Post New

So they invade Lebanon (they claim a limited, targeted, operation). Iran responds with 100 ballistic missiles.

Live updates: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/01/world/isra...

Iran was in a bit of a quandary. The killing of the Hezbollah leader, plus the pager operation, really pressured them for a strong response, but at the same time they didn't want full-scale war with Israel. They were -apparently- weighing their response, trying not to look weak but also not have a regional war. Then Israel invades Lebanon. I think that pushed them to have to respond more strongly.

I also read that Hezbollah was their "crown jewel" of proxy groups, and apparently Israel effectively neutralized them -at least temporarily-.

I also read that the munitions used to get the Hezbollah leader was US-made, as if that was a revelation. Most of their stuff -to the best of my knowledge- is provided by us. Perhaps Israel wasn't supposed to use it against other countries (sort of like Ukraine using US munitions on Russian soil). Doesn't really make sense to me. We give them munitions in order to defend themselves. Sometimes the best way to defend yourself is to attack your enemy at home, as they are attacking you at home. Otherwise your enemy just hides behind their border, safe in the knowledge that you can't attack them even as they blast your towns into rubble.

I'm wondering if this is going to escalate further. Just thinking out-loud, maybe it should. The status quo was already a "warm" war with no end in sight. Rip of the bandage...it will probably hurt less than pulling it off 1mm at a time. Get it over with. A lot of innocent people will be caught in the cross-fire, but isn't that always true. Maybe Iran will be less casual if they are attacked directly, instead of via proxies. As of my posting, Israel hasn't countered. But they may not tolerate missiles from Iran raining down on them without returning the favor.

I'm wondering if this is going to escalate further. Just thinking out-loud, maybe it should. The status quo was already a "warm" war with no end in sight. Rip of the bandage...it will probably hurt less than pulling it off 1mm at a time. Get it over with.

I think that October 7th made Israel (or at least a large part of the electorate) unwilling to tolerate the status quo any longer. Every region of the world has its own unique foreign policy situation, of course, but it's not exactly typical that you have a large non-state military force like Hezbollah in Lebanon periodically firing rockets into another country, and that just....persists. We use the Mexico analogy from time to time, but it's impossible to imagine the U.S. tolerating a military group taking over northern Baja California and lobbing rockets into San Diego and just letting that continue.

October 7th disabused Israel of the idea that these periodic small attacks (rocket or otherwise) would always remain small. Israeli leadership seems to have convinced themselves that Hamas and Hezbollah were content to just have the power they had in their regions, and that the forays against Israel were never going to be material. That they were content with the status quo. That worldview vanished with the Hamas attack.

Plus...Israel's global and diplomatic standing is probably at an all-time low point right now. They probably view an attack on Hezbollah as carrying no additional negative consequences on that front. If anything, it might help by shifting focus to a less-sympathetic antagonist.

Yes. I really don't like all the innocent civilians that could be affected. But, as with the Mexico example, we wouldn't hold back if terrorists were lobbing rockets at San Diego from Tijuana. We'd crush them.

Since Iran launched rockets at Israel, I think Israel is justified to return fire against Iran. I would hope they have enough precision that they could limit it to military targets (like missile launching sites, navy bases, air force bases, command-and-control, etc). Because Iran launched those rockets. They weren't hiding behind their proxies. They did it directly. Time to have them pay a price.

I'm not familiar with the nuances of the 1951 treaty with the Philippines, but I do think we should have a battle group in the area so that whenever a "trigger" happens to "activate" the treaty, we can respond immediately and forcefully.

We should learn from history. Less than 100 years ago a nation gobbled-up the Rhineland, Ruhr, Sudetenland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia without any resistance. Leaders from other nations wrung their hands, but did nothing. That didn't turn out well. Putin and Xi are trying to do similar things, except Putin has already invaded the equivalent of Poland (which was what triggered the UK and France). They have to be stopped, or they'll keep going. History has shown that.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.