Middle East Defence & Security

[Big_Zucchini]

The Europeans don't necessarily see it in their interest too be involved in it. I would suspect that they see the Iranian - Israeli dispute as something that is not of world shattering importance to them. They have higher priority issues to deal with and they have really gone beyond their colonial empire building days. Except for France. The French still seem to think of themselves as being imperial and having an empire.

That is true. And the fear is that the American realignment eastward, the same could gradually start to apply to the US.

 

[STURM]

In the JCPOA the US did not show Israel it can be relied upon to make the right decision with regard to Iran, from Israel's perspective.

Fair enough but from the perspective of the U.S. it has it's own interests to watch out for; the interests of other allies and wider strategic interests. Biden understandably is in no rush - despite the constant urging of others - to strike at Iran because he does not want to lead the U.S.. in yet another war in the region; a war which might serve the interests of other countries but not the U.S. and a war which will have long term consequences not just for the U.S. and the region but beyond as well. What ''constitutes'' '' the right decisions for Israel with regards to U.S. decision making on Iran can be profoundly different to how the Americans and others see it.

The U.S. has already openly made clear that it is exploring all options and had consultations with Israel [hopefully it has consultations with other countries too as they also live in the neighbourhood]; thus if talks fail and there is no certainty they can be revived soon and it's felt that the Iranians might enrich uranium to a certain percentage; then the war that some have long been pushing for might not be too far off.

 

[SolarWind]

Americans are war weary as a people and concentrated on domestic issues. I imagine this one and some number of future administration being very reluctant to get involved in wars when not absolutely required to. This is not to say that allies will be abandoned, far from that, but more on that later. We seem to have learned that wars are much easier to get into than to get out of and that wars can have very negative unexpected and unintended consequences.

Aside from that, one of our current high profile controversies are on policing for law and order vs. regulation or lack of thereof of outbursts and backslash against police brutality. If this is spilling over into meetings with Israeli diplomats, one would want to think whether it is spilling into foreign policy in general or just Israel, and why.

As far as what appears as Israeli sudden and dire need for air refueling and helicopters, it seemed that Israel was making an impression that they could take Iran all on their own. If this is indeed not the case, perhaps some concessions on those points are expected. Or, maybe, the holiday season is the reason for delays when paperwork needs to get moved and people are taking their vacations. It is hard to tell.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

As far as what appears as Israeli sudden and dire need for air refueling and helicopters, it seemed that Israel was making an impression that they could take Iran all on their own. If this is indeed not the case, perhaps some concessions on those points are expected. Or, maybe, the holiday season is the reason for delays when paperwork needs to get moved and people are taking their vacations. It is hard to tell.

Israel has the tools to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, for the time being. But they are high risk and very difficult to time. By assisting Israel in a select few areas, a strike could be de-risked quite substantially. If Israel eventually does commit to a strike, it would be in the US's interest it would at least go well.

 

[SolarWind]

Israel has the tools to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, for the time being. But they are high risk and very difficult to time. By assisting Israel in a select few areas, a strike could be de-risked quite substantially. If Israel eventually does commit to a strike, it would be in the US's interest it would at least go well.

It may be in everyone's interest for such a strike to go well, but it would not become everyone's responsibility if something goes sideways. People easily like it when interests are served, but few want responsibility, and most are risk averse.

 

[STURM]

Americans are war weary as a people and concentrated on domestic issues. I imagine this one and some number of future administration being very reluctant to get involved in wars when not absolutely required to.

The past 2 decades have seen American failing to gain it's political and military objectives in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Unsurprising the Obama, Trump and Biden were/are very reluctant to have a go at Iran and be drawn into yet another war in the region. I have no doubt however that if the latest round of talks break down; the U.S. will have to take certain measures.

but it would not become everyone's responsibility if something goes sideways.

Irrespective of how successful a strike is; Iran will retaliate. The Israelis will do their thing; the Europeans will assist in certain ways, the Gulf Arabs will sit on the sidelines but as always the country which will have to take the main brunt will be America.

From an Iranian perspective; the majority of Iranians will unite in the face of strikes and even those against the current leadership will show solidarity. They will see it as yet another attempt by outside powers to impose things on Iran and it will be seen as yet another Western example of hypocrisy given that Israel is a nuclear power.

Israel has the tools to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, for the time being.

To me Israel certainly has the means; whether by air strikes; missiles; SF raids or cyber attacks - to severely degrade/damage Iran's nuclear infrastructure; of that there is no doubt; the problem is what comes after? How great will the fall out be and how will the crisis eventually be resolved? After a series of devastating and precision strikes/attacks; if it's found that Iran may still retain a certain capability; what next? Are strikes/attacks supposed to run indefinitely?

It will be great if military means can successfully achieve the intended political results and if the Iranians say 'alright; please stop hitting us; we'll behave now and fully cooperate'' but they won't.

 

[SolarWind]

To be fair, initial military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq were reached fairly quickly and efficiently, and the objectives of nation building were a long shot to begin with. Fighting insurgent wars and calling it peacekeeping was the mistake in my opinion.

 

[STURM]

To be fair, initial military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq were reached fairly quickly and efficiently, and the objectives of nation building were a long shot to begin with. Fighting an insurgent war and calling it peacekeeping was the mistake in my opinion.

Fair enough; no doubts there but ultimately after so much effort and sacrifice [paid also by the locals] the U.S. failed to gain its objectives in all those countries : in Syria Assad is still in power and Russia and Iran are there ; in Afghanistan the Taliban whom the U.S. once declared was defeated and that there would be no negotiations with are back in power and in Iraq; AQ and other groups like it are largely defeated but there is a Shia majority government in power which although 'friendly' to America is not overly accommodating and Iran - to be expected - has a huge level of influence in the country. We won't even get into Libya and other policy decisions taken.

IMO America has to take a hard and long look at what it wants to achieve in the Middle East; what it can actually achieve; the penalties it's willing to incur and how it actually benefits America in the long run as opposed to how it benefits its allies. Lest we forget; the locals who actually live in the region will be the ones paying the price for decisions taken by outsiders; as has long been the case.

 

[SolarWind]

There may be nothing left to achieve in the region beside support for allies. We can achieve energy independence with a manageable price increase, and we are now more concerned about carbon emissions than oppressive regimes in the middle east.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The past 2 decades have seen American failing to gain it's political and military objectives in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Unsurprising the Obama, Trump and Biden were/are very reluctant to have a go at Iran and be drawn into yet another war in the region.

Iraq and Afghanistan were nation building attempts. Not a war. In Syria the American policy was not clear IMO, and either way it was much more talk than actions. There is still much to be done in regards to Syria though. The Russia-Iran situation will eventually resolve to only Russia remaining there, and Israel is making it an Iranian money pit. Russia will waste money maintaining presence there and it will mostly be a headache for Israel, not the US.

Iran though, is a unique case and the above do not apply to it. Its regime is not a target, let alone the entire country. Its nuclear infrastructure is, and beyond that if the US is dragged into an escalation it would be mostly a voluntary one. If the US decides it's regime change time, that's on them.

Irrespective of how successful a strike is; Iran will retaliate. The Israelis will do their thing; the Europeans will assist in certain ways, the Gulf Arabs will sit on the sidelines but as always the country which will have to take the main brunt will be America.

I disagree. The US has mere extensions of itself in the middle east - bases and troops. Iran may try to attack them, in which case the US can either beef up air defenses or temporarily evacuate, with a potential loss of infrastructure worth hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars.
There is also the quite likely possibility Iran will leave the US out of it, or pull its punches to avoid an escalation it cannot afford.

Israel though, will take hits to the homefront, with anything from mortars and Grad rockets to SRBMs, cruise missiles, and drones. All coming from Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran. And the challenge of hunting them all down will be huge. Losses of lives could easily reach thousands, and losses of material worth tens of billions of dollars. One round in Gaza for example cost Israel more than $3 billion.

There may be nothing left to achieve in the region beside support for allies. We can achieve energy independence with a manageable price increase, and we are now more concerned about carbon emissions than oppressive regimes in the middle east.

With how entangled the region is with global shipping routes? The region is full of countries willing to convert their oil money to diversify their economies, and ripe for investments.

 

[STURM]

Iraq and Afghanistan were nation building attempts. Not a war. In Syria the American policy was not clear IMO, and either way it was much more talk than actions. There is still much to be done in regards to Syria though.

Define it how you'd like but ultimately America did not achieve the political goals it intended to achieve in all 3 countries ..... In Iraq it was Iran which benefited; a Shia government is now in place and Saddam is gone. In Syria Assad remains fully entrenched and Russia is there.

Also; Iraq and Aghanistan did not start off as nation building attempts; although they should have. In the case with Iraq it was expected that a Iraqi population would be grateful to be rid of Saddam and that oil money would eventually get the country on it's feet again. In Afghanistan; to a larger extent there was a realisation that a lot would have to be done to get the country on its feet again but there was no holistic and cohesive plan; nor was it a priority. The Pentagon and State Department had issues; the various donor countries also had issues and the UN initially wasn't involved in a bog way. Then Iraq came and a lot of resources and focus shifted to Iraq. the result was an Afghan population who got increasingly hostile to the foreign troop presence and the Taliban able to slowly make a comeback.

it would be mostly a voluntary one

Like all the recent wars it got involved in; voluntary. Also; if Israel is hit by Iran in retaliation for an Israeli strike; I'm doubtful the Americans would stay out.

If the US decides it's regime change time, that's on them.

Given that the vast majority of Iranians - even those opposed to the current leadership - would unite in the face of strikes : doubt regime change is on the minds of American policy makers. Even if regime change was possible; what comes after that? The last time regime change was successfully applied in Iran; leading to the overthrow of an elected leader; Mosaddegh , the Shah came back into power and as a result the Revolution occurred in 1979.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Define it how you'd like but ultimately America did not achieve the political goals it intended to achieve in all 3 countries ..... In Iraq it was Iran which benefited; a Shia government is now in place and Saddam is gone. In Syria Assad remains fully entrenched and Russia is there.

Also; Iraq and Aghanistan did not start off as nation building attempts; although they should have. In the case with Iraq it was expected that a Iraqi population would be grateful to be rid of Saddam and that oil money would eventually get the country on it's feet again. In Afghanistan; to a larger extent there was a realisation that a lot would have to be done to get the country on its feet again but there was no holistic and cohesive plan; nor was it a priority. The Pentagon and State Department had issues; the various donor countries also had issues and the UN initially wasn't involved in a bog way. Then Iraq came and a lot of resources and focus shifted to Iraq. the result was an Afghan population who got increasingly hostile to the foreign troop presence and the Taliban able to slowly make a comeback.

What you're describing is the natural punishment for incoherence. I won't address these examples further because my knowledge is superficial so I cannot possibly contribute there, but I do still believe the Iranian case is unique and certainly does not demand any long term American presence either in or near Iran.

Like all the recent wars it got involved in; voluntary. Also; if Israel is hit by Iran in retaliation for an Israeli strike; I'm doubtful the Americans would stay out.

They won't, but their role in either an attack or the defense after it, would be secondary. In the defense part, American forces have regularly trained with Israeli counterparts in the air defense mission and have talked about a potential deployment of THAAD and Patriot batteries to Israel to beef up its national defenses.
At the moment, Israeli media is talking about the potential activation of all layers of IAMD, including the Arrow 3 designed to defeat exo-atmospheric projectiles.

Given that the vast majority of Iranians - even those opposed to the current leadership - would unite in the face of strikes : doubt regime change is on the minds of American policy makers. Even if regime change was possible; what comes after that? The last time regime change was successfully applied in Iran; leading to the overthrow of an elected leader; Mosaddegh , the Shah came back into power and as a result the Revolution occurred in 1979

Like quantum mechanics, you can't really tell the outcome without acting and measuring the result. Throw a dice, whatever comes out, is what there will be. Either way, gonna be better than a theocratical tyranny. Not that it's very possible though - the IRGC were made for this.

 

[STURM]

I do still believe the Iranian case is unique.

Viewed individually or in isolation; they were/are all ''unique'' : Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. They all share/shared things in common but each had their unique set of challenges, responses and solutions.

certainly does not demand any long term American presence either in or near Iran.

Nor did I suggest it would, What I did say is that the Americans are extremely wary of getting stuck in yet another regional war with yet another regional actor and the consequences of war will have long term detrimental effects beyond the region; which is already unstable as it is.

I also questioned what comes next in the event strikes and other forms of action do occur but fail to achieve the desired results.

American forces have regularly trained with Israeli counterparts in the air defense mission and have talked about a potential deployment of THAAD and Patriot batteries to Israel to beef up its national defenses. .

Nobody is questioning the political will or the ability of the Americans to work alongside the Israelis. You mentioned that ''if the US is dragged into an escalation it would be mostly a voluntary one.''; this might not necessarily be the case. At some point in the future it might not yet be comfortable with going for the military option but if hostilities were to erupt as a result of Israeli military action; which in turn resulted in Iranian retaliation; America would be involved.

Either way, gonna be better than a theocratical tyranny.

Unless one has a crystal ball; it's a pure assumption that anything else would be ''better''; for the region as a whole or for the Iranian people.

the IRGC were made for this.

The IRGC originally was created for a variety of roles; including regime survival/protection.

 

[ngatimozart]

WRT to Afghanistan and Iraq the Americans went into both countries with a war plan which worked, but the had absolutely no plan for the peace afterwards. They muddled from season to season and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. If they had instituted something like the Marshall Plan in both countries and good civilian administration, they would have very few of the problems that beset them afterwards. But they didn't.

 

[STURM]

they would have very few of the problems that beset them afterwards. But they didn't.

They also had past examples to learn from; not just Vietnam but the Hukbalahap rebellion in the Philippines. With sound American advice and assistance the Filipinos came up with a sound military/political/economic strategy that defeated the rebellion. Yet till today we hear more about Malaya a classic insurgency campaign that went right but little about the Philippines.

With regards to Iran; if strikes do occur; I really hope the Americans have put in a lot of thought into the 'what comes after ' factor. A conflict with Iran would initially be confined to Iran, the U.S. and Israel but would soon be felt in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and probably other places. It's fine if it ultimately results in a safer and more stable middle East but if it doesn't? Whatever happens; civilians will inevitably pay the price.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Viewed individually or in isolation; they were/are all ''unique'' : Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. They all share/shared things in common but each had their unique set of challenges, responses and solutions.

The point is it is wrong to compare them to Iran because some of they involved either an actual all domain war, or deployments for a protracted low intensity war to establish presence.

In Iran's case, the goal is a single strike, and if there are consequences then deal with them, and go back to the usual. No war inside Iran, no presence in it, and certainly no nation rebuilding in it. In this hit and run I make the case that the US would face minimal repercussions, not only due to deterrence but for practical factors on the ground.

Nor did I suggest it would, What I did say is that the Americans are extremely wary of getting stuck in yet another regional war with yet another regional actor and the consequences of war will have long term detrimental effects beyond the region; which is already unstable as it is.

I also questioned what comes next in the event strikes and other forms of action do occur but fail to achieve the desired results

As I said, my estimate is the US will be sidelined if there is a war, which will occur between Iran and Israel.
Iran has strategic weapons with regional reach, and can try to overwhelm Israeli defenses. It can also try to attack American bases. But it will have to do so while knowing its own stocks of strategic weapons is limited, requiring large numbers of munitions per target due to low accuracy and reliability, and also that if it targets Americans, it will have not only Israel hunting down its missile bases and launchers, but also Americans doing the same, with greater capacity to do so.

Proxies like PIJ and Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and Syrian and Iraqi militias will likely be activated because there would hardly be a better time to do so, but they will all be preoccupied with Israel.

Nobody is questioning the political will or the ability of the Americans to work alongside the Israelis. You mentioned that ''if the US is dragged into an escalation it would be mostly a voluntary one.''; this might not necessarily be the case. At some point in the future it might not yet be comfortable with going for the military option but if hostilities were to erupt as a result of Israeli military action; which in turn resulted in Iranian retaliation; America would be involved.

But that has always been the case, the US never really had to deploy anything to Israel, or at least very minimal deployments far away from the troubles. Israel always fought its wars on its own, preferring material support rather than combat one.
Israel covertly aided the coalition in Iraq against ballistic missile launchers that were targeting it.
The US could take that role, while Israel is busy with ground incursions across the north and Gaza, but even that is unlikely to bring Iran to escalate.

Iran's leadership understands realpolitik and in the case of naval warfare it and Israel exchanges blows covertly so none would need to escalate beyond both countries' comfort zone. That is, until an NYT article published a whistleblower's testimony.

 

[STURM]

The point is it is wrong to compare them to Iran because some of they involved either an actual all domain war, or deployments for a protracted low intensity war to establish presence.

Didn't compare them to Iran merely said they each presented a different set of challenges and responses and was in reference to you saying Iran was unique. They are all unique in some ay or the other.

But that has always been the case

Indeed that has always been the case and I didn't suggest otherwise. Both the U.S. and Israel have for decades made it a point to a high level of interoperability to meet a variety of threats in a variety of scenarios/challenges.

 

[OPSSG]

No progress on the JCPOA

1. At this time, there seems to be no progress on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and UNSC Resolution 2231 (dated 20 July 2015), as Iran refuses to concede to any suggestion of alteration to the deal and continues to demand a lifting of sanctions. US national security advisor Jake Sullivan said that talks on the return by Iran and the U.S. to compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear accord "are not going well."

​

(a) U.S. officials will meet with petrochem companies, other private firms & banks in UAE doing billions of dollars of trade with Iran. They will warn US has “visibility on transactions that are not compliant with sanctions...Those banks and firms face extreme risk if this continues.” This is the 1st sign of Washington’s willingness to increase the economic pressure on Tehran, as diplomatic efforts to restore the 2015 nuclear deal haves faltered.​

​

(b) UAE is Iran’s 2nd largest trade partner. Just as key, American officials say the UAE a major conduit for oil, financial transactions, other Iran trade going elsewhere. Emirati firms make up “a very important portion of Iran’s continued commerce flows,” said one of Senior U.S. officials.​

​

(c) I don’t understand why US Iran envoy Rob Malley thinks that the Russians or the Chinese will cooperate on further sanctions on Iran. During the past 6 months Iran has further escalated its nuclear program by taking extremely far-reaching steps that are incompatible with its commitments under the JCPOA. Some of these Iranian moves do not have plausible civilian use, said Germany’s UN Ambassador, Antje Leendertse.​

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1472123650631294976

(d) The U.S. Justice Department on 8 Dec 2021, announced the successful forfeiture of two large caches of Iran arms, including 171 surface-to-air missiles and 8 anti-tank missiles, as well as approximately 1.1 million barrels of Iranian petroleum products. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a designated foreign terrorist organization, orchestrated the arms shipments, which were destined for Houthi militants in Yemen. But IRCG’s influence operations extends far beyond Yemen, to Gaza, to Lebanon, to Iraq, to Syria and so on.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470286392374620160

2. Meanwhile, the Americans in the State Department are trying to persuade the Israelis that the military option is not viable. IMO, it is a matter of time before these negotiations cease completely. A return to the maximum pressure campaign is not preferred but seems to be the only path remaining for Team Biden.

​

(a) As such, it is not a surprise that the Biden Administration is moving to tighten enforcement of sanctions against Iran, according to senior U.S. officials. Overall, I suspect, under Team Biden, the JCPOA is dead in the water.​

​

(b) When Trump killed the JCPOA, he destroyed the constituency for a diplomatic settlement to the nuclear issue in Tehran. Biden maybe has a little window to fix it, but I am not sure how it would proceed.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471940922967400448

3. This explains in part the role of SWIFT in Iran sanctions. The situation may get worse for Iran before it can improve. EU could also impose the same restrictions on other regimes in Asia or even on the UAE, if Iran continues with hostile actions against international shipping in the Gulf.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

(b) When Trump killed the JCPOA, he destroyed the constituency for a diplomatic settlement to the nuclear issue in Tehran. Biden maybe has a little window to fix it, but I am not sure how it would proceed.

IMO it's just a facade, the notion of moderates versus hardliners. Considering the Ayatollah is the one who selects the candidates, and later dictates some of their moves, the actual dynamic range for opinions in the government is very small, especially on the most strategic issues.

Besides, they do understand the issue of government change-induced policy changes. I doubt they had much hopes about the survival of the JCPOA til its very end, or even a renewal, when Obama decided not to ratify it in Congress in fear it would get swatted down.

 

[STURM]

IMO it's just a facade, the notion of moderates versus hardliners.

Far from it. The Ayatollah may weild a tremendous amount of power/influence but there has been major diffrences of opinion with various sides in disagreement and there has always been active discourse.

In the past there were factions which called for Iran to taken a harder stance, on the basis that no matter how much Iran compromises, its enemies will still demand more from it as the objective is to further weaken and isolate Iran, that even if Iran were to capitulate over the nuclear issue, its enemies would then find another pretext to pressure Iran. Then there were factions which maintained that Iran had to compromise to a certain level, in order to gain certain concessions because not doing so will not achieve anything.

As it stands, most Iranians are united in the face of what they see is foreign meddling and double standards, not only with regards to the nuclear issue but also in others areas. Although many Iranians may not be supporters of the government and some of its policies, they would unite in the face of military action.

A lot also remains to be seen if talks with the Gulf Arabs lead anywhere. No one is under any illusions that they will achieve anything significant in the near term but they are a good start and it's telling that there was a visit last month and is was openly announced.