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.