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

You may be right about U. S. military assets being "targets". Right now we have all these U. S. Navy surface vessels bobbing around in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea where they would indeed be at very real risk if, somehow, someway, some of those latest-generation anti-ship missiles, like Russia's 3M22 Zircon, were to find its way into the hands of Iran or one of its puppet 'proxy' armies.

Eight years ago (an eternity in military R&D), these missiles were reported to be able to travel at Mach 8 (6,100 miles per hour)... and, I've seen other as-yet unverifiable info to suggest that now they can move at Mach 10 (about 7,400 miles per hour). Of course, this is just the stuff we know about, or has been rumored in 'defense circles'....

Intercepting missiles of that sort would bring the art of 'shooting skeet' to a whole new level....

."Dammit! STOP PULLING!"

 

Iran doesn't need Russian missiles. Iran has one of the most advanced missile arsenals in the world, quite capable of hitting all those US warships. Stop confusing yourself and others.

 

You must mean the 'new-and-improved' Fatah-2 hypersonic ballistic missile? I guess you could shoot it at something like an American aircraft carrier... it's reputed to be really, REALLY fast -- Mach13 (9,974.5 miles per hour!)
Link: https://themedialine.org/mideast-da...ile boasts,and outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Anyway, thank you for helping me make my point (often criticized by surface-vessel enthusiasts) that big ships on top of the water that lumber along on the surface no faster than 36 - 43 knots are, in the military reality of today, obsolete! The matter is quite different, however, with submarines. And, less than a month ago we sent at least one of our nuclear submarines into the Persian Gulf... Gee, I wonder what that's all about...?

 

I mean what America's CENTCOM commander meant: Iran has overmatch capability viz a viz both the US and Israel.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/03/the-looming-threat-of-a-nuclear-crisis-with-iran

As for hitting US carriers, Iran has at least 3 different types of anti-ship ballistic missile developed specifically for that purpose.

 

I won't argue with you, acknowledging that what you wrote in your Post #773 may be essentially correct. And if that is so, it would be prudent to move all U. S. Navy ships out of the range of those Iranian missiles, and plan instead to neutralize the Iranian threat in the Middle East with our own 'new-and-improved' thermobaric bombs or 'whatever the situation requires'....

Even with better weapons, the Iranian theocracy would do well to consider that if it and its 'proxy' puppet-armies push the U. S. to a point of vigorous retaliation, it is by NO means certain that either Russia or China (or anybody else) would rally to Iran's aid with anything other than 'thoughts and prayers' and other sentiments.

Consider: Russia has nearly everything going its way right now in Ukraine, the Black Sea, Syria, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Putin won't screw that up to protect an Islamo-theocracy in Tehran which could turn on him in a heartbeat... because you never know what somebody steeped in a religion based in hatred for 'infidels' is going to do (and, yeah, Putin and most Russians west of the Ural Mountains are 'infidels').

China? It's a nation chock-full of 'infidels', and besides, the Chinese are eminently pragmatic! What does China rely on a bunch of Islamo-priests in Tehran for? Absolutely nothing.... China and Russia together already own nearly all of Africa and Asia... Iran to them is just another series of journal-entries in a long list of business clients.

 

Turkey could destroy Israel.

 

Honestly, the only people who imagine Iran relies on Russia or China are those who really don't understand Iran and its relations with Russia or China. And vice versa. That is not part of Iran's calculus at all. If anything, those two keeping strictly neutral is for now the most Iran might expect.

The real dynamic between Iran and the US is one best likened to a game of chicken. Iran has certain tactical advantages in theater. But the US has overall strategic dominance. For Iran the stakes are much higher as its very survival is at issue. It has little room for error either way: if it blinks, it has to blink all day until it can't anymore and has lost the game. On the other hand, if it hits a sacred cow or goes overboard to the point where Americans can be rallied to pay the price (it will be somewhat a big price unless Iran loses its nerves), they will be able to destroy Iran. In this equation, Israel plays an important role. It wants the US to take out Iran. It pokes Iran to show it blinks, knowing it is the sacred cow Iran can't hit back strongly. And in all this mix, Iran always has to find a way to hit back that doesn't provoke the Americans to join in. But ultimately even Israel knows the rules and limits. Remember none other than Bibi Netanyahu bailed out at the last minute when Trump assassinated General Soleimani. Minutes after the assassination, Netanyahu was on the airways saying Israel had nothing to do with it and doesn't wish to be involved.

 

We can see it with Israelis on this very forum! All they talk about is Iran, insistently. Imho, I'm quite amazed that Iran has become America's biggest problem. Iran seems such a benevolent society, considering it's status as a world heritage region, it's beyond comprehension.

 

There was a lot of hope during a small window of time (1997-2000), when the pro Israel lobby was divided in the wake of Oslo, Iran had elected a reformist president (Khatami) and Bill Clinton was personally interested (at that time) to find some rapprochement with Iran, when the two sides could have patched things up. But PNAC, the neocons, 9/11 and the rest, put an end to it (with Iran's leadership also worried about a "Gorbachev scenario"). Since then, its all propaganda, a dog and pony show, with even Obama (who was personally interested to work things out with Iran) both powerless (the JCPOA pretty much a dead letter once Trump was elected and torn up soon after) and a case of too little, too late (Iran had already invested a lot on getting itself prepared for a fight and saw both dangers and opportunities all around it).

 

oh do grow up....this is a chat site on the internet not the bloody Oxford Union....

 

You make an unassailably accurate point! But, 'what's in it for Erdogan'? That's probably the pivotal point in any understanding of Turkiye vis-a-vis Israel vis-a-vis "Palestine" vis-a-vis Iran.

Erdogan is 'in the catbird seat' with regard to all situations involving the Middle East, NATO, Russia, the Black Sea, Iran, and the generally the entire Eastern Mediterranean area. He can therefore wield a LOT of power and influence over everything, but he still thinks and often acts like a some kind of greedy 'crime-boss' out of Chicago in the 1920's....

 

Houthis (and Iran) are playing with fire.


U.S. warship downs 3 drones after attack in Red Sea
A Navy destroyer and multiple commercial ships came under attack Sunday in a major escalation in a series of maritime assaults in the Mideast linked to the Israel-Hamas war.

Attacks claimed by Yemen's Houthi rebels »

 

....no way... Iran has such a soffistikated army n' navy with millions of hi-techhytechy gizmos and doohdads that American would be smashed to smivverines the size of a Mullahs brain...inn'at righ @Iranian Monitor ...!! Them highly soffistikated Iran army general people types...well ..mate they're on the case innit like!!!


and we got piccies to prove it!!!!

 

Watching too much FOX news is bad for one's mental faculties. The Houthis were bombed for nearly a decade by Saudi Arabia +14 other states, with full intelligence and logistical support from the US and UK. What is the US going to bomb that hasn't been bombed already?

As for Iran, I have said my views. But with Iran, the issue is more about seeing who blinks?

 

You may be surprised to know that I can agree (having only a few reservations) with about 85% of what you said!

You really 'hit the nail on the head' with your observation that Iran enjoys tactical advantages in-theater, but that the U. S. does have overall strategic dominance -- although I fear that we depend entirely too much on our ability to project power by deploying Carrier Strike Groups (CSG). Hypersonic missile technology and its inevitable ubiquity will make large, slow navy surface-vessels obsolete as warfare platforms... but I disgress.

I do disagree that Russia and China are 'neutral', however. I only postulated that if Iran is being engaged in hostilities, neither of them would enter into the conflict with military force to help Iran. The 'calculus' that Putin and Xi currently work with is much larger in scope than the never-ending conflict between Judaism and Islam, although oil-producing countries will remain of very considerable importance for decades to come.

When one 'mashes all the air-bubbles out of it', what Russia and China are doing is creating their own 'new world order', with its own military and economic alliances. And, in order for this to be accomplished the United States must be quite literally pushed off the post-WWII 'throne' it has occupied -- at first, throughout the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Iran, and Saudi Arabia, too, can be a part of the Sino/Russian 'new world order', but Israel is very likely going to be 'the odd-man out', if only because of its total reliance on the United States....

I have to go attend to some 'Monday' issues right now but before I go I'll commend your sheer bravery in appearing here in what must certainly seem to be a hostile environment. You are frequently assailed for your point of view, but you never shrink from stating it. I am unashamedly 'pro-Israel' in regard to this recent "Oct. 7th atrocity", but I appreciate your contributions here nevertheless, for as they say, "information is power".

 

Lets disagree about Russia/China. They both have conflicting and complicating relationships and arrangements.

 

Does it have to be the Oxford Union for you to say something at least moderately informative?

My views on war with Iran is that even if this piece from the Hill overstates part of the issues and challenges the US will face given internal weaknesses and vulnerabilities Iran faces, it ignores one Iran's most important leverages: the ability to wreck the world economy.
https://thehill.com/opinion/congres...fidence-us-war-with-iran-would-be-disastrous/
Despite Washington’s confidence, US war with Iran would be disastrous

 

deleted post (meant for another thread)

 

Ah yes, Boaty McBoatface: One of my favorite episodes in the history of PR.

 

1. I never watch Fox News.
2. There are always more targets.

 

yeah well....that depends on whether I'm every going to be a participant in your echo chamber....so no........you see yours and my starting points are diametrically opposite therefore.....well....it is what it is unfortunately.
The internet allows one to discard the shackles of civility and call out your barbaric semi-literate money grubbing little Mullahs for what they are. When these f**ked-up these creatures start acting like human beings and your country starts acting like a....well...a functioning country in the world community....then we'll be close to the same page....otherwise I'm going to continue calling your apology for a Government exactly what it is...toodles....

 

brilliant wasn't it....how to get things so spectacularly wrong....

 

Violated the old lawyers' wisdom about examining witnesses under oath: Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.

 

...I'm not that familiar with the hill...for whom and what level of reader is it written for? This piece you've posted seems a bit childish really....I mean....the writer seems to assume a certain set of weird assumptions to which he then argues against by using some picked out the air "roll of the dice" gaming strategies in order to prove himself right.......it's rather odd don't you think? Essentially he's assumed an outcome and simply said it can't be done. Well there you go...it must be true then..... its in the hill....I assume that was the point? I assume you've posted it as being some sort of an affirmation of Iranian military invincibility...something like that...?
Seriously the more one reads it the more odd it becomes....

 

The Hill is usually pretty sound, although some of their guest contributors stray at times.
The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and ...
The Hill
https://thehill.com


The Hill is a top US political website, read by the White House and more lawmakers than any other site -- vital for policy, politics and election campaigns.