Middle East Defence & Security

[Big_Zucchini]

IDF Spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari says Israel is targeting Hezbollah assets primarily in southern Lebanon. These would primarily be short range rocket launchers that can cover much of Israel's north.
This is consistent with the footage with seen so far from Lebanon.

IDF Spokesperson Daniel Hagari now said the IDF will be targeting Hezbollah assets in the Beqaa district. Hezbollah stores strategic missiles there, including CRBMs and SRBMs.

Really wish the IDF would just put these out immediately on their media channels so I wouldn't have to link stuff to crappy OSINTers.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1838186704122835078

EDIT:
I just listened to the IDF statement. Apparently a good chunk of the targets bombed so far and that will be bombed, are those planned to be fired at Israel and were/are being pre-empted. Due to this, the IDF resorts to calling Lebanese to seek shelter or evacuate immediately, as the IDF may have to strike on very short notice.

Unverified accounts also state over 200 killed so far.

EDIT2:
For the record, it seems there are little to no Hezbollah rocket launches into Israel, while Israel dismantles their infrastructure. Last record of an air raid siren is from 48 minutes ago according to the air raid apps and homefront website.

EDIT3:
As expected, no strikes in the Beqaa are reported yet. The statement was given almost 60 minutes ago and people need time to leave. But I'm sure it won't be too long. The IDF is intentionally giving up on the element of surprise here to safeguard civilians. In the end, very few civilian casualties will occur if at all, but also fewer Hezbollah assets will be hit as consequence. But we have a long way ahead of us.

 

[old faithful]

I am shocked that so many people are shocked by this operation.
During the Rhodesian bush war, Intel got wind that one of the terrorist groups were going to acquire military uniforms via a disposal type store.
The Selous Scouts were tasked with intercepting the uniforms and and soaking them in a substance, alleged cyanide, and then allowing the delivery to go ahead. It all went to plan, and many enemy soldiers died from poisoning via skin absorbed toxins.
This happend in the 1970s.
I will try and find a link, I think I read about it in a great book called "Fireforce", it's a history of the RLI, Rhodesian Light Infantry. Many tactics evolved from this war and were adopted by Western militaries, including the ADF.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I am shocked that so many people are shocked by this operation.
During the Rhodesian bush war, Intel got wind that one of the terrorist groups were going to acquire military uniforms via a disposal type store.
The Selous Scouts were tasked with intercepting the uniforms and and soaking them in a substance, alleged cyanide, and then allowing the delivery to go ahead. It all went to plan, and many enemy soldiers died from poisoning via skin absorbed toxins.
This happend in the 1970s.
I will try and find a link, I think I read about it in a great book called "Fireforce", it's a history of the RLI, Rhodesian Light Infantry. Many tactics evolved from this war and were adopted by Western militaries, including the ADF.

Never heard of it, but it sounds like a great idea. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Big_Zucchini]

He's right, you know. As I've said many times before, Hezbollah exists mainly to protect Iran's nuclear program by threatening to shower Israel with tens of thousands of rockets, with a potential for thousands of deaths and massive economical damage.
Now that Hezbollah's quite literally being neutered (), Iran is exposed, and so is its nuclear program.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1838196924853150105

Certified choo choo moment.
Dude's holding a whole damn steam locomotive in his house.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1838231894565024200

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Recap of the day. I'm still hearing explosions outside but I'm sure most of it is behind us. At least as far as Israel's actions go. Hezbollah may retaliate tonight.
Anyway, the recap:

Israel conducted an intense strike campaign across Lebanon today, involving over 1,300 strikes. These consisted of strikes in:

1. Southern Lebanon - short range rockets.
2. Beirut - leadership.
3. Bekaa Valley - long range rockets, CRBMs, SRBMs, CMs.

Hezbollah's short range rockets can hit up to around Haifa. Although it sounds not so bad, these can cover a substantial part of Israel's population and its industrial base. Hezbollah is estimated to have had 80,000 of these prior to the war.

Its leadership has been systematically killed, maimed, and balls had been chopped, and today the last one in the top leadership, Ali Karachi has been killed. Only the head remains, Hasan Nasrallah. Lots of less experienced figures are thus promoted.

Long range munitions can cover the entirety of Israel and a good chunk of them have guidance systems allowing them to be used fairly precisely. Hezbollah is estimated to have had 10,000 of these prior to the war, as well as thousands more drones and hundreds of cruise missiles.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1838270462482145480

All in all, defense minister Yoav Gallant said Israel destroyed "tens of thousands" of rockets in the last few weeks. The estimate up until yesterday was less than 10,000 rockets and missiles destroyed in total.

Defense Minister Gallant: Tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets destroyed

Military expanding significant more attacks on Bekaa Valley; Large explosions in Lebanese houses from secondary explosions.

www.jpost.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1838257847550767127

Hezbollah responded with some long range rockets into the Haifa area, south of Haifa area, and Tel Aviv and Palestinian towns in J&S. The volume of fire was low. I haven't found a count of the total today, but it wasn't much. I've personally only been in a shelter 3 times today and each time it's maybe just a few rockets. Definitely not the huge barrages Hezbollah promised (although they are capable of them).
This makes it perhaps the first day the IDF conducted more strikes on Lebanon than Hezbollah has fired munitions into Israel.
By the way, 1 strike =/= 1 munition.


Israel's government approved a 1 week special emergency in the homefront, giving the homefront command executive powers to pre-empt security situations. This, reportedly because Israel fears Hezbollah will attempt to target civilian population concentrations as retribution and cause mass casualty events.

הממשלה אישרה: מצב מיוחד בעורף - בכל שטח המדינה | הסיבה, והמשמעות

הנחיות פיקוד העורף בעינן, אבל במשאל טלפוני שהוגדר דחוף אישרו השרים הכרזה על מצב מיוחד בעורף. הסיבה: "סבירות להתקפה על האוכלוסייה האזרחית בכל שטחי המדינה"

www.ynet.co.il

Not letting the foot off the gas in Gaza, Netanyahu says he's weighing a plan proposed by retired generals to completely evacuate northern Gaza and besiege it. The rationale is that Gazans originally from this area, roughly a third of the strip, will apply tremendous pressure on Hamas to relent and accept the hostage deal.
Personal note:
Northern Gaza saw the most intense battles and is thus the most ruined. In the meantime Israel could arrange restoration of parts of northern Gaza, but not let people return to it as leverage against Hamas. However, what would make more sense is to set the Netzarim corridor as the new northern border and keep northern Gaza indefinitely as a closed military zone and a buffer zone between Gaza and large cities like Ashkelon and Ashdod.
The gain here is twofold:

1. Shorter border = less manpower. IDF is facing a tremendous manpower shortage, and it needs every bit of relief it can get.
2. Inherently longer range between Gaza and cities = less potential for Gazans to threaten Israel and a much needed strategic depth.

PM says weighing plan for siege on Hamas in north Gaza; believes half of hostages alive

During closed-door meeting with lawmakers, Netanyahu argues putting pressure on Hezbollah could help force Hamas's Sinwar to the table, predicts ICC arrest warrants coming soon

www.timesofisrael.com

In related news but in Europe, Irish President accuses the Israeli embassy in Dublin of leaking a letter he sent to his Iranian counterpart, amid rising antisemitism in Europe. Despite his intent to inflame against local Jews, Iran quickly rebutted his claim and said that its embassy was the one that posted the document.
However, they have since deleted the post so here it is.

In the letter, Mr Michael says:

(I) take the opportunity to repeat the condolences of the people of Ireland for the deaths of your predecessor President Raisi.... and others of their party who perished in the tragic accident of 19 May.

Stability and cooperation, and the peaceful resolving of disputes, have never been more important....
Iran with its long tradition of culture will play a crucial role in achieving this.
I look forward to our two countries continuing to maintain ever-deeper dialogue and co-operation...

... Ireland is in the process of opening an embassy in Tehran... planned for 2025. This, I am sure, will help make the dialogue and co-operation between our two countries ever easier

Needless to say, Mr Michael knows very well that the IRGC is listed as a Leading State Sponsor of Terrorism by the US State Department, and that his admission of affiliation with the IRGC and their terrorist activities, is a serious crime. And his little "The Jews did it" charade probably won't shield him from the sanctions that typically accompany such things.

 

[swerve]

'Needless to say, Mr Michael knows very well that the IRGC is listed as a Leading State Sponsor of Terrorism by the US State Department, and that his admission of affiliation with the IRGC and their terrorist activities, is a serious crime. And his little "The Jews did it" charade probably won't shield him from the sanctions that typically accompany such things. '

He doesn't say any of that. Everything in his letter is standard platitudes, effectively meaningless. It's diplomatic boilerplate. How did you imagine such a perverse interpretation?

And note that the president of Ireland is a ceremonial figurehead. Sending people messages of politely meaningless drivel is a big part pf his job. It allows the Taoiseach (prime minister), i.e. the person with power, to avoid talking to leaders of states Ireland doesn't want to get close to.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

And note that the president of Ireland is a ceremonial figurehead. Sending people messages of politely meaningless drivel is a big part pf his job. It allows the Taoiseach (prime minister), i.e. the person with power, to avoid talking to leaders of states Ireland doesn't want to get close to.

I'm pretty sure the allied nations (except USSR) didn't write any messages about cooperation to Hitler at the height of WW2.
Still, let's give him excessive benefit of the doubt, shall we?
Why, then, did he go on to accuse Israel of all nations, of leaking a letter that HE wrote, and which Iran showed 2 months ago?
He could say it was France, Germany, Iran, Italy. I wonder what's the one unique characteristic of Israel.

 

[swerve]

Ireland's not a member of any military alliance, & never has been. It isn't at war with anyone.

And what parts of "standard platitudes" & "diplomatic boilerplate" don't you get? It's absolutely nothing to do with military cooperation, or intelligence. Claiming he made an "admission of affiliation with the IRGC and their terrorist activities" is barking mad. THINK! If 'co-operation' means anything in this context, it'll be about such things as disease control, disaster relief & so on.

Personally, I think Higgins is a dickhead (& perhaps becoming senile), & that was proved by his ridiculous claim about Israel leaking that letter, but that doesn't justify the nonsense you wrote.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Ireland's not a member of any military alliance, & never has been. It isn't at war with anyone.

And what parts of "standard platitudes" & "diplomatic boilerplate" don't you get? It's absolutely nothing to do with military cooperation, or intelligence. Claiming he made an "admission of affiliation with the IRGC and their terrorist activities" is barking mad. THINK! If 'co-operation' means anything in this context, it'll be about such things as disease control, disaster relief & so on.

Personally, I think Higgins is a dickhead (& perhaps becoming senile), & that was proved by his ridiculous claim about Israel leaking that letter, but that doesn't justify the nonsense you wrote.

It's easy to miss the underlying meaning of rhetoric when one's not nearly as invested in the topic. It's okay. I'm downright ignorant on anything US politics for example, even though it affects me to a fairly high extent.
I could open this up more and add context such as Ireland's general political and security stance, and other precedents like Switzerland's covert agreements with the PLO, but it's really something for another topic.


Back to middle east conflicts - I wanted to note that when we look back to October 7th and Russia's invasion of Ukraine - these two events have seemingly caused other conflicts to flare up and subversive efforts to surface. They and the resulting conflicts, e.g. the Yemeni Red Sea terrorism, have occurred because of the notion that those traditionally responsible for fighting back - US, NATO, Israel, won't fight back for various reasons. In Ukraine that was to an extent true. 10 years later and defense spending is still horrendously low across NATO, and none seems to be taking it as a real threat. Near total contentment with no-man's-land, buffer zone Ukraine.

On October 8th, a day after Hamas's massacre of 1,200 Israelis, Hezbollah joined in and fired hundreds of rockets at Israel. Since then, every day it has attacked Israel and close to 100,000 Israelis are internally displaced. But Hamas obviously failed and Israel went all in on them. This is probably where Hezbollah didn't expect Israel to react as much. Perhaps only 2014 Operation Protective Edge levels. They did wait a day. They did see Hamas was blunted long before it could reach its primary objectives. They miscalculated nonetheless. Hezbollah locked itself in. But did Iran or any other militia come to their aid on October 9th? Nope.
Maybe Iran thought Hezbollah was powerful enough as a deterrent. But then Israel went all in and pre-empted Hezbollah's every move.

By the way, in both cases it wasn't really expected. Netanyahu is after all widely known as an incredibly dovish leader. He's one to try to use diplomacy to get out of every war situation. Going all in, twice, is certainly out of character for him.

Now Iran lost its 2 most powerful proxies and there's little standing between it and Israel.
For good reason it now pleads to restart diplomacy with the US and lower the tensions, perhaps hoping a diplomatic push by the US could be what gets the conflict to freeze. Not a wrong calculation to be honest. They could definitely play that card and I'm sure that if Kamala is elected she may accept the offer.
The common denominator here is that despite Iran managing to coordinate initially an 8 front war against Israel, it seems to abandon every front that shows a sign of breaking down rather than reinforcing it.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

My analysis:

Ground incursion will not benefit Israel. Or at least it should be very limited, only to south of the Litani with perhaps the aim of displacing the Shi'ite population.

Hezbollah poses a threat to Israel in 2 ways:

1. In peak strength, it deters Israel from action in Iran.
2. In reduced strength, rocket fire into cities disrupts the economy.

Israel can bring Hezbollah to a status of vastly reduced strength with an aerial campaign alone. Committing to a ground incursion without the goal of completely annihilating Hezbollah will keep it in a status of reduced strength, and only slightly prolong the time until it can return to a status of peak strength. It would, however, put tremendous strain on Israel's economy and warfighting capability, and thus would be net beneficial to Iran and Hezbollah.

Committing to annihilating Hezbollah necessarily involves setting up another center of power in Lebanon that can keep rival factions in check. For example in the way Saddam kept the Shi'ites in check.

Israel, however, has little capability when it comes to nation building. At least when it comes to the necessary resources. It would need to stay for many more months in Lebanon, if not years, to train and arm a local Christian and Druze population. Similar to 1982.
The US and France can help with that. But both nations have demonstrated complete lack of appetite in resolving international conflicts and are hard focused on internal policies.

So as long as Israel cannot recruit the US to its cause, it cannot benefit from a ground incursion. Furthermore, if any policy change were to occur in that regard, it would only clarify after the US elections, which is still a long time away in the context of the current state of affairs in Lebanon.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Summary of events so far, from my perspective:

• US+France are pushing for a 21 day ceasefire.
  • I don't yet understand their reasons.
  • Perhaps they now believe they have leverage to partially implement UNSC Resolution 1701 and move Hezbollah north of the Litani.
  • Likely a sign of shrinking western influence.
    
    Litani for context:
    
    
• Vast majority of Israeli government and Knesset oppose this, including members of both the coalition and opposition.
  • Head of Opposition Yair Lapid proposed instead a 7 day ceasefire instead.
    • Must include terms that ensure the return of all Israeli evacuees home.
    • Short enough to prevent Hezbollah's ability to recover.
      
  • Prominent ministers have already went publicly against the reports.
  • Decision was reportedly made without consulting the cabinet.
    
• Ceasefire now will allow Hezbollah to restore capabilities.
  • Rocket launchers in ready positions can be replaced. Hezbollah has more rockets than tubes.
  • C2 capabilities including and primarily injured personnel from the pager attack can be largely restored.
  • Mobile equipment can be safely reshuffled knowing Hezbollah has more mobile assets than Israel has recon.
  • Evacuated Lebanese may return home, thus reducing Israel's strike capabilities that rely greatly on civilian population evacuation.
  • Iran could fly in significant amounts of equipment.
    • Shoot-down impossible as Iranian logistical planes are also civilian passenger planes.
      
• Ceasefire said to be connected to a hostage deal.
  • I find this claim to be far-fetched. Israel cannot apply any significant pressure on Hamas in that time as long as hostages are in Gaza.
  • I don't see what Hamas stands to gain from this.
    
• Ceasefire said to be personally motivated (Netanyahu).
  • Upcoming New York trip is referenced.
    • Many criticized him for attending an irrelevant UNGA forum when a remote speech would suffice.
  • Backlash from coalition could force him to backtrack.
    
• Israel's soft power increased noticeably in recent weeks. Not capitalizing on it could be a big mistake.

 

[Feanor]

Now Iran lost its 2 most powerful proxies and there's little standing between it and Israel.

In point of fact, the entire countries of Syria and Iraq stand between Israel and Iran.... the two in question literally don't share a border. In fact Iran is relatively safe from any ground action by Israel. Even airstrikes against Iran would require either violating the sovereignty of another country by using their airspace (which to be sure Israel isn't shy about doing) or getting permission from someone. This certainly isn't impossible, but even with full permission from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq, fighting an offensive air war against Iran at those distances is a substantial challenge. One could also point to the obvious reality that winning a war with primarily air power typically only works if the objectives of that war are relatively limited. One of the issues in this fight is that Iran is relatively safe from Israel on a fairly fundamental level.

For good reason it now pleads to restart diplomacy with the US and lower the tensions, perhaps hoping a diplomatic push by the US could be what gets the conflict to freeze. Not a wrong calculation to be honest. They could definitely play that card and I'm sure that if Kamala is elected she may accept the offer.
The common denominator here is that despite Iran managing to coordinate initially an 8 front war against Israel, it seems to abandon every front that shows a sign of breaking down rather than reinforcing it.

Perhaps Iran isn't the great coordinator of war against Israel that you think they are and is instead tapping into discontent with Israel from other actors.

 

[John Fedup]

Would any serious air assault on Iran by Israel embolden internal opposition in Iran and would their be any chance of success?

 

[Feanor]

Would any serious air assault on Iran by Israel embolden internal opposition in Iran and would their be any chance of success?

Good question. I'm not an expert or even a particularly well informed layman on Iranian domestic politics so I don't know. But I do know that foreign attack can go both ways. It can embolden the opposition, or it can unify the country against a foreign enemy. Is there a good reason to think Iran's domestic situation is so precarious that Israeli air strikes could result in substantial political shifts?

 

[John Fedup]

Good question. I'm not an expert or even a particularly well informed layman on Iranian domestic politics so I don't know. But I do know that foreign attack can go both ways. It can embolden the opposition, or it can unify the country against a foreign enemy. Is there a good reason to think Iran's domestic situation is so precarious that Israeli air strikes could result in substantial political shifts?

Clearly there are some issues with the regime (protests awhile back) but I don't know how much these protests actually concern those in charge. I am guessing that a significant portion of the population would have no problem with the ayatollahs and their republican guard servants being removed. However, an attack could certainly unify, especially if attacks aren't precisely done with no or extremely limited collateral damage. Perhaps BZ can comment on this.

 

[Rob c]

My personal view (I am no expert) is that any incursion by Israel is unlikely to cause an uprising against the Ayatollahs. While there could be a significant portion of the population that do not like their government, there is no reason to think that the would like the Israelis any better due to the countries anti Israeli propaganda they are unlikely to feel any connection to them.

 

[John Fedup]

My personal view (I am no expert) is that any incursion by Israel is unlikely to cause an uprising against the Ayatollahs. While there could be a significant portion of the population that do not like their government, there is no reason to think that the would like the Israelis any better due to the countries anti Israeli propaganda they are unlikely to feel any connection to them.

Iranians might not like Israelis any better but getting rid of the Ayatollahs might warm them up a bit.

 

[Rob c]

Iranians might not like Israelis any better but getting rid of the Ayatollahs might warm them up a bit.

Yep, one can but hope, However while it is possible, I think it is unlikely.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In point of fact, the entire countries of Syria and Iraq stand between Israel and Iran.... the two in question literally don't share a border. In fact Iran is relatively safe from any ground action by Israel.

Israel's elite fighter squadron on its way to bomb Iran.

My personal view (I am no expert) is that any incursion by Israel is unlikely to cause an uprising against the Ayatollahs. While there could be a significant portion of the population that do not like their government, there is no reason to think that the would like the Israelis any better due to the countries anti Israeli propaganda they are unlikely to feel any connection to them.

Iran's diaspora are some of Israel's staunchest supporters.
You should see the average North American pro-Israel rally. You can hardly fine one without the lion and sun flag.

Clearly there are some issues with the regime (protests awhile back) but I don't know how much these protests actually concern those in charge. I am guessing that a significant portion of the population would have no problem with the ayatollahs and their republican guard servants being removed. However, an attack could certainly unify, especially if attacks aren't precisely done with no or extremely limited collateral damage. Perhaps BZ can comment on this.

There is no shortage of high profile attacks Israel conducted in Iran. But I have yet to see any case of anti-regime protesters rallying to the flag.
Unlike in Israel, where the country saw its largest protest in history, and a historically record high mobilization rate of 150%, in a single year.

Even airstrikes against Iran would require either violating the sovereignty of another country by using their airspace (which to be sure Israel isn't shy about doing) or getting permission from someone. This certainly isn't impossible, but even with full permission from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq, fighting an offensive air war against Iran at those distances is a substantial challenge.

No Syrian or Iraqi ruler has ever made the sensible decision to make peace with Israel so I can't really feel sorry for hurting their feelings.

Israel has the means necessary to strike in Iran. As the general populace is incredibly hostile to the government, an aerial* campaign alone can fulfill all necessary tasks - from dismantling industrial capacity to setting the conditions for a regime change.

* also covert means.

Israel has the munitions necessary to conduct airstrikes from well beyond Iranian air defenses, and the connections (Azerbaijan primarily) to conduct special ground ops inside Iran. All of which are demonstrated.
This is because Iran's targets are fairly centralized.
Striking at just one component of missile production at a time won't be really escalatory but will allow Israel to significantly impact Iran's production capabilities.
Iran's strike assets are concentrated in the north in rather vulnerable positions and are set up in a way that limits its wartime capacity and peacetime ramp up capability.
Its regime assets are not sufficiently robust to deal with both the population and C2 shutdowns.
It however remains to be seen whether Israel has covert capabilities to paralyze IRGC's main oppressive force - the Basij. Their C2 has to be targeted.

Iran's economical assets are by far the most centralized, with Kharg island being its prime target.

The number of individual targets in Iran that may justify a large sortie (~hundred aircraft at a time) is really low. Half a dozen perhaps, these being its ballistic missile bases. But these can be shut down temporarily for lower cost.

One could also point to the obvious reality that winning a war with primarily air power typically only works if the objectives of that war are relatively limited. One of the issues in this fight is that Iran is relatively safe from Israel on a fairly fundamental level.

Being an inherently unstable country, the objectives for what may be constructed as victory, are also limited.

Perhaps Iran isn't the great coordinator of war against Israel that you think they are and is instead tapping into discontent with Israel from other actors.

The last line of defense for Iran is the nuclear program that has not yet been realized. It may feel like pushing for a nuke will lead to an American strike and unwilling to gamble like that. Sensible choice if so.
To rebuild what it has lost, it needs a lot of money, and that can be achieved via a deal with the west, which I'm sure the current US administration would really want.

 

[Rob c]

Iran's diaspora are some of Israel's staunchest supporters.
You should see the average North American pro-Israel rally. You can hardly fine one without the lion and sun flag.

Yep, but they have to be in Iran to be of much use. Unfortunately for the world there are too many regimes that don't think that leaving people to live there lives in peace is a good idea.