Perhaps you can explain where you perceive I am in error - here in the forum where you must attack the post not the poster.
I think it was absolutely a proof-of-concept attack. Militaries don’t plan ineffective attacks. If Israel’s air defense shot down 99% of the missiles/drones/etc. then the objective was not to hit them with these weapons but rather to see how they responded to them. Where is the air defense strong? Where is it weak? How many expensive interceptor missiles can they be compelled to waste taking out cheap drones? Iran now has answers to those questions and they are very likely to be refining their strategy for the part two that they promised if Israel retaliates (which Israel has basically promised to do already).
I also think there’s a political dimension to this as well although I can’t speculate with any certainty as to whether or not Netanyahu staying in power forever is something Iran would see as a benefit. But they already know he’s not popular, he doesn’t get along with Biden and his management of the war in Gaza is questionable at best. They’ve given him a reason to maintain his iron grip on political power and in my humble opinion, that’s not going to be great for Israel in the long run.
Actually, the post by @Crane which you are responding to is reasonable, and raises a very important issue.
The attack by Iran was a new form of warfare in the middle east, and cannot be compared to the attacks by Hamas.
Yes, as you say, Hamas fired 5000 missiles-- but only a few dozen at a time, and those missiles were easily defeated by Israel’s defenses. But those Hamas missiles are totally unsophisticated, cheap, homemade pipe bombs, with a very short range. And they were destroyed by Israel’s Iron Dome system, which is perfectly designed for only one purpose: destroying a dozen unsophisticated, cheap pipe bombs at short range. Iron Dome works well against Hamas–but it was barely used at all against Iran.
The attack by Iran yesterday was massive, and required a totally different type of defense, by TWO countries. One fourth of all the Iranian missiles were destroyed by America, not Israel. And the cost to Israel was massive–1.35 Billion dollars ,in one hour of fighting.
Israel’s total budget for defense is about $25 Billion per year.
As Crane said, "future swarms can exhaust the resources ".
This is a very real issue.
Crane started his post saying that the purpose of Iran’s attack was to gather data. I don’t agree, because the main purpose was political and strategic. But I do agree that a vital secondary reason was definitely to gather data for the technicians, to prepare for their next attack. That’s why the attack used so many different types of weapons. For Iran’s political and strategic goals, it would have been enough to just fire a few dozen of one type of missile. The results would have been the same, and much easier for Iran.
What? Of course they do. Constantly. Maybe even usually, to judge from history. The geniuses behind the Isonzo Offensives couldn’t have planned more ineffectual attacks if they had tried.
If you mean they don’t plan usually on them failing…well, that is generally true at a level above the terrorist. But I doubt Iran was just playing some fancy game of four-dimensional chess here - they surely expected to do at least some damage for propaganda purposes. Otherwise it is a propaganda misfire. “We will punish you! By…ummm…mostly failing to get through your defenses.”
Will they learn from this? Eh, maybe. But assuming that was the primary goal is silly IMHO.
Moderating:
Please don’t drag pit posts into IMHO. The pit exists for a reason.
I question if that’s a difference that actually makes any difference at all. A consulate supports an embassy, and a building “adjacent” to a consulate could be seen as supporting both of the above. I suspect the lines between the above are not always sharp and somewhat subject to interpretation.
It certainly was a direct attack on Iranian interests, it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.
Well, as so often happens both sides are claiming the other shot first.
Israel also has David’s Sling and Arrow, which are systems designed to combat faster/more sophisticated weapons. I don’t know all the details on those (not that any civilian would) but the notion that the ONLY aerial defense Israel has is Iron Dome is mistaken.
Yes, agreed. Just like sending those generals to coordinate Hezbollah operations against Israel was a direct attack on Israeli interests, and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.
No disputing that, either. These conflicts go back a long way. How back do you want to take it? Iron Age? Bronze Age?
War is peace, love is hate, and the definition of direct attack includes not directly attacking anything, but coordinating proxies.
The conflict with Iran only goes back to 1979; Israel and Iran were decently friendly beforehand.
If anything good comes in reaction to this attack, perhaps we can all collectively as a global community stop giving Iran cover for actions it takes through proxies. Let’s all be honest here: it’s Iran that is responsible for the massive disruptions in shipping, for example.
Regardless, having your generals hanging out with Hezbollah and coordinating them is a direct action, even if they aren’t firing the rockets themselves.
There are certainly globally worrying issues, but not this one, since one does not sit there absorbing multiple swarms, one uses one’s own swarms and missiles and bombers to take out the enemy’s factories and magazines supplying those swarms.
The Persians were one of the few nations that were actually decent to the Jews back in biblical times (or later, really). Remember Cyrus the Great? Ended the Jews’ exile, allowed them to practice their religion, rebuild the Temple?
Regimes who beat women to death for displaying their hair, hang them for being raped, etc. are often in need of the distraction of an outside enemy
It’s the same reason Russia attacked Ukraine and not one of the Stans. It’s about authoritarianism vs. liberalism. Authoritarian countries have an inherent dislike of liberal democracies. Unless there’s some major inherent advantage to behaving civilly towards the liberal democracies, (like the Arab countries and their oil wealth, or China and their trade advantage with the west) they aren’t going to do so.
ETA: Or the threat of MAD that kept us in a Cold War from 1945-1991.
Sure, politicians in the US do this, but that’s just another bit of evidence to support the authoritarian vs. liberal democracy hypothesis, since the US politicians that do so are the ones on the authoritarian side.
Genuine question:
Within Iran, the US/UK backed coup d’etat which overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in '53 followed by supporting the monarchy of the Shah is one of the primary sources of grievance claimed by the subsequent Islamic Revolutionary government. Is Israel seen by Iranians as being complicit with the West with regards to this? I don’t actually know how friendly the Shah was with Israel.
That is, does Iran base (or pretend to base) its grievances against Israel on the historical injustices committed against it (mostly by the US & UK), or is its antipathy towards Israel nakedly based on their view that Israel has no right to exist at all?
This is the key. This is one of the major tragic mistakes in history and irreparably destroyed Iran
To paraphrase Talleyrand, it was worse than a crime, it was stupid.
The timeline posted by Stranger On A Train says:
1957
According to the Federation of American Scientists, U.S. and Israeli intelligence officers work with Iran to set up SAVAK, an Iranian intelligence organization later blamed for the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners and violent suppression of dissent.
Yeah, I could see that leaving a bad taste in peoples’ mouths…
A fair few things the US did back in those days ostensibly for the purpose of fighting the Red Menace actually made citizens of the countries in question more favourably disposed towards communism rather than less. See, for example, Cuba.
I suspect we haven’t actually gotten any smarter wrt foreign policy, just sufficiently historically removed from that particular mistake to be willing to admit that it was obviously a dumb thing to have done.