The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

[STURM]

You are resorting to an ad hominem attack against me because I make a good argument. I never said that a fast and victorious campaign will fix the situation with Iran. You misquote me by rearranging my quotes out of context, trying to put words in my mouth.

Actually I wasn’t but if you insist.

U.S. policy should always be based on rational choices given clear understanding of the current situation.

Regardless of whose policy it is; it should always be made with a clear and objecting appraisal of the situation; the need to view things from the perspective of one’s opponent and a willingness to make the needed compromises to achieve something mutually beneficial.

 

[STURM]

Actually I wasn’t but if you insist .

U.S. policy should always be based on rational choices given clear understanding of the current situation.

Regardless of whose policy it is; it should always be made with a clear and objecting appraisal of the situation; the need to view things from the perspective of one’s opponent and a willingness to make the needed compromises to achieve something mutually beneficial
.

 

[STURM]

Regardless of whose policy it is; it should always be made with a clear and objecting appraisal of the situation; the need to view things from the perspective of one’s opponent and a willingness to make the needed compromises to achieve something mutually beneficial.

You are again trying to put words in my mouth.

In your mind. In reality I asked a question which I felt was related to the discussion.

 

[Preceptor]

Update: Following discussion among the Mod Team, this thread will remain locked until 21 March 2021 12:00 GMT
-Preceptor

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I'm honestly not sure why this matters? Are there Security Council sanctions in place that would prohibit Iran from delivering weapons to Syria? We may all believe this is a bad idea (in point of fact we don't all believe so, I personally have no problem with it, but for arguments' sake) but how does this prevent two sovereign nations from engaging in trade or military aid?

I'm not up to date on this subject but Israel and Iran are at war. If a legal justification is what you seek then that's it.
Knowing the modus operandi of the air force to a good degree, and intimately that of the intelligence corps, I can tell you that simply attacking even an enemy ship without some legitimate, legal justification, is something I have never seen.
The concept of plausible deniability is always taken a step forward with the assumption that everything will eventually be challenged in court, so they try to make everything as legitimate as possible, even the shady stuff.
And this is not unique to the IDF. Pretty much every western military works this way, to the best of my knowledge.
That's why for example the ICC thing is seen as a political play rather than some legitimate concern.

Israel always has something to lose. The question is whether that something is credibly threatened by the consequences of their actions.

If you are referring to a political fallout, then it would take a serious fallout, like full blown sanctions, to deter Israel from striking at Iran's nuclear program.
That is the only issue it sees as an existential one.
But that is very unlikely, considering the gravity of a nuclear Iran.

 

[Feanor]

I'm not up to date on this subject but Israel and Iran are at war. If a legal justification is what you seek then that's it.

I was not aware that they two are openly at war. Do you mind elucidating? Who declared the war? When/how did it start? I know the two have had a sort of "cold war" but that hardly counts as the same. Ditto for proxy wars.

Knowing the modus operandi of the air force to a good degree, and intimately that of the intelligence corps, I can tell you that simply attacking even an enemy ship without some legitimate, legal justification, is something I have never seen.
The concept of plausible deniability is always taken a step forward with the assumption that everything will eventually be challenged in court, so they try to make everything as legitimate as possible, even the shady stuff.
And this is not unique to the IDF. Pretty much every western military works this way, to the best of my knowledge.
That's why for example the ICC thing is seen as a political play rather than some legitimate concern.

My concern here is this. Preventing trade between sovereign nations by a third party against their will, blockading them or preventing them from engaging in bilateral exchanges by a third party set a dangerous precedent. If two countries are in an open state of war, that's one thing. But when it's a political conflict that spills over into military action without a clear cut line between war and peace it creates a grey area where questionably military action becomes acceptable.

If you are referring to a political fallout, then it would take a serious fallout, like full blown sanctions, to deter Israel from striking at Iran's nuclear program.
That is the only issue it sees as an existential one.
But that is very unlikely, considering the gravity of a nuclear Iran.

The relevance of my comment was vis-a-vis the US using a JPCOA 2.0 style agreement to bring Iran back into the international community in some way or form. Israel is seems to be opposed to this not because of Iran's nuclear program, but in principle, because of the on-going tensions between the two. This is where I think potentially putting pressure on Israel by exposing some of their own more questionable actions can put Israel on the defensive and weaken their arguments against rapprochement with Iran.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

If the S-300 fails to perform as advertised it would be costly for the Iranians and potentially embarrassing for the Russians but if it performs as advertised; it would be costly and embarrassing to the Americans.

Iran does not possess the means to effectively employ the S-300 in any capacity against a western attack. Air defenses cannot be used in a vacuum. They must be used in conjunction with an air force, as a means to amplify the AF's capabilities when numerically disadvantaged.
But Iranians aren't stupid. They wouldn't buy a system that wouldn't add anything, especially one so expensive when they're under sanctions. So why, indeed? To add early warning and alert other defenses, and add persistent detection at any other time against potential limited incursions like drones.

So in peacetime it adds a lot of value. When a large scale attack will come, Iran will try to bag and hide it, avoiding activation.

I am not convinced that Iran's current capabilities would allow for a significant escalation that cannot be countered by scaling up existing tactics.

Iran has a strong deterrence though, and it does so through threatening US allies first. It's estimated that in the next war between Israel and Hezbollah+Iran, it would be far more devastating than the last one in 2006.
The expectations are 3,000 dead in Israel alone in the first day of at least a 2 month war.

Its disruption of global shipping is a serious threat to all, and it can definitely close the strait.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I was not aware that they two are openly at war. Do you mind elucidating? Who declared the war? When/how did it start? I know the two have had a sort of "cold war" but that hardly counts as the same. Ditto for proxy wars.

Official declarations of war weren't made for decades, and yet the world is littered with conflicts.
If country A commits hostile actions towards country B, without declaring a war, then country B can retaliate also without any formal declaration or mandate from the UNSC.
International law also recognizes actions made in the spirit of something. The following was explained to me by an international law lawyer.
An official state of war, does not, in itself, justify military action, if there was relative peace/inaction for a reasonably long time.
And a country can even preempt a threat, without a formal state of war, if the threat is considered high enough.
The human factor, of what is considered reasonable, is said to be dominant in international law, at least in comparison to domestic law.

The last formally recognized war between Israel and Iran was in 2006, after which Israel signed a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon alone.
Since then, the threat did not die down. Syria continued hostilities during its civil war, some of which are on behalf of Iran. And Iranian forces continue to attack Israel from within Syrian territory.
In the above cases, those were a combination of proxies, and actual Iranian IRGC units.
So the conflict is by all means ongoing, making smuggling ships a valid target.
Proxies as well, are no longer immune from international law, and there is a reason why formal declarations of war have been abandoned.

My concern here is this. Preventing trade between sovereign nations by a third party against their will, blockading them or preventing them from engaging in bilateral exchanges by a third party set a dangerous precedent. If two countries are in an open state of war, that's one thing. But when it's a political conflict that spills over into military action without a clear cut line between war and peace it creates a grey area where questionably military action becomes acceptable.

I can make a case that it was not, in fact, a bilateral trade, and that all these struck ships were not conducting legal trading activities.
Their modus operandi was turning off their AIS, false identification, and illegal transfer of items at sea.

Furthermore, they transferred arms and oil to those immediately threatening Israel. At no point is transfer of arms to Hezbollah something that can be considered peaceful or political.

The relevance of my comment was vis-a-vis the US using a JPCOA 2.0 style agreement to bring Iran back into the international community in some way or form. Israel is seems to be opposed to this not because of Iran's nuclear program, but in principle, because of the on-going tensions between the two.

On principle? Is this something you can substantiate?
If on principle, then why would Israel actually voice support for a JCPOA 2.0?
Its actions and rhetoric are made in response to developments, not on principles of sticking it to Iran.
The tensions exist because Iran threatens Israel.

This is where I think potentially putting pressure on Israel by exposing some of their own more questionable actions can put Israel on the defensive

The exposure can only bring forth negative effects, if done via leak and not a coordinated exposure.
By keeping it covert, Israel allowed Iran to save face, and both could keep the conflict below the surface. Now, any such action would embarrass Iran, and would force it to retaliate, which in total only increases chances of escalation and generally will lead to more deaths and destruction.

and weaken their arguments against rapprochement with Iran.

Was Israel the one whose leadership was overthrown by ultra religious elitists, or the one that basically invaded every country in the MENA region in one way or another and even set up puppet regimes?

Without nukes, Egypt could reach Tel Aviv. And yet peace was made with them.
Jordan uprooted the entire Jewish population of the West Bank and drove it away, and peace was made with them.
Gulf states pushed the most anti-Israel rhetoric in international forums and normalized hatred toward it, and peace was made with them.
Iran is at war with the entire region, and even after receiving aid during its war with Iraq, has rejected any prospect of peace.
So who's making the arguments against rapproachment here?

 

[Vivendi]

Clearly Israel is considering Iran as a major threat, and because of that Israel is taking action to reduce that threat, which is fully understandable.

But what triggered Iran to decide to become a threat to Israel in the first place? It is clearly causing Iran a lot of problems, including these attacks on Iranian tankers. It's not clear to me why Iran is so hostile towards Israel.

This article sheds some light on the history:

From friends to foes: How Israel and Iran turned into arch-enemies - Iran - Haaretz.com

but it is still not clear to me why the new regime in Iran in 1979 almost immediately declared Israel to be "the enemy". Is the reason for the hostility really mainly "religious"? Or is there something else behind?

 

[Vivendi]

Big Zucchini is right that declaration of war is very seldom these days, and many say that therefore it's irrelevant. This author argues that declaration of war should still be relevant (but should be used only after careful deliberation, due to the serious implications of declaring a war)

Why Declarations of War Matter (harvardnsj.org)

 

[John Fedup]

Clearly Israel is considering Iran as a major threat, and because of that Israel is taking action to reduce that threat, which is fully understandable.

But what triggered Iran to decide to become a threat to Israel in the first place? It is clearly causing Iran a lot of problems, including these attacks on Iranian tankers. It's not clear to me why Iran is so hostile towards Israel.

This article sheds some light on the history:

From friends to foes: How Israel and Iran turned into arch-enemies - Iran - Haaretz.com

but it is still not clear to me why the new regime in Iran in 1979 almost immediately declared Israel to be "the enemy". Is the reason for the hostility really mainly "religious"? Or is there something else behind?

The article clearly indicates the relationship started downhill with Khomeini, so religious BS is the reason, just like it is in so many places throughout history.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Clearly Israel is considering Iran as a major threat, and because of that Israel is taking action to reduce that threat, which is fully understandable.

But what triggered Iran to decide to become a threat to Israel in the first place? It is clearly causing Iran a lot of problems, including these attacks on Iranian tankers. It's not clear to me why Iran is so hostile towards Israel.

This article sheds some light on the history:

From friends to foes: How Israel and Iran turned into arch-enemies - Iran - Haaretz.com

but it is still not clear to me why the new regime in Iran in 1979 almost immediately declared Israel to be "the enemy". Is the reason for the hostility really mainly "religious"? Or is there something else behind?

Logically, it makes no sense to start a conflict with anyone, when trade and self development are so much superior to every other alternative. But then there is still conflict, and it happens that conflicts are more common in places that are less progressive.

One might also ask why some countries maintain policies of homophobia, religious intolerance, and other laws we in the west perceive as barbaric and morally wrong? You cannot give it a truly logical answer without laying at least some responsibility on old fashioned human closed mindedness, extremism, and hatred.

 

[STURM]

Air defenses cannot be used in a vacuum. They must be used in conjunction with an air force.

I’m aware of that ...

Ground based defences must never be used as a substitute for a strong air force and has to comprise of a variety of systems to deal with a variety of threats; fully integrated with redundancy: as well as adequate missile reloads (which the Serbs had a lot of in 1999).

But Iranians aren't stupid. They wouldn't buy a system that wouldn't add anything, especially one so expensive when they're under sanctions. So why, indeed? To add

No the Iranians certainly aren’t stupid if they were they wouldn’t be such a cause of concern for Israel. As for the S-300 its also not as if Iran was
spoilt for choice - it would have been bought even if the Iranians were not completely happy with it.

How it’ll actually performs for real remains to be seen. The Iranians by now have a pretty good idea as to the most likely targets and the likely approaches incoming raids will take. They also know that the IDF would have a pretty good idea as to the weaknesses of the AD network; inclining gaps in radar coverage and will employ EW and cyber attacks.

On whether Iran in the event of a strike will really “bag and hide it, avoiding activation“ I don’t think so. The Iranians will use it and will be willing to lose it. In the even if a strike; the Iranians will have nothing to lose by fully employing all they have. The common assumption is that the Israelis have a way to effectively neutralise the S-300; I really have no idea and will not take for granted they indeed do. Also; Iran having S-300s is merely one of the various challenges the IDF has to contend with when planning a strike.

We also have to bear in mind the Israelis are looking at a few strikes; not a protracted campaign which is simply not possible due to various factors. In the likely event that those few strikes fail; what next? Perhaps the ‘what next’ for the Israelis is having the U.S. finish the job; if the Iranians retaliate by lobbing missiles; the U.S. will be drawn in irrespective of how reluctant it is for yet another war ...

Vicendi,

It goes beyond religion. Iran’s new rulers identified with the Palestinian course and were critical of other Israeli actions/policies. Part of it was for solidarity with the Sunni Arabs and also to highlight the double standards on the part of the West. Under the Shah: Iran was mostly silent over the Palestinian issue and Israel’s refusal to vacate - in line with a UN Resolution - land occupied in 1967.

It’s worth noting however that the Iranian nuke programme - discontinued by Iran’s new rulers - was revived in haste not because of Israel but because of Saddam’s nuke programme. Israel was not a factor.

I would argue that Iran is actually far more concerned with the Sunni Gulf states than Israel. For quite a while now there has been a ‘Cold War’ between Iran and the Sunni Gulf states led by Saudi; all of whom poured billions into Saddam’s war; a war which the West supported; something the Iranians haven’t forgotten.

Things haven’t gone well for the Gulf states in recent years; they failed to be rid of Assad: failed to achieve a rapid victory in Yemen, failed to get Obama to hit Iran and have to deal with a Shia dominated government in Iraq (courtesy of the U.S. invasion).

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Ground based defences must never be used as a substitute for a strong air force and has to comprise of a variety of systems to deal with a variety of threats; fully integrated with redundancy: as well as adequate missile reloads (which the Serbs had a lot of in 1999).

The Serbian air defense units can be described as competent, but not effective. Even if the US could not destroy them, it very efficiently suppressed them throughout the war.
Air defenses are forever at a disadvantage against air forces because of range and mobility. Therefore the S-300 is not really a factor.
For a wide variety of reasons, some classified, the IAF has not considered the S-300 a threat against aircraft for years. It does see it however as a potent tool for surveillance.

the Iranians will have nothing to lose by fully employing all they have.

They will lose their ability to conduct long range, high resolution scanning, a very expensive technology.

We also have to bear in mind the Israelis are looking at a few strikes; not a protracted campaign which is simply not possible due to various factors. In the likely event that those few strikes fail; what next? Perhaps the ‘what next’ for the Israelis is having the U.S. finish the job; if the Iranians retaliate by lobbing missiles; the U.S. will be drawn in irrespective of how reluctant it is for yet another war ...

Then Israel will simply go for the protracted campaign in which it will continue targeting the hardened targets until they're destroyed.
It is not likely to fail, though.

In any such strike, the US and Israel will very closely coordinate with one another.
None will go at it alone, knowing both have much to lose in the aftermath, particularly and by a huge margin Israel.

Iran’s new rulers identified with the Palestinian course and were critical of other Israeli actions/policies. Part of it was for solidarity with the Sunni Arabs and also to highlight the double standards on the part of the West. Under the Shah: Iran was mostly silent over the Palestinian issue and Israel’s refusal to vacate - in line with a UN Resolution - land occupied in 1967.

There is absolutely no indication Iran supports the Palestinian cause, especially if the Arab states don't care about them. It financially supports not the PA, barely Hamas. It supports the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a militant group opposed to both the PA and Hamas.
I mean, the Sunni Arab states are already openly denouncing the Sunni Palestinian leaderships, while a Shia, non-Arab country would care more about them?
Yeah, so far Iran has only done more harm than good for the Palestinians.

That's just a charade to show they're pseudo-humanitarian.

 

[STURM]

The Serbian air defense units can be described as competent, but not effective. Even if the US could not destroy them, it very efficiently suppressed them throughout the war.

If a ground based AD network relying largely on 1970’s/1980’s Soviet designed stuff was “effective” in 1999 against NATO with all its resources; something would have been very very fundamentally wrong.

The Serbs only managed to down 2 planes (a few were damaged) and never managed (nor were they expected) to deny NATO the ability to operate where it wanted but until the very last day of the campaign it was a source of major concern for NATO and despite NATO’s best efforts the bulk of the Serbian air defence systems survived.

Then Israel will simply go for the protracted campaign in which it will continue targeting the hardened targets until they're destroyed. It is not likely to fail, though.

What’s ‘likely’ or not really remains to be seen ....

As for a protracted air campaign; never mind the sheer distance; a number of other factors also determines why the IDF can’t and won’t conducted a protracted campaign. It will be a few ‘surgical’ strikes; how effective they are remains to be seen - there are many targets which are dispersed and hardened: plus the Iranians are expecting strikes.

A profound difference between hitting targets in Iraq and Syria and actually mounting long range strikes on Iran resulting in tangible benefits for Israel.

What’s for sure is that the Iranians will retaliate (who wouldn’t?) and the U.S. will be involved in yet another conflict. Israeli planning from the very onset was catered on the fact that the U.S. would soon be dragged in and would accomplish what Israel is unable to do.

Also bear in mind that Israel has been going on about the Iranian nuke threat for years now. On a number of occasions in the past we’ve heard about how close the Iranians supposedly were to making a bomb.

I have no doubt that the IDF has long had plans to strike Iran and constantly refines those plans but I’m also sure that Israel will only move if left with no other choice (nobody actually desires a major war in an already tense region) but that all these constant talks about strikes are mainly intended to pressure the U.S. into maintaining its current U.S. policy.

That's just a charade to show they're pseudo-humanitarian.

Irrespective of how much material or other support the Palestinians actually receive from Iran and whether Iranian concern/assistance is actually ’pseudo-humanitarian’; the key fact remains that Iranian support for the Palestinians and criticism of Israel over its policies has long been a consistent theme; as I mentioned in a reply to Vivendi.

 

[STURM]

If you want, I can prove to you why they would not have been effective even with 1999 tech

There were a variety of reasons why Serbia wouldn’t not have necessarily hsve been more successful if it had more modern kit but that clearly wasn’t the point I was driving at.

You mentioned that the Serb IADS wasn’t ‘effective’: I merely pointed out why.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you had access to GHQ level IDF plans. Considering these are top secret, I advise you to not speak about them any further.

I’m sorry ... I didn’t know I had such access too ..

There are many tools at hand for the IDF - not only fighter aircraft.

Maybe but the key fact remains that the IDF’s main means of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities will be aircraft carrying ordnance.

And if and when a strike occurrs, it will be done knowing Iran will retaliate. You're not adding any new information here.

Right and Iranian retaliation will almost certainly lead to U..S. intervention which will in turn benefit Israel. I wasn’t suggesting that Iranian retaliation following a Israeli strike was an uncertainty.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Maybe but the key fact remains that the IDF’s main means of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities will

I will not comment further on this specific topic, but you will have to present some evidence if you say it's a fact.

Right and Iranian retaliation will almost certainly lead to U..S. intervention which will in turn benefit Israel. I wasn’t suggesting that Iranian retaliation following a Israeli strike was an uncertainty.

Iran's retaliation will come in the form of a coordinated Hezbollah, PIJ, and Hamas attack on Israel, plus whatever militias it has in Syria, as the basis of an attack. Any other additional forces are up to speculation.
The US has not intervened in any of Israel's past wars with said groups. What makes you think the US will definitely intervene in this one?

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Actually this news report doesnt belong here because it doesnt happen in the Strait of Hormuz, but because there is no thread about the Red Sea, i just post it here.

It looks like the attack is carried out in the same way as the attack on the Helios Ray.

Explosie op Iraans schip in Rode Zee, mogelijk vergelding van Israël

Volgens Iran raakte niemand op de MV Saviz gewond en is er weinig schade ontstaan aan het schip.

nos.nl

So according to Iran, the Saviz is in the Red Sea to fight piracy. In that case, why do they send a civillian cargo ship?

Iranian 'spy ship' damaged by explosion in Red Sea

Iran confirms a blast hit the Saviz, which it says is a civilian vessel helping to combat piracy.

www.bbc.com

Just a comparison.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1379527874693193736

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The Saviz is widely considered to be there to support Houthi militants by smuggling strategic weapons, and support special maritime ops in the area.
It is interesting, however, that the ship went untouched by Israel and Saudi Arabia so far, despite the very clear ease at which they could have obliterated it.
It is possible both have gained value from the Saviz, greater than the harm it does.

Iran Confirms Its Covert Mothership In The Red Sea Was Attacked

The attack was reportedly an Israeli operation and came right as the U.S. and Iran started new indirect talks over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In support of my previous argument that a campaign against Iran, focused on its nuclear program, does not necessarily revolve around the much hyped airstrike.

‘Accident’ hits Iran’s Natanz nuclear site, day after advanced centrifuges start

State TV provides few details about electrical problem; on Saturday, Rouhani inaugurated cascades of IR-6s and IR-5s at same plant, in open breach of nuclear deal

www.timesofisrael.com

I will not comment whether this incident is related to Israel or not, nor do I have any information on the incident. But it does show there are many different vulnerabilities to exploit in the program's complex structure.