The recent missile barrage striking Israel from Iran showcased a security reality that has startled many people in the west - Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system is not as effective as they believed. Evidence suggests it was clearly overwhelmed, either by the sheer number of missiles (estimates vary but al least 200 were fired), or by new Iranian hypersonic technology. Either way, this one attack changed the prevailing perspective on Israeli air defense.
The media and government officials claim the Iranian salvo was "ineffective" and they have so far reported no casualties, but it's clear from the numerous videos circulating on social media that extensive damage was done from dozens of impacts. It's unlikely Israel will admit to any successful strikes as this would only be giving valuable intel to Iran, but using geo-location and the existing footage online it won't take Iran's military leadership long to figure out what worked and what didn't.
The escalation from Iran was in response to Israel's carefully planned assassination campaign against Hezbollah's military leadership in Lebanon, including Hassan Nasrallah. The attack, using pagers sabotaged with secretly planted explosive charges, then culminated in targeted missile strikes. The event came only two months after Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was on Iranian soil.
There are two ways to look at Israel's strategy: It was an attempt to decapitate enemy leadership and send their forces into disarray so that a larger war could be avoided. Or, it was intended to enrage Iran and draw them into a larger war.
If the latter option is the case, then Israel would have to be operating on the assumption that the US will supply military forces to the fight, because Israel will not be able to survive a multi-front war of this scale alone.
In the past Israel relied on its weapons superiority to dissuade potential attacks from neighbors, but that gap is obviously narrowing as we saw with Iran's missile strikes this week. Lessons from Ukraine should also be taken into account here - Israeli armor might not have the same battlefield presence it once did if cheap drones are so effective in destroying vastly more expensive tanks.
In 2006, Israel attempted a ground invasion of Lebanon with disastrous results, which is probably why this time they struck Hezbollah leadership first. However, Israel seems intent on fighting the whole of the Middle East at once and this changes the situation dramatically.
The ground game, as we have seen in Ukraine, does not favor maneuver warfare due to drones and other modern intel gathering technology. The nations with the greatest manpower have a significant advantage when it comes to attrition warfare and that is likely how this war will be fought. Iran by itself has a considerable manpower edge over Israel.
If we examine basic population, Iran has a massive advantage with over 88 million people vs Israel's 9.5 million people, and that's not counting Lebanon, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, etc. Iran's ability to replenish their forces with new recruits through conscription will certainly outmatch Israel's conscription. Again, we have seen this with Russia's military in Ukraine.
No technology (except perhaps nuclear weapons) would level the playing field and give Israel the ability to win in a ground war on multiple fronts. This means the Israelis will need an allied effort, and guess which country is the only candidate for the task?
Joe Biden stated after the Iranian strikes:
“Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel..."
Asked how he wanted Israel to respond, Biden said this was a matter in “active discussion” and that the consequences for Tehran “remain to be seen.” Kamala Harris released her own statement backing Biden's position:
“Iran is not only a threat to Israel, Iran is also a threat to American personnel in the region, American interests and innocent civilians across the region who suffer at the hands of Iran-based and backed terrorist proxies...We will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend US forces and interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists, and we will continue to work with our allies and partners to disrupt Iran’s aggressive behavior and hold them accountable.”
These statements fall in line with a joint military exercise and war game carried out in recent months called "Juniper Oak". The program was designed to prepare for inevitable war between Israel and the wider Middle East and requires participation by US forces by air, sea and land.
For those millions of Americans that want to stay out of foreign wars and entanglements, the situation does not look good. For those wondering what the October surprise would be, war with Iran and most of the Middle East could be the shoe-drop that everyone was waiting for.
The situation could very well upend the presidential election in November and change the voter landscape yet again. Even with a Trump win, Biden has plenty of time to embroil the US in a war with Iran before leaving office in 2025. The Harris camp argues that a change of leadership and policy in the mist of a geopolitical crisis would be damaging to US security. In other words, they get America involved in a quagmire in the Middle East and then claim the quagmire requires that they stay in office.
The recent missile barrage striking Israel from Iran showcased a security reality that has startled many people in the west – Israel’s “Iron Dome” defense system is not as effective as they believed. Evidence suggests it was clearly overwhelmed, either by the sheer number of missiles (estimates vary but al least 200 were fired), or by new Iranian hypersonic technology. Either way, this one attack changed the prevailing perspective on Israeli air defense.
[embedded content]
The media and government officials claim the Iranian salvo was “ineffective” and they have so far reported no casualties, but it’s clear from the numerous videos circulating on social media that extensive damage was done from dozens of impacts. It’s unlikely Israel will admit to any successful strikes as this would only be giving valuable intel to Iran, but using geo-location and the existing footage online it won’t take Iran’s military leadership long to figure out what worked and what didn’t.
The escalation from Iran was in response to Israel’s carefully planned assassination campaign against Hezbollah’s military leadership in Lebanon, including Hassan Nasrallah. The attack, using pagers sabotaged with secretly planted explosive charges, then culminated in targeted missile strikes. The event came only two months after Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was on Iranian soil.
There are two ways to look at Israel’s strategy: It was an attempt to decapitate enemy leadership and send their forces into disarray so that a larger war could be avoided. Or, it was intended to enrage Iran and draw them into a larger war.
If the latter option is the case, then Israel would have to be operating on the assumption that the US will supply military forces to the fight, because Israel will not be able to survive a multi-front war of this scale alone.
In the past Israel relied on its weapons superiority to dissuade potential attacks from neighbors, but that gap is obviously narrowing as we saw with Iran’s missile strikes this week. Lessons from Ukraine should also be taken into account here – Israeli armor might not have the same battlefield presence it once did if cheap drones are so effective in destroying vastly more expensive tanks.
In 2006, Israel attempted a ground invasion of Lebanon with disastrous results, which is probably why this time they struck Hezbollah leadership first. However, Israel seems intent on fighting the whole of the Middle East at once and this changes the situation dramatically.
The ground game, as we have seen in Ukraine, does not favor maneuver warfare due to drones and other modern intel gathering technology. The nations with the greatest manpower have a significant advantage when it comes to attrition warfare and that is likely how this war will be fought. Iran by itself has a considerable manpower edge over Israel.
If we examine basic population, Iran has a massive advantage with over 88 million people vs Israel’s 9.5 million people, and that’s not counting Lebanon, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, etc. Iran’s ability to replenish their forces with new recruits through conscription will certainly outmatch Israel’s conscription. Again, we have seen this with Russia’s military in Ukraine.
No technology (except perhaps nuclear weapons) would level the playing field and give Israel the ability to win in a ground war on multiple fronts. This means the Israelis will need an allied effort, and guess which country is the only candidate for the task?
Joe Biden stated after the Iranian strikes:
“Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel…”
Asked how he wanted Israel to respond, Biden said this was a matter in “active discussion” and that the consequences for Tehran “remain to be seen.” Kamala Harris released her own statement backing Biden’s position:
“Iran is not only a threat to Israel, Iran is also a threat to American personnel in the region, American interests and innocent civilians across the region who suffer at the hands of Iran-based and backed terrorist proxies…We will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend US forces and interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists, and we will continue to work with our allies and partners to disrupt Iran’s aggressive behavior and hold them accountable.”
These statements fall in line with a joint military exercise and war game carried out in recent months called “Juniper Oak”. The program was designed to prepare for inevitable war between Israel and the wider Middle East and requires participation by US forces by air, sea and land.
For those millions of Americans that want to stay out of foreign wars and entanglements, the situation does not look good. For those wondering what the October surprise would be, war with Iran and most of the Middle East could be the shoe-drop that everyone was waiting for.
The situation could very well upend the presidential election in November and change the voter landscape yet again. Even with a Trump win, Biden has plenty of time to embroil the US in a war with Iran before leaving office in 2025. The Harris camp argues that a change of leadership and policy in the mist of a geopolitical crisis would be damaging to US security. In other words, they get America involved in a quagmire in the Middle East and then claim the quagmire requires that they stay in office.
Loading…
