Israel hits Iran. What next?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Israel struck Iran overnight killing several senior military leaders and nuclear scientists - and presumably other people living close by - damaging uranium facilities and declaring a state of emergency to counter an expected Iranian response.
The US denies involvement.
The situation could easily escalate and spiral out of control. Retaliatory strikes on Israel. Attacks on US bases in Iraq.
We need diplomacy urgently.
And if you are one who prays, pray, pray, pray ...
What do Shipmates expect will happen next? Can things be de-escalated?
The US denies involvement.
The situation could easily escalate and spiral out of control. Retaliatory strikes on Israel. Attacks on US bases in Iraq.
We need diplomacy urgently.
And if you are one who prays, pray, pray, pray ...
What do Shipmates expect will happen next? Can things be de-escalated?
Comments
One of the people targeted had been leading the nuclear talks, I think the assumption that diplomacy is being sought is mistaken.
Israel has been taught in Palestine that it does not need diplomacy if it has carte blanche from the US, even more so if reaction from other allies is limited to bleats of "we'd rather you didn't".
The Guardian reports:
As has been reported widely, some of the cabinet ministers in Israel want to depopulate Gaza. That's not the policy of the government of Israel as far as I know, but they're not exactly saying anything much against it or acting in the opposite way.
Israel has a "iron dome" security system. If Iran send missiles towards Tel Aviv, the chances are that they will do minimal damage. But if they (Iran) were to send a cloud of them some will miss. And as far as I know the iron dome won't protect Gaza.
Anyway, if the bedraggled Gazans finally flee into Sinai, they're never going to go back. Having Iran being the aggressor who finally caused this migration of misery would suit the purposes of the worst people in the Israeli government.
Similarly perhaps with other Iranian proxies, although their weapons are even less accurate.
On what basis? Makes more sense that their object is what they say - destroy Iran's nuclear capability. @chrisstiles talks about the US giving Israel carte blanche, but the reality is that US policy is not that clear right now. It's more that the Trump administration is fairly isolationist and also has little negotiating prowess, having already pulled out of an agreement with Iran the first time Trump was president.
That was @Arethosemyfeet rather than me; but it didn't need particularly fancy footwork to send a message that this wasn't something acceptable to the administration.
I think Trump is an old man who is only interested in Trump. So understanding his actions are as simple as seeing what would make him look good. He's interested in "winning" which means being on the "winning side" in a conflict.
He's ambivalent about Ukraine because Russia is (in his mind if not reality) the stronger party that is winning the war.
Other conflicts only interest him as far as they can be resolved under pressure from him, so he can come out of it believing he solved the problem.
So what would make him look good in a military conflict between Israel and Iran? Nothing. There's nothing to be gained there whatsoever.
What he has or hasn't said to Israel in the recent past is irrelevant because he only lives in this present moment. The Israelis might believe that a phonecall yesterday gave them a greenlight but that means nothing when Trump denies that it ever happened because (for whatever reason) he doesn't think it would play well on Fox.
If there is a God or god somewhere who is interested, and who answers prayer, maybe this would be a good time to demonstrate that interest.
However, a discussion on the efficacy or otherwise of intercessory prayer is for another thread, I think.
Absolutely this.
Who is assuming that diplomacy is being sought?
I said that we need it.
Which is rather different.
I'm not sure Iranian dissidents nor journalists currently imprisoned by the regime or writers and artists currently in exile would consider their government 'relatively moderate.'
I no more like the idea of Tehran with nukes than Netanyahu with them or Putin or Trump or ...
Okay, so regime change it is, is it ?
Only to then have his boss talk as if the US was fully behind it. Quotes like: and and I notice that the line that Rubio tried to present has basically been dropped out of most of the media coverage now. Because Trump's reckless tough-guy talk has buried it. I don't have any sympathy for Rubio, but I recognize it is tough to be "America's Top Diplomat" when you have a President like Trump undermining all attempts at diplomacy.
The last time the Iranians launched a mass attack on Israel, the US and a number of its allies set up a defensive shield which knocked down most of the missiles and drones launched by Iran even before the Iron Dome was activated. I bet they will come to Israels aid again.
It would take a coherent position on the Middle East, and the Trump administration doesn't have one. Apologies for the misattribution.
I said exactly this in a conversation late last night. Spot on.
That thought also occurred to me.
I guess they probably have enough on their plate right now, though.
Where did I say that?
According to Channel 4 News Iranian dissidents are hoping for that as an outcome.
As they would, of course.
All I'm saying is that the Iranian regime isn't squeaky clean. Neither is the Netanyahu regime.
You will notice I mentioned Putin and Trump. I'd like to see regime change with both of them.
I felt Alan's meaning was relatively obvious and didn't really require the ritual disclaimer. Namely that they aren't North Korea, and that they have - at least in the past - been amenable to agreements with the US for inspection regimes in return for sanctions.
Technically yes, I think, but I suspect NATO assistance would be things like allowing US forces to cross their territory or use their bases. I doubt the US would want to launch a ground war.
Apparently according to CNN they were aimed at the headquarters of Mossad.
Actual US territory in North America? Yes. On US forces outside Europe, North America or the Med? No. Does Hawaii count as North America for these purposes? Answers on a postcard.
The scope of Article 5 is, at least in theory, bounded by the geographic limits outlined in Article 6: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
ISTM the default answer would be 'No'.