Israel, Palestine & the Levant rolling events: Oct 23 on

I think that’s probably right but controlled burns can get out of control

Given the fact that Iran can't not respond, I think this is exactly the kind of response you would want. Not just abiding by the principle of proportionality but arguable coming in below that suggests an unwillingness to escalate. Not to say it can't spin out of control from here but in and of itself this seems pretty cautious and measured as a response

Obviously we don't know the back channel stuff, how much and what countries signal to each other but no one is launching any attack without expecting and factoring in a response. This is probably less than Israel was expecting (which is possibly even a problem in the opposite direction)

Oh well that's fine then. Given that Netanyahu has been itching to have a war with Iran for years I think the main worry is what Israel is going to do next.

So...what was actually said in the phone call between Biden and Netanyahu, and will the US keep backing them through a wider conflict? Because Israel would need their help.

It's Iran, so the US will back them 100%.

Forget all those conversations about stopping selling arms to Israel.

Russia - Ukraine had terrible knock on effects on oil prices and the world economy. If Iran could be destroyed easily the US would've already done it.

Let's not forget Biden got the US out of Afghanistan, and it is an election year.

We'll see.

Biden has been an execrable idiot for 5+ decades, and most of that was when he had his half-wits about him. I think this attack will not escalate tbh but the people who are calling FP shots in his administration are the kind of dolts who would trigger ww3 "accidentally"

It's strange to be Israel: You violate a mountain of UN resolutions, condemn the UN at every turn, bomb UN schools & shelters, murder UN employees, & then you demand a UN meeting over another country responding to your bombing of their consulate 🤯 https://t.co/AwMof4bWj8

— Omar Baddar عمر بدّار (@OmarBaddar) April 14, 2024

Oh well that's fine then. Given that Netanyahu has been itching to have a war with Iran for years I think the main worry is what Israel is going to do next.

I agree here that it depends more on Israel than Iran, especially after Iran notably selected a proportionate-or-less response over an escalatory one, and in doing so revealing their hand. And Israel hasn't been acting in its best interests of late either (though arguably in Netanyahu's best interests). I'm not that sure what Israel's options are here though

People keep saying Iran didn't really go full tilt on this but is that actually true? Forget the drones, you may as well send over pigeons with bombs strapped to them, but they also launched ballistic missiles. Also the attacks came from Syria and Yemen as well as Iran, so I think they did put quite a lot of resources and planning into this. The fact that the Israelis swatted them away like a troublesome fly might well embolden Netanyahu and his crazies to think they can handle what Iran throws at them.

I don't know. If that is them at full tilt thats not a great look for them at all, and yes, would undoubtedly embolden Netanyahu if so - but didn't they choreograph what they were sending? (may have this wrong not caught up yet). If they did, they presumably also signalled what larger responses might have been. It is kind of a worry in the other direction though, if a response isn't strong enough that doesn't send a good message and as in effect also escalatory, proportionality exists for a reason

An attack was expected from Iran for days. They told everybody they would be doing something.

We will see over the coming days and weeks. An interesting post.

On Iran’s strike:

At Stanford, I attended a masterclass on military strategy led by a person with decades of experience, including serving at the highest levels in the military and government.

One lesson he thought that I always remember was this:

He asked us:

“Say the US…

— Fadi Quran (@fadiquran) April 14, 2024

Getting a bit pedantic I realize, but proportionality refers to the principle that civilian harm should be limited to what is necessary to a legit military objective. It doesn’t have anything to do with military responses being proportional to the attack they are responding to.

I have some extremely armchair and hence potentially wrong thoughts on the Iran attack but here they are:

1) the fact that the missiles were largely aimed at the airbase housing the F-35s suggests to me that Iran was either trying to achieve some degree of military goal or else was trying to project that they could have if they made the attack even larger scale. Iron dome isn’t perfect and I would think it could be overwhelmed. I don’t know how many missiles Iran and its allies have the capacity to fire at once but presumably more than they did. So I lean toward warning vs intent but it’s pretty dangerous to assume your missiles will all get shot down.

2) there’s always a certain amount of economic incentive warfare when iron dome is engaged. Iron dome is extraordinarily expensive to operate. This is probably a stronger motive in the case of Hamas rocket attacks since the rockets are extremely cheap to produce vs Iran’s missiles, but it might still be a partial motivation. The attack could have cost Israel and its allies a collective hundreds of millions of dollars.

3) I do think Iran was probably trying to calculate this to not escalate. Anything like this comes dangerously close to the line though and events are unpredictable. I still think 10/7 was probably more “successful” than Hamas expected for example.

4) If I had to bet, I think Israel will “respond” with some kind of targeted assassination or cyber strike rather than any kind of direct attack on Iran.

5) it’s kind of notable that Jordan participated in intercepting the drones (which flew over its airspace). .

*iron dome and arrow - I think both may have been involved

Getting a bit pedantic I realize, but proportionality refers to the principle that civilian harm should be limited to what is necessary to a legit military objective. It doesn’t have anything to do with military responses being proportional to the attack they are responding to.

I think thats something different? Or maybe it isn't. I do get there are two definitions here that have some overlap but aren't the same thing

Idk, I’m probably out of my depth. Seems like there are a lot of different answers on what it is. But I would imagine for example that no one would have suggested the US could only destroy a Japanese naval base in response to Pearl Harbor. I guess the intention is part of it? If Iran had launched this attack but also declared full scale war while doing it, I don’t think the response would have to be proportional. But I’m also not sure if 100+’drones and 100+ missiles launched at a country is proportional to a strike on military leaders in a third country. And does the fact that Israel had the capacity to repel the attack somehow make it more proportional? The idea is murky to me.

Also Israel would claim the strike in Syria was a response to Irans involvement in proxy attacks on Israel.

As I understand it, if A attacks B, B has to respond (not just for security reasons from further attacks from A but for internal regime security reasons as well). Responding with a similar sized attack sets an equilibrium of sorts and keeps a balance . How the equivalence of attacks comes into it and who decides what that is is obviously open to interpretation. Civilians might come into it as a factor, but I think the measurement is against the original strike

Of course everyone will claim everything but thats more for the publics consumption

I would imagine for example that no one would have suggested the US could only destroy a Japanese naval base in response to Pearl Harbor.

I don't think its so much about what a country 'could' do, its not a moral consideration but a strategic one and about what a country wants to do. If it wants to escalate, then escalate, if it wants to put things back in a box, just strike the one base and try call it quits

If either Iran's or Israel's explicit intention is a larger war, they can just go ahead and do that but once you go you're kind of committed and its difficult to get out of. Proportionality keeps options open to move up or down where necessary

So...what was actually said in the phone call between Biden and Netanyahu, and will the US keep backing them through a wider conflict? Because Israel would need their help.

― xyzzzz__, Sunday, April 14, 2024 1:38 AM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

CNN: Biden told Netanyahu that the U.S. will not participate in any offensive operations against Iran. https://t.co/MB4k5W36iQ

— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) April 14, 2024

well the US hasn’t “participated” in any of israel’s offensive actions so far at all… so this means nothing?

"Iran" as boogyman for two generations of Americans means that 'no offensive action' against it has a powerful symbolic effect.

“We will build a regional coalition and exact the price from Iran in the fashion and timing that is right for us,” was Benny Gantz's statement.

That to me reads like they don't want to immediately respond or escalate, whether for their own strategic reasons or because of US pressure.

well the US hasn’t “participated” in any of israel’s offensive actions so far at all… so this means nothing?

― Humanitarian Pause (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 14 April 2024 bookmarkflaglink

There would be a lot more scrutiny of what exactly the US are up to in the middle east.

so this means nothing?

"Participation" isn't always obvious. The US military has an incredibly capable real-time surveillance apparatus that would be extremely useful in any Israeli operation against Iran.

the 2020 drone assassination of Soleimani was definitely 'participation' but that wasn't Biden

fwiw: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-called-off-retaliatory-strike-on-iran-after-call-with-biden-new-york-times/

This exchange was already a big win for Israel, the question was whether they realized it or not and would bank the win

Fucking hell. What is Netanyahu doing. The one real risk the people of Israel face is a real war with Iran and don't get me wrong, I still think that's not going to happen, but he is not making it LESS likely and I don't see how to believe he gives a shit about the country he nominally leads. I hope I am overreacting. War between Israel and Iran would be a human disaster for everyone in the region that would dwarf anything we've seen so far.

The war between Iran & Iraq resulted in millions of casualties. If Netanyahu thinks Israel is so strong it can blast a determined Iraq into smoke and ash without suffering much, then his hubris would be pretty breathtaking.

obviously it's all iran's fault for objecting to having one of their generals assassinated by sending a bunch of drones that did nothing

They shot over 100 ballistic missiles.

which resulted in what, exactly?

I mean the best case scenario is that Israel is ALSO sending a visible attack meant to be mostly intercepted and do minimal damage. And that is not a great scenario. But better than the alternative of Netanyahu deciding to roll the dice on creating a war between the major regional powers and coming out on top.

They shot over 100 ballistic missiles.

did they raze a hospital? did they shoot people trying to retrieve food aid?

problem is of course someone needs to be the last one to send a visible attack meant to be mostly intercepted and do minimal damage

did they raze a hospital? did they shoot people trying to retrieve food aid?

― mookieproof, Thursday, April 18, 2024 10:53 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

What does that have to do with Iran?

my bad, just trying to establish what acceptable military targets are

dude in syria: sure
hospitals in gaza: are you shitting me?
people literally cleared by the IDF to rescue children: hell yes

spare me the shock

in the third one, you aren't referring to a target but rather an acknowledged mistake (I think. Maybe I am mixing up tragedies).

They shot over 100 ballistic missiles.

Iran was always going to respond in some fashion, not responding at all isn't de-escalatory, and their response was clearly designed to not try and raise the stakes. That meant that out of the exchange Israel came out well ahead, a big win for Israel, ...if Netanyahu was able to walk away and take the win.

Which turns out to be a big if

but rather an acknowledged mistake

a) i don't believe that was a mistake
b) it makes no difference to the dead people

xp Netanyahu looking as strong as Barry Lyndon after the duel now

israel is absolutely, obviously, specifically targeting -- with sniper shots to the fucking head -- anyone in gaza who could conceivably make it look like it's doing anything wrong

apparently doesn't even matter if accredited EMT's clear their movements

doesn't matter if josé andrés' aid workers get slaughtered (although it's funny that seeing white people mowed down was *almost* enough to sway world opinion)

come on

we all know that israel 'doesn't have nukes' of course

but if it dropped a nuke on gaza right now, how would the world respond? and how would that be in any way different from what it's doing now?

This doesn't seem very much after all? Iran's response seems to be "nothing to see here", are we just going to see performative all bark no bite strikes back and forth?