5 ms·

Do we know for sure what has been reported is true, was it really only a few? Perhaps we should consider that the goal wasn't to do a lot of damage but instead

Do we know for sure what has been reported is true, was it really only a few? Perhaps we should consider that the goal wasn't to do a lot of damage but instead saber-rattling. It would seem wise for Iran to both to satiate the demands of their constituents desire for retribution without triggering escalation. That Israel was told to 'take the win' by the US seems to be as good as result for Iran as one could possibly hope for. The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. I worry that the west will become over confident with our missile defence and use it as an excuse to push conflict as close to nuclear exchange as possible. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell; 'like teenagers playing a game of nuclear chicken'

bluGill 3y ago
They needed to do more damage. iran looks really bad when after such a large attack they hit to little. Iran didn't suceed in any retribution. (other than money spent on a defense test)
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  Iran has no great options available to them, and of the terrible options on the table I think they picked the best one for them. Now if Israel wants to attack Iran directly they have to make a mountain out of a molehill and it’ll cost Israel public support at a time where public support for Israel is rapidly waning.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Iran has the option of not inciting violence.
    - cjbgkagh 3y ago
      Of course, there would be no war if the other side would just surrender
      - bluGill 3y ago
        Iran is a third side and they are enticing people who could learn to get along to not,.
- nirv 3y ago
  As far as I understand from what I've read, Iran even separated the attack times of missiles and UAVs to make them easier to monitor and shoot down without overloading air defense systems. For example, Russia deliberately syncs these attack with large numbers of aerial weapons to overload Ukraine's air defenses beyond their capacity—Iran could not have been unaware of this tactic, but it chose not to. Right after the attack Iran's permanent representative to the UN stated that "The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe". It looks convincing that Iranian pyrotechnic show is more of a reputational response, given that some of the targets were shown in propaganda videos days before the attack (if not directly leaked to Western counterparts so that Israelis had time to prepare and/or evacuate personnel).
  - bluGill 3y ago
    they separeted the launch times so that slow and fast things would arrive at once. That meant the world had hours to shoot down slow drones.
ein0p 3y ago
Pure ineffectual saber rattling. If it wasn’t, they’d first hit air defense installations. They know where they are. Iran wanted Israel to not intercept just a few of the things it knew it couldn’t intercept. It’d be absolutely moronic for Israel to respond to something so obvious. Next time they might not be so “lucky”.
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  50M in offensive spend to burn through 1.3BN in defensive munitions seems highly effective to me. Great intel-gathering op.
  - ein0p 3y ago
    That was far more than 50M. Heavy ballistic rockets aren’t cheap even in Iran. And Iran could have used them to cause several times the amount of damage just by hitting a couple of AD deployment points. I think Israel understands that too, hence the difficulty with deciding how or whether to respond
    - rokkitmensch 3y ago
      So am I off by one order of magnitude or three?
      - ein0p 3y ago
        Definitely at least one order of magnitude off. For comparison, one Patriot battery can cost over a billion dollars, and they hit none. Not because they couldn’t (it doesn’t intercept hypersonics, which Iran has) but because they chose not to.
- pseudo0 3y ago
  Apparently they provided 72 hours advance notice to neighbors (who probably tipped off the US and Israel, given the US warnings of an imminent attack). The Iranians presumably expected the information to leak. The US also had naval and air assets parked in the region to assist. It's hard to imagine a more favorable scenario for the defender. That makes it rather dangerous to try to generalize the performance in this instance to future events. It also makes this whole exercise seem like dramatic saber-rattling rather than a serious effort to damage Israel's military capabilities. > Iraqi, Turkish and Jordanian officials each said Iran had provided early warning of the attack last week, including some details. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-att...
invalidname 3y ago
It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. Their stated goal was to overwhelm the missile defense system and it clearly failed. > The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. Not really. First, Iran is far worse off. Second, it showed that their missiles are crap. Many of them failed on launch and some crashed in Iraq (they intended to fire more). But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. Lastly, you should calculate the cost if the missiles would have hit the target. > I worry that the west will become over confident with our missile defence and use it as an excuse to push conflict as close to nuclear exchange as possible. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell; 'like teenagers playing a game of nuclear chicken' I partially agree with that notion. Still, as an Israeli I'd rather have that defense system over ideology. I can tell you that if a missile had hit anything important the outrage would have been terrible and the retaliation would have been immediate. In that sense at least, it gives the space to take a breath and deliberate.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  >But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. I feel like we are observing separate conflicts altogether. Israel whose conscript army is nearing its end in terms of endurance, who has been bogged down in urban guerilla warfare for 6 months, while responding to Houthi and Hezbollah strikes, who has also lost much of the goodwill and support it had from its international partners, who needed those partners that are starting to get sick of them to defend from a very early telegraphed missile strike. You think that Israel would even consider an immediate deadly response to open a fourth front in a war they can't afford, a war the public is getting sick of, and a war that the very disliked leader of the nation is cynically prolonging to maintain his waning grip on power? One thing I appreciate about HN the variety of perspectives I'd never be exposed to otherwise

bluGill 3y ago

They needed to do more damage. iran looks really bad when after such a large attack they hit to little. Iran didn't suceed in any retribution. (other than money spent on a defense test)

cjbgkagh 3y ago
Iran has no great options available to them, and of the terrible options on the table I think they picked the best one for them. Now if Israel wants to attack Iran directly they have to make a mountain out of a molehill and it’ll cost Israel public support at a time where public support for Israel is rapidly waning.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bluGill 3y ago
  Iran has the option of not inciting violence.
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    Of course, there would be no war if the other side would just surrender
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Iran is a third side and they are enticing people who could learn to get along to not,.
nirv 3y ago
As far as I understand from what I've read, Iran even separated the attack times of missiles and UAVs to make them easier to monitor and shoot down without overloading air defense systems. For example, Russia deliberately syncs these attack with large numbers of aerial weapons to overload Ukraine's air defenses beyond their capacity—Iran could not have been unaware of this tactic, but it chose not to. Right after the attack Iran's permanent representative to the UN stated that "The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe". It looks convincing that Iranian pyrotechnic show is more of a reputational response, given that some of the targets were shown in propaganda videos days before the attack (if not directly leaked to Western counterparts so that Israelis had time to prepare and/or evacuate personnel).
- bluGill 3y ago
  they separeted the launch times so that slow and fast things would arrive at once. That meant the world had hours to shoot down slow drones.

ein0p 3y ago

Pure ineffectual saber rattling. If it wasn’t, they’d first hit air defense installations. They know where they are. Iran wanted Israel to not intercept just a few of the things it knew it couldn’t intercept. It’d be absolutely moronic for Israel to respond to something so obvious. Next time they might not be so “lucky”.

rokkitmensch 3y ago
50M in offensive spend to burn through 1.3BN in defensive munitions seems highly effective to me. Great intel-gathering op.
- ein0p 3y ago
  That was far more than 50M. Heavy ballistic rockets aren’t cheap even in Iran. And Iran could have used them to cause several times the amount of damage just by hitting a couple of AD deployment points. I think Israel understands that too, hence the difficulty with deciding how or whether to respond
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    So am I off by one order of magnitude or three?
    - ein0p 3y ago
      Definitely at least one order of magnitude off. For comparison, one Patriot battery can cost over a billion dollars, and they hit none. Not because they couldn’t (it doesn’t intercept hypersonics, which Iran has) but because they chose not to.
pseudo0 3y ago
Apparently they provided 72 hours advance notice to neighbors (who probably tipped off the US and Israel, given the US warnings of an imminent attack). The Iranians presumably expected the information to leak. The US also had naval and air assets parked in the region to assist. It's hard to imagine a more favorable scenario for the defender. That makes it rather dangerous to try to generalize the performance in this instance to future events. It also makes this whole exercise seem like dramatic saber-rattling rather than a serious effort to damage Israel's military capabilities. > Iraqi, Turkish and Jordanian officials each said Iran had provided early warning of the attack last week, including some details. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-att...

invalidname 3y ago

It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. Their stated goal was to overwhelm the missile defense system and it clearly failed. > The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. Not really. First, Iran is far worse off. Second, it showed that their missiles are crap. Many of them failed on launch and some crashed in Iraq (they intended to fire more). But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. Lastly, you should calculate the cost if the missiles would have hit the target. > I worry that the west will become over confident with our missile defence and use it as an excuse to push conflict as close to nuclear exchange as possible. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell; 'like teenagers playing a game of nuclear chicken' I partially agree with that notion. Still, as an Israeli I'd rather have that defense system over ideology. I can tell you that if a missile had hit anything important the outrage would have been terrible and the retaliation would have been immediate. In that sense at least, it gives the space to take a breath and deliberate.

aprilthird2021 3y ago
>But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. I feel like we are observing separate conflicts altogether. Israel whose conscript army is nearing its end in terms of endurance, who has been bogged down in urban guerilla warfare for 6 months, while responding to Houthi and Hezbollah strikes, who has also lost much of the goodwill and support it had from its international partners, who needed those partners that are starting to get sick of them to defend from a very early telegraphed missile strike. You think that Israel would even consider an immediate deadly response to open a fourth front in a war they can't afford, a war the public is getting sick of, and a war that the very disliked leader of the nation is cynically prolonging to maintain his waning grip on power? One thing I appreciate about HN the variety of perspectives I'd never be exposed to otherwise