OK, so I agree that neither Iran nor the U.S. wants a full scale war. And, a 
war can't be really fought with just airborne weapons and fighter planes. For 
that matter, I don't actually believe Israel wants such a war either as it 
can't wage one, at least not effectively. We don't actually talk about what a 
"war" with Iran would look like. But first the retaliatory attacks by Iran on 
Israel...

This was something politically Iran had to do. To maintain the varying degrees 
of influence on those forces that support it, primarily the following and in 
geographic order: the Iranian people to the degree they will defend the nation 
if not the government; pro-Iranian Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah 
in Lebanon (and partially organized in Syria as well), Hamas (not a Shia 
militia at all but one that is allied with Iran because forces get support from 
anyone willing to provide arms) and the Houthies in Yemen. This is quite an 
arch of influence politically and geographically.

IMHO, domestic sentiment was probably half the reason Iran retaliated against 
Israel. It was not important that most of the missiles were shot down. 
Launching drones from a 1,000 miles away just makes for target practice. Do so 
from, say, southern Lebanon, which Iran chose NOT TO DO, is altogether 
different [such drones would be a lot smaller, harder to detect, can do more 
damage, etc etc and actually represent a qualitatively worse threat to the IDF 
than *anything* launched from Iran. I conclude that the Iranian action was 
symbolic even if some military bases were hit.

The cost of the attack probably is close to $300 million for Iran and a similar 
amount of money for Israel, maybe more. Probably more. David's Sling is the IDF 
integrated air defense system that includes defensive weapons, mostly missiles. 
You can look them up under "Arrow 2" "Arrow 3" "Iron Dome" and "Iron Beam". The 
missiles cost upward of a million dollars a pop or more if it is anti-ballistic 
missile defense (ABM).

Another aspect of this is that both Iran and Israel (and NATO behind it) 
"benefited" from this attack because it allowed each side to test the results 
of these weapons systems, draw conclusions on both the hardware, software, 
enemy response, etc. it was, in someways, a "war game" for both sides using 
real, albeit limited weapons.

On Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate. It is "suspected" that Israel used 
their new U.S. provided F-35s (fairly good stealth fighter bombers that easily 
evaded Russian provided anti-airscraft systems) and U.S. provided JDAM 
pin-point bombs. The Iranians claim was 6 F-35s and they all launched missiles 
at the consulate. I think that is nonsense as any missile launched has to big 
an error radius to be effective. In fact, IDF intelligence must of been really, 
really, good since they hit only the annex next to the Consulate and not the 
main build of the Iranian Consulate. One bomb, one hit.

Will Israel retaliate? I don't think so, though I'm not will to bet on it. I 
think this "ends" the episode as the Iranian regime claims.

David Walters


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#29903): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/29903
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105515975/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to