Brace Yourselves For War Between Iran and Israel

[SOTTREADER]

Check out this article for some ideas on this. Iran can see Trump's reluctance to enter into a serious and protracted conflict. That's why they have repeatedly used rhetoric suggesting they will not limit their response. They can see that the pressure is coming from Israel and elements in the US which align with Israel. So there's a chance to avoid conflict, or a wider conflict, however small, which prevents them from escalating things themselves. This includes the possibility of the US pulling their punches while Israel takes the hits.

The Strategic Dilemma At the Heart of Iran's Struggle

Contradictory bouts of news and rumor continue to pour in surrounding Trump's 'imminent' attack on Iran. The buildup is said to be the largest since the Iraq war, with various figures like ex-CIA operative John Kiriakou giving their renditions of...

www.sott.net

We can't know what might be happening behind the scenes which may give Iran additional reasons to be so confident (even defiant) in its approach. Simplicius may be right here in his idea that the answer lies in simple human psychology.

I am hoping this is right... Trump's reluctance could also be interpreted as him waiting until all his pieces are in place. Once all pieces are in place, then trap closes.

The article also states this

In the eyes of many, Iran's choice to allow the second carrier to slowly transit into position is no different than a group of hostages allowing the lone gunman to march them toward their execution without fighting back. In both cases, the risk is death, but there is something in human psychology that privileges the more distant death even if it is no less certain, likely because humans are hopeful creatures, and would rather imagine some 'divine intervention' at the last moment saving them instead of putting their fate into their own hands in the moment.

 

[Puma]

A good explaination Sottreader is in this essay here:

The Strategic Dilemma At the Heart of Iran's Struggle
On the other hand, many Global South countries which have been victims of the Empire’s aggression often do adopt a mentality of righteous victimhood, a sort of turn-the-other-cheek do-gooder foil to the Empire’s perceived “villain” role. This causes them to embody the “good guy” archetype, internalizing the perceived attributes associated with this, such as the idea that striking an aggressor is only permitted in pure self-defense, because that is the ‘moral’ thing to do. Similarly, Iran may feel that striking first is simply contrary to its own curated global image of the ‘morally just’ nation.

Khamenei has been pursuing this idea of morality. Some of the Xs he has written reflect this.
​

We are not the ones who started this;
we do not want to oppress anyone;
we do not want to attack any country. But as for those who seek to attack us, the Iranian nation will respond with a firm fist. Khamenei​

Iran stands firm and will remain firm, and, God willing, will thwart the machinations and harassment of the US. Khamenei ​

Americans say, "Have missiles like this, and not otherwise; have up to this range, no more than that." And what do you care? What does that have to do with you? If a country does not possess deterrent weapons, it will be crushed under the feet of its enemies. Khamenei

 

[SOTTREADER]

Russia and Iran were / are not in the same situations.

Russia never faced the frontal force of the USA. All was contained to 'proxy war', so Russia could afford to preempt Kiev's military build-up for breaking the Minsk Accords and forcibly retaking the Donbass and Crimea.

And even though Iran is faced with the frontal force of the USA, the USA is hamstrung by being unable to risk losing assets like ships or nearby bases because its global reputation depends on it being 'untouchable'. Iran has shown in recent years that it is capable of striking US bases in Iraq and Qatar, Israeli bases, and even US ships (via its support for the Houthis). These demonstrations have made the USA aware that it would certainly face at least some losses by bombing Iran. Even in the worst-case scenario, all-out war, the USA couldn't defeat Iran by means of stand-off strikes alone. It would have to invade, with a landing force of around 1.5 million soldiers, 3 times the estimated size of Iran's military.

So the 'armada' isn't intended to blow Iran to kingdom come. It's intended to 'apply maximum pressure' on Iran to 'capitulate' and agree to some political and economic concessions with which Trump can satisfy the US deep staters, and the Israelis. Iran knows this, so there's no need for its government to 'strike preemptively'. It just has to defend as best it can whatever is thrown at it, and maybe get in a few uppercuts that will make the US-raelis think twice before trying this again anytime soon.

All very good points. I am no expert so could be speaking from a naive position.

I'd argue Russia was never under risk of a direct frontal attack due to the reason it had a stable government and nuclear / deterrent weapons. The only option to attack Russia was via proxy war.

Iran is at risk of frontal attack because it lacks the same level of deterrence. It might have some, but it doesn't have them to the level Russia has.

If US bombed Iran for 90 days straight without stopping... what army or resistance would be left? If the jihadis are then in place to "take over" or cause chaos... what Iran will be left?

The question really is, how expensive does Trump prefer his bluffs? He is moving God knows what into theatre and leaving other areas of empire exposed... for a bluff? Maybe he doesn't care about the $ amount of the bluff.

When all taken together, the play being signalled is an eventual military action towards Iran.

If the US lose a few military bases and some boats are sunk but at the end they remove Iran from the chessboard, then surely, that's a net win for them?

I don't know... these guys were busy blowing up fishermen off the coast of Venezuela to fake the hand that they were after drug traffickers. Deception is at play - the most obvious thing is probably the thing that's true.

If they have gunboats parked outside, maybe they intend to use them?

 

[Niall]

An interesting article about the USS Ford's clogged toilets maybe the result of deliberate acts of sabotage by the sailors onboard!

The German Navy . . .

Toward the end of WW I, the German Navy - the rank and file sailors - had enough of it and rebelled against their officers, who apparently wanted to put to sea again, to try to fight another Jutland or some such that likely would have meant more...

www.sott.net

'Fraid not. The ship's been plagued with toilet/sewage issues since it launched 10 years ago.

 

[axj]

If what the Wall Street Journal says about the US 'proposal' to Iran is true, then I don't see how we are going to avoid a military confrontation. Basically it is designed to make Iran say 'no'.

It could be Trump's usual negotiating tactic of making extreme demands and then meeting "in the middle". Him backing down repeatedly from extreme demands is what people call "TACO".

It seems that the endgame Israel hopes for is not even an US invasion of Iran, but to get Iran to collapse internally and break apart into several states that can be more easily subverted and controlled.

One factor is that Trump does seem to want to control more of the world's oil supply, which may influence his decision to strike "in the interest of the US". Maybe that is the main carrot the Zionists are tangling in front of him.

 

[iamthatis]

All very good points. I am no expert so could be speaking from a naive position.

I'd argue Russia was never under risk of a direct frontal attack due to the reason it had a stable government and nuclear / deterrent weapons. The only option to attack Russia was via proxy war.

Iran is at risk of frontal attack because it lacks the same level of deterrence. It might have some, but it doesn't have them to the level Russia has.

If US bombed Iran for 90 days straight without stopping... what army or resistance would be left? If the jihadis are then in place to "take over" or cause chaos... what Iran will be left?

I've read/heard that the US has only enough materiel for 2 weeks of bombing at most. Even if 2 weeks is a ballpark figure (it's mentioned consistently enough by analysts), the main point is that Uncle Sam doesn't have the stockpiles necessary for a real war. Aside from quantity, there is also quality - the 2 weeks of weapons are outdated and most likely outmatched in comparison to Iran's capabilities.

As far as I see it, the US has three options - real war, limited strike, or make a deal.
Trump has backed himself into a corner, probably steered by the war hawks and psychos close to him or handling him. If he stands down now, and makes a deal with some concessions to Iran, he loses face (which appears to be important to him). Or he could spin it as the most beautiful deal, the biggest deal that anyone ever made, no one could make a deal like that, etc. More importantly, his handlers will be super pissed if he balks on war, and they may be threatening to hamstring his remaining time in office if he doesn't play ball - or threatening God knows whatever else, the neocons and the Zionists have been salivating about taking on Iran for decades.

If he gives in to the mad war dogs and greenlights real war, chances are that the US will also lose face in the form of ships and planes and bases and personnel, and as such its military reputation, when Iran's military shows itself to be more than up to the challenge. Iran could also close the Strait of Hormuz, spike oil prices - and make many American voters unhappy at midterms, giving the Dems Congress, which would also hamstring his remaining time in office.

My best guess is that Trump wants a deal, but his handlers have made that impossible. Even though Iran has probably had enough BS from the Great Satan, you'll notice they are proposing certain reasonable nuclear arms control demands - and knowing Trump is in a tight spot, biding their time and enjoying watching the Americans sweat. And also fine-tuning their contingency plans.

There's always the wildcard of an Israeli false flag to provoke American into war, or something like that. Barring that, my crystal ball says we'll see a replay of the limited strike theatre like last time.

 

[Alejo]

It has probably been noted by everyone but I figured I would mention it.

Notice how none of the demands the US brought to the table have anything to do with the treatment of the protesters that was the whole catalyst the US had mentioned as the reason for their concerns with Iran, just like with Venezuela it was the drug trafficking.

This time around it's as if they forgot about the narrative they had built, or they realized that it doesn't really matter anymore to hold on to the lies.

Meantime, I caught this tonight about the negotiations from Araghchi.

 

[nicklebleu]

There's always the wildcard of an Israeli false flag to provoke American into war, or something like that. Barring that, my crystal ball says we'll see a replay of the limited strike theatre like last time.

That would also be my bet …

The US lacks the resources for an extended war, logistics lines are stretched, and there is a real possibility for a humiliating smackdown for the US military, if they loose some ships and/ or personnel. Politically this would be a disaster for Trump.

Apparently there is quite a bit of resistance within the US military, which is well aware of the risk of an attack. Maybe this is the reason for the removal of the director of the Joint Staff, Vice Adm Kacher after only a few months on the job.

The issue with this scenario is that the Iranians might not go along with a limited strike, like last time. So that means, the Israeli stike first option might be the most likely one.

I think Trump realises very well that striking Iran is a loose-loose situation, and if that happens, he will likely loose the mid-term elections and be a lame duck for the rest of his time, with renewed impeachment proceedings and other shenanigans from the Dems.

Another scenario would be the elimination of Trump, politically or physically. Sudden stroke or heart attack? After all he is not the youngest guy. Vance would get the top job, and with it a proposal he cannot refuse. Not sure how likely this is though …

 

[axj]

Barring that, my crystal ball says we'll see a replay of the limited strike theatre like last time.

Reminds me of this meme posted earlier in the thread:

What is different this time is that the US has a lot more forces in the region. I guess a lot depends on how much Trump wants the Iranian oil and whether his "quick success" in Venezuela has gone to his head.

 

[Niall]

It has probably been noted by everyone but I figured I would mention it.

Notice how none of the demands the US brought to the table have anything to do with the treatment of the protesters that was the whole catalyst the US had mentioned as the reason for their concerns with Iran, just like with Venezuela it was the drug trafficking.

This time around it's as if they forgot about the narrative they had built, or they realized that it doesn't really matter anymore to hold on to the lies.

Meantime, I caught this tonight about the negotiations from Araghchi.

Interesting. I'm going to post his statement here in full.

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi:

Today’s round was the best among the rounds so far. We clearly presented our demands to the American side.

Technical talks will be held on Monday to discuss detailed specifics.

We achieved good progress on the nuclear file and sanctions relief.

There is agreement on some points and disagreements on others as well.

Also, his deputy said something interesting a couple of weeks ago:

The US should reap economic benefits from any potential agreement with Iran for it to be enduring, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid Ghanbari has said. [...]

Speaking on Sunday [15th Feb], Ghanbari stated that the discussions so far touched on shared interests in oil and gas extraction as well as mining and aircraft purchases. Washington should derive tangible economic benefits from any potential bilateral agreement to ensure its viability, the Iranian official was quoted as saying by Fars news agency.

Ghanbari suggested that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, from which the US unilaterally withdrew under Trump in 2018, failed because it did not envisage such economic incentives to Washington.

 

[sToRmR1dR]

It looks like the negotiating sides are going to get married in the end. Meanwhile, the US advises its embassy staff in Jerusalem to leave, as Israelis remain on high alert in preparation for any potential attacks by Tehran against the country. More here.

 

[Ben]

When all taken together, the play being signalled is an eventual military action towards Iran.

If the US lose a few military bases and some boats are sunk but at the end they remove Iran from the chessboard, then surely, that's a net win for them?

I don't know... these guys were busy blowing up fishermen off the coast of Venezuela to fake the hand that they were after drug traffickers. Deception is at play - the most obvious thing is probably the thing that's true.

If they have gunboats parked outside, maybe they intend to use them?

They want to use them, it's just that the consequences are unpredictable and potentially much more serious than they have been historically used to. They haven't left themselves with particularly good options save the off ramp of 'limited strikes', but Iran's posturing doesn't suggest they will allow them to get away with that. Both options - going to war while taking significant losses and backing off at this point look really bad for the Empire. We might ask - when was the last time the US amassed such a force and didn't use it? We should also ask, when was the last time the US directly attacked an enemy with significant strike capabilities? (including hypersonics and who knows what else in terms of Russian and Chinese technological assistance). Russian electronic warfare probably already threw a spanner in the works when countering the Starlink terminals. They also have potential control over a major oil supply route. All is enough to make even the psychos question their next steps as the plan hasn't exactly worked as intended so far.

But I agree, despite all this, signs increasingly point towards an attack on Iran.

 

[SOTTREADER]

They want to use them, it's just that the consequences are unpredictable and potentially much more serious than they have been historically used to. They haven't left themselves with particularly good options save the off ramp of 'limited strikes', but Iran's posturing doesn't suggest they will allow them to get away with that. Both options - going to war while taking significant losses and backing off at this point look really bad for the Empire. We might ask - when was the last time the US amassed such a force and didn't use it? We should also ask, when was the last time the US directly attacked an enemy with significant strike capabilities? (including hypersonics and who knows what else in terms of Russian and Chinese technological assistance). Russian electronic warfare probably already threw a spanner in the works when countering the Starlink terminals. They also have potential control over a major oil supply route. All is enough to make even the psychos question their next steps as the plan hasn't exactly worked as intended so far.

But I agree, despite all this, signs increasingly point towards an attack on Iran.

I think if any strikes happen, it won't be limited for the simple reason that the US has parked a lot of hardware on Iran's doorstep.

I think any conflict escalates, quickly. The question then is, would Trump want to be involved in a major unpredictable war?

I'd say yes if he knew for certain he'd come out stronger politically on the other side.

I don't think he can guarantee he will survive politically so that might be why he hasn't attacked yet.

It still doesn't look good though. It won't look good until those boats start to turn back and go back where they came from.