naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
28867 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
What are the chances that this leads to Israel attacking Iran? Iran appears to have been a supporter of Hamas. Netanyahu has seemingly been eager for a reason to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program. From Netanyahu's perspective, eliminating the program would make recent events a net gain for Israel. However, how would the global community respond to an Israeli assault on Iran? While many countries in the region would likely be pleased, they would need to feign outrage. Russia, having recently gotten weapons from Iran, would denounce the attack. But, given its diminished power, what action could Russia realistically take? Would Biden risk sanctioning Israel for such an action, particularly when his Republican adversaries would likely applaud it?
I don't think Israel has any meaningful capability to attack Iran. I wouldn't go so far as to call them a paper tiger, but their ability to project and sustain forces significantly beyond their borders is slim. Iran is pretty far away with numerous countries hostile to Israel in between them. Even a single airstrike seems unlikely to succeed - the combat range of the strike aircraft in their inventory barely reaches the closest border of Iran over the shortest possible route, which overflies a lot of hostile territory. Hitting any actual targets inside Iran would probably require aerial refueling in hostile airspace. I expect they want to keep what forces they have close to home to protect the country from direct threats rather than risk them on super-long-range missions.
They would need to use medium range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles to attack Iran, which they probably don't have, aside from nuclear-tipped ones.
The Israelis are a paper tiger without daddy America. As this conflict showed (8 billion dollars needed from Uncle Sam within the first day of rocket attacks).
If the Israelis had the capability to attack Iran, then they'd have done it years ago. They don't and ultimately depend on the US to do it. Successive American administrations have turned down every request from Jerusalem.
Iran today is much more capable than it was 10 years ago. If Iran is attacked, they would almost certainly conduct a a massive attack on Saudi Arabia and other US-aligned countries. That would send the world economy into a gigantic depression if oil output suddenly crashed by 10-15 mb/d. Many Western strategic oil stocks are already depleted after the UA war so there wouldn't be much buffer space to absorb the shock.
Not him but one thing that comes to my mind is several successful drone attacks that Houthis have launched against Saudi targets in the last few years, including ones that hit oil production facilities. Iran is the Houthis' main backer and most likely source of the drones. Iran has also been providing large numbers of drones to Russia. All these drones give Iran a greater ability to precisely hit targets than they had 10 years ago.
Would Israel attack Iran if it predicted that Biden would privately oppose but publicly support the attack? From Israel's viewpoint, the attack leading to Iran attacking Saudi Arabia would be a good thing because this would bring US air power into the war.
From Israel's viewpoint, the attack leading to Iran attacking Saudi Arabia would be a good thing because this would bring US air power into the war.
Yes but it would also tank the world economy. And ultimately the US cares far more about that. Already today there are news of a major meeting between the Big Three of Europe (UK/FR/DE) and the US, ostensibly to prevent a wider conflagration in the region. Ultimately, Israel is a client state of the US and has to behave as such. It's on a short leash.
“Has been a supporter of hamas” is a pretty low bar. Egypt and and Syria used to do it openly. Qatar and Turkey still do. Direct retaliation must require more than that.
I think you are looking at the issue from the viewpoint of a moral philosopher. From Israel's viewpoint what matters is will the attack mean if it attacks Iran, the US won't punish it?
There is good reason to believe that even the American high command doesn't think it can actually win a war of invasion against Iran in any realistic scenario.
No, I’m not thinking about morality. I’m saying the strategic calculus is unfavorable even if the US doesn’t express disapproval. A shooting war with Iran would result in more Israeli casualties than any terrorist attack, and I don’t get the impression that it would meaningfully cripple their ability to fund Hamas. Far more efficient to spend that money and manpower retaliating against the people who were directly responsible.
What are the chances that this leads to Israel attacking Iran?
What is an attack on Iran supposed to do, besides a generally cathartic moment?
No, I doubt this will lead to anything overt, at least not until the Gaza Strip siege concludes. I'd expect Israel to take a long-form asymmetric conflict approach for revenge. Fewer F-16s on long-strike missions, and more drone assassinations on IRGC and others.
The attacks on Iran will, ideally from Israel's viewpoint, stop Iran from getting an atomic bomb and damage Iran's economy thereby reducing Iran's ability to fund the enemies of Israel.
I am familiar with some science fiction weapons that could meaningfully achieve that, but nothing in Israel's inventory that would be reasonably be used as that effect.
Israel is already attacking Iran through cyber warfare, sponsoring various extremist groups and assassinations. As for war there really isn't a lot they can do as the countries aren't near each other.
They don't share any airspace and are far from Iran. They would have to fly through several countries while carrying heavy external fuel tanks that make their jets really easy to spot on radar. This is against Iran that massproduces missiles that can reach Israel.
Biden and Obama have tried to make peace between Iran and the US, which is why the US recently unfroze $6 billion in Iranian funds. It is in the US interest to prevent a large war in the Middle East. It is in Biden's interest to prevent a significant increase in the price of gas that would likely come about because of such a war.
Part of me wonders if Biden is hopeful for a war. Predictions were already on gas prices going higher and Biden emptied the strategic reserve to turn the red wave into a ripple at best.
If there is a war, he can say “not my fault shit happens in the world”
But Trump will blame the war on Biden saying that Biden unfreezing Iran's assets enabled Iran and sent a signal to Iran that we would be OK with them attacking Israel. Trump would point out that during his presidency Iran didn't cause trouble because Trump did things like assassinate Iranian general Soleimani. Trump would claim that Russian invading Ukraine during Biden's but not his presidency is another example of how US perceived weakness causes war.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What are the chances that this leads to Israel attacking Iran? Iran appears to have been a supporter of Hamas. Netanyahu has seemingly been eager for a reason to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program. From Netanyahu's perspective, eliminating the program would make recent events a net gain for Israel. However, how would the global community respond to an Israeli assault on Iran? While many countries in the region would likely be pleased, they would need to feign outrage. Russia, having recently gotten weapons from Iran, would denounce the attack. But, given its diminished power, what action could Russia realistically take? Would Biden risk sanctioning Israel for such an action, particularly when his Republican adversaries would likely applaud it?
I don't think Israel has any meaningful capability to attack Iran. I wouldn't go so far as to call them a paper tiger, but their ability to project and sustain forces significantly beyond their borders is slim. Iran is pretty far away with numerous countries hostile to Israel in between them. Even a single airstrike seems unlikely to succeed - the combat range of the strike aircraft in their inventory barely reaches the closest border of Iran over the shortest possible route, which overflies a lot of hostile territory. Hitting any actual targets inside Iran would probably require aerial refueling in hostile airspace. I expect they want to keep what forces they have close to home to protect the country from direct threats rather than risk them on super-long-range missions.
They would need to use medium range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles to attack Iran, which they probably don't have, aside from nuclear-tipped ones.
More options
Context Copy link
The Israelis are a paper tiger without daddy America. As this conflict showed (8 billion dollars needed from Uncle Sam within the first day of rocket attacks). If the Israelis had the capability to attack Iran, then they'd have done it years ago. They don't and ultimately depend on the US to do it. Successive American administrations have turned down every request from Jerusalem.
Iran today is much more capable than it was 10 years ago. If Iran is attacked, they would almost certainly conduct a a massive attack on Saudi Arabia and other US-aligned countries. That would send the world economy into a gigantic depression if oil output suddenly crashed by 10-15 mb/d. Many Western strategic oil stocks are already depleted after the UA war so there wouldn't be much buffer space to absorb the shock.
TL;DR near zero.
Can you elaborate on that?
Not him but one thing that comes to my mind is several successful drone attacks that Houthis have launched against Saudi targets in the last few years, including ones that hit oil production facilities. Iran is the Houthis' main backer and most likely source of the drones. Iran has also been providing large numbers of drones to Russia. All these drones give Iran a greater ability to precisely hit targets than they had 10 years ago.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The American stockpile is depleted because the Biden administration didn’t want to lose an election.
More options
Context Copy link
Would Israel attack Iran if it predicted that Biden would privately oppose but publicly support the attack? From Israel's viewpoint, the attack leading to Iran attacking Saudi Arabia would be a good thing because this would bring US air power into the war.
Yes but it would also tank the world economy. And ultimately the US cares far more about that. Already today there are news of a major meeting between the Big Three of Europe (UK/FR/DE) and the US, ostensibly to prevent a wider conflagration in the region. Ultimately, Israel is a client state of the US and has to behave as such. It's on a short leash.
Serbia was a client of Russia at the time Serbia pushed Russia to start WW I.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Slim to none.
“Has been a supporter of hamas” is a pretty low bar. Egypt and and Syria used to do it openly. Qatar and Turkey still do. Direct retaliation must require more than that.
I think you are looking at the issue from the viewpoint of a moral philosopher. From Israel's viewpoint what matters is will the attack mean if it attacks Iran, the US won't punish it?
There is good reason to believe that even the American high command doesn't think it can actually win a war of invasion against Iran in any realistic scenario.
Agreed. But lots of damage could be inflicted by air attacked. Alan Dershowitz wants Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions. https://twitter.com/HappyCamper2626/status/1710815116479058301
A rather unsurprising turn of events
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, I’m not thinking about morality. I’m saying the strategic calculus is unfavorable even if the US doesn’t express disapproval. A shooting war with Iran would result in more Israeli casualties than any terrorist attack, and I don’t get the impression that it would meaningfully cripple their ability to fund Hamas. Far more efficient to spend that money and manpower retaliating against the people who were directly responsible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is an attack on Iran supposed to do, besides a generally cathartic moment?
No, I doubt this will lead to anything overt, at least not until the Gaza Strip siege concludes. I'd expect Israel to take a long-form asymmetric conflict approach for revenge. Fewer F-16s on long-strike missions, and more drone assassinations on IRGC and others.
The attacks on Iran will, ideally from Israel's viewpoint, stop Iran from getting an atomic bomb and damage Iran's economy thereby reducing Iran's ability to fund the enemies of Israel.
I am familiar with some science fiction weapons that could meaningfully achieve that, but nothing in Israel's inventory that would be reasonably be used as that effect.
Well they do have nuclear weapons if we are talking about sci-fi scenarios
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Israel is already attacking Iran through cyber warfare, sponsoring various extremist groups and assassinations. As for war there really isn't a lot they can do as the countries aren't near each other.
Israel could launch repeated airstrikes on Iran.
They don't share any airspace and are far from Iran. They would have to fly through several countries while carrying heavy external fuel tanks that make their jets really easy to spot on radar. This is against Iran that massproduces missiles that can reach Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I fail to see a single reason to assume Biden would sanction Israel for such an attack in any situation, Republican applause or not.
Biden and Obama have tried to make peace between Iran and the US, which is why the US recently unfroze $6 billion in Iranian funds. It is in the US interest to prevent a large war in the Middle East. It is in Biden's interest to prevent a significant increase in the price of gas that would likely come about because of such a war.
Part of me wonders if Biden is hopeful for a war. Predictions were already on gas prices going higher and Biden emptied the strategic reserve to turn the red wave into a ripple at best.
If there is a war, he can say “not my fault shit happens in the world”
But Trump will blame the war on Biden saying that Biden unfreezing Iran's assets enabled Iran and sent a signal to Iran that we would be OK with them attacking Israel. Trump would point out that during his presidency Iran didn't cause trouble because Trump did things like assassinate Iranian general Soleimani. Trump would claim that Russian invading Ukraine during Biden's but not his presidency is another example of how US perceived weakness causes war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link