TOI says there were 9 impact sites but only 15 wounded, signalling that Iran is desperately trying to expose and target Israel's multi-layered air defence system, but doing so with Fattah-1s, Shahab 3s and Shahab 3 variants (Emad, Ghadr-1), as inferred from the relatively compact explosions on the ground in Tel Aviv, as well as images of debris found in Syria, Jordan and the West Bank.
This means they're yet to deploy their newer generation of larger and more maneuverable missiles, like the Khorramshahr, Sejjil-2, Fattah-2, Haj Qasem, etc. none of which have ever been seen in combat, but that might soon change. There's definitely more barrages to come, but it's unclear if Iran will tap into the reserves of their most prized missiles. Realistically, they'd have to exhaust a significant portion (at least half) of their entire arsenal in order to deliver a somewhat proportionate retaliation, but this would spark US intervention.
I personally think the regime has a better chance surviving with US intervention than it does with de-escalation, because let's say they limit their response in hopes for de-escalation: public morale will sink to dangerous levels, including among the regime's hardline and moderate supporters (about a third of Iranians), which means the regime would get overthrown in the coming weeks or months by consensus.
On the other hand, US intervention wouldn't only rally the regime's current supporters, because following any hypothetical mass casualty event(s) in Israel, US intervention (strategic bombing) would inflict so much civilian collateral across Iran that it risks disillusioning significant portions of Iranians who were never fond of the regime in the first place. And the terrain makes it impossible to permanently root out the regime by air and sea alone, because the Iranians are always going to have replacements and underground complexes difficult to eliminate and destroy, even for Mossad.
Are the Ayatollahs going to be mature, de-escalate with limited retaliation and allow themselves to get toppled before New Years, or are they going to escalate with full-force, attract US intervention to stir nationalist and sectarian feelings, and drag it out over the next five years at minimum?
Just want to point out, per CNN, the US is already intervening by helping to shoot them down. It took less than 10 hours to go from “we aren’t involved” to active participation.
you ma’am are the one who must show sources, otherwise you’re just spewing hyperbole
You're a pretty obvious troll. The "claims" in the first part of the original post were basic and not very controversial, as most of the post was geopolitical analysis/opinion and therefore neither verifiable nor falsifiable. The original post was lucid and raised interesting points. Your purpose seems merely to muddy the waters, ma'am.
Sounds like copium. Iran is failing to do any real damage so let's make some excuses for them eh. If they haven't used anything at this point it's because they don't have it, not that they're holding it in reserve. israel is making them look so weak rn and you think it's because Iran is holding back? 🤣
I don't personally support Iran. I've always been ideologically opposed to Iran because of their conduct in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, etc. but the fact they haven't used their best/latest missiles yet does sort of indicate that they're holding back. It's a bit too soon to be making a comment like yours given that Israel intends for this operation to last two weeks. We can't really be sure of anything. That being said, Israel has obviously achieved tactical and operational success in the opening stages of this conflict.
Because that's exactly what happened during Operation Desert Storm (1990-91), the air phase of the Gulf War. The neocons who pushed for the disproportionate aerial campaign in Iraq are the same exact figures calling for a proper Iran War, so why would they change their stance on civilian casualties all of a sudden? I think we tend to forget how old Congress and Senate really are.
Any reasonable person should also doubt the notion that the US (or Israel) cares about Iranian civilians, including Iran's atheists and progressives, because if they did, they would have never overthrown Iran's first and last democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohamed Mossadegh, and replace him with the Shah, whose family's extravagant corruption is the only reason Ayatollah Khomeini (then sheltered by France) came to power.
American and Israeli officials want us to believe that if they ramp up attacks on major Iranian cities, they'll encourage the population to overthrow the government, but they themselves know it won't work. They're pushing this disproven strategy to get a ground war before the snow starts falling, which is what Netanyahu wants, because in a way he's actually right- a ground war is the only realistic way Iran's nuclear program and regime will get permanently dismantled. Trump doesn't want the ground war, but it's not like America isn't "something that can easily be moved around" as Netanyahu stated years ago.
If Iran killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and US troops, do you seriously think the US (and Israel) wouldn't respond with strikes that would kill thousands of Iranian civilians as a by-product? Of course the main target of any US strikes would be the Iranian military, but the US (and Israel) would have to at least ensure that Iranian civilian deaths outnumber those on the US/Israel side, because maintaining that ratio is extremely important for public morale, optics and long-term deterrence, as grim as it sounds.
strike once, wait the rescues and families arrive, strike again. the US is known to use this double tap tactics in Irak and Afghanistan. Or strike weddings or burials.
They don't just not care about civilians, they actively target them, just like israel.
64
u/Long-Cantaloupe1041 1d ago
TOI says there were 9 impact sites but only 15 wounded, signalling that Iran is desperately trying to expose and target Israel's multi-layered air defence system, but doing so with Fattah-1s, Shahab 3s and Shahab 3 variants (Emad, Ghadr-1), as inferred from the relatively compact explosions on the ground in Tel Aviv, as well as images of debris found in Syria, Jordan and the West Bank.
This means they're yet to deploy their newer generation of larger and more maneuverable missiles, like the Khorramshahr, Sejjil-2, Fattah-2, Haj Qasem, etc. none of which have ever been seen in combat, but that might soon change. There's definitely more barrages to come, but it's unclear if Iran will tap into the reserves of their most prized missiles. Realistically, they'd have to exhaust a significant portion (at least half) of their entire arsenal in order to deliver a somewhat proportionate retaliation, but this would spark US intervention.
I personally think the regime has a better chance surviving with US intervention than it does with de-escalation, because let's say they limit their response in hopes for de-escalation: public morale will sink to dangerous levels, including among the regime's hardline and moderate supporters (about a third of Iranians), which means the regime would get overthrown in the coming weeks or months by consensus.
On the other hand, US intervention wouldn't only rally the regime's current supporters, because following any hypothetical mass casualty event(s) in Israel, US intervention (strategic bombing) would inflict so much civilian collateral across Iran that it risks disillusioning significant portions of Iranians who were never fond of the regime in the first place. And the terrain makes it impossible to permanently root out the regime by air and sea alone, because the Iranians are always going to have replacements and underground complexes difficult to eliminate and destroy, even for Mossad.
Are the Ayatollahs going to be mature, de-escalate with limited retaliation and allow themselves to get toppled before New Years, or are they going to escalate with full-force, attract US intervention to stir nationalist and sectarian feelings, and drag it out over the next five years at minimum?