Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

[ShapurII]

Saudi Arabia has officially attacked Yemen by bombing the Sana'a Airport.

Now Yemen has casus belli for attacking Saudi oil facilities, their oil pipeline and shutting down the Bab El-Mandeb.

We will soon find out how useful the Houthis are. And my guess is not much.

 

[Meengla]

But I think the Muslims who voted for him and the Muslim leaders who feted him are even bigger idiots.

Oh, the Muslims in Michigan, on top of the Latinos for Trump, the Blacks for Trump, the poor rednecks for Trump... 77 million voted for an obvious Narcist. Some analyst rightly profiled Trump as 'he only cares for Ivanka Trump and could even throw Melania under the bus. '
Hitler even cared for his dog!

 

[Persian Gulf]

Saudi Arabia has officially attacked Yemen by bombing the Sana'a Airport.

Now Yemen has casus belli for attacking Saudi oil facilities, their oil pipeline and shutting down the Bab El-Mandeb.

We will soon find out how useful the Houthis are. And my guess is not much.

I think they will attack the Abha airport in south Saudi. They bombed that airport many times previously, and it makes sense as a like for like response without having to use MRBMs

 

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This guy is party to classified briefings to Congress and has provided good analysis throughout the war

 

[Meengla]

I think they will attack the Abha airport in south Saudi. They bombed that airport many times previously, and it makes sense as a like for like response without having to use MRBMs

If you can reach that far then go for Tel Aviv. Why not strike 'the head of the snake' itself?

 

[030292]

Oh, the Muslims in Michigan, on top of the Latinos for Trump, the Blacks for Trump, the poor rednecks for Trump... 77 million voted for an obvious Narcist. Some analyst rightly profiled Trump as 'he only cares for Ivanka Trump and could even throw Melania under the bus. '
Hitler even cared for his dog!

To be fair to voters, the primary choices for both parties were absolutely horrendous, it was a case of either voting for kamala harris/biden who gave full support to israel as they commited genocide or vote for someone else which happened to be trump in the hopes that maybe he will at least try to put a leash on israel.

 

[RescueRanger]

Well, by now, even the sympathizers of Iran are learning about the absolute role a religious cleric like the Ayatollah plays, and then there is the IRGC, and then the Reformists. When the ARAMCO attack in Saudi Arabia happened, the official Iranian position was to disown that but the IRGC claimed that. Even the very sympathetic Pakistani analysts were scratching their heads.
There is already Israel doing all it can to engineer a conflict between the regional countries. If there is any truth in Mossad co-opting Ahmadinejad, as NY Times is posting today, then that is very problematic. Iranians shouldn't help Israel with their goals. Speak in one voice. One voice. Have a solid chain of command which even poor countries like India and Pakistan have.

Brother from my phatichar understanding of Iranian military war-fighting doctrine, this is due to the very system they employ known as دفاعِ موزائیکی.

The Iranians studied the 2003 Iraq war and came to the conclusion that a unified centralized command authority is vulnerable to a direct attack or elimination by a highly organized enemy attack.

As Iran faces multiple threat actors, they developed this decentralized command doctrine with provincial independence, pre-delegated authorities and successor protocols to ensure the survival of the command and fighting force. It has worked out well for them.

So, I think it is unfair when people say Iran doesn't have a chain of command, it very much does, it's just not how traditionalists would envision a chain of command per say.

Just like any country you have different factions with different opinions on how things should be done, Iran is no different. As for one voice, even America can't seem to speak in unison these days...

 

[030292]

I think they will attack the Abha airport in south Saudi. They bombed that airport many times previously, and it makes sense as a like for like response without having to use MRBMs

Ksa attacked sana'a airport, yemen's capital, like for like response would be to strike airport in riyadh

 

[Meengla]

To be fair to voters, the primary choices for both parties were absolutely horrendous, it was a case of either voting for kamala harris/biden who gave full support to israel as they commited genocide or vote for someone else which happened to be trump in the hopes that maybe he will at least try to put a leash on israel.

No. Kamala can't be blamed for Biden's actions. The VPOTUS is usually a seat warmer and generally supports the Presidents. I have no doubt that Kamala would be more fair on Palestine. Why so: Because her political base requires her of that. But I had not doubt that Trump would be even more brutal in Middle East than Biden was. I have many, many warnings about Trump in the Gaza War thread; warnings, which very few understood and agreed with.
Kamala was not only following a traditional role a US VP does but she also needed the crucial AIPAC money. Look at how many candidates AIPAC has toppled over the years? So why sit licking your wounds on the sideline like those who lost because of AIPAC?
But, of course, we would never know what could she have done. But it is my prediction that if the next POTUS will become from the Democratic Party then it would be significantly different policy, more fair one, in the Middle East.

 

[Master Chief]

Israel did not. Iran did, playing right into what the genociders wanted it to. Iranians aren't naive enough not to have expected this from Israel when signing the MOU or the US response to their attack. And then again, to what end? What has Iran achieved by nullifying the one thing it had over the US against Israel, along with everything else that they had achieved?



Unfortunately, wars and geopolitics do not care for justifications. Ask the Iraqis.



Justified or not, what were they hoping to achieve and what response did they expect from the US?



There is no possible scenario where Iran will be handed the control of Omani waters, not when it can be bombed willy-nilly. Any attempt to do so will only see the perpetuation of war.



The dilemma of today's Muslims; uneducated mullahs feeding desperate masses impossible fantasies of jihad and in turn keeping them impotent to wage it.

Good points.

I disagree though that Iran broke the MoU. The timeline of events is evident in itself.

Your first point is based on an assumption that Israel was destined to break the terms and that Iran should have predicted this. The MoU was arbitrated by Pakistan et al in good faith. Why should Iran have assumed it would be immediately and recklessly contravened by Israel? Yes, they should have been prepared for that eventuality, which they likely were, but when an agreement is signed and brokered, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the parties will be beholden to it.

Regarding Omani waters, I never said that I believe that Iran should control them or seek control of them. I said that events in the SoH are not bound by an already broken treaty, so belligerent powers will have to work in their own interests from that point onwards. The very question itself requires inversion. What did Oman think would happen if they took Iranian business away from them almost literally from under their noses and handed that business to all and sundry? If Iran believes it can enforce its interests in SoH, why shouldn't they do just that?

It is essentially a war between cartels out there, fighting for economic supremacy. Siding with one cartel exposes you to the other. You speak of broadly of naivety as though those taking ANY sides in such a mess are somehow any different.

As for your point about the "Muslim dilemma", I couldn't agree more with that one.

 

[Meengla]

Just like any country you have different factions with different opinions on how things should be done, Iran is no different. As for one voice, even America can't seem to speak in unison these days...

Nah, the chain of command of America is solid intact! Iran may have the Mosaic resistance setup and that is doing some good but I don't think geopolitically they are on the same level as like in many other countries. There is no question about even poor countries like Pakistan and India's DGMOs agreeing to something and then retracting. The low level commanders maybe baying for revenge but they follow the orders: Ceasefire means ceasefire. They follow the commands coming straight from their topmost military/civilian leadership and follow them. Iran doesn't have that with three distinct entities in the mix of decision making, and needs to work on that urgently--starting from removing the primacy of a cleric as the ultimate verdict.

 

[030292]

Good points.

I disagree though that Iran broke the MoU. The timeline of events is evident in itself.

Your first point is based on an assumption that Israel was destined to break the terms and that Iran should have predicted this. The MoU was arbitrated by Pakistan et al in good faith. Why should Iran have assumed it would be immediately and recklessly contravened by Israel? Yes, they should have been prepared for that eventuality, which they likely were, but when an agreement is signed and brokered, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the parties will be beholden to it.

Regarding Omani waters, I never said that I believe that Iran should control them or seek control of them. I said that events in the SoH are not bound by an already broken treaty, so belligerent powers will have to work in their own interests from that point onwards. The very question itself requires inversion. What did Oman think would happen if they took Iranian business away from them almost literally from under their noses and handed that business to all and sundry? If Iran believes it can enforce its interests in SoH, why shouldn't they do just that?

It is essentially a war between cartels out there, fighting for economic supremacy. Siding with one cartel exposes you to the other. You speak of broadly of naivety as though those taking ANY sides in such a mess are somehow any different.

As for your point about the "Muslim dilemma", I couldn't agree more with that one.

In my opinion the whole MoU became null and void as soon as lebanon and israel signed their own MoU in USA right after islamabad MoU, it became crystal clear that iran-us MoU was a ruse, how can you stay true to one MoU while facilitating an other MoU which literally undermines the first point of the MoU your president just signed.

 

[RescueRanger]

Nah, the chain of command of America is solid intact!

Comparing Iran to the US is apples and oranges - I have already explained why the two differ and there is historical precedent for this.

Iran may have the Mosaic resistance setup and that is doing some good but I don't think geopolitically they are on the same level as like in many other countries.

May be the case, but I do empathize with Iran considering they are at war facing conflict on multiple fronts.

There is no question about even poor countries like Pakistan and India's DGMOs agreeing to something and then retracting.

True, but can we please stop calling India poor country? It's not really poor.

The low level commanders maybe baying for revenge but they follow the orders: Ceasefire means ceasefire.

A valid observation - in fact in his paper on the subject Andre Carvalho a PhD global security analyst actually discusses this very same problem. You can read more about it here if you wish:

Mosaic Defense and Dispersed Command: Iran Strikes Back

Western powers risk underestimating mosaic defense's capacity to impose substantial political, economic, and military costs.

smallwarsjournal.com

 

[krash]

Did you really think the other side would have honor the MOU?

"We think they wouldn't have honored the MOU, so we blew it up ourselves". That's your argument? You think they will honor anything of it now? What now then? Some nonsensical fantasies of US' complete capitulation?

If Iran is able to only get rid of the sanctions, it will have won. It should've taken what it had achieved and ran with it.

I get you’d want Iran to lose and suffered

And it's not right now? Weren't you touting the MOU as a total Iranian win a few days ago? It was. Time to grow up and notice the actual argument. Naive to expect others to share your emotions or unquestioning fealty on the matter.

but let’s not pretend Iran is the cause of this.

Everyone knows who and what caused this. Whatever moral arguments you want to placate your own emotions by, do not serve Iran in a war not ruled by them.

Why the f**k would a regional power give up vital control of its region to a country from 8k miles away so they can extract more resources. The usurper bastard country on the Med doesn’t belong here as well.

Can this regional power hold this control beyond the war? Not whether it should or you wish it could.

That bastard 8k miles away can bring overwhelming force anywhere it wants, and ironically has no less moral justification to it than Iran for controlling Omani waters.

 

[kobra]

I think they will attack the Abha airport in south Saudi. They bombed that airport many times previously, and it makes sense as a like for like response without having to use MRBMs

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies