Will the War in Gaza Ignite the Middle East?..Israel and Iran On a Collision Course

Since 2011 somewhere between 500,000 & 1 million people have died in wars in Syria & Yemen that have between them involved virtually all the nations of the 'Middle East'. The region is already 'ignited' and I wouldn't expect this conflict to cause the end of either of those conflicts.

While the visceral hatred of Jews, the pretence of caring about Palestineans and (in Syria's case) territorial disputes may motivate some nations in the region to act against Israel in certain ways, the time when those nations were prepared to take significant military action has long passed. Iran will fight Israel to the last Palestinean or Hezbollah fighter, but like every other nation in the region it knows that the real fight is the one already underway. In time this will pass. The pace of muslims in the region killing other muslims will barely slow.

 

It is unfathomable, why you would be confused. I answered your OP, saying that I had thought it not very likely that Hezbollah would get involved-- though believing, at the time that what we'd been talking about, was a full scale attack on and (attempted) invasion of Israel. You responded that you thought the chances were higher, giving as a main reason, that Hezbollah had supposedly said that this is what they would do. Despite all your sources, it seems that was a great overstatement, on your part. I pointed out that it had been Iran, in most of your sources, who'd been doing the talking; and when it was an Hezbollah official, the threats were always ambiguous-- suggested, perhaps, but not clearly stated. So how is anyone supposed to know what they really mean? Therefore, I wondered if maybe by your idea of a "igniting a larger war," you had meant something less than full on war, between Israel and Hezbollah. You do not seem to have answered my question.

So what is there for you to be unclear about, regarding my point? Your point, on the pro- side of expecting Hezbollah involvement, was that they had supposedly promised as much. My counterpoint, directly contesting your point, was that, actually no, Hezbollah officials threw around some threatening words, but did not set down any specific "if Israel does this, we will respond with that." So I disputed your evidence-- what is there, to not understand?

 

LOL. You were going to educate me, since you'd said I obviously had no understanding of the situation-- though I have said, from the start, the odds of an Israeli invasion are 100%. That means that it has taken you more time, to move your own estimate, closer to mine. And, unless you update it again, my prediction will still be more on the money, when it happens, than your merely 80% probability prediction.

There is not even a 50% chance, of full scale war-- which is not to say, though, that it isn't possible. Once more, I will mention that the lower the civilian casualty numbers, the lower the chances will be. Even your article cited the story about the hospital, as causing a sea change in the political dynamics.

I will also note that, for a second time, you are updating your predictions, in the direction of where mine have already been. So when are you going to deliver my promised schooling? Or is that just how everyone in that very large area talks-- promising things that they have no intention, or ability, to deliver?

 

Life has taught us that sensible people always update their predictions of future events based on the latest information. If nothing else history has shown that categorical positions (on any subject) ultimately lead to disaster. ALWAYS update your predictions. You might well be right on this occasion, given the extremely rare and more or less binary options left available to Israel following Hamas's recent attack. That doesn't mean mean you'll be right 12 months from now regarding specific issues relating to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. It certainly doesn't mean you'll be right on any other topic after failing to update your predictions /opinions based on the latest information.

 

The U.S. has no control over what happens in or to Gaza. It does have control over military assets that can be used if the Israelis ask for it. So I agree with you.

 

The last war Iran was directly involved with was with Iraq in the 80’s. I doubt they will get directly involved with Israel or the U.S. They are using their proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza. Israel recently attacked Iran’s proxies in Syria.

 

Use the Ocean. Save IDF lives. Flood the tunnels.

Eliminate tunnel battling in the dark, booby traps and IED's. Salt water will destroy any rockets or supplies flooded.

FLOOD THE TUNNELS!

 

Iran controld Hezbollah and Hamas. Only Iranian propagandists deny that.

 

Note: Because I had been correct, in my prediction of your complaining of my post-- since it showed you up, as being an imposter to the position of a legitimate critic (brick-throwing insulter), from some higher moral plane-- this is a re-post of the one, you'd had deleted. You have already responded to this post, non sequitur as that reply had been; so there is no need of a reply, nor even desire of one, on my end, though I expect you will answer with something, once more of dubious applicability.

Since I say, however, in my first post, that I would be providing this answer to your post, and I say on my third post that I had already supplied this answer, it makes me appear a liar, if I don't re-post this, albeit now at a later point in the thread, than where it had originally appeared. I will only add the common sense advice that, if you are so sensitive to posts that make you look bad, perhaps you should use more discretion, in the hasty way you disrespectfully reply to others, based on your erroneous interpretations of their posts; or, at least, be wiser in knowing which posters are going to beat you in debate, every time.

OK, I'll extra slow-walk you through, what should have been the obvious implication, to anyone who had been able, in the slightest way, to follow the conversation. FYI: the central idea, is the possibility of Israel's invasion of Gaza, leading to other forces, joining in the conflict, against Israel. Hopefully, you aren't lost, yet?

So, Iranian Monitor was claiming, it seemed, that the U.S. has been trying to stop Israel from invading Gaza-- why?-- to not provoke a response from Hezbollah, and others. I had corrected Iranian Monitor, that we are absolutely not trying to stop Israel from destroying Hamas (which requires an invasion of their territory). What it is that we are trying to prevent, is a large loss of civilian lives, and a humanitarian disaster.

Now here is the part, where your faith in your own brain to come to conclusions that are not spelled out, had betrayed you. You apparently felt-- God only knows why, since it is not what I had said-- that I had meant, that the U.S. only has humanitarian concerns, as if we were an apolitical organization, like the Red Cross, or whatever. Try not to let your head-- which may be loose, from all your completely misguided shaking of it-- fall off, when I tell you that: this had not been what I had meant. Since you'd been unable to correctly add two and two, I will explain that Israel's killing of civilians, to most spectators, will be more enraging, than the killing of members of a terrorist organization, which has just perpetrated a heinous attack, against them.

I have my doubts, as to whether I've exceeded your attention span, at this point yet, since the slow drip of information was only necessitated by your ridiculous misunderstanding of the shorter version-- what other option remains? But here's where I put it all together for you: if, in getting its retribution against Hamas, Israel projects a disregard, or minimizing of the importance, of the lives of non-combatant civilians, that would enflame passions in the region, and therefore make more likely, an expansion of the conflict. So, while I think that our President sincerely is concerned with the deaths of civilians, that had not been the point, of my comment. Preventing excessive civilian death, is directly related to the main subject-- which, once again, is the likelihood of an expansion of this conflict.

Is that any clearer, for you?

 

Sensible people also understand the context of a conversation, before they offer an opinion. Iranian Monitor had claimed that I was clueless, and he put on airs of being more knowledgeable:

Iranian Monitor said: ↑
I'm sorry but your knowledge of the military dynamics at issue is woefully inadequate. I will educate on the subject later as it is pretty late here and don't have the time now.


I had thought you were more intelligent than would require me to have to explain this to you, but the fact that, instead of his promised "educating" of me, he followed up by moving his own predictions to be closer to mine, belies his actually having judged from my predictions, that my "knowledge of the military dynamics at issue, is woefully inadequate."
DUH.

 

"Lord God, if Thou art unwilling by Divine Grace to assist us, do stand aside and let us fight it out."
--Unknown Scot-Irish preacher at a Revolutionary War recruiting meeting

 

I understood the context. And my response was not intended as a criticism of your position, instead it was intended to clarify what I believed to be an important factor when debating complex/ongoing issues. Your position/points regarding the flaws in Iranian Monitors argument remain valid and would still be valid even if you had included a comment similar to my own in your reply. It does not contradict your argument and was not intended to, it was a concession to the realities debates on complex subjects like this one. My mistake was in not to making that clear from the onset.

 

I thought it was self evident, I was not opining on the general concept of updating an estimate, or an opinion, based on the receipt of additional information, but rather, focusing my well-justified mockery, at the baseless bravado of Iranian Monitor's bluff.

 

100 percent.

I would not call it an invasion or a war.

The fact you have to ask this question means you have no inside information.

You have absolutely no understanding of asymmetric warfare.

The question is not , “Will [insert name of pathetic organization] do whatever?” But rather what does Israel feel they are able to get away with? And who does Israel want to butcher and when?

Israel doesn’t need a reason. They will simply make up one if they don’t have one.

What did the Palestinians do to the Israeli’s which caused them to be selected for settler colonization in the Balfour agreement? Nothing.

Why do you think Israel needs a reason to attack Hezbollah? Do you think a single Israeli fanatic here would object?

Hezbollah can’t respond. You think they will get into their fictional F-35 and start an air campaign to destroy military targets in Israel?

Talking about Hezbollah response is stupid.

 

This 28 minute video from Al Jazeera's Inside Story discussing the dynamics of a Hezbollah/Israel conflict generally reflect how I see the issue. My views on the issue are closer to the ones from the 2 non-Israeli analysts in the discussion. The last 10 minutes the discussion gets more concrete about the dynamics I am alluding to and is well informed IMO.

 

Basically, the mustache is saying Israel needs to fear Hizballah because Hizballah has lots of missiles.

He’s overestimating their ability. At best, Hizballah takes down a tower and that is really giving them more credit than they deserve. It makes sense now why the aircraft carriers are there to protect against missiles.

What people have to understand is that it doesn’t stop with the Palestinians. Israel will take Lebanon and Syria. They are just dealing with the Palestinians first.

 

Hezbollah has rockets, artillery and medium range weapons that it can fire into Israel. Beyond that, they do not have infantry formations that can invade Israel in a conventional battle. They can defend in urban settings, as Israel learned the last time they tried to go into Lebanon , They can fight an insurgency, and perhaps hit and run raids.

Talk of Hezbollah “invading” is just talk.

 

Israel also has the 'Iran card' to play. Should Hezbollah decide to launch a prolonged and intensive barrage of targets in Israel it will be using a stockpile of weapons (some of them relatively modern) supplied by Iran. So the message 'attack us and we attack Iran' should have significant resonance both with HB and their chief backers. It doesn't even have to be a full scale attack either. For example a few crippling strikes on Iran's oil infrastructure along with a promise of much more to follow if HB doesn't pull it's head in sends a message without threatening the immediate existence of the Iranian regime.

There's an obvious tipping point at play though. Israel will have to accept limited but ongoing, face saving attacks by HB as the price paid for not having HB launching a full scale attack while it in turn is free to respond as needed without also launching a full scale invasion of Lebanon. Meanwhile the Iranian regime has to ask itself how far it's really prepared to go in support of the Palestinians. (Best guest? they'll do their best to keep HB on a firm leash.)

And it all depends on every player reading they're and their opponents hands the same way and reaching the same conclusions. What can go wrong?

 

You severely underestimate what Hezbollah can do to Israel in case of war. The most important weapon in Hezbollah's arsenal are precision guided ballistic missiles. Militarily they do what an air force does: they deliver munitiions (e.g., Fatah missiles can carry 500kg and 1000kg) to their target anywhere in Israel. Israel's governmental institutions, financial institutions, harbors and ports, military bases, power stations, communications, their technological center (their so-called "Silicon Valley") are some of the targets that Hezbollah can hit. Unlike the simply unguided rockets, which the Iron Dome is designed to intercept, these ballistic missiles aren't as easy to intercept either. Israel claims it had a successful test of the Arrow 3 ABM missile against them but the numbers of such systems, even if effective, will inconsequential in protecting Israel. At the same time, Hezbollah also has been supplied kits to make its estimated 120,000+ rockets guided munitions too. While the Iron Dome can take down a percentage of those rockets, the numbers at issue will easily overwhelm Israeli air defenses. Israel knows all this: its main card to deter Hezbollah from taking such action is the promise to destroy Lebanon, bringing pressure on Hezbollah from within Lebanon not to drag them into a war.

In terms of Hezbollah's ground attack capabilities, it is different than typical military formations. Hezbollah certainly does not have any serious armored divisions but, at the same time, tanks were developed from the circumstances of the kind of trench warfare during WWI. They have become seriously obsolete in recent years and Hezbollah doctrine prefers to rely on smaller, quick, assault units armed with the kind of punch that an MBT can provide without (ironicially) the vulnerabilities of MBTs in today's war environment given the advantages of anti-tank missiles.

To be sure, Hezbollah and Iran have major weaknesses too. The most important one is that they both know the US can totally shape the larger geopolitical environment in Israel's favor while US/Israel can certainly destroy any country at war with them. On top of all that, Iran's regime is currently is at its nadir domestically and will not be able to count on much support within Iran and will have to deal with a fifth column from within. Same with Hezbollah, who is also not currently at the height of its popularity and has many domestic rivals and enemies with their own agendas. Some very closely alligned to those Hezbollah would fight.

To put it simply: while Iran/Hezbollah have plenty of ways to engage in a war that would be hugely costly internationally (they can even close traffic for any form of navigation across many major waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal), if they are involved in a major war, it will be the last they will fight. It would be kind of like a suicide mission at the end. Hence, their leverage is useful for deterrence and creating a MAD environment but not very useful otherwise.

 

I can't say you are wrong about the "Iran card", which however cuts both ways. American lawmakers and some voices in Israel alligned to them appear to share your view. Hence, very direct threats (some of which you echo) about what the US will do to Iran in case Hezbollah gets involved in hopes that Iran will use its influence to reign in Hezbollah.

 

Iran has to be careful, there are lots of Americans with long memories and remember what happened 44 or so years ago. Many of us who were around when that happened were wondering why Iran was able to survive that attack on US citizens. I think Iran probably realizes it needs to tread lightly in this mess. Israel probably can take out Iran but if Israel is aided by the USA, it would be much easier

 

IMO the US and global diplomacy is best served by it keeping direct threats to Iran to a minimum. It's already 'sent' the message to Iran about who it supports and will no doubt continue to on a daily basis via diplomatic channels. If it has to? It can always intervene militarily but it probably best serves the cause of de-escalation (to the extent that's still possible) best by not intervening militarily if it doesn't absolutely have to. Just having a carrier group in the Gulf emphasizes how badly things could go wrong for Iran if it doesn't act carefully and both Israel and the US are forced to attack it. In the end the Regime should (rationally) always choose it's own survival over that of Gaza.

I'm using the terms 'should' and 'rationally' optimistically in this setting of course.

 

I will update the odds of the events I had listed relating to the chances of a full scale regional/extra regional war based on events. The basic idea is to provide those who would like a sense of how close/far we are from such a situation developing based on changing events, to get such a sense. The odds I give are informed by my understanding of the geopolitical and political imperatives for the various participants in light of ongoing events and circumstances.

1) I am dropping the odds for a major land invasion by Israel into Gaza back to 60%. That is based on both reports about US/Israeli discussions on the issue as well as the fact that many of the Israreli armored units previously lined up for such an attack have been moved elsewhere, presumably to their bases.
2) No real change to the odds I last gave on how Hezbollah would react or respond to a major Israeli land invasion, if it comes to that. I still think its a 50/50 proposition that such a major land invasion would cause Hezbollah to eventually join the fight on a large scale. That could happen either by a series of actions and reactions, by design, or by even preemptive action by either side.
3) Seige of Gaza. Same as previously.
4) Hezbollah reaction to continuation of the seige if it starts to cause massive civilian casualties, mass starvation, etc: I think the 80% odds I had given for Hezbollah to be forced to join the fight still holds.

As for Iran, the odds of Iran being dragged directly into the fight remain around 25%. Not very likely but still the chances of it cannot be dismissed either.

 

...I think a few others as well - Iran has a pretty odious regime. Iran would probably be much better off without all the mad mullahs and hairbrained religous zealots...

 

Which is part of the regimes political calculus. They know they're extremely unpopular at home particularity amongst younger Iranians. Of course as long as they can successfully oppress their own people they don't really care about being unpopular. But that unpopularity is something that both the Israeli's and the West can use against them if they're really forced to. It's another weapon they can hold over the Mullahs head. The mere threat that Israel or America might chose to openly support, fund and potentially arm opposition groups inside Iran would be enough to make certain highly placed rings start puckering.

It would also be giving them a taste of their own medicine.