61–70 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iran has no great options available to them, and of the terrible options on the table I think they picked the best one for them. Now if Israel wants to attack Iran directly they have to make a mountain out of a molehill and it’ll cost Israel public support at a time where public support for Israel is rapidly waning.
Iran has the option of not inciting violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This same calculus is mentioned four times in this thread as of now. It completely ignores the human cost, as in lives saved, and cost infrastructure not destroyed and capabilities not degraded. It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative.
>It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative. That's not fair at all. This is simply how wars are fought in the modern era. We all wish we could have saved lives and infrastructure in Afghanistan, in Ukraine, etc. ad infinitum, but as democracies, we have to consider the material costs of war. And guerilla enemies can outlast us (as the Taliban did) by spending little and getting u…
The war in Afghanistan ended because there was no way to achieve our goals there given the broad public support for the Taliban, not because we were running money out money. To the contrary, we spend more than ever on defense.
Neither will Ukraine give up once the cost of the war reaches some threshold. They will fight until they are physically unable to carry on, not simply unwilling to spend.
Do we know for sure what has been reported is true, was it really only a few? Perhaps we should consider that the goal wasn't to do a lot of damage but instead saber-rattling. It would seem wise for Iran to both to satiate the demands of their constituents desire for retribution without triggering escalation. That Israel was told to 'take the win' by the US seems to be as good as result for Iran as one could possibly…
It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. Their stated goal was to overwhelm the missile defense system and it clearly failed. > The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. Not really.…
I feel like we are observing separate conflicts altogether. Israel whose conscript army is nearing its end in terms of endurance, who has been bogged down in urban guerilla warfare for 6 months, while responding to Houthi and Hezbollah strikes, who has also lost much of the goodwill and support it had from its international partners, who needed those partners that are starting to get sick of them to defend from a very early telegraphed missile strike.
You think that Israel would even consider an immediate deadly response to open a fourth front in a war they can't afford, a war the public is getting sick of, and a war that the very disliked leader of the nation is cynically prolonging to maintain his waning grip on power?
One thing I appreciate about HN the variety of perspectives I'd never be exposed to otherwise
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative. That's not fair at all. This is simply how wars are fought in the modern era. We all wish we could have saved lives and infrastructure in Afghanistan, in Ukraine, etc. ad infinitum, but as democracies, we have to consider the material costs of war. And guerilla enemies can outlast us (as the Taliban did) by spending little and getting u…
Nonsense. The war in Afghanistan ended because there was no way to achieve our goals there given the broad public support for the Taliban, not because we were running money out money. To the contrary, we spend more than ever on defense. Neither will Ukraine give up once the cost of the war reaches some threshold. They will fight until they are physically unable to carry on, not simply unwilling to spend.
2. The cost of the War in Afghanistan was an important factor in the American publics' changing attitude towards it. Once Trump got elected saying the war was a disaster and we should have never gone there, and we spent trillions on it and got nothing in exchange, the war effort was on borrowed time. And he said that, and was applauded, because American citizens, who still have power in a democracy, don't love spending trillions on a war against an enemy they can't eliminate (partly because they spend far less than us). Those same American citizens roundly rejected the, at the time, leading Republican candidate Jeb Bush, who was most known for his relation to the leader who started that war.
Here's a source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/may/01/donald-tru...
3. Ukraine won't give up because they are being invaded, similarly as Hamas does not give up as they are being invaded. Of course any amount of money is worth one's homeland. But the willingness of the US to continue supporting Ukraine is based on money because, again, American constituents don't like spending billions on other countries even if the cause is just.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. Their stated goal was to overwhelm the missile defense system and it clearly failed. > The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. Not really.…
>But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. I feel like we are observing separate conflicts altogether. Israel whose conscript army is nearing its end in terms of endurance, who has been bogged down in urban guerilla warf…
Israel isn't remotely close to stretching its forces. The army is actually pushing hard for retaliation and most forces from Gaza are already at home by now. There's an importance of "perceived power" in this region. It's crucial to Israeli survival that it appears powerful.
This is also a much "easier" war for Israel as it can fight against a "normal" army. The Hezbolla and Hamas are problematic as they aren't official armies (although they do have battalions and structures), they hide in civilian populations and make combat difficult. Hamas never brought the army remotely close to its limits; during the entire campaign in Gaza many of the people drafted were actually up north waiting for Hezbolla.
Houthi missiles are just stupid, Yemen is too far away. The problem is the costs of far east goods that results from the blockade. But that's mostly an annoyance.
All three of these fronts (and Syrian sourced attacks) are really from one source: Iran. They have been pulling the strings as part of an ongoing shadow war. Some believe it would be best to attack the head of the snake.
All of the problems Israel is experiencing with its allies are the main reason it didn't retaliate (at least not yet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
50M in offensive spend to burn through 1.3BN in defensive munitions seems highly effective to me. Great intel-gathering op.
That was far more than 50M. Heavy ballistic rockets aren’t cheap even in Iran. And Iran could have used them to cause several times the amount of damage just by hitting a couple of AD deployment points. I think Israel understands that too, hence the difficulty with deciding how or whether to respond
Do we know for sure what has been reported is true, was it really only a few? Perhaps we should consider that the goal wasn't to do a lot of damage but instead saber-rattling. It would seem wise for Iran to both to satiate the demands of their constituents desire for retribution without triggering escalation. That Israel was told to 'take the win' by the US seems to be as good as result for Iran as one could possibly…
It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. Their stated goal was to overwhelm the missile defense system and it clearly failed. > The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. Not really.…
That's not a meaningful claim about what other people would or wouldn't do.
The juice looks entirely worth the squeeze from here. Iran now knows exactly the saturation point of your defenses with all allies engaged.
My gut is Iran wanted the missiles to be intercepted. They wanted to show they are not pushovers but don’t want to escalate too much. In some sense the whole thing was a fireworks display by the countries involved. Like a warning shot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. Their stated goal was to overwhelm the missile defense system and it clearly failed. > The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. Not really.…
You wouldn't. That's not a meaningful claim about what other people would or wouldn't do. The juice looks entirely worth the squeeze from here. Iran now knows exactly the saturation point of your defenses with all allies engaged.
I'm not making a claim on what people would do. That's just standard military practice when a missile is fired you fire back at the source to prevent additional firing.
Iran has no clue about the saturation point and got nothing. First, this was 100% synthetic since Israel knew about the attack and was very prepared. It got help from Jordan, US, UK and even the Saudis. According to army sources Israel already practiced for missile volumes with double the intensity. The fact that a couple went through doesn't indicate saturation, it just indicates the complexity of the problem space.
Also, this is relevant to a point in time. Missile defenses are easy to bolster with additional resources. Right now light dome isn't even active yet and might be a game changer (energy based interception). Software and sensors improve very rapidly and additional deployments are easy.
What we do know is that a large number of Iranian missiles crashed in Iraq and Iran because they are so badly made... Anyone in the market for Iranian tech now understands the quality of their product and its usefulness.