Middle East Defence & Security

[koxinga]

It is different yes and completely unexpected but whether all the protesters are united in actually wanting a new government and on other things
remains to be seen. The one thing the protesters should do is be wary and selective of any forms of support and encouragement from external sources as external sources will tend not to have the interests of Iranian's first but their own selfish interests.

I can understand the Western desire and natural gravity towards such civil movments (e.g human rights, and ultimately a government that is more aligned to such values), but with the hindsight of Arab Spring, the chances of these movements being hijacked by other groups with less than honourable intents is high.

The Western view that the current wave of repression is targeted at the protestors seems to be missing this point; I see the regime is more fearful of establishment factions with access to real levers (e.g political, military means) than a truly democratic revolution from the streets.

 

[STURM]

If we've learnt anything from past revolutions it's that it often leads to unintended highly damaging consequences and it's the locals which end up paying the price. Just like how the U.S. invasion of Iraq impacted the whole region; a sudden change in management in Iran might lead to a period of great chaos and instability in an already unstable and fragile region.

As for "honourable intentions" this is the Middle East where everyone has blood on his hands and where everyone is busy scheming against each other and watching out for self interests. Policy makers in certain countries will be watching this and saying to themselves if Iran's government falls it does away with a major problem [from their perspective] in that Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Russia lose an ally/benefactor; the nuclear issue will be resolved, the Lebanon will be free from the clutches of the evil Iranians and Russia won't be able to get Iranian kit - looks/sounds great on paper; very seductive.

Just like events in Syria years ago impacting Iraq in a major way; a sudden and violent change in management in Iran will impact Iraq [a fragile state] in an adverse way and that in turn will impact Jordan [another fragile state]. We also have to note however that Iran is not the Lebanon or Iraq. It has a longer history as a state; wasn't an artificial creation of imperial powers and has a greater sense of national identity which might enable it to better weather the storm if there's a change in management.

BTW this is a great book about the Middle East; the bloodshed, hypocrisy, double standards; back door dealings; treachery, hubris, etc. Also a very depressing read. He goes in depth about Iran and the horrors and chaos of the Revolution. There is mention of a young girl in post Revolution Iran who as she was being dragged out of her cell to be executed pleaded and cried for mercy.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

If we've learnt anything from past revolutions it's that it often leads to unintended highly damaging consequences and it's the locals which end up paying the price. Just like how the U.S. invasion of Iraq impacted the whole region; a sudden change in management in Iran might lead to a period of great chaos and instability in an already unstable and fragile region.

As for "honourable intentions" this is the Middle East where everyone has blood on his hands and where everyone is busy scheming against each other and watching out for self interests. Policy makers in certain countries will be watching this and saying to themselves if Iran's government falls it does away with a major problem [from their perspective] in that Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Russia lose an ally/benefactor; the nuclear issue will be resolved, the Lebanon will be free from the clutches of the evil Iranians and Russia won't be able to get Iranian kit - looks/sounds great on paper; very seductive.

Just like events in Syria years ago impacting Iraq in a major way; a sudden and violent change in management in Iran will impact Iraq [a fragile state] in an adverse way and that in turn will impact Jordan [another fragile state]. We also have to note however that Iran is not the Lebanon or Iraq. It has a longer history as a state; wasn't an artificial creation of imperial powers and has a greater sense of national identity which might enable it to better weather the storm if there's a change in management.

BTW this is a great book about the Middle East; the bloodshed, hypocrisy, double standards; back door dealings; treachery, hubris, etc. Also a very depressing read. He goes in depth about Iran and the horrors and chaos of the Revolution. There is mention of a young girl in post Revolution Iran who as she was being dragged out of her cell to be executed pleaded and cried for mercy.

View attachment 49814

That's why the Iranian revolution needs external backing to cling onto as a basis in the formation of a government.

If the US extends a hand to assure Iran's new economical basis, and Israel extends a hand to help it navigate regionally, and subsequently the west guides Iran through a democratic process, Iran could be built into a stable regional ally that far better addresses the peoples' will and needs.

The big problems are:
1. The US is seemingly silent/inactive on the issue, which may not necessarily be unwise but it does cloud our ability to assess its strategy. It IS, however, preoccupied with Russia and China and its drawdown from the region is felt.
2. Israel's policies are far more driven by security considerations than by moral ones, and even when they coincide, actions are naturally covert which further leaves us in a fog.
3. Europe, although happy to secure any energy supplier at the moment, is very regional as a bloc. Little to no involvement in security in other continents.

 

[koxinga]

But is that even realistic, even if the US and Europe are not distracted? They (West) will be happy to support the protestors to overthrow the regime, but what comes after? It is pretty much naively hoping and pray democracy magically appears once the ayatollahs are gone.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

But is that even realistic, even if the US and Europe are not distracted? They (West) will be happy to support the protestors to overthrow the regime, but what comes after? It is pretty much naively hoping and pray democracy magically appears once the ayatollahs are gone.

I was more referring to supporting Iran AFTER a revolution, not before it. Help the new government stand on its feet, stabilize the aspects that it may be overburdened with, and set a course on continued relations.
Regarding support right now, I think Iranians could use intelligence on government officials, as well as tools to keep them connected to the internet.

None expects democracy in the region. And even if a revolution occurs properly, it would take many years to stabilize before elections can even occur in a de-risked way.
But one doesn't have to be democratic to align with the interests of the region, which are stability and economical cooperation.
Ideally, the whole region can be a pipeline of energy to both Europe and Asia. And as that fades, a major trade route, and vast territories that can be invested in.
By at least signing a peace treaty with Israel and welcoming the US's regional presence as a stabilizer, Iran could fix many of the region's issues just like that.

 

[STURM]

And even if a revolution occurs properly

What is your definition of a revolution occurring ''properly''?

it would take many years to stabilize before elections can even occur in a de-risked way.

Indeed and in those many years before things ''stabilise'' unfortunately a lot of damage and suffering can take place.

None expects democracy in the region..

The question is whether outside powers really want actual democracy in the region with regards to certain countries. A truly democratic Saudi Arabia and UAE [to use both a examples] would enable citizens to question a whole list of things their rulers are doing and the rationale behind the ties their rulers have with certain countries and who it really benefits... A truly democratic region might have less need or dependence on outside powers.

By at least signing a peace treaty with Israel and welcoming the US's regional presence as a stabilizer, Iran could fix many of the region's issues just like that.

It's a bit more complicated than than that.

- Even if Iran was ruled by a very different government; it might not be in a rush to sign a peace treaty with Israel. A peace treaty with Israel would only be possible if several conditions were met and it depends to be seen if Israel was in a position or was willing to meet those Iranian conditions.... Not to mention the fact that Iran's new rulers would have various important things they would have to focus on first; rather than a peace treaty with Israel.

- Whether the US. is really seen as a ''stabiliser'' in the region is subjective and depends on who one asks.... As it stands a lot of the instability in the region was caused by flawed decisions on the part of the U.S.

 

[koxinga]

To be fair to @Big_Zucchini, the prospect of a peace deal between a non Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Iran WAS a major strategic ally of Israel and the US.

Of course, the strategic environment today has changed and Saudi and Iraq would not want a major competitor with ties to both the US and Israel.

Back to Iran, a pre-revolution Iran, though freer relative to the current regime was ultimately despotic, under the Pahlavi dynastic. I am skeptical on aspirations of a democratic Iran. Good for them if it happens but I am not holding my breathe.

 

[ngatimozart]

To be fair to @Big_Zucchini, the prospect of a peace deal between a non Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Iran WAS a major strategic ally of Israel and the US.

Of course, the strategic environment today has changed and Saudi and Iraq would not want a major competitor with ties to both the US and Israel.

Back to Iran, a pre-revolution Iran, though freer relative to the current regime was ultimately despotic, under the Pahlavi dynastic. I am skeptical on aspirations of a democratic Iran. Good for them if it happens but I am not holding my breathe.

Actually would democracy in Iran be the best political system for it? Democracy is a western construct inherited from the Ancient Greeks and whilst it has its advantages, it isn't necessarily suitable for all cultures. One could argue that, for example, democracy isn't the best solution for either Russia or China because of their histories and cultures. The same could equally be said for many of the Middle Eastern nations, as well as some of the Asian nations. But what would be the ideal political system for Iran / Persia after the current theocracy is overthrown? Maybe a benevolent dictatorship like Singapore? Or a return to a monarchy but with restrictions on the powers and governing capabilities of the Shah. If the people of Iran do choose a democracy then possibly it has to be something like a constitutional monarchy where the Head Of State isn't a politician and isn't elected or appointed by politicians. The political situations in Iraq, Lebanon, & Egypt, to name a few, illustrate that. I don't know, but whatever it is, it will have to take a concerted effort by many nations to ensure that Iran / Persia comes out of it on the positive side and isn't another Iraq or Lebanon. Actually I'd keep the US well out of it. They can provide funding and such from a distance, but an EU / Oceania / Japan / SK led initiative would probably work a lot better.

 

[STURM]

To be fair to @Big_Zucchini, the prospect of a peace deal between a non Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Iran WAS a major strategic ally of Israel and the US.

I'm not suggesting an Iranian deal with Israel isn't possible or is "far fetched" after all this is the Middle East where everything is possible.

This lecture does a very good job explaining the Iranian/Israeli relationship.

What I'm saying is that in the event of a new management in the country a peace deal with Israel might not be an immediate priority for Iran and Iran will have conditions of its own in order for a peace deal to be signed. As it stands the main Iranian grievance with Israel is over the Palestinian issue [not only with the political leadership but also with ordinary Iranians] and that is the main stumbling block. That is also the issue which is the source for much of the tensions in the region; more so than any other.

It would be silly to assume that a new Iranian government will not maintain a strong level of support for the Palestinians and will go out of its way to be best mates with the Gulf Arabs [the Sunni/Shia rivalry will always be there].

Of course, the strategic environment today has changed and Saudi and Iraq would not want a major competitor with ties to both the US and Israel.

Irrespective of who is in power in Iran; ties with Iraq will always be strong; both have deep rooted religious, cultural and economic ties.

Years ago here in DT I pointed out that an event which would really shape the region would be an Iranian/U.S. rapprochement. Iran has many flaws but it has always been more progressive than various Arab Gulf states and despite whatever restrictions women have always been allowed to work; take part in politics; drive and go out accompanied. It's given of course that various countries won't want to see this happen for a number of reasons. I would also question if certain countries for their own reasons always require some level of tensions in the region.

 

[STURM]

it will have to take a concerted effort by many nations to ensure that Iran / Persia comes out of it on the positive side and isn't another Iraq or Lebanon.

I would argue that Iran is in a better position that say Iraq or the Lebanon; it has a far longer history as a nation; a stronger sense of national identity and stronger state institutions.

 

[STURM]

Back to Iran, a pre-revolution Iran, though freer relative to the current regime was ultimately despotic, under the Pahlavi dynastic.

Was it really "freer relative"? I'm not so sure. Depends on who you ask I suppose. Under the Shah there was little or no institutionalised opposition; the Majlis was often disolved; protests were violently crushed and the Savak [which received training from the CIA and the Mossad] indulged in quite a bit of torture.

If you ask emigres [I'm close to one who as a kid left with his family to Germany] who under the Shah had a life of privilege they'll tell you that it wasn't so bad and that it's so much more repressive now. If you ask those who suffered under the Shah they'll tell you something slightly different. They'll tell you why they supported his ouster and celebrated when they learnt he had left the country.

I am skeptical on aspirations of a democratic Iran. Good for them if it happens but I am not holding my breathe.

All I'll say is that the Iranians have to figure out what they want and the direction they want to move in; without outside interference or pressure. As it is the region has a long history of outsiders meddling for their own selfish interests.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Israel and US keep conducting drills simulating Iran strike. Israel also drills independently and with other allies to practice the possibility of a solo mission.
Iran's constantly rising enrichment and weaponization goals are raising tensions and it is assumed that 2023 will be a window for an Iran strike similar to how 2010 was.

One cannot help but wonder how the Iran protests will pan out.
Will they succeed? If they succeed, will Israel strike? Will a reformed Iran avoid dismantling the program and just freeze it? Will Israel be ready, if necessary, to take military action vs a nation that could become an ally? Will Iran's current regime rush to a nuke to save itself by pressuring others (e.g. the west, Russia, and China) to safeguard it? How much does Russia already add to the equation?
All these questions add uncertainty to a particularly strained situation, which may drive Israel and allies to make quick and less calculated decisions.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597335222617415680

Palestinian attacks are growing in frequency and intensity. If just last year it was stabbing and car ramming attacks, then today it's mass shootings and bombings.
Jewish attacks on soldiers are also increasing, likely a result of generally increasing tensions in the area as soldiers are traditionally seen as too "relaxed" against rioters and attackers.
There are ways to mitigate the phenomenon, like increasing presence inside the J&S, more patrols along Jordan border, and more security in bases armories, but for the time being this is the situation.

Israeli teen killed as terror bombings target 2 bus stops at entrances to Jerusalem

Police suspect remotely detonated devices were packed with nails; 22 hurt; security forces hunt for suspects; no claim of responsibility; Hamas hails attack

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Been quiet here for a while to try and gather all that's happening. Wanted to write a long post but it's all just too convoluted for me.

Israel is now facing an avalanche of problems, particularly security, and that includes some internal problems as well.

It's no secret that external threats to Israel are at a historical high. Ramping up enrichment in Iran, American zoom-out from the region and mixed signals to Israel, new Palestinian terrorist factions rising across the J&S region, Houthis' rise as long reaching regional players, Russian-Iranian cooperation, and increased Chinese involvement, all during an upset global economy.

Some of these can be dealt with by the IDF alone, and some require tight cooperation between all defense organs including ministers and the security cabinet. This is where internal illnesses come in.

1. People's army, not anymore - conscription is mandatory, yet rates have plummeted to ~46%. Aside from the known and accepted exemptions e.g. Arabs (except Druze) and Bedouin, Ultra Orthodox are able to dodge draft on religious grounds - a subject whose legal basis is still disputed. The incoming government, being majority religious, seeks to cement and further expand this.
Naturally, this sparks anger from the non-religious who openly say they will not serve if other sectors are allowed to dodge.
Thus, the ethos of a fusion reactor for all segments of society, is likely seeing its last days. And for the IDF, which already suffers from a brain drain due to low army wages and high wages in the civilian sector, this means the candle is burnt from both sides - ultra orthodox won't enlist while the secular population hardly grows.


2. Security apparatus is contaminated - to further institutionalize a religious/secular divide, the government is appointing a religious minister with no background in defense, into the security cabinet. Furthermore, 2 religious ministers were given overriding authority over certain central issues. The entire security apparatus has been trusted enough to have a high level of autonomy that permitted the efficient, high tempo operations across the region.
Since these changes occur outside the IDF, the public expects an IDF-gov't clash that will most definitely impact Israel's ability to deal with the nearest threats, primarily in the J&S/West Bank area where most combat units rotate.
Nothing lasts forever, sure. But the growing distrust in the security apparatus will likely create a crisis that will take many years to fix.
Public trust in the security apparatus, specifically on Gaza, is already quite low.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

"Israel and US CENTCOM kick off massive war games in apparent message to Iran"

Israel's recent (in military terms) transfer to CENTCOM was characterized by many large scale drills, and Juniper Oak is definitely the largest publicly disclosed one so far.
The war games will include the USN aircraft carrier George Bush and its air wings, plus other strategic assets like submarines and strategic bombers.
All of Israel's military branches will participate.
The war games will encompass all missions relevant to a strike in Iran, per reports, including refueling (a key topic for the IAF in the context of a strike), strike, and search & rescue.
Although most likely with a heavy focus on Iran, the Israel-CENTCOM cooperation still requires routine exercises to create and maintain a proper level of familiarity and coordination.
In the last few years Israel has also conducted several exercises in Europe.

Israel, US kick off massive war games in apparent message to Iran

Exercise, dubbed Juniper Oak 2023, involves over 140 aircraft, 12 naval vessels, and artillery systems from both nations drilling in Israel and Eastern Mediterranean

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[T.C.P]

Multiple strikes on Iranian weapons facilities, but very little info.

Drone strikes hit ammunition factory in Isfahan, Iran state media reports - UPI.com

A drone strike caused an explosion at an ammunition factory in Isfahan late Saturday night, Iranian state media reported early Sunday.

www.upi.com

Iran Says 'Small Drones' Attacked Its Military Site

Reports and videos from Iran speak of multiple explosions and a fire at an ammunition factory in the Iranian city of Esfahan shortly after midnight local time.

www.iranintl.com

Nentanyahu making his moves or something else?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

TWZ article, constantly updating the article as it is a developing story.

Iran Claims It Has Come Under Drone Attack Following Explosions

The Iranian Ministry of Defense claims drones struck a facility in Isfahan as reports of blasts in other cities cause alarm.

www.thedrive.com

What to expect?
As usual for authoritarian regimes, shaming is a serious topic so there should be multiple developing Iranian narratives and no official admission by Israel with only a vague reference.

Some key takes so far, all alleged:
1. At least 1 target in Isfahan is the focus with 3 explosions reported there, while others in Karaj and Azarshahr are possibly unrelated events as these are less talked about.
2. Iran's narrative is 3 drones, which coincides with OSINT reports of 3 explosions.
3. Current theory is suicide drones were launched from within Iran itself.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Thats just my humble opinion of course, but I dont see why in the world Israel would launch 3 suicide-drones against Iran in this particular moment of History ( Iran's struggle with protesters ) and while engaged in large scale military maneuvers with the US.
I'd say it would be at least " stupid " to strike Iran now ( with 3 useless suicide drones??? ).
My guess would be drones from Iran itself to try to distract from the protests? Or terrorist attack from organized protester groups/military groups or even organized societies like the Curds.

But thats just my 2 cents, absolutely unsupported by evidence.

 

[swerve]

1. People's army, not anymore - conscription is mandatory, yet rates have plummeted to ~46%. Aside from the known and accepted exemptions e.g. Arabs (except Druze) and Bedouin, Ultra Orthodox are able to dodge draft on religious grounds - a subject whose legal basis is still disputed. The incoming government, being majority religious, seeks to cement and further expand this.
Naturally, this sparks anger from the non-religious who openly say they will not serve if other sectors are allowed to dodge.
Thus, the ethos of a fusion reactor for all segments of society, is likely seeing its last days. And for the IDF, which already suffers from a brain drain due to low army wages and high wages in the civilian sector, this means the candle is burnt from both sides - ultra orthodox won't enlist while the secular population hardly grows.

I can't see how that's sustainable. From what I've read, many of the ultra-orthodox devote themselves to religious studies & don't work. A large & growing group that refuses to help defend an embattled country, & much of which declines to contribute economically, is bound to provoke resentment.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I can't see how that's sustainable. From what I've read, many of the ultra-orthodox devote themselves to religious studies & don't work. A large & growing group that refuses to help defend an embattled country, & much of which declines to contribute economically, is bound to provoke resentment.

That's the point. It's not sustainable and there is already unprecedented resentment and growing points of division. The demographic, economical, and political trends are unfortunately quite negative.

Thats just my humble opinion of course, but I dont see why in the world Israel would launch 3 suicide-drones against Iran in this particular moment of History ( Iran's struggle with protesters ) and while engaged in large scale military maneuvers with the US.
I'd say it would be at least " stupid " to strike Iran now ( with 3 useless suicide drones??? ).
My guess would be drones from Iran itself to try to distract from the protests? Or terrorist attack from organized protester groups/military groups or even organized societies like the Curds.

But thats just my 2 cents, absolutely unsupported by evidence.

Israel is not engaged in maneuvers with the USA at the moment (they ended already), and even if it did, it wouldn't have mattered as Iran has better ways to determine who's responsible.

Also, Israel's national security takes a precedent over Iran's own, plus of course this adds substantially to security in Europe (Ukraine).
Protesters are anti-government, and they would not believe a government narrative, and many would even support anti-government actions like this.

At least Iran's diaspora overwhelmingly supports such strikes, and I assume they are not ideologically far from the protesters.

Finally, we have no way of telling what exactly was the point of the strike. Previously, Israel was able to destroy a factory containing hundreds of drones. But that may not necessarily be the point right now. Many aspects of production could be hit.

For example, if Iran intends to produce a batch of 1000 drones for Russia, for which it needs 3 months to source airframes, 4 months to source motors, and 5 months to source optics, then targeting only the optics would yield the same result as destroying the entire factory.

Large coordinated strikes are not an infinite resource. Iran analyzes the attacks and works to reinforce previous exploitation points. And destroyed facilities tend to be rebuilt more resilient, sometimes even underground.
At some point Israel will have to escalate to the point of a sweeping strike, and conducting large individual strikes til then would only hurt it in the long term.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Israel's attempts to create a coalition vs Iran are well known and have included the Arab nations and the US, now apparently other western nations like France.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1621343822801211392

Israel's solo war on Iran is taking its toll on Israel's defense structure - heavily burdened both in tasks and monetarily (spends 5-6% of GDP), and while Israel can handle Iran and its proxies in an active war, it's hardly a sustainable situation looking forward.

The Arab nations can help create an early warning array as a first step, and a regional air defense bubble later.

The US is sought as a booster with its regional assets, and particularly due to its unique capabilities which can significantly de-risk an Israeli strike.

France's immediate tactical advantage is not clear. In the 2017 strike on Syria's Shayrat airbase it was a token addition. Perhaps Israel aims to further amplify Iran as a European issue as well, and facilitate a trade that I long deemed necessary - the Europeans take actions vs Iran, and Israel will take actions vs Russia, in part thanks to relief on the Iran front.