Do you by an chance know anyone who attempted to excuse Iran's abysmal fail in this military adventure by arguing it was planned to be "measured"?

I am just wondering what would motivate people to try and use such patently incongruous excuse to cover up for Iran's failure to deliver anything of military or political significance.

Is missiles were able to hit 2 air bases - probably the most heavily protected air bases in the world. Only runway damage - but showing Israel Iran can get past their Arrow, David Sling and Iron Dome.

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2024, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

is hardly a cause for a freakout.

There was never a question of Iran being capable of reaching the air base, nor was there a question of Iran being able to cause damage in Israel. The question was, at what cost and to what effect. And the proportionality factor between the two is pathetic. The pothole crew at the airbase is sleeping well tonight.

"Poor Iran".. that's just sad.

Grateful for the UK Interceptors and the Iron Dome.

to divert attention from the genocide in Gaza by starting a wider Mideast war.

in a spectacular fashion.

Wouldn't you say that this constitutes a major failure on the part of Iran's antisemitic regime which orchestrated the Gaza war in the first place?

Israel's attack in Syria was against Iran's Islamic Iranian Guard commanders who had been aiding Hezbollah attacks on Israel. Not a "diversion" from Gaza, but a self defense move against Iranian sponsored attacks on Israel by Iran's proxy terrorist organization, Hezbollah.

Hamas is another Iranian sponsored terrorist proxy organization, so Iran has been operating behind the scenes in the Hamas-Israel war from the start.

Israel took their self defense to the sourcem and killed two senior Iranian Guard generals and other Iranian Guard commanders in their Syria attack.

Netanyahu is a Trump like figure using the power of his office to keep himself out of jail. An apparently justified response against Hamas has become something much worse. It serves his interests and the most bellicose conservatives in his country but not the majority of Israeli people. It also serves Putin’s interests by fanning disapproval of Biden’s support for Israel in the run up to election.

Biden has done right by telling Netanyahu that the US wont support a direct attack on Iran. Lets hope he sticks with it.

do you have anything to say about Iran's abysmal failure to project military influence beyond its numerous terrorist proxies?

shows it wasn't about the attack causing damage but that they could. How do you think it would have gone with no notice?

US bases in Iraq will be alerted within 3 minutes of the first launch. It will likely be a ballistic missile, the fastest means of delivery capable of reaching Israel. Within seven minutes of the launch, the trajectory of the most advanced projectiles will be calculated, and within ten minutes they will reach Baghdad and fall within the range of the US and British air defenses in Iraq. They will, given no prior notice to the contrary, be considered a direct threat to the US and UK, and will be targeted accordingly at this time.

At about 10 to 15 minutes after the first launch, assuming the continued silence of Iran, the US navy in the Strait of Hormuz will start launching cruise missiles to degrade Iran's command and control infrastructure deep into its territory and target its other high value assets. The cruise missiles will have half the distance to cover at twice the speed of the Iranian's fastest missiles, not to mention their superior precision, and by the time the few Iranian MRBMs that were able to get through the US and UK air defenses reach Jordanian border, Iran's command and control infrastructure will be sufficiently degraded to render the slower drones that would follow the missiles ineffective.

By this time, the Israeli and US air defenses in Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be ready to handle the few remaining MRBMs and the drones that operate on autopilot. It is unlikely that any of Iran's aerial projectiles will ever reach Israel's border, but if they do, Israel will be there, ready to destroy them all.

So the consequences of this ill-conceived adventure will be pretty much the same for Israel, but Tehran will lay in ruins.

This how I think it would have gone without notice. What did YOU think would happen?

While I tend to agree that Iran is a light weight they have some strategic resources that you failed to mention. Hezbollah has over 130,000 missiles and rockets. If you don't know where Hezbollah is they are in a country called Lebanon which is the country north of Israel. There is also Syria, just east of Lebanon. If you dont know about them much "Syria has one of the largest ballistic missile arsenals in the Middle East and is an active proliferator of ballistic missile technology." Lastly a wargame where Israel attacks first even ends in ruin. So what you said sounds good, its just not true at all and even a dangerous view to have.

"How do you think it (Iran's attack on Israel) would have gone with no notice? " Remember?

I gave you a fairly direct answer to the question you asked without diverting to side issues not directly related to your question.

You don't like direct answers? Find a demagogue to converse with.

when conducting a real attack then you are mistaken.

But this was outside of the scope of your question. I am not a fan of diverting away from the questions I am being asked. I find it deceitful.

My question was "How do you think it would have gone with no notice? " Just because you failed to take into account Iran's proxies that in no way is outside the scope. Using proxies that border Israel and have large number of rockets and missiles is in no way a side issue. You may think it is deceitful but I look at it as a lack of knowledge of Iran's geopolitical strategic resources and the real world. Your scenario is not in any way how it would go if Iran was to actually attack intent on inflicting damage. Now that you know this information do you retract your earlier theory? Iran sent something like 300 missiles and drones. How would it work with over 30,000 from countries right next to them? Would that work out well?

Failure to take them into account is yours, not mine. I answered your question directly.

You know this kind of superfluous badgering ends conversations.

Goodbye.

Are you a mind reader?

I just think that an unrealistic expectation on Iran's capabilities to attack Israel is a failure and could lead down a dangerous road. Personally I think that the US destroying most of Iran's navy on one day was one of our finer moments. Underestimating your enemy is often a fatal mistake and I would rather we don't do that. Beastly Boy's scenario is one such conclusion.

This is a lost cause, no sense in arguing ad nauseam over nothing of substance

and frustrating just reading it.

I do admire your patience, though

I must be getting old.

Now that you are armed with more information on Iran's actual capabilities in an attack to damage Israel do you still hold your previous view that Israel will be able to withstand over 30,000 missiles at one time?

It looks a lot like projecting military influence to me. Their ‘abysmal failure’ probably put their proxies minds at ease. Who else do they need to impress?

an abysmal failure to project military influence to me. In fact, it looks like projecting weakness. And I doubt that Iran's proxies will appreciate it very much.

Victory for Israel.

I hope no one is sticking up for Iran's stupid Drone Attack.

Mahalo, BB

If Israel can avoid being trigger happy, they will gain more support.

the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute is certainly a choice.

The last article he contributed an article to the American Enterprise Institute was August 08, 2012
https://www.aei.org/profile/lazar-berman/

You can't expect everyone on DU to only quote The Intercept, can you?

read the excerpts they post before they post them here.

I wasn’t talking about him. Re-read my previous post and see if you can spot where you went wrong.

you have no issue with the content of the article, and you have no issue with the author of the article, and you have no issue with the quote the author of the article included in it.

Your issue is with the author of the quote that the author of the article included in his article.

Well, that certainly is a choice, isn't it?

reading things I didn’t write. Yay?

The person quoted in the article is a hard-right-wing American conservative who has a long history of dragging Biden’s and Obama’s foreign policy positions but isn’t identified as such, which imo makes the rest of the article and its author suspect. I wouldn’t have posted it here, myself, but I believe in doing my due diligence and not handing digital megaphones to hardline conservatives. I’m funny that way.

But before we part ways, since you’re in there putting words in my mouth, anyway, could you have a look at the bottom, rearmost molar on the right side? I think I have a cavity coming in and can’t get in to see my dentist until next week. TIA.

What I am actually doing is STATING the things that you didn't write about to obviate the inanity of what you DID write.

Let's see if you can grasp the extent of what you did and did not write about:

First question: Did you write about
a. The source that I cited
b. The article I linked to
c. The author of the article that I linked to
d. The content of the quote that the author of the article happened to include in the article I linked to
e. The person whose quote the author of the article happened to include in his article that was published by the source I cited

Now, the second question: Did you NOT write about
a. The source that I cited
b. The article I linked to
c. The author of the article that I linked to
d. The content of the quote that the author of the article included in it
e. All of the above

Can you see what is wrong with answering "e" to both questions? No?

You are not even trying to shoot the messenger. You are trying to shoot the bystander who reportedly said something relevant to the message that the messenger had delivered. And you have a good reason to resort to such convoluted response: you can't muster a halfass decent excuse to malign me on the basis of the content of the article, so you have no better recourse than to fall back on a thrice removed ad hominem plea.

I can see the cavity you are referring to a mile away. And it has nothing to do with your rearmost bottom molar. I am no diagnostician, but even I can recognize an acute case of aggravated deflectionitis in the fourth degree when I see it.