Red Sea and the Houthis threat

[Big_Zucchini]

This article highlights the cost and limitations of missile defence. Using 2-4 million dollar missiles to intercept cheap UAV/ cruise missiles is economically unsustainable. Time to attack the source is long overdue.

Navy Has Fired Around 100 Standard Series Missiles At Houthi Drones, Missiles: Report

The Navy firing off many multi-million-dollar missiles highlights cost and capacity concerns that could play factor in a fight against China.

www.twz.com

Agreed. I see no downside to attacking the source.
It saves money and allows to escalate the conflict further - both highly desirable outcomes.

 

[Delta204]

This article highlights the cost and limitations of missile defence. Using 2-4 million dollar missiles to intercept cheap UAV/ cruise missiles is economically unsustainable. Time to attack the source is long overdue.

Navy Has Fired Around 100 Standard Series Missiles At Houthi Drones, Missiles: Report

The Navy firing off many multi-million-dollar missiles highlights cost and capacity concerns that could play factor in a fight against China.

www.twz.com

A lot of good info here, similar to the article they did on the Constellation class that you and others have posted on these forums. No mention of ESSM and no mention of soft kill being used is also notable; all intercepts done by standards (Phalanx intercept notwithstanding). Naval planners better take note.

 

[Feanor]

This article highlights the cost and limitations of missile defence. Using 2-4 million dollar missiles to intercept cheap UAV/ cruise missiles is economically unsustainable. Time to attack the source is long overdue.

Navy Has Fired Around 100 Standard Series Missiles At Houthi Drones, Missiles: Report

The Navy firing off many multi-million-dollar missiles highlights cost and capacity concerns that could play factor in a fight against China.

www.twz.com

The source is likely Iran... not sure bombing Yemen qualifies for "attacking the source".

 

[John Fedup]

The source is likely Iran... not sure bombing Yemen qualifies for "attacking the source".

I define source as Iran not Yemen.

 

[Feanor]

I define source as Iran not Yemen.

Gotcha, makes more sense now. In other words your estimation of the strikes against the Houthis is "suboptimal". Mine is the same. I "may" have misread the posts by you and @Big_Zucchini as implying that strikes against the Houthis constitute "striking the source" vs. just downing inbounds.

 

[Vivendi]

Agreed. I see no downside to attacking the source.
It saves money and allows to escalate the conflict further - both highly desirable outcomes.

In my opinion the US should define clear red lines for Iran, and communicate those clearly through back-channels to Iran (not in public). One red line should have been attacks of civilian ships by the Houthis.

At this stage a red line could perhaps be: "make the Houthis stop all attacks on ships in the Red Sea within XX hours or else face the consequences". I don't know how much control Iran has over the Houthis -- if they have little or no control then the red line could be "stop all weapons shipments to the Houthis or else face the consequences".

In both cases the "consequences" could be attacks on weapons factories in Iran, mainly those factories producing drones and missiles for the Houthis.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In my opinion the US should define clear red lines for Iran, and communicate those clearly through back-channels to Iran (not in public). One red line should have been attacks of civilian ships by the Houthis.

At this stage a red line could perhaps be: "make the Houthis stop all attacks on ships in the Red Sea within XX hours or else face the consequences". I don't know how much control Iran has over the Houthis -- if they have little or no control then the red line could be "stop all weapons shipments to the Houthis or else face the consequences".

In both cases the "consequences" could be attacks on weapons factories in Iran, mainly those factories producing drones and missiles for the Houthis.

Agreed.
Iran has its own pressure points, yet the US and Israel are far too reluctant to press them.

 

[Redshift]

In my opinion the US should define clear red lines for Iran, and communicate those clearly through back-channels to Iran (not in public). One red line should have been attacks of civilian ships by the Houthis.

At this stage a red line could perhaps be: "make the Houthis stop all attacks on ships in the Red Sea within XX hours or else face the consequences". I don't know how much control Iran has over the Houthis -- if they have little or no control then the red line could be "stop all weapons shipments to the Houthis or else face the consequences".

In both cases the "consequences" could be attacks on weapons factories in Iran, mainly those factories producing drones and missiles for the Houthis.

Hmmm couldn't Russia use the same logic on the UK, France and all of the other European countries?

If you supply my enemy then I have the moral justification to strike you? We in the West supply a lot of people the world over with weapons that many see as enemies does that make us justifiable targets as the "source"?

Even if we can logically argue our way out of this conundrum others would see things differently.

 

[Rob c]

Hmmm couldn't Russia use the same logic on the UK, France and all of the other European countries?

If you supply my enemy then I have the moral justification to strike you? We in the West supply a lot of people the world over with weapons that many see as enemies does that make us justifiable targets as the "source"?

Even if we can logically argue our way out of this conundrum others would see things differently.

You are right in regard to people will see things differently. My own view is that Russia attacked an other countries sovereignty and it could be argued that by the Houthis attacking foreign shipping that they are doing the same thing, as the ships are the possession of a sovereign country and by attacking these ships you are attacking that country. An expert in international law may be able to throw a crlearer light on this.

 

[Vivendi]

Hmmm couldn't Russia use the same logic on the UK, France and all of the other European countries?

Yes Russia could, and I am sure they would like to do so -- the only reason why Russia is not attacking NATO countries supporting Ukraine is because the consequences would be devastating -- for Russia.

If you supply my enemy then I have the moral justification to strike you? We in the West supply a lot of people the world over with weapons that many see as enemies does that make us justifiable targets as the "source"?

Even if we can logically argue our way out of this conundrum others would see things differently.

The Houthis are attacking civilian ships. Because of this, the Houthis have been designated a terrorist organization. In my opinion this sufficient justification to clearly communicate to those that support the terrorist organization, that if they continue to do so there will be consequences. Terrorist Designation of the Houthis - United States Department of State

 

[Armchair]

Yes Russia could, and I am sure they would like to do so -- the only reason why Russia is not attacking NATO countries supporting Ukraine is because the consequences would be devastating -- for Russia.


The Houthis are attacking civilian ships. Because of this, the Houthis have been designated a terrorist organization. In my opinion this sufficient justification to clearly communicate to those that support the terrorist organization, that if they continue to do so there will be consequences. Terrorist Designation of the Houthis - United States Department of State

And the reason the US is not already attacking Iran is because the consequences are (at best) unpredictable. Yes bombing Iran might stop supplies of weapons to attack ships in the Red Sea but imagine now that those weapons are then used directly in the Persian Gulf? Good luck running that war during a US presidential campaign.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Hmmm couldn't Russia use the same logic on the UK, France and all of the other European countries?

If you supply my enemy then I have the moral justification to strike you? We in the West supply a lot of people the world over with weapons that many see as enemies does that make us justifiable targets as the "source"?

Even if we can logically argue our way out of this conundrum others would see things differently.

Yes, Russia could. It's not a moral justification, rather a logical one. But there is a key difference between Euro/US-Ukraine relations and Iran-Houthi relations.
While the west supplies Ukraine with weapons and provides guidance on governmental reforms, Iran de facto controls the military actions of the Houthis. The difference in relations is therefore the difference between alliance and domination.

 

[Vivendi]

And the reason the US is not already attacking Iran is because the consequences are (at best) unpredictable. Yes bombing Iran might stop supplies of weapons to attack ships in the Red Sea but imagine now that those weapons are then used directly in the Persian Gulf? Good luck running that war during a US presidential campaign.

I did not suggest the US should attack Iran -- I suggested they should threaten to attack. Iran has executed a gray zone / proxy war against Israel and the US for some time now, and they have recently escalated, by increasing the number and intensity of attacks on US military installations in the region, and by attacking civilian ships in the Red Sea that do not belong to Russia, China (and Iran of course). However it seems clear that Iran is not (yet) ready to start a full-scale war. It's not in their interest. Since they are not interested in a full-scale war this should be used to put pressure on them to stop the Houthi attacks.

Of course they must be convinced that failure to act will lead to attacks. If this can be communicated clearly and if they fail to act then unfortunately an attack must happen, but I strongly doubt that would be the outcome. IF that is the outcome then I think a full-scale war between Iran and US/Israel is in any case inevitable, and just a matter of time. If this is the unfortunate case then it might be better that the US is choosing the time and place to escalate, and not Iran.

Currently US/Israel is on the backfoot in the ME, Ukraine/EU is on the backfoot in Europe, and Taiwan/Philippines/Japan/etc. is on the backfoot in Asia. It seems to me the autocratic regimes are currently controlling the narratives. This is perhaps also inevitable but I think one should try to be creative and change this, if possible.

 

[STURM]

I did not suggest the US should attack Iran -- I suggested they should threaten to attack.

Err... ''they'' have threatened to attack Iran on a number of occasions over the years. What happens if the attack fails in its purpose and ignites a much wider war; rapidly spiralling out of control? What happens if an attack is launched but the Houthis are still able to sustain what they're doing?

However it seems clear that Iran is not (yet) ready to start a full-scale war. It's not in their interest.

Well the U.S. and its coalition of the willing is also ''not (yet) ready to start a full-scale war'' and more trouble in theMiddle East is also not in their interest. There is the ongoing situation in the Ukraine; events in the occupied Palestinian territories and worries about China. Not to mention that the U.S. military might be a bit overextended. The Ukrainians for sure are hoping that troubles don't break out over Iran as this would divert focus and attention.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Err... ''they'' have threatened to attack Iran on a number of occasions over the years. What happens if the attack fails in its purpose and ignites a much wider war; rapidly spiralling out of control? What happens if an attack is launched but the Houthis are still able to sustain what they're doing?

An attack that leads to war will be significant escalation but it will not "spiral out of control" - unless the US is caught bluffing and fails to act again.
As it stands, if all parties commit to a war, the situation is very much manageable. Israel will take the brunt of Iran's response but Hezbollah's capabilities are significantly degraded at this point. The US will be tasked with dealing with Iran's key infrastructure including its military industry and perhaps even its nuclear program which I assume is one thing Iran is not willing to gamble. Iran could try to shut down regional oil production or at least transportation but that is its own lifeline as well.

 

[Vivendi]

Well the U.S. and its coalition of the willing is also ''not (yet) ready to start a full-scale war'' and more trouble in theMiddle East is also not in their interest. There is the ongoing situation in the Ukraine; events in the occupied Palestinian territories and worries about China. Not to mention that the U.S. military might be a bit overextended. The Ukrainians for sure are hoping that troubles don't break out over Iran as this would divert focus and attention.

The US is already attacking targets in Yemen, and also retaliates against Iranian proxies in e.g. Iraq that have attacked US forces in the region. So it's already a low-level war in my opinion. I did not suggest a full-scale invasion of Iran, merely communicating a threat to hit their missile and drone factories. If Iran refused to stop their aggression then yes there would be consequences but as I already pointed out Iran has been signaling that they are not in the mood for a major war.

As for Ukraine in this context: Ukraine asks allies to bomb Iran, Syria to stop Russia strikes – Middle East Monitor

 

[STURM]

I did not suggest a full-scale invasion of Iran, merely communicating a threat to hit their missile and drone factories. If Iran refused to stop their aggression then yes there would be consequences but as I already pointed out Iran has been signaling that they are not in the mood for a major war.

I'm well aware of what you suggested and my question still stands. If it does not have the desired affect then what? On a side note; if despite all the measures taken so far; if the Houthis still retain the ability to attack shipping; what next?

but as I already pointed out Iran has been signaling that they are not in the mood for a major war.

As I already pointed out it's not only Iran which has no desire to escalate things. As it stands however if attacked Iran will retaliate and when Iran retaliates it will have a spiral affect.

 

[STURM]

An attack that leads to war will be significant escalation but it will not "spiral out of control" - unless the US is caught bluffing and fails to act again.

On the contrary I think it will ''spiral out of control"; will not be limited to a strike on Iran; Iran retaliating by launching a missile or two before things simmer down. Note that when I use the term when I use the ''spiral out of control" I'm referring to an all out war which will engulf the region.

unless the US is caught bluffing and fails to act again.

Even if the U.S. ''acts'' there is nothing to say that this will lead to it achieving the desired military and political results. Would be great if military action could enable the intended results but as we're aware it often doesn't.

 

[Vivendi]

I'm well aware of what you suggested and my question still stands. If it does not have the desired affect then what?

I already told you, so I assume you are well aware.

As I already pointed out it's not only Iran which has no desire to escalate things, As it stands however if attacked; Iran will retaliate and when Iran retaliates it will have a spiral affect.

Yes and Iran will be aware of that. They will not put themselves in a situation where this will spiral out of control, unless they already have decided that they eventually will have to escalate anyway. Iranians are great chess players.

What we also should take into account is the agreement between Iran and SA -- Houthis probably don't have the same strategic importance to Iran as they used to. They are considered expendable in Iran anyways.

 

[STURM]

I already told you, so I assume you are well aware.

Have no idea what you supposedly told me ... Talking about a strike on Iran is easy. The what next part is not so easy. You'll no doubt need no reminders of how other conflicts had very different outcomes compared to what was planned or intended.

They will not put themselves in a situation where this will spiral out of control

If directly attacked they will retaliate. Can't afford not to from their perspective. It will also not take much for the situation to ''spiral out of control''.

What we also should take into account is the agreement between Iran and SA -- Houthis probably don't have the same strategic importance to Iran as they used to. They are considered expendable in Iran anyways.

What we also should take into account is that although the Houthis are reliant on Iran the notion that they are willing pawns is a false one. At times they listen to Iran; at times they don't.