Red Sea and the Houthis threat

[Redshift]

Yes, Russia could. It's not a moral justification, rather a logical one. But there is a key difference between Euro/US-Ukraine relations and Iran-Houthi relations.
While the west supplies Ukraine with weapons and provides guidance on governmental reforms, Iran de facto controls the military actions of the Houthis. The difference in relations is therefore the difference between alliance and domination.

Yes, I see the difference and you see the difference, would Russia or other parts of the world see the difference ?

I'm not really arguing for or against just trying to see the wider ramifications and interpretations from others point of view in terms of wider world support. After all large parts of the world see no problems with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, many take an anti western stance and actually support Russia seeing the war in Ukraine as almost a holy crusade against the West.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yes, I see the difference and you see the difference, would Russia or other parts of the world see the difference ?

Hardly matters. Responsibility is a universal value. If anyone miscalculates and f*cks around, the laws of nature dictate that they will find out.

 

[Vivendi]

If directly attacked they will retaliate. Can't afford not to from their perspective. It will also not take much for the situation to ''spiral out of control''.

Well then they should stop supporting the Houthis' attack on civilian ships. If they do, then (in the scenario I suggested) the US will not attack their missile manufacturing facilities.

What we also should take into account is that although the Houthis are reliant on Iran the notion that they are willing pawns is a false one. At times they listen to Iran; at times they don't.

Do you have examples of the Houthis not listening to their masters? Even if you do: I already took this into account, see previous post.

 

[STURM]

Well then they should stop supporting the Houthis' attack on civilian ships. If they do, then (in the scenario I suggested) the US will not attack their missile manufacturing facilities.

That’s not the point is it now? The fact remains that if Iran is attacked it will retaliate and even if the U.S. strikes Iran is not written in stone that it will achieve anything worth while.

Saying that Iran should stop supporting the Houthis is simplistic. Like saying the Americans should stop supporting certain countries. Agree or not the Iranians see their support of the Houthis as in line with national strategy and in their interests.

Do you have examples of the Houthis not listening to their masters? Even if you do: I already took this into account, see previous post.

Do you have examples of them listening? This is mentioned in a number of articles and videos; the Houthis not being the Iranian yes men many assumed they were. The assumption that the Houthis were totally under the control of the Iranians is not exactly true. There was one report years ago - can’t remember where - of the Houthis intentionally firing missiles because the Iranians in talks with the Saudis had made decisions without consulting the Houthis.

This is similar to a common assumption made that the Taliban were fully under Pakistan’s control: they weren’t. As I pointed out in the Afghan thread years ago; the cliche “you can rent but never own an Afghan”. Like the Houthis the Talibs listen to their benefactor when they need to and do their own thing when they need to.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The fact remains that if Iran is attacked it will retaliate and even if the U.S. strikes Iran is not written in stone that it will achieve anything worth while.

Plenty of juicy targets in Iran that will definitely hurt when popped.

Do you have examples of them listening? This is mentioned in a number of articles and videos; the Houthis not being the Iranian yes men many assumed they were. The assumption that the Houthis were totally under the control of the Iranians is not exactly true. There was one report years ago - can’t remember where - of the Houthis intentionally firing missiles because the Iranians in talks with the Saudis had made decisions without consulting the Houthis.

You two are debating about something quite pointless. In the world of oh so dynamic relations - Houthis right now are taking commands from Iran and will continue to do so in the forseeable future. For the sake of the red sea shipping crisis, the address is Iran.
After it's resolved everyone can go back to being at each others throats.

 

[STURM]

Plenty of juicy targets in Iran that will definitely hurt when popped.

What has that got to do with the price of beans? My question stands: what if military action does not lead to the end intended results? Need a reminder as to how many wars didn’t lead to the results intended?

Houthis right now are taking commands from Iran and will continue to do so in the

As pointed out the notion that the Houthis dance to every Iranian tune is not entirety true. Wee bit more complicated than that.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

What has that got to do with the price of beans? My question stands: what if military action does not lead to the end intended results? Need a reminder as to how many wars didn’t lead to the results intended?

The possibility of a failed military action should not be a factor in preventing a military action from taking place in the context of Iran. Now is a golden opportunity to strike.

 

[STURM]

The possibility of a failed military action should not be a factor in preventing a military action from taking place in the context of Iran. Now is a golden opportunity to strike.

Well that’s your opinion. Fortunately those actually making the decisions are not as rash in making decisions because they know the consequences. They know what’s at stake.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Well that’s your opinion. Fortunately those actually making the decisions are not as rash in making decisions because they know the consequences. They know what’s at stake.

I live in northern Israel. In the very odd chance of a war breaking out with Iran following a coordinated strike (which typically doesn't happen) - Israel will take the brunt of Iran's reaction. And the area that'll be hit the most is precisely where I live. My home, my family, and myself - are what's at stake. Yet I and possibly the majority of Israelis prefer a war to occur now rather than later.
I need not be told of the consequences.

 

[koxinga]

The possibility of a failed military action should not be a factor in preventing a military action from taking place in the context of Iran. Now is a golden opportunity to strike.

STURM's point isn't about a failed military action. In fact, it may well be extremely successful for Israel. I certainly expect it to be successful, regardless of any Iranian preparation.

But the consequence / blow back may outweigh whatever short term military value/utility of such a strike.

I see very little military utility, anyway. Iran is a target rich environment, they are not stupid and the weight of a potential Israeli attack on their infrastructure has been discussed ad nause.. A strike like this is intended to be demonstrative. They will respond through escalation.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

STURM's point isn't about a failed military action. In fact, it may well be extremely successful for Israel. I certainly expect it to be successfully, regardless of any Iranian preparation.

But the consequence / blow back may outweigh whatever short term military value/utility of such a strike.

I see very little military utility, anyway. Iran is a target rich environment, they are not stupid and the weight of a potential Israeli attack on their infrastructure has been discussed ad nause.. A strike like this is intended to be demonstrative. They will respond through escalation.

An escalation in itself assumes both sides may escalate. Iran is acutely aware of the potential of foreign powers striking in its territory but rather than fortifying every potential target, they fortified only a few (nuclear mostly), and rely on deterrence for everything else.
Its economical assets are exceptionally vulnerable, and its industrial assets are not fortified from a kinetic strike. Israel's own assets are much better defended (via IAMD), as well as the US's, compared to Iran's.

A strike on Iran's MIC will have an immediate effect on another theater - Russia-Ukraine.

 

[koxinga]

An escalation in itself assumes both sides may escalate. Iran is acutely aware of the potential of foreign powers striking in its territory but rather than fortifying every potential target, they fortified only a few (nuclear mostly), and rely on deterrence for everything else.
Its economical assets are exceptionally vulnerable, and its industrial assets are not fortified from a kinetic strike. Israel's own assets are much better defended (via IAMD), as well as the US's, compared to Iran's.

I was about to address @STURM's point on what you and Vivaldi are thinking. Bear with me.

STURM is arguing about consequences. The question to pose to @STURM is, why should the West accept this unbalanced, one sided asymmetry? If the West and Israel should suffer consequences of military action against Iran, should Iran be prepared to accept consequence of its support of Houthis and the havoc they are causing in the Red Sea?

I say this not to criticise but understand.

A strike on Iran's MIC will have an immediate effect on another theater - Russia-Ukraine.

I have my doubts. You need a strike package big enough to make a dent and to launch multiple sorties. This is going to be more complex than Operation Opera. Greater range, complex refueling and an Iranian air defense system that for decades have been waiting for an Israeli strike. I will also include standoff missiles fired from Israeli's submarines, which I suspect is the more preferred option due to this reason.

My point is given the sheer number of targets, Israel can hit targets but it can never hit enough to make a difference. If you want to, Israeli need many (hundreds) of sorties which might well be unsustainable and high risk. If you include the Western powers, maybe, but then again, I suspect it will be just a demonstrative attack. Reminder that there are consequences, rather than to actually do large scale destruction.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I was about to address @STURM's point on what you and Vivaldi are thinking. Bear with me.

STURM is arguing about consequences. The question to pose to @STURM is, why should the West accept this unbalanced, one sided asymmetry? If the West and Israel should suffer consequences of military action against Iran, should Iran be prepared to accept consequence of its support of Houthis and the havoc they are causing in the Red Sea?

I say this not to criticise but understand.



I have my doubts. You need a strike package big enough to make a dent and to launch multiple sorties. This is going to be more complex than Operation Opera. Greater range, complex refueling and an Iranian air defense system that for decades have been waiting for an Israeli strike. I will also include standoff missiles fired from Israeli's submarines, which I suspect is the more preferred option due to this reason.

My point is given the sheer number of targets, Israel can hit targets but it can never hit enough to make a difference. If you want to, Israeli need many (hundreds) of sorties which might well be unsustainable and high risk.

This is why US involvement is necessary. It can provide the logistical support and conduct strikes of its own.

 

[koxinga]

This is why US involvement is necessary. It can provide the logistical support and conduct strikes of its own.

Israeli Airforce has been training to hit Iran like a surgeon using a scapel. A couple of precision strikes to take out key nuclear targets. Not large air campaigns like USAF.

My curse, but my balance view such limited/small strikes are more likely. We have current Red Sea as our template. US/British forces are very limited to reduce potential consequences. Iranians also not stupid. They took a couple of missiles from Pakistan but got the point and descalated.

It is also lower risks as Iran is not easy nut to crack like the Houthis.

 

[koxinga]

One last point to note before I eat my dinner.

Is a large scale strike on Iran even militarily feasible at this stage? Most of US efforts are concentrated on the Red Sea. They have expended and will continue to expend significant ordnance just to keep Houthi at bay.

Not enough plans, ships and missiles to handle both Houthi and Iran at the same time. Most assets in Red Sea, unless they start to redeploy from other areas

 

[Big_Zucchini]

One last point to note before I eat my dinner.

Is a large scale strike on Iran even militarily feasible at this stage? Most of US efforts are concentrated on the Red Sea. They have expended and will continue to expend significant ordnance just to keep Houthi at bay.

Not enough plans, ships and missiles to handle both Houthi and Iran at the same time. Most assets in Red Sea, unless they start to redeploy from other areas

There is enough. Just lacking the will.

 

[STURM]

Irrespective of what you need or not; I’ll mention it to you anyway.

My question still tends. If military action fails then what? Simple question, no need for any obfuscation. Are we ready for yet another war and all it brings with it? You need a reminder as to the number of times countries have embarked on military action without a holistic assessment of what comes next and what happens if the plan doesn’t work as intended? Also, what is military action intended to achieve?To make the nefarious Iranians see the error in their ways abd back down?

BTW yes I’m convinced that a direct strike on Iran will see them retaliating and that would eventually lead to a war in the region. I just don’t see the Iranians lobbying a couple of missiles; engaging in rhetoric and then backing down.

 

[STURM]

In fact, it may well be extremely successful for Israel.

In the first place what’s the whole purpose of the exercise? In retaliation or as a consequence for Iranian support to the Houthis or for another reason? No doubt the Israelis would like a strike on Iran; like they have for quite a while now but starting from the beginning; what’s intended to be achieved if a strike or strikes are launched.

 

[Vivendi]

Iranians also not stupid. They took a couple of missiles from Pakistan but got the point and descalated.

Exactly -- Iran took a couple of missiles from Pakistan and deescalated. I think Iran would prefer to deescalate also the situation in the Red Sea, if appropriate pressure is being applied. I simply don't see Iran escalate into a full scale war at this point in time. Unless that's what they intend to do in any case.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Exactly -- Iran took a couple of missiles from Pakistan and deescalated. I think Iran would prefer to deescalate also the situation in the Red Sea, if appropriate pressure is being applied. I simply don't see Iran escalate into a full scale war at this point in time. Unless that's what they intend to do in any case.

Wait does everyone here believe that Pakistan and Iran did not coordinate these mutual strikes?
Why is it necessarily assumed these are hostile acts?