Was it "theater" Steve? Maybe, and maybe it was a joint effort in the production by both Israel and the US. Why you ask? The easy and obvious answer is to move the needle stuck on stuck called the House of Representatives and the shameless and hapless Mike Johnson.
Sorry for all of us that the world at large is being played by puppet master trump who just keeps pulling the strings of the god (small g intended) fearing man, johnson (small j intended). We've come to the point where the world order is far less important than trump being restored to his throne.
Does anyone in their right mind see that is logical or reasonable?
I believe the ayatollahs when they say the want to wipe Israel from the map. I believe the terrorists who attack Israel suicidally and are celebrated as martyrs by Iran. I believe that the Iranian regime is not itself suicidal, but evil and calculating. Iran is a large country. They have calculated they can absorb a nuclear strike from Israel, which doesn’t possess enough warheads to participate in “MAD” doctrines, and still destroy Tel Aviv with their own. Destroying Tel Aviv accomplishes the goal of wiping Israel off the map. That is their end goal. I believe this is what the leaders of Iran want and what they find acceptable to obtain it. They are sane and rational in their pursuit of this goal. However they believe that this is their mandate from Allah and dying in the process is a ticket to paradise.
The obvious question to your response Steve is in the form of a question:" Should Iran strike Tel Aviv to accomplish their goals, would the US then be compelled to wipe Iran off the face of the earth?"
I know my answer and i'm far from a hard-core neocon. All of which returns full circle to my comment...did Israel help the US create the theater to move the needle? That one i have no idea on; but then nothing surprises me any more.
The answer is “no.” It’s not in our nuclear doctrine. It is not part of our “MAD” package. It is a regional nuclear event and our response is to limit widening of the war, as is the response of all the large nuclear powers. They’d all let it burn and move on, as would the U.S.
The mistake in this calculation is that it assumes Israel would be the only country to launch nukes at Iran if the Islamic Republic does in fact launch their own (it's not impossible for this to be a correct thought, but it'd take some serious alienation of the US and the wider world by Israel for that to be true). I doubt this will ever occur, 'cause they are not suicidal. On the contrary, I think they cynically use religion as a tool to building proxies. You can see something similar in how Hamas's leadership lives the high life in Qatar: the leadership doesn't walk the walk of their rhetoric.
Keep in mind: Iran is not Arabian. The Arab nations are their foes as well, and keeping them divided serves the IR's goal of becoming the dominant political power in the Middle East. Their strategy is to goad Israel into taking actions that make alliances with the Arab nations impossible, and unfortunately Israel is often far too willing to let themselves be goaded into such actions.
I suspect you are correct, but it would be short-sighted. The USA would quickly lose credibility with the few true allies it has. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
I think you're wrong. And importantly, I think the attack by the Islamic Republic against Israel shows that Israel is not in fact alone and is wrong to think so. That was true for much of their existence as a state, but it is not true now. However, it is tenuous and requires Israel to make decisions that are anathema to the ultra-nationalists.
The best thing Israel can do is to take the actions needed to form more alliances, have that alliance eliminate the Islamic Republic's proxies, and to jointly work against the IR - whether economically or by force.
If you lived in Tel Aviv, would you be comfortable that your assumption is solid correct on sufficient deterrence on Iran’s ambitions to destroy Israel?
Who knows what life would be like if my parents had moved to Israel at some point? I like to think that I'd think the same as I do now: that the best option for Israel is to make friendship with their neighbors, which will build mutual prosperity and protection against the IR for all involved. And thus I would vote accordingly, and speak out against those that wish to use fear and panic to take actions that are counter to that goal.
So ostensibly, yes - 'cause that's my viewpoint on it.
Oh, it's possible: it just takes a heckuva lot of work. The evidence for that was just shown over the weekend when Jordan and Saudi Arabia explicitly shot down IR drones and missiles.
There are other nations that would prefer to make peace with Israel as well, who at this time cannot do so publicly because it's not politically viable: so Israel should do their best to make it so. The problem is that that means actually having to move forward towards a Palestinian state, which is anathema for Netanyahu's ultra-nationalist allies. That's seen in the lack of any sort of plan for the day-after of this latest war in Gaza: no steps have been taken to setup a new government, leaving a power vacuum that Hamas will just fill again.
"Iran is shaking in its boots right now. They are humiliated. They are the laughing stock of the Arab world. They already know they can’t mess with us.
I am more than happy to let them fear us and not sleep at night knowing we might attack at any moment.
[...]
So, the four options.
- Don’t retaliate at all. Take the win and walk.
- Retaliate now. Hit them now and hit them hard.
- Wait. Prepare ourselves in collaboration with our allies, enjoy the global support, and plan a military strike the likes of which the world has never seen.
- Attack secretly and don’t take responsibility.
Which option do you think is best?"
I think 3 is the best option, followed by 1, 4, and 2 (which I think 2 is a bad idea and will lead to a wider regional conflict, which will not be good for anyone).
There is no “taking the win” when Tel Aviv is burning in a nuclear holocaust. Or even the possibility of it. Whichever option best prevents Iran from building an operational nuclear weapon is the best, regardless of international good feelings or diplomatic tea-leaves. Hit them where it keeps them from following through with their promise to wipe Israel from the map.
Is Tel Aviv burning? Does the Islamic Republic have an operation nuclear weapon? Do you actually think they are suicidal fanatics, or have events shown otherwise?
Israel does not have the capability to wage a full war on the IR, especially single-handed. That's just a fact. Israel needs a wide alliance to truly go against the IR, and that means making smart decisions - one of which is to wait.
You don't want to wait: no surprise. So you want option 4 or 2.
My recommendation: don't be emotional about it. Be cool and calculating in all actions.
Tel Aviv not burning today does not prevent it happening In the near future. Has there yet been a hurried Israeli response? The downside risk of failing to respond appropriately to ensure security would be death. So it is a matter of which option outlined brings security. That is a matter of debate right now.
Tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye responses do not bring security. That's been the MO for the Middle East for far too long, and the sooner that path is left the better. Israel should trumpet their and their allies foiling of the IR's attempted attack as a humiliation to the IR, and to use it to make allies and prosecute war against the IR's proxies.
Importantly, what are the trade-offs of Israel going to war with the IR immediately instead of waiting and following option #3 or #1? What could go wrong in such a scenario? Thinking it has no drawbacks is foolish, especially under an historically unpopular PM and government.
Was it "theater" Steve? Maybe, and maybe it was a joint effort in the production by both Israel and the US. Why you ask? The easy and obvious answer is to move the needle stuck on stuck called the House of Representatives and the shameless and hapless Mike Johnson.
Sorry for all of us that the world at large is being played by puppet master trump who just keeps pulling the strings of the god (small g intended) fearing man, johnson (small j intended). We've come to the point where the world order is far less important than trump being restored to his throne.
Does anyone in their right mind see that is logical or reasonable?
I believe the ayatollahs when they say the want to wipe Israel from the map. I believe the terrorists who attack Israel suicidally and are celebrated as martyrs by Iran. I believe that the Iranian regime is not itself suicidal, but evil and calculating. Iran is a large country. They have calculated they can absorb a nuclear strike from Israel, which doesn’t possess enough warheads to participate in “MAD” doctrines, and still destroy Tel Aviv with their own. Destroying Tel Aviv accomplishes the goal of wiping Israel off the map. That is their end goal. I believe this is what the leaders of Iran want and what they find acceptable to obtain it. They are sane and rational in their pursuit of this goal. However they believe that this is their mandate from Allah and dying in the process is a ticket to paradise.
The obvious question to your response Steve is in the form of a question:" Should Iran strike Tel Aviv to accomplish their goals, would the US then be compelled to wipe Iran off the face of the earth?"
I know my answer and i'm far from a hard-core neocon. All of which returns full circle to my comment...did Israel help the US create the theater to move the needle? That one i have no idea on; but then nothing surprises me any more.
The answer is “no.” It’s not in our nuclear doctrine. It is not part of our “MAD” package. It is a regional nuclear event and our response is to limit widening of the war, as is the response of all the large nuclear powers. They’d all let it burn and move on, as would the U.S.
The mistake in this calculation is that it assumes Israel would be the only country to launch nukes at Iran if the Islamic Republic does in fact launch their own (it's not impossible for this to be a correct thought, but it'd take some serious alienation of the US and the wider world by Israel for that to be true). I doubt this will ever occur, 'cause they are not suicidal. On the contrary, I think they cynically use religion as a tool to building proxies. You can see something similar in how Hamas's leadership lives the high life in Qatar: the leadership doesn't walk the walk of their rhetoric.
Keep in mind: Iran is not Arabian. The Arab nations are their foes as well, and keeping them divided serves the IR's goal of becoming the dominant political power in the Middle East. Their strategy is to goad Israel into taking actions that make alliances with the Arab nations impossible, and unfortunately Israel is often far too willing to let themselves be goaded into such actions.
I see no other nation on earth that would commit a nuclear weapon against a strike on Israel, other than Israel. And that includes the U.S.
I suspect you are correct, but it would be short-sighted. The USA would quickly lose credibility with the few true allies it has. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
I think you're wrong. And importantly, I think the attack by the Islamic Republic against Israel shows that Israel is not in fact alone and is wrong to think so. That was true for much of their existence as a state, but it is not true now. However, it is tenuous and requires Israel to make decisions that are anathema to the ultra-nationalists.
The best thing Israel can do is to take the actions needed to form more alliances, have that alliance eliminate the Islamic Republic's proxies, and to jointly work against the IR - whether economically or by force.
If you lived in Tel Aviv, would you be comfortable that your assumption is solid correct on sufficient deterrence on Iran’s ambitions to destroy Israel?
Who knows what life would be like if my parents had moved to Israel at some point? I like to think that I'd think the same as I do now: that the best option for Israel is to make friendship with their neighbors, which will build mutual prosperity and protection against the IR for all involved. And thus I would vote accordingly, and speak out against those that wish to use fear and panic to take actions that are counter to that goal.
So ostensibly, yes - 'cause that's my viewpoint on it.
Why can't we all be friends? I could go along with that if I thought there was a chance in hell it was possible.
Oh, it's possible: it just takes a heckuva lot of work. The evidence for that was just shown over the weekend when Jordan and Saudi Arabia explicitly shot down IR drones and missiles.
There are other nations that would prefer to make peace with Israel as well, who at this time cannot do so publicly because it's not politically viable: so Israel should do their best to make it so. The problem is that that means actually having to move forward towards a Palestinian state, which is anathema for Netanyahu's ultra-nationalist allies. That's seen in the lack of any sort of plan for the day-after of this latest war in Gaza: no steps have been taken to setup a new government, leaving a power vacuum that Hamas will just fill again.
Taking this from Hillel Fuld at https://twitter.com/HilzFuld/status/1779835923833721082 (recommend reading the whole thread):
"Iran is shaking in its boots right now. They are humiliated. They are the laughing stock of the Arab world. They already know they can’t mess with us.
I am more than happy to let them fear us and not sleep at night knowing we might attack at any moment.
[...]
So, the four options.
- Don’t retaliate at all. Take the win and walk.
- Retaliate now. Hit them now and hit them hard.
- Wait. Prepare ourselves in collaboration with our allies, enjoy the global support, and plan a military strike the likes of which the world has never seen.
- Attack secretly and don’t take responsibility.
Which option do you think is best?"
I think 3 is the best option, followed by 1, 4, and 2 (which I think 2 is a bad idea and will lead to a wider regional conflict, which will not be good for anyone).
There is no “taking the win” when Tel Aviv is burning in a nuclear holocaust. Or even the possibility of it. Whichever option best prevents Iran from building an operational nuclear weapon is the best, regardless of international good feelings or diplomatic tea-leaves. Hit them where it keeps them from following through with their promise to wipe Israel from the map.
Is Tel Aviv burning? Does the Islamic Republic have an operation nuclear weapon? Do you actually think they are suicidal fanatics, or have events shown otherwise?
Israel does not have the capability to wage a full war on the IR, especially single-handed. That's just a fact. Israel needs a wide alliance to truly go against the IR, and that means making smart decisions - one of which is to wait.
You don't want to wait: no surprise. So you want option 4 or 2.
My recommendation: don't be emotional about it. Be cool and calculating in all actions.
Tel Aviv not burning today does not prevent it happening In the near future. Has there yet been a hurried Israeli response? The downside risk of failing to respond appropriately to ensure security would be death. So it is a matter of which option outlined brings security. That is a matter of debate right now.
Tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye responses do not bring security. That's been the MO for the Middle East for far too long, and the sooner that path is left the better. Israel should trumpet their and their allies foiling of the IR's attempted attack as a humiliation to the IR, and to use it to make allies and prosecute war against the IR's proxies.
Importantly, what are the trade-offs of Israel going to war with the IR immediately instead of waiting and following option #3 or #1? What could go wrong in such a scenario? Thinking it has no drawbacks is foolish, especially under an historically unpopular PM and government.