Middle East Defence & Security

Big_Zucchini said:

Typically US allies depend heavily on cooperative military actions with the US, but said allies typically also neglect some of their own military capacity to create that dependence. It's not a good dependence. The US probably does not appreciate spending treasure on something it expects its allies to do on their own.

Click to expand...

For most of the time since the foundation of NATO, it has been US policy to encourage its NATO allies to be dependent on it. The US view was that non-US NATO members should focus on local operations & specific capabilities in the interest of efficiency, e.g. the Belgian navy should focus on MCM, & their forces should be under NATO command. The USA discouraged its NATO allies from building independent capabilities.

The UK & France were just about the only countries which had some ability to act independently.

So what you're saying is that the USA doesn't like doing what it's spent decades trying to get its allies not to do, & expects them to do without it, even though the forces they have to do it with operate under a multinational command structure in which the USA is the biggest member.

European NATO members have been moving away from that in recent years, but there's often been US resistance to that move, saying that it's wasteful for them to duplicate US capabilities or those which are joint with the USA.

swerve said:

For most of the time since the foundation of NATO, it has been US policy to encourage its NATO allies to be dependent on it. The US view was that non-US NATO members should focus on local operations & specific capabilities in the interest of efficiency, e.g. the Belgian navy should focus on MCM, & their forces should be under NATO command. The USA discouraged its NATO allies from building independent capabilities.

The UK & France were just about the only countries which had some ability to act independently.

So what you're saying is that the USA doesn't like doing what it's spent decades trying to get its allies not to do, & expects them to do without it, even though the forces they have to do it with operate under a multinational command structure in which the USA is the biggest member.

European NATO members have been moving away from that in recent years, but there's often been US resistance to that move, saying that it's wasteful for them to duplicate US capabilities or those which are joint with the USA.

Click to expand...

Right. Well they're asked now and been asked for over a decade do make a change. Bringing up what happened decades ago is not a good excuse.

I can understand encouraging NATO allies to avoid duplicity and focus more on land power in nations closer to Russia and naval and air power in nation farther from it, or to avoid duplicity in capabilities built for the alliance and not for one nation. But the general structure of an armed force that is sufficient for independent or cooperative defense with a minimized alliance, is not something I'd logically consider discouraging.
In the end, the UK also has something of a ground army. And Poland has naval and air branches.
NATO is a large group of skeletons, who have been strongly encouraged to spend more on their defense. The US isn't going to tell any NATO member not to buy tanks, planes, or ships, nor is it going to tell anyone not to build factories or recruit more soldiers.

What I seeing now is a US encouraging Europe to rearm. That I've seen for at least a decade. I am seeing a US shifting gradually to the Pacific but regional allies seemingly make no meaningful steps to prepare.

Israel is often criticized for being a security burden on the US, despite probably being the least burdensome ally of all US allies. And Europe for some reason is pissy about being asked to pay the bill.

"Bringing up what happened decades ago is not a good excuse. "

Haven't you noticed what's happening now? Arming like mad. Throwing money at arms manufacturers, to boost their capacity to meet the demand for more weapons & equipment, & trying to boost recruitment.

You're talking as if the last few years haven't happened, so I assumed you were talking about the past, & replied in those terms.

swerve said:

"Bringing up what happened decades ago is not a good excuse. "

Haven't you noticed what's happening now? Arming like mad. Throwing money at arms manufacturers, to boost their capacity to meet the demand for more weapons & equipment, & trying to boost recruitment.

You're talking as if the last few years haven't happened, so I assumed you were talking about the past, & replied in those terms.

Click to expand...

This is a very late reaction, and too little at that. This does not bode well for long term European security.
But this is beyond this topic. As of right now, Europe is still quite far from security independence. And that's bothering the US.

Big_Zucchini said:

Israel is often criticized for being a security burden on the US, despite probably being the least burdensome ally of all US allies. And Europe for some reason is pissy about being asked to pay the bill.

Click to expand...

This simply isn't true. Israel is more burdensome because of the neighborhood its in, creating more threats to it, and because the US has had to supply more in direct aid to them. On a per capita basis military aid to Israel makes Europe look frankly self-sufficient by comparison. And the US could pull out of Europe completely, and Europe would mostly be fine. They probably wouldn't be able to save Ukraine, but it's not clear they currently can even with US involvement. If the US cut all aid/support to Israel, what would be the outcome? In other words, who is a bigger burden on the US?

US military aid to Israel in the past was essential. A reliable ally in the region was needed to protect oil imports. Recent improvements in relations with Arab governments and more importantly, US now an oil exporter rather than importer, now lessens the need. If the US wasn’t in the loop wrt the recent strike, Benny may find the aid pipeline running with a reduced flow.

Feanor said:

This simply isn't true. Israel is more burdensome because of the neighborhood its in, creating more threats to it, and because the US has had to supply more in direct aid to them. On a per capita basis military aid to Israel makes Europe look frankly self-sufficient by comparison. And the US could pull out of Europe completely, and Europe would mostly be fine. They probably wouldn't be able to save Ukraine, but it's not clear they currently can even with US involvement. If the US cut all aid/support to Israel, what would be the outcome? In other words, who is a bigger burden on the US?

Click to expand...

Per capita? What? That is a weird way of measuring things. Of $3.8 billion annually, $500 million are for joint IAMD projects which currently also feed the US's own stocks, and $3.3 billion in US-made defense items which encourages European and Israeli production to move to US.
Pretty sweet deal. If it was cut, it would not be the end of the world. We can also see that it is entirely industrial in nature. No involvement of any branch of the armed forces.

This kind of aid does not fix American troops in CENTCOM, minimally impacts own acquisition, and goes straight to defense factories in the US.

I remind the context for this was an assumption that it negatively impacts relations that Israel is relatively operationally independent.
I asserted that the aid system makes it like that, not involving US troops. Plus some geopolitical considerations regarding relations with Arab states, that became less relevant with the expansion of Israeli-Arab peace. But despite anything like that, there is provable tight coordination.

Big_Zucchini said:

Per capita? What? That is a weird way of measuring things. Of $3.8 billion annually, $500 million are for joint IAMD projects which currently also feed the US's own stocks, and $3.3 billion in US-made defense items which encourages European and Israeli production to move to US.
Pretty sweet deal. If it was cut, it would not be the end of the world. We can also see that it is entirely industrial in nature. No involvement of any branch of the armed forces.

This kind of aid does not fix American troops in CENTCOM, minimally impacts own acquisition, and goes straight to defense factories in the US.

I remind the context for this was an assumption that it negatively impacts relations that Israel is relatively operationally independent.
I asserted that the aid system makes it like that, not involving US troops. Plus some geopolitical considerations regarding relations with Arab states, that became less relevant with the expansion of Israeli-Arab peace. But despite anything like that, there is provable tight coordination.

Click to expand...

Not weird at all. Israel is a fairly small country that typically requires more support then the combined European NATO. In recent history the US had to deprioritize munitions for Ukraine to send them to Israel. Don't tell me that isn't a burden.

Feanor said:

Not weird at all. Israel is a fairly small country that typically requires more support then the combined European NATO. In recent history the US had to deprioritize munitions for Ukraine to send them to Israel. Don't tell me that isn't a burden.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to 155mm munitions?
Early in the war in Ukraine, Israel greenlit emptying the 150,000 155mm shells stock in the WRSA-I.
When the war broke out in Israel, it requested a mere 50,000.
In the context of arms supply to Ukraine and Israel, both require very different things that rarely conflict if at all.

Big_Zucchini said:

Are you referring to 155mm munitions?
Early in the war in Ukraine, Israel greenlit emptying the 150,000 155mm shells stock in the WRSA-I.
When the war broke out in Israel, it requested a mere 50,000.
In the context of arms supply to Ukraine and Israel, both require very different things that rarely conflict if at all.

Click to expand...

Iirc Patriot interceptors were also on the list. And that's a good one to consider. How much, in terms of SAMs, has the US had to provide to Israel to deal with the Iranian, and to some extent Houthi, threat?

Feanor said:

Iirc Patriot interceptors were also on the list. And that's a good one to consider. How much, in terms of SAMs, has the US had to provide to Israel to deal with the Iranian, and to some extent Houthi, threat?

Click to expand...

None. Israel withdrew its Patriot systems from service. One battery is said to be operational in Ukraine.

Big_Zucchini said:

None. Israel withdrew its Patriot systems from service. One battery is said to be operational in Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Not exactly true. THAAD was provided to Israel during the most recent crisis. And Patriot missiles were provided in the past. Remember we're talking about a burden on the US over the past several years. Iirc Israel literally withdrew their Patriots from service ~3 months ago. In general providing aid to Israel places a strain on the US, and limited resources have to be prioritized.

Feanor said:

Not exactly true. THAAD was provided to Israel during the most recent crisis. And Patriot missiles were provided in the past. Remember we're talking about a burden on the US over the past several years. Iirc Israel literally withdrew their Patriots from service ~3 months ago. In general providing aid to Israel places a strain on the US, and limited resources have to be prioritized.

Click to expand...

IAF announced on 30th of April 2024 that Patriots "will soon be withdrawn from service". By January of 2025, a report came in of a direct transfer of 90 interceptors to Ukraine. In practice, out of 8 batteries originally owned, at least 4 were withdrawn from service even before the war in Ukraine. And after combing the internet I see no mention of interceptors being bought, indicating they are likely as old as the systems themselves.

The closest thing to a Patriot delivery is a deployment of the US's own THAAD and Patriot systems in Israel. This was directly referenced in my original comment:
"I'm sure the US sees positively how Israel informs and cooperates with it politically, and conducts the kinetic part independently. And as far as extraordinary circumstances, the US only kinetically came to Israel's aid in the air defense mission against Iran."

Big_Zucchini said:

IAF announced on 30th of April 2024 that Patriots "will soon be withdrawn from service". By January of 2025, a report came in of a direct transfer of 90 interceptors to Ukraine. In practice, out of 8 batteries originally owned, at least 4 were withdrawn from service even before the war in Ukraine. And after combing the internet I see no mention of interceptors being bought, indicating they are likely as old as the systems themselves.

The closest thing to a Patriot delivery is a deployment of the US's own THAAD and Patriot systems in Israel. This was directly referenced in my original comment:
"I'm sure the US sees positively how Israel informs and cooperates with it politically, and conducts the kinetic part independently. And as far as extraordinary circumstances, the US only kinetically came to Israel's aid in the air defense mission against Iran."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, for the purposes of this discussion, it makes much difference if the US has to transfer Patriot interceptors to Israel to intercept inbounds, or if the US has to deploy their own SAMs to do the work. If anything the latter represents a greater burden. Either way the burden is there. How many SAMs did the US expend to defend the combined European NATO?

Feanor said:

I'm not sure, for the purposes of this discussion, it makes much difference if the US has to transfer Patriot interceptors to Israel to intercept inbounds, or if the US has to deploy their own SAMs to do the work. If anything the latter represents a greater burden. Either way the burden is there. How many SAMs did the US expend to defend the combined European NATO?

Click to expand...

Depends on whether the recent Red Sea action is considered a partial defence of European interests.

Feanor said:

I'm not sure, for the purposes of this discussion, it makes much difference if the US has to transfer Patriot interceptors to Israel to intercept inbounds, or if the US has to deploy their own SAMs to do the work. If anything the latter represents a greater burden. Either way the burden is there. How many SAMs did the US expend to defend the combined European NATO?

Click to expand...

I found no evidence of use of Patriots in the war with Iran. I have evidence of THAAD use, which isn't used by Ukraine.

I never said there is no burden. I said Israel is largely operationally independent, especially compared to European and Asian partners who have kinetic US cooperation far more ingrained into conventional, day to day operations. And then I also explained why that is a positive, not a negative.

Big_Zucchini said:

I found no evidence of use of Patriots in the war with Iran. I have evidence of THAAD use, which isn't used by Ukraine.

I never said there is no burden. I said Israel is largely operationally independent, especially compared to European and Asian partners who have kinetic US cooperation far more ingrained into conventional, day to day operations. And then I also explained why that is a positive, not a negative.

Click to expand...

It seems we're talking at cross-purposes. My point was, is, and remains unchanged, that Israel is a greater burden on the US in terms security support then most, possibly, all, other states that the US provides security support to. And Israel is a long-term security burden, one that has cost the US in resources and efforts for decades. I do not want to devolve this into a discussion of the minutiae of each and every aid package, their specific use, etc. This isn't really a controversial or complex point, the volumes of US aid to Israel and the efforts the US has put in are, as they say, res ipsa loquitur.

Feanor said:

It seems we're talking at cross-purposes. My point was, is, and remains unchanged, that Israel is a greater burden on the US in terms security support then most, possibly, all, other states that the US provides security support to. And Israel is a long-term security burden, one that has cost the US in resources and efforts for decades. I do not want to devolve this into a discussion of the minutiae of each and every aid package, their specific use, etc. This isn't really a controversial or complex point, the volumes of US aid to Israel and the efforts the US has put in are, as they say, res ipsa loquitur.

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

Qatar

Going through media, I noticed several narratives that emerged post-strike:

1. IAF struck with ALBMs launched from Red Sea over Saudi Arabia.
2. The strike failed to kill the targets.
3. Mossad refused to conduct the operation, forcing the use of IAF.
4. Arab nations are uniting with Qatar against Israel.

It all sounds quite bad for Israel for various reasons, but not when one understands how firmly Qatar controls the information space and its interests in this event.
Let's address these narratives chronologically.

1. This is plausible. There are other scenarios, like going through Syria, then Iraq, then over the gulf, and use lighter munitions. That would coincide with an earlier narrative of 10 munitions hitting the target.
Does Israel need to use 10 ALBMs for such target? First, such munitions are expensive and scarce. But also, they're incredibly accurate. There is no CEP to account for, as there are options with terminal guidance.

ALBMs are fast to target. Incredibly high speed means minutes, not hours, from launch to impact. Good for time sensitive targets.
But they're also easy to detect. Is it realistic that Qatar only has east-facing BMD radars?

Per USNI, there was a USS Forrest Sherman destroyer in the Red Sea, and Carrier Strike Group 11 (Nimitz) and Destroyer Squadron 9 in the Persian Gulf.

We can infer that either the US did not interfere, or supported the strike.
We can also infer that Qatar did not consider Israel a potential threat.
Aside from Iran, ballistic missiles are also in the possession of Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Yemen. Hope I'm not forgetting anyone. The last 2 are north-west and south-west respectively, and are aligned with Iran through PMF and Houthis.
The Houthis at least, have fired ballistic missiles at the UAE in the past. And if Iran sought to overwhelm Qatari BMD, it could attempt to use Houthis and PMF to split its attention, making a west-facing BMD array necessary.
So if they built their defenses properly, which I have little reason to doubt as the US invests in local security and has interest in Qatar, they should be able to observe and engage west-origin threats.

So the only 2 options I see here are Qatari incompetence, or behind closed door coordination with Israel. And I'm inclined to believe the latter.


2. Even before this narrative was published, I said it didn't really matter if the targets were killed. There are plenty of Hamasniks outside Gazq and Qatar. So if we're not killing them all, we're probably looking for something else and specific to the task of negotiators, which is probably a deal.
I'm also aware of some narrative that Israel wanted to kill negotiators to kill a deal, but it doesn't make sense to me. Negotiators are a rolling door. There's always going to be someone when their predecessor is dead. If it was about that we'd probably see assassinations in Turkey going on as well.
Dead and replaced, injured, or unscathed, they know they're not safe there.


3. This is a really odd one. First, I'm not even sure if the Mossad can refuse an order. It's not like they were told to assassinate Israeli citizens. It's just a normal assassination job, nothing fancy. Best I know head of Mossad can do is raise objections.

Second, this is the kind of stuff you only hear about 50 years later when classification expires.

So I'm inclined to believe it's not true, and a media campaign. To what end though? Perhaps to portray Israel as incompetent.
This could align with the 2nd point. Show that Israel wanted only to kill terrorists and that them surviving is a failure.
But I honestly see no merit in that narrative.
Except maybe to hurt Netanyahu's standing in Israel. But that would be a gross misunderstanding of Israel.
If Netanyahu is gone and replaced by the opposition, Israel would only become empowered.


4. This could be a political move to undermine the Abraham Accords. It is my personal assessment that if the end goal of Qatar is to destroy Israel, then the Abraham Accords are a major threat to Qatar.
It also supports the narrative of Israeli incompetence.


Gaza

IDF is intensifying bombardments on strategic areas of Gaza City and troops are advancing deeper, while over 250,000 civilians evacuated the area.

As usual, media is very loud and chaotic around times of IDF advancement. Our best eyes and ears will be visual intelligence via satellites and social media.

spoz said:

I wonder when the US will say “enough” to Israel? While the man might be a legitimate target in other scenarios, you can’t have talks without both sides being involved. And to strike in the capital of an ally, or at least an (up until now possibly) friendly nation to the nation who is your major supporter? Madness. I know the pro Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, but really.

Click to expand...

Under Trump ? Never his evangelical supporterd probably see all of this as fulfilling old testament biblical prophecy and he loves playing the Messiah.