanctions you refer to weren't very useful against Israel.

 

[mrrosenthal]

I'm not sure what your points are suggesting Sturm. Iran has 2 armies the IRGC and the regular army. One is to ensure no 'coups' and repress protestors, the other is national security.

Sanctions do work, as the less you have, the less you spend on terrorist and destablizing activities.

 

[STURM]

I'm not sure what your points are suggesting

You don't have to be ''sure.'' In my previous post, I clearly laid out what I meant, irrespective of whether or not you or others agree.

One is to ensure no 'coups' and repress protestors, the other is national security.

Really? Was/is the IRGC in Iraq, Syria and the Lebanon to ''ensure no 'coups' and repress protestors''? The IRGC indeed started out as an ideologically reliable entity whose main purpose was to ensure regime survival but in due course its role evolved. Looked it up if your interested.

Sanctions do work, as the less you have, the less you spend on terrorist and destablizing activities..

They look good on paper and in theory but in reality they don't result in the desired effects. By your reasoning did sanctions prevent Iran from doing a lot of what it has been doing? Was it sanctions which led to Saddam abandoning his WMD programme? Was sanctions,which led to Milosevic capitulating or a combination of airstrikes and diplomatic pressure? Ultimately its the ordinary people who get buggered, not their leadership.

Instead of repeating the mantra of sanctions which work, take an objective look at how really effective sanctions have been when applied against various countries and take a look at the real effects they create.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm not sure what your points are suggesting Sturm. Iran has 2 armies the IRGC and the regular army. One is to ensure no 'coups' and repress protestors, the other is national security.

Sanctions do work, as the less you have, the less you spend on terrorist and destablizing activities.

Since when?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Russia providing Iran with those ''strategic'' weapons you mentioned is risky as it will cause extra friction with the West and if Iran manages to cause enemy casualties with those ''strategic'' weapons Russia will be blamed. Israel in turn might retaliate against Assad in ways which would embarass and be expensive for the Russians.

Israel can retaliate with strikes on Syrian advanced weapons, like its S-300, Pantsirs etc. But that's a topic for another discussion.

Russia definitely can retaliate for any Israeli aid to Ukraine with sales to Iran. Past experiences show it can do it without serious repercussions. As for friction with the west in general, I think it's safe to assume Russia has more than proven it is bold enough with a possibility of invasion to Ukraine, something I would consider 2 orders of magnitude more important to the west.

It has sold advanced air defenses to Syria and Iran in the past. It can do so again.

Subtle and deniable means would include helping Iran circumvent sanctions, supplying Iran with certain Intel and technology, as well as increasing its level of support in certain areas to Syria to make things harder for Israel. Many possibilities.
If you've noticed Russia,at times prefers to operate in the grey zone so to speak.

None of these are new. Russia definitely does them all for Iran. In Syria though, Russia's interest in keeping Iran out would overshadow any desire to retaliate against Israel.

Are we talking about the same Iran here? A heavily sanctioned and isolated Iran is able to maintain its level of support and commitment to Hezbollah, deployed troops in their thousands to stem the tide of IS in Iraq and Syria, to provide the Houthis with significant material support and despite the ever vigilant Israelis which time after time hits targets with precise/accurate strikes, Iran still keeps sending stuff into Syria. .

Things are not in absolutes, Sturm. This is a recurring theme.

Just because Iran maintains some capacity to keep propping up its proxies, doesn't mean it's at full capacity. That's where relativism comes in. If they can only send half the money and equipment every set amount of time, then that's a win.
The Israeli intelligence community sees it as a fact that the sanctions have laid a tremendous hit on Iran's capabilities to arm its proxies and re-armament, modernization, and even operation tempos, have all slowed down drastically.

I obviously will not provide any specific examples, but basically all of them are now cash strapped, far more than they were before.

Together with military measures, they are practically choked. And although they can, after years of rearmament, shut Israel down for a while, they are really far from ready for war.

We have seen, for a fact, Iran and its proxies rushing to arm themselves when the sanctions were gone. We have seen massive slowdowns when sanctions were in place.
With how much you're talking about whether it affects civilians or not, to what extent, and who bears responsibility, there are for a fact results in the military aspect.

True to but if ordinary citizens die because of sanctions imposed by the West, which BTW shouldn't get to.play God, then the West is accountable. Sanctions should only be applied if it indeed hurts the political leadership of a country and effects their ability to do certain things but ordinary citizens should not be made to suffer and should not be pawns merely because the West has no other means apart from sanctions.

It's not playing god. Countries have a right to have or not have trade with one another. Certainly a sovereign nation should be able to decide not to trade with a nation it deems a threat and with ill intentions for it, when it knows said money will be used to further threaten.

If you think a country under sanctions cannot function well enough to provide its citizens, you're entitled to your opinion.

If you think even without sanctions, Iran's constant pilfering from basically every sector of its economy and its military campaigns of grandeur, would allow its citizens to maintain a good quality of life, that's another opinion you're entitled to.

But then don't complain when people are actually dying from these accelerated military campaigns.

Whether with the ex Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran Cuba, North Korea or Venezeula, sanctions rarely result in the desired political effect but it does severely affect ordinary citizens. No doubt this doesn't bother the politicians and bureaucrats who want to be seen to be seen to be doing something because they can and because it marks them look good politically.

Sanctions curb aggression by necessity. Non-sanctioned states of the list you gave, would be aggressive states beyond their current state. Or, far more aggressive if they already were.

Apples to oranges comparison and I suspect you know it. There were periods where Israel was indeed weak, vulnerable and isolated but it was never sanctioned the way Iran is. Israel had the benefit of a diaspora which helped in various crucial much needed ways and from 1967 onwards enjoyed the near unconditional support of a superpower. Iran in contrast is largely alone and ultimately the sanctions you refer to weren't very useful against Israel.

Apples to smaller apples. The sanctions on Israel existed largely when it was still very poor, and are part of why for so much of its history, Israel had a "modesty regime". As in, not modesty in clothing, but in consumption. Yet despite them, and a massive defense budget, people didn't starve. People didn't die of treatable conditions.

Citizens starving and dying is not a result of sanctions. It's a result of a regime that cannot care any less about them. Sanctions are just a nice excuse for the government to invest in the people even less.

We didn't have the full backing of a superpower, and neither does Iran in the normal sense. We also had a superpower against us, in about the same way Iran does.

For a weapon it feels will safeguard them against attempts at regime change. Seeing how North Korea remains untouched, and seeing what happened to Saddam and Gadaffi, the Iranians are even more convinced.

It's these aspirations that make the west target them with more resolve.

History has its dictators that were both untouched, and very much touched, because of nuke fondling.

 

[STURM]

As for friction with the west in general, I think it's safe to assume Russia has more than proven it is bold enough with a possibility of invasion to Ukraine,.

The Ukraine is of far more importance to Russia; it's willing to take far more risks. Supplying Iran with the ''strategic'' weapons you mentioned may lead to blowback; unintended consequences if those weapons lead to Israeli losses and may complicate relations with the U.S. Russia would be better off operating in the grey zone so to speak; with less visible means. Note that Russia generally has good ties with Iran as both share the same goals in certain areas and Iran plays an important role in Russian attempts at pursuing its policies in the region; namely ensuring Assad stays in power, keeping IS at bay and opposing what it sees U.S. hegemony in the region but it has been very careful in what it actually provides Iran.

Russia definitely can retaliate for any Israeli aid to Ukraine with sales to Iran.

That was not a natter of dispute. What I'm disagreeing with is your claim that Russia can provide Iran with ''strategic'' weapons. It won't for the reasons I explained and if required would respond with subtle and deniable ways; to make things difficult for Israel.

In Syria though, Russia's interest in keeping Iran out would overshadow any desire to retaliate against Israel.

I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption given that both share similar aims in Syria; as well as other places...

Apples to smaller apples. The sanctions on Israel existed largely when it was still very poor

The circumstances were very different indeed, yet you pointed out that Israel was also under sanctions.

Citizens starving and dying is not a result of sanctions. It's a result of a regime that cannot care any less about them.

Indiscriminate sanctions which are intended to punish the political leadership but end up buggering ordinary people - like the Iraqi children who died because medical machines could not be imported - are the fault of the political leadership but also the countries which insisted on and imposed those sanctions with the full knowledge of what would happen.

Again, despite your claims to the contrary sanctions on Iraq, Cuba, the ex Yugoslavia and others did not produce the intended effects. They were introduced for reasons which looked good on paper and which seemed to be politically expedient but in reality; failed ....

neither does Iran in the normal sense.

Iran has never had the support of any superpower in any sense - not just the ''normal sense''. It was very close to the
U S. when the Shah was in power but the relationship.was not to the extent of the
U. S. and Israel relationship which exists today and developed after the 1967 war.

If you think a country under sanctions cannot function well enough to provide its citizens, you're entitled to your opinion.

If you think even without sanctions, Iran's constant pilfering from basically every sector of its economy and its military campaigns of grandeur, would allow its citizens to maintain a good quality of life, that's another opinion you're entitled to.

I pointed out that despite sanctions [which you claim are effective] Iran still is able to undertake many types of actions on quite a large scale in various places; some quite far from its borders....

That's indeed my optinion which you correctly said I was entitled to .

It's these aspirations that make the west target them with more resolve.

So you say but it goes deeper that that and the fact that Iran wants the means to be able to assemble a device at short notice is due to various reasons. They are also more convinced than ever about the need to have such a capability after seeing what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi and seeing how North Korea is free from any Western attempts at regime change because it has functional nukes and the means to deliver them ...

History has its dictators that were both untouched, and very much touched, because of nuke fondling.

Maybe but how relevant is that in the context of this discussion? There are also countries which willingly gave up their nukes and another which has nukes but refuses to acknowledge it; as well as another country which even refuses to discuss the very topic of that other country having nukes. All this is well known but hardly relevant in the context of this discussion ..

 

[mrrosenthal]

They look good on paper and in theory but in reality they don't result in the desired effects. By your reasoning did sanctions prevent Iran from doing a lot of what it has been doing? Was it sanctions which led to Saddam abandoning his WMD programme? Was sanctions,which led to Milosevic capitulating or a combination of airstrikes and diplomatic pressure? Ultimately its the ordinary people who get buggered, not their leadership.

Sanctions were first created and used against Milosevic. His billions were stored in Cyprus. When war came, and he needed to pay his gang/army to fight and buy weapons, US government pressured Cyprus into blocking his accounts. I read that Milosevic stated "He was destroyed when he lost access to his Cyprus accounts".
A gang without money, or less money, cannot pay its underlings.

 

[STURM]

Milosevic capitulated due to a combination of airstrikes and intense diplomatic pressure from various quarters, including his ally Russia. It was not due to sanctions. If sanctions were having a major effect on him NATO wouldn't have had to resort to airstrikes would it? Same with Saddam; it wasn't sanctions which led him to abandoning his WMD programme but the hope that by doing so the West would leave his regime in place. He was deposed not because of sanctions but because of the invasion. If sanctions had the effect of contributing to his downfall there wouldn't have been the need for the invasion which played a huge part in destabilising not only Iraq but the rest of the region.. Sanctions which certain countries insisted upon had no effect on the Baathist leadership as was intended but did so on ordinary Iraqis who saw it as a vengeful and spiteful way of hitting back at Iraq on the part of the West. Not only were they highly flawed but at times ludicrous - Iraqi children had no access to pencils because the graphite was said to have dual use...

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Israel may be in for a world of hurt, defense-wise, in the coming decade.
Few reasons why:

1. A new Iran nuclear deal is likely to be signed soon. If talks were first about a much harsher tone against Iran in a future deal, today things seem to be so bad, Israel has gone all the way back to urging the US not to remove IRGC's terrorist status.

2. Israel may be forced to act militarily against Iran when a deal is still active, taking a political blow vs the US, as was with all previous attacks on nuclear facilities (Syria and Iraq).

3. In light of the US's lack of interest in the region, its rush to a deal to reduce breakout time for Iran, and despite Israeli logistical shortcomings, a US assistance to Israel in a strike now seems very unlikely.

4. However strategically wise it is for Israel to prefer a weaker Iran and slightly weaker Ukraine over a significantly stronger Iran and slightly stronger Ukraine, this policy WILL come back to bite us in the rear end. This cost Israel its credibility and status in the Baltics, likely also elsewhere.
One of Israel's main pillars of foreign policy, vis as vis Europe at least, was garnering support by showing it is very much connected to core European interests, mindset, and values. The Ukraine-Russia situation puts a hard stop on that.

5. The US keeps taking losses left and right, domestically and abroad, and doesn't seem to catch a break. Not a single victory in well over a decade, while its enemies are making tremendous gains. An approach that more and more resembles western Europe's.
Israel will have to deal with the fact its core and irreplaceable, and only dependable ally, grows ever more politically docile and disinterested in its entire region.


Israel which already outspends much of the world on defense, certainly outspends every European country by a significant margin, will be more sidelined, less respected, more afflicted with internal crises, will face enemies whose relative advances are faster than its own, and all that with a small economy that survives on a mere 9 million people.

But maybe it's just doom and gloom. Israel has the ability to maneuver around crises like all do. We will know perhaps when we see how serious it is about acquisitions of strategic items when a deal is signed, and how much willingness will the Europeans show to buying Israeli weaponry. After all, an awakened Europe means greater sales potential for Israel.

Israel weighing condemnation as Russia escalates against Ukraine

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and Foreign Ministry Director-General Alon Ushpiz weighed what kind of statement to release that would not undermine military coordination with Russia in Syria.

m.jpost.com

The lessons for Israel from a new Iran nuclear deal - analysis

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid is lobbying US administration against de-classifying Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

m.jpost.com

 

[Feanor]

Israel may be in for a world of hurt, defense-wise, in the coming decade.
Few reasons why:

1. A new Iran nuclear deal is likely to be signed soon. If talks were first about a much harsher tone against Iran in a future deal, today things seem to be so bad, Israel has gone all the way back to urging the US not to remove IRGC's terrorist status.

2. Israel may be forced to act militarily against Iran when a deal is still active, taking a political blow vs the US, as was with all previous attacks on nuclear facilities (Syria and Iraq).

3. In light of the US's lack of interest in the region, its rush to a deal to reduce breakout time for Iran, and despite Israeli logistical shortcomings, a US assistance to Israel in a strike now seems very unlikely.

4. However strategically wise it is for Israel to prefer a weaker Iran and slightly weaker Ukraine over a significantly stronger Iran and slightly stronger Ukraine, this policy WILL come back to bite us in the rear end. This cost Israel its credibility and status in the Baltics, likely also elsewhere.
One of Israel's main pillars of foreign policy, vis as vis Europe at least, was garnering support by showing it is very much connected to core European interests, mindset, and values. The Ukraine-Russia situation puts a hard stop on that.

5. The US keeps taking losses left and right, domestically and abroad, and doesn't seem to catch a break. Not a single victory in well over a decade, while its enemies are making tremendous gains. An approach that more and more resembles western Europe's.
Israel will have to deal with the fact its core and irreplaceable, and only dependable ally, grows ever more politically docile and disinterested in its entire region.


Israel which already outspends much of the world on defense, certainly outspends every European country by a significant margin, will be more sidelined, less respected, more afflicted with internal crises, will face enemies whose relative advances are faster than its own, and all that with a small economy that survives on a mere 9 million people.

But maybe it's just doom and gloom. Israel has the ability to maneuver around crises like all do. We will know perhaps when we see how serious it is about acquisitions of strategic items when a deal is signed, and how much willingness will the Europeans show to buying Israeli weaponry. After all, an awakened Europe means greater sales potential for Israel.

Israel weighing condemnation as Russia escalates against Ukraine

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and Foreign Ministry Director-General Alon Ushpiz weighed what kind of statement to release that would not undermine military coordination with Russia in Syria.

m.jpost.com

The lessons for Israel from a new Iran nuclear deal - analysis

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid is lobbying US administration against de-classifying Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

m.jpost.com

Israel has proven itself to be extremely resilient and adaptive. I strongly suspect that Israel will rise to the challenges in question and come out the other end just fine. I suspect Israeli foreign policy may change, and who it leans on may also change. Israel also has solid demographics, so it's quite likely that Israeli population will double within the next ~40 years, provided trends hold.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Israel has proven itself to be extremely resilient and adaptive. I strongly suspect that Israel will rise to the challenges in question and come out the other end just fine. I suspect Israeli foreign policy may change, and who it leans on may also change. Israel also has solid demographics, so it's quite likely that Israeli population will double within the next ~40 years, provided trends hold.

Israel's demographics are probably its downfall. Close to a quarter of its population is Arab, which despite living there for over 70 years, is still not integrated well. Some are, the majority are not, and no signs of things improving drastically over the next few decades.
Ultra Orthodox are now over a million and are more antagonistic to the government and secular folk, than not.
Those two are the main driver of population growth.

Yes, Israel is resilient, but it is also going to be overwhelmed with crushing internal and external challenges all at once soon, which we will start impacting Israeli policies soon.

 

[Feanor]

Israel's demographics are probably its downfall. Close to a quarter of its population is Arab, which despite living there for over 70 years, is still not integrated well. Some are, the majority are not, and no signs of things improving drastically over the next few decades.
Ultra Orthodox are now over a million and are more antagonistic to the government and secular folk, than not.
Those two are the main driver of population growth.

Yes, Israel is resilient, but it is also going to be overwhelmed with crushing internal and external challenges all at once soon, which we will start impacting Israeli policies soon.

I actually didn't know about the demographic issues. In that case things do look quite a bit less optimistic.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The author believes the Russian-Ukrainian war will embolden Iran to use its proxies and advance in its plans, including a war on Israel, ramped up attacks on gulf states, and a harder push for nukes which is further bolstered by diverted American attention.
A logical hypothesis. Recently we've been seeing Hezbollah and Hamas drones trying to enter Israeli airspace on a daily basis, even several times per day. This could be them testing the waters.
If this hypothesis is correct, then it is also worth highlighting Israel's military isolation in light of these events. Even the material support Israel typically seeks in acquiring and replenishing munitions, may be absent.

Items for Iran to follow these days that could be relevant:
Positioning of American air defenses, emergency buys in Israel and USA, tempo of restocking efforts for Israeli air defenses, positioning of American logistical and intelligence assets, and naval assets.

For Iran and its proxies, there is no constant buildup and modernization. They can quickly stock up on munitions, then slowly replace them as they expire. Hence, Hezbollah and Hamas can fight a short war, inflict a lot of damage, then lick their wounds and rebuild everything within 2-5 years, and repeat. Militarily it makes no sense for them to wait longer than 5 years unless some other factors are involved.

If and when a deal is signed, it would be a prime time for Iran to attack Israel.

How war in Ukraine increases Iran’s threat to Israel - analysis

There is a chance that the war in and US focus on Ukraine could lead Iran to believe it can exploit this chaotic time to encourage its proxies to attack Israel.

m.jpost.com

 

[STURM]

The author believes the Russian-Ukrainian war will embolden Iran to use its proxies and advance in its plans, including a war on Israel, ramped up attacks on gulf states, and a harder push for nukes which is further bolstered by diverted American attention.

Iran at this stage has nothing to gain but all to lose by adopting the approach the author suggested. It's in talks with the UAE, it's leader has just visited Qatar, a nuke deal looks like it will be finalised with all sides benefiting [with the exception of Israel which of course would prefer a deal to be scrapped and Iran hit] and even though the U.S. is distracted in Europe it will act against any Iranian moves ...

Whilst Iran often gets blamed for everything which has gone wrong, the fact remains that its leadership will not unnecessarily take the types of risks the author suggests unless there's a good reason to and at present there's simply no.good reason to, for the reasons I gave.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Iran at this stage has nothing to gain but all to lose by adopting the approach the author suggested. It's in talks with the UAE, it's leader has just visited Qatar, a nuke deal looks like it will be finalised with all sides benefiting [with the exception of Israel which of course would prefer a deal to be scrapped and Iran hit] and even though the U.S. is distracted in Europe it will act against any Iranian moves ...

Whilst Iran often gets blamed for everything which has gone wrong, the fact remains that its leadership will not unnecessarily take the types of risks the author suggests unless there's a good reason to and at present there's simply no.good reason to, for the reasons I gave.

Iran has already willingly entered a state of conflict with all mentioned parties under less optimal conditions. It has persisted since then.
We should not analyze Iran's actions as if they are purely logical. There is a lot of religiously motivated ideology in play.

This dialogue it has with those states - lip service. It keeps them docile. We've seen where dialogue of Iran-UAE gets them - missiles on their national infrastructure.

 

[STURM]

There is a lot of religiously motivated ideology in play.

That's a highly flawed assumption and a misreading of the Iranians.

In reality most of what Iran does it well thought out, it also plays the long game. If policy was largely driven by religious dogma or ideology as you believe, Iran would by not have lasted this long and would capitulated a long time ago to Amercan demands. Also, if Iran was indeed driven largely by religious dogma or ideology it would pose a less serious threat and Israel would find it easier to deal with Iran. Israel has a much better understanding of what makes the Arabs tick but much less so with Iran.

This dialogue it has with those states - lip service. It keeps them docile.

Going by your reasoning the UAE would have announced that it was ceasing talks with Iran and Saudi and the UAE would have denounced Qatar for hosting a visit from the Iranian leader. Neither happened.

Houthi strikes on the UAE were connected to the situation in Yemen and were intended to send a message, don't assume it was meant to scuttle talks or is an indication that Iran isn't keen on talks. The plain fact is that both Iran and the Gulf Arabs are desperate, for different reasons, to tone things down, irrespective off what goes on in Yemen. Not only that but if talks were ' lip service'' the Arabs wouldn't have kept them going. The Arabs have made many flawed decisions but they are not naive.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

If countries' leaderships were 100% logical, there would be world peace and one big democratic earth. Yet we still have countries like North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria etc where even being gay personally upsets the leadership, and criticism personally offends them.

The ISIS terrorist that killed ~150 people in France a few years ago, was probably thinking very logically about how to maximize casualties in the shortest amount of time. One of the biggest terror attacks in history, while the vast majority of his fans are unable to even injure a person before they're detained or shot.
But can we really assume he is in any way thinking clearly, logically, and is NOT religiously motivated?

Your opinion on the author's piece, that he's wrong, is one thing. But we are seeing right now much more aggressive rhetoric and actions from PIJ, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. They are ramping up the war talk.

An example (PIJ):

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1496890608430030851

Analysts on Israeli media are now also talking about the war in Ukraine raising chances of a war between Israel and Iranian proxies, and there are calls to seek ammunition from the US.

 

[STURM]

If countries' leaderships were 100% logical, there would be world peace and one big democratic earth

I didn't say countries were ''logical''.

What I did day is that contrary to popular assumption much of what Iran does is not driven by religious dogma or ideology. Assuming that much of what Iran does is driven by religion is a flawed and simplistic assumption.

Yet we still have countries like North Korea, Iran, Russia, Syria etc where even being gay personally upsets the leadership, and criticism personally offends them

Yes you keep pointing out that certain countries have not adopted Western democratic values/norms. My comments however were on Iran from a security/geo political perspective.

If we want to talk about logic and about doing what's right on paper, I can also go down the rabbit hole by saying that to some some extent or another, it applies to all or most countries, including Israel and others which are Western or non Western but have been blessed so to speak by Western enlightenment. All or most countries countries to some extent are flawed and carry out policies or do things which are in the long run counter productive or detrimental to self interests.

But can we really assume he is in any way thinking clearly, logically, and is NOT religiously motivated?

Of course NOT. Just like we can't assume that religion played no part in what Baruch Goldstein did. Again, my comments were on Iran from a security/geo political .

Terrorism per see is a whole different issue and to really go into the details we'd have to look at things in objective totality, including examining the root causes. In all its forms terrorism has to be condemned, irrespective of whether it's carried out by non state groups, non democratic countries or democratic ones.

 

[mrrosenthal]

In my opinion, the US/Europe has prevented Israel from more decisive measures up until now in all its conflicts. With the US moving away from the middle east and Russia invading a pro western country, contrary to the article, I think Israel would be more empowered and less restrained to respond decisively to attacks.

In a similar regard that Iron Dome saves more lives of Gazans than it does Israelis. If 1000 Israeli's died from Gaza missile attacks, subsequently, Gaza would be leveled and occupied. If 10 Israelis die, a 12 day precision strike on certain targets is enough.

In the same regards, Hezbollah/Hamas/Houthi=Iran=Russia. Ukraine will be lost and Europe will be looking for a victory and less US focus on the middle east will mean a more fearful Israel, which means a more aggressive Israel.

edit-From another perspective, after 9/11, the US destroyed Iraq and afghanistan, and had massive US popular support. Iraq is not Saudi Arabia, the other source of 9/11 attacks. Point being, the most fearful, if Ukraine is lost, should be people like Bashar Assad, the Ayatollahs, or some other Russian ally feeling the wrath of god from misplaced ' US/European justice'.