If there were no casualties, then maybe they would downplay it like last time, but since they publicly announced that their personnel were killed in the attack, I highly doubt they’ll leave this unanswered. What a shame, really.
>Tehran may decide against forcefully retaliating directly for now, not least because doing so might reveal its weaknesses and invite a more potent Israeli response, analysts say.
I think this is the correct take. Israel has shown that it can successfully degrade and penetrate Iran’s air defense, which is unsurprising. The article is probably right about the IAF’s inability to successfully penetrate some of Iran’s more hardened nuclear sites, but there are plenty of high-value targets that they can hit, including their oil facilities.
Iran’s options for direct retaliation are mostly limited to ballistic missile barrages, which is problematic for them. Those missiles are expensive, they’re less accurate than Israeli air-to-ground munitions, and Israeli air defense is much more capable (including their shelter systems). Replacing spent missiles could also be an issue, especially if Israel keeps hitting their missile production facilities.
Unless proven otherwise, Iran is a paper tiger. It’s one thing to funnel money to proxies which basically act as cannon fodder. It’s another thing to risk your own skin and coordinate high-scale military attacks on a country 2000km away.
Iran doesn’t want war because it can’t win war, and it economically cannot afford it. Also, they’re probably fairly afraid of doing anything big in case Trump wins, and feel its better to wait.
Free the Iranian people.
So the first response was to destroy 1 of 4 of Iran’s advanced AA sites. The next was to destroy the other three and to remove their capability to make solid rocket fuel.
Iran is really overconfident if they think they are going to come out on the right side of any next exchange. If they were smart they would call it. The next strike likely is going to cause serious damage to their munitions industry.
The reasons why they have tough choices are 1) all videos from Iran showed Israel did nothing (see videos overlooking cities and there is no single fire), 2) Iranian people mocked the attack (see shisha meme and bush on fire video), 3) Israel posted fake images showing the damage they apparently did (old refinery fire) and 4) Israel is backing out of Lebanon following “difficult decisions”. All of this has made Israel look weak in the eyes of Iran and Hezbolah. If this is the internal message, the leadership can argue that a counter will be interpreted by the US as an invitation and they may not be willing to enter in a full blown war yet.
5 comments
If there were no casualties, then maybe they would downplay it like last time, but since they publicly announced that their personnel were killed in the attack, I highly doubt they’ll leave this unanswered. What a shame, really.
>Tehran may decide against forcefully retaliating directly for now, not least because doing so might reveal its weaknesses and invite a more potent Israeli response, analysts say.
I think this is the correct take. Israel has shown that it can successfully degrade and penetrate Iran’s air defense, which is unsurprising. The article is probably right about the IAF’s inability to successfully penetrate some of Iran’s more hardened nuclear sites, but there are plenty of high-value targets that they can hit, including their oil facilities.
Iran’s options for direct retaliation are mostly limited to ballistic missile barrages, which is problematic for them. Those missiles are expensive, they’re less accurate than Israeli air-to-ground munitions, and Israeli air defense is much more capable (including their shelter systems). Replacing spent missiles could also be an issue, especially if Israel keeps hitting their missile production facilities.
Unless proven otherwise, Iran is a paper tiger. It’s one thing to funnel money to proxies which basically act as cannon fodder. It’s another thing to risk your own skin and coordinate high-scale military attacks on a country 2000km away.
Iran doesn’t want war because it can’t win war, and it economically cannot afford it. Also, they’re probably fairly afraid of doing anything big in case Trump wins, and feel its better to wait.
Free the Iranian people.
So the first response was to destroy 1 of 4 of Iran’s advanced AA sites. The next was to destroy the other three and to remove their capability to make solid rocket fuel.
Iran is really overconfident if they think they are going to come out on the right side of any next exchange. If they were smart they would call it. The next strike likely is going to cause serious damage to their munitions industry.
The reasons why they have tough choices are 1) all videos from Iran showed Israel did nothing (see videos overlooking cities and there is no single fire), 2) Iranian people mocked the attack (see shisha meme and bush on fire video), 3) Israel posted fake images showing the damage they apparently did (old refinery fire) and 4) Israel is backing out of Lebanon following “difficult decisions”. All of this has made Israel look weak in the eyes of Iran and Hezbolah. If this is the internal message, the leadership can argue that a counter will be interpreted by the US as an invitation and they may not be willing to enter in a full blown war yet.
Comments are closed.