5 ms·

My gut is Iran wanted the missiles to be intercepted. They wanted to show they are not pushovers but don’t want to escalate too much. In some sense the whole th

My gut is Iran wanted the missiles to be intercepted. They wanted to show they are not pushovers but don’t want to escalate too much. In some sense the whole thing was a fireworks display by the countries involved. Like a warning shot.

cryptoxchange 2y ago
Every analyst I respect has the same take. This guy even glosses over that it wasn’t a general on a tarmac this time, but a general in a consulate that was extrajudicially murdered. Iran had to respond in a show of force to reestablish deterrence, without escalating the conflict, drawing the US in. Two kids are on the playground, one has a big brother. They’re both constantly bothering each other. The kid without the big brother has to ride a thin line to not look like he’s trying to kill the other kid (causing the big brother to run over) while still bruising him back enough that the other kid leaves him alone until next week.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Do we know what motivated Israel's assassination of the Iranian general? It seems unwise to resort to assassination unprovoked.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Easy. They’re losing the Gaza war. Yemen’s blockade and full militarization is crushing Israel’s economy. Bibi is out of a job and possibly his freedom if war stops. Time for a trump card: escalation of the conflict will keep the extremists happy and keep the hostilities going for possibly years. Bibi’s best choice.
    - datascienced 2y ago
      They are losing the Gaza justification. Obviously they have obliterated Gaza and Gaza had no way to defend itself.
      - r00fus 2y ago
        HAMAS has retaken Northern Gaza. The area is depopulated but not safe for IDF. Mission Failed (unless the mission was to ethnically cleanse in the first place).
  - edanm 2y ago
    The Iranian general was actively working to help arm Hezbollah, who have been i a low-grade conflict with Israel since October 7th (and before). Think Israel and Hezbollah shooting rockets at each other back and forth for the last 6 months kind of conflict. Because of this conflict, Israel has ~80k citizens who have had to evacuate their homes because they are too close to the border, and they are afraid to come back with Hezbollah continuing to attack. See e.g. this random article: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/quds-force-israel-killed-iranian-generals-syria-attack-9250654/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global... > According to a report in The Guardian, Zahedi “commanded units in Lebanon and Syria and was most likely a critical figure in Tehran’s relationship with Hezbollah and Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad”. > Arab News quoted a US Department of the Treasury statement from August 3, 2010, saying that Zahedi “also acted as a liaison to Hezbollah and Syrian intelligence services and is reportedly charged with guaranteeing weapons shipments to Hezbollah.”
    - leereeves 2y ago
      In terms of international law (for what that's worth), that is a dangerous precedent. Is a US general a legitimate target for Russia now, because we're arming their enemy? AFAIK, even during the Cold War, when the US was arming Russia's enemies (like Afghanistan) and Russia was arming the US's enemies (like Vietnam), neither nation went so far as to assassinate generals from the other. We even asked Ukraine not to attack a Russian general.[1] So, historically, it seems like what Israel did would not generally be considered justified. (OTOH, we did assassinate Yamamoto, but we were actively at war with Japan.) 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=40049703 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=40049703
      - edanm 2y ago
        I mean, the US did assassinate Soleimani, an Iranian general, in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima... . So I wouldn't exactly call this a precedent. But yes, this is a complicated issue.
- leetcrew 2y ago
  the current regime in Iran has not thought much of the "special" status of embassies historically. I tend to agree the strikes on embassies/consulates is not a great precedent, but it's hard to think of a less sympathetic victim.
bglazer 2y ago
They telegraphed the attack by launching a wave of drones that took hours to arrive. One theory is that they were trying to do a combined drone and missile strike to increase the load on Israeli defenses. If so, it didn’t work at all. So, allowing the Israelis to have hours of advance notice was either terrible tactics or an overt signal that they don’t want to escalate. I think it was probably the latter.
rhelz 2y ago
Yes. Iran had to do something after Israel attacked their embassy, but they didn't want escalate the situation. The blog post is seriously mistaken to interpret this as "hooray we are all safe from drone attacks!!!"
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  I don't think the post is saying that at all. I think it's 100% possible for Iran to have made this a light strike, so to speak, but also it have shown us just how wrong we were about missle interception defenses. Iran, just like us, has spies and advanced weaponry. They would also be aware of how feasible missle interception is while regular Joes in America might have no idea.
CRConrad 2y ago
Peter Zeihan says the same in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4W0FHJ8A0o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4W0FHJ8A0o
MrSkelter 2y ago
This is exactly it. The easy way to get past missile defenses is to overwhelm them. Missiles are cheap. Interceptors are incredibly expensive. The attackers will always be at an advantage. Just throw enough to ensure that there aren’t enough interceptors. This warning shot required multiple nations to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to push back an attack that cost a few million and came from a single source.
- _boffin_ 2y ago
  I’ve been looking for the prices of the missiles they launched and total cost of attack from Iran’s side. Since you seem knowledgeable, please post references.

cryptoxchange 2y ago

Every analyst I respect has the same take. This guy even glosses over that it wasn’t a general on a tarmac this time, but a general in a consulate that was extrajudicially murdered. Iran had to respond in a show of force to reestablish deterrence, without escalating the conflict, drawing the US in. Two kids are on the playground, one has a big brother. They’re both constantly bothering each other. The kid without the big brother has to ride a thin line to not look like he’s trying to kill the other kid (causing the big brother to run over) while still bruising him back enough that the other kid leaves him alone until next week.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
Do we know what motivated Israel's assassination of the Iranian general? It seems unwise to resort to assassination unprovoked.
- r00fus 2y ago
  Easy. They’re losing the Gaza war. Yemen’s blockade and full militarization is crushing Israel’s economy. Bibi is out of a job and possibly his freedom if war stops. Time for a trump card: escalation of the conflict will keep the extremists happy and keep the hostilities going for possibly years. Bibi’s best choice.
  - datascienced 2y ago
    They are losing the Gaza justification. Obviously they have obliterated Gaza and Gaza had no way to defend itself.
    - r00fus 2y ago
      HAMAS has retaken Northern Gaza. The area is depopulated but not safe for IDF. Mission Failed (unless the mission was to ethnically cleanse in the first place).
- edanm 2y ago
  The Iranian general was actively working to help arm Hezbollah, who have been i a low-grade conflict with Israel since October 7th (and before). Think Israel and Hezbollah shooting rockets at each other back and forth for the last 6 months kind of conflict. Because of this conflict, Israel has ~80k citizens who have had to evacuate their homes because they are too close to the border, and they are afraid to come back with Hezbollah continuing to attack. See e.g. this random article: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/quds-force-israel-killed-iranian-generals-syria-attack-9250654/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global... > According to a report in The Guardian, Zahedi “commanded units in Lebanon and Syria and was most likely a critical figure in Tehran’s relationship with Hezbollah and Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad”. > Arab News quoted a US Department of the Treasury statement from August 3, 2010, saying that Zahedi “also acted as a liaison to Hezbollah and Syrian intelligence services and is reportedly charged with guaranteeing weapons shipments to Hezbollah.”
  - leereeves 2y ago
    In terms of international law (for what that's worth), that is a dangerous precedent. Is a US general a legitimate target for Russia now, because we're arming their enemy? AFAIK, even during the Cold War, when the US was arming Russia's enemies (like Afghanistan) and Russia was arming the US's enemies (like Vietnam), neither nation went so far as to assassinate generals from the other. We even asked Ukraine not to attack a Russian general.[1] So, historically, it seems like what Israel did would not generally be considered justified. (OTOH, we did assassinate Yamamoto, but we were actively at war with Japan.) 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=40049703 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=40049703
    - edanm 2y ago
      I mean, the US did assassinate Soleimani, an Iranian general, in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima... . So I wouldn't exactly call this a precedent. But yes, this is a complicated issue.
leetcrew 2y ago
the current regime in Iran has not thought much of the "special" status of embassies historically. I tend to agree the strikes on embassies/consulates is not a great precedent, but it's hard to think of a less sympathetic victim.

bglazer 2y ago

They telegraphed the attack by launching a wave of drones that took hours to arrive. One theory is that they were trying to do a combined drone and missile strike to increase the load on Israeli defenses. If so, it didn’t work at all. So, allowing the Israelis to have hours of advance notice was either terrible tactics or an overt signal that they don’t want to escalate. I think it was probably the latter.

rhelz 2y ago

Yes. Iran had to do something after Israel attacked their embassy, but they didn't want escalate the situation. The blog post is seriously mistaken to interpret this as "hooray we are all safe from drone attacks!!!"

aprilthird2021 2y ago
I don't think the post is saying that at all. I think it's 100% possible for Iran to have made this a light strike, so to speak, but also it have shown us just how wrong we were about missle interception defenses. Iran, just like us, has spies and advanced weaponry. They would also be aware of how feasible missle interception is while regular Joes in America might have no idea.

CRConrad 2y ago

Peter Zeihan says the same in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4W0FHJ8A0o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4W0FHJ8A0o

MrSkelter 2y ago

This is exactly it. The easy way to get past missile defenses is to overwhelm them. Missiles are cheap. Interceptors are incredibly expensive. The attackers will always be at an advantage. Just throw enough to ensure that there aren’t enough interceptors. This warning shot required multiple nations to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to push back an attack that cost a few million and came from a single source.

_boffin_ 2y ago
I’ve been looking for the prices of the missiles they launched and total cost of attack from Iran’s side. Since you seem knowledgeable, please post references.