advertisement


War declared, Israel v Palestine...

Finnegan said:
Granted, but we are in a very different place, and Iran today is not Iraq in 91. Neither Putin or Netenyahu were players in 91, and Trump wasn’t waiting in the wings with his penchant for unpredictable fits of pique. The potential for escalation is way beyond that of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. I’m not predicting it, just highlighting how precarious the situation has become.
Click to expand...

In 1991, the US and allies successfully exercised a lot of diplomatic pressure to stop Israel from retaliating and triggering the wider regional conflict Saddam was trying to provoke. The same is happening now - the intervention of UK and US forces last night was as much about presenting a united front to Iran as it is reminding Israel that this is no longer a regional, Israeli problem and must not take unilateral action in response.

It is worth noting that Iran invoked article 51 and, given they appeared to only target IDF facilities, their strike is almost certainly legal Law of Armed Conflict. Diplomatically, it leaves Israel with no legal basis for retaliation and, should they choose to, certainly without any support.

Finnegan said:
Neither Iran or Hezbollah want a full out showdown, but they know that in any serious strike against Israel they will have one shot before massive retaliation, so they’d better make it count.
Click to expand...

Last night achieved Iran's ends.
 

Some interesting analysis from DDN.

PS It is way more balanced and measured than the click-bait thumbnail suggests! Worth a watch.
 

Iran summons the British, French and German ambassadors - report​

Iran’s foreign ministry has summoned the ambassadors of the UK, France, and Germany to question what it referred to as their “irresponsible stance” regarding Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel, the semi-official Iranian Labour news agency reported.

Israel, with the help of key western allies, including the UK, claimed to have intercepted 99% of the launches during the Iranian mass strike on Saturday.

UK, Germany and France have been among the western countries which have condemned the drone and missile strike on Israel and has called for restraint.

We have not heard any response from the respective ambassadors.

The director for western Europe at Iran’s foreign ministry accused the three countries of “double standards” as they opposed earlier this month a Russian-drafted UN security council statement that would have condemned Israel’s attack on Iran’s embassy compound in Syria.

www.theguardian.com

Israel ‘ready to do what is necessary’ after massive drone and missile strikes from Iran – Middle East crisis live

Israeli military says 99% of Iran’s 300 drones and missiles intercepted during overnight attack
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Seanm said:
This seems like a plausible assessment of the situation.

‘Morning after follow-up on Iran v. Israel.

Short version: Scenario 1 playing out.

Iranians whacked Israelis hard enough to reestablish deterrence, while the White House is telling the Israelis that "if you want a war, get out of my house".

Longer explanation below.’

Click to expand...

Interesting that he seems to say that Hamas made a major strategic error by whacking Israel too hard on Oct 7. I've not actually seen a better explanation of Oct 7, though I'm really reluctant to adopt an error theory (it effectively precludes a more thoughtful explanation by dismissing Hamas as stupid/irrational -- but I think there's lots of evidence that nations don't behave rationally in war (this used to be a standard argument against MAD.)) Hopefully someone else here has seen better explanations.
 
Hamas intended to break out from Gaza regrouping elsewhere, I believe. I think they've managed to do that and I suspect they see the operation as a success. What did they gain from governing the besieged enclave long term? Now Israel has taken a hiding in PR terms and the whole debate is centre stage once more...
 
mandryka said:
Interesting that he seems to say that Hamas made a major strategic error by whacking Israel too hard on Oct 7. I've not actually seen a better explanation of Oct 7, though I'm really reluctant to adopt an error theory (it effectively precludes a more thoughtful explanation by dismissing Hamas as stupid/irrational -- but I think there's lots of evidence that nations don't behave rationally in war (this used to be a standard argument against MAD.)) Hopefully someone else here has seen better explanations.
Click to expand...
Everyone is stupid/irrational, except on the small minority of strictly limited occasions when some of them are not. Your reluctance to adopt an error theory because it's too insulting to Hamas is an example of the former.
 
Israel trying to build a "coalition" of states in response to Iran, as it usually does. Amazingly, there are still people who want to support Netanyahu after all that has happened.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Everyone is stupid/irrational, except on the small minority of strictly limited occasions when some of them are not. Your reluctance to adopt an error theory because it's too insulting to Hamas is an example of the former.
Click to expand...

I think when you're trying to make sense of people it's charitable to do your best to see them as being as rational as possible. But I don't deny that irrational action exists, And as I said, I think there's empirical evidence that in war, people may be more inclined to behave irrationally -- I'd have to check that.

If they did make an error, at the very least, we should try to make a plausible explanation of how they came to make the error, rather than leaping to the conclusion that they are mad or stupid.

les24preludes said:
Israel trying to build a "coalition" of states in response to Iran, as it usually does. Amazingly, there are still people who want to support Netanyahu after all that has happened.
Click to expand...

That just shows that they have reasoned that they have more to benefit by supporting Israel than not. They're maximising the gain for themselves and their countries.
 
I thought it was the 1947 UN declaration of the State of Israel, or Lawrence of Arabia after WW1 or the Balfour declaration or..... how far back do you want to go?
 
mandryka said:
Interesting that he seems to say that Hamas made a major strategic error by whacking Israel too hard on Oct 7. I've not actually seen a better explanation of Oct 7, though I'm really reluctant to adopt an error theory (it effectively precludes a more thoughtful explanation by dismissing Hamas as stupid/irrational -- but I think there's lots of evidence that nations don't behave rationally in war (this used to be a standard argument against MAD.)) Hopefully someone else here has seen better explanations.
Click to expand...
I can’t find the reference to Hamas. It’s obviously a pretty bare-bones analysis, and it concerns sovereign states, which Gaza isn’t - I can’t see the framework being applied in a meaningful way to Hamas without being extended and adapted.

I don’t think the Hamas action was stupid or irrational, although there’s evidence that the bloodletting was not planned.
 
Seanm said:
I can’t find the reference to Hamas. It’s obviously a pretty bare-bones analysis, and it concerns sovereign states, which Gaza isn’t - I can’t see the framework being applied in a meaningful way to Hamas without being extended and adapted.

I don’t think the Hamas action was stupid or irrational, although there’s evidence that the bloodletting was not planned.
Click to expand...

\Just this - maybe others will read it differently, that'd be interesting.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779259773726163356
 
mandryka said:
I think when you're trying to make sense of people it's charitable to do your best to see them as being as rational as possible. But I don't deny that irrational action exists, And as I said, I think there's empirical evidence that in war, people may be more inclined to behave irrationally -- I'd have to check that.

If they did make an error, at the very least, we should try to make a plausible explanation of how they came to make the error, rather than leaping to the conclusion that they are mad or stupid.



That just shows that they have reasoned that they have more to benefit by supporting Israel than not. They're maximising the gain for themselves and their countries.
Click to expand...
I must agree that "they are mad stupid" is often just hate speech, an easy conclusion that justifies your feelings, and the desire to simply destroy them. People who hate lose the desire and ability to understand their opposition.
 
Gingerbeard said:
Indeed it did! However, had Israel carried out a proportional response we wouldn’t find ourselves in the current sh*t show…
Click to expand...
Yes, it could have done nothing. Although with 1200 people murdered, tortured and raped it would have been difficult not to try and destroy Hamas. But what I think really forced them to counter-attack was the fact that Hamas had taken 250-odd hostages. Which was exactly what Hamas had in mind.
It is also hard to imagine (at least for me) what a "proportional response" could have been. Targeting Hamas leaders? But they were all in the massive system of underground tunnels or surrounded by civilians. I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top