Ah, I see. Iran wins if they get beaten to a bloody pulp but manage to avoid complete annihilation. Right. Your claims about air supremacy are fantastical. Neither U.S. or Israel have lost a plane yet and I will be very surprised if Iran ever manages to take one down. They have no effective air defenses. And the U.S. is not doing regime change. The attacks so far have been limited and against nuclear sites. We're not trying to decapitate Iran.

NBC News’ Richard Engel says the nature of the strike and the well-defended target indicate Iran’s retaliatory strike was a “symbolic attack.” Qatar was also reportedly informed ahead of the attack.
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/middle-east/live-blog/live-updates-iran-top-diplomat-meets-putin-us-braces-retaliation-rcna214428#rcrd83379

"Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan condemned Iran's attack on the Al Udeid military base in Qatar, according to statements from the countries' ministry of foreign affairs."

Ah, I see. Iran wins if they get beaten to a bloody pulp but manage to avoid complete annihilation. Right. — RogueAI

Yes that's the spirit.

Obviously the Iranian people don't win in such a situation.

Your claims about air supremacy are fantastical. Neither U.S. or Israel have lost a plane yet and I will be very surprised if Iran ever manages to take one down. — RogueAI

Then why don't we see ballistic missiles being intercepted in boost phase? If you have air supremacy, you can just fly around and B-line to any ballistic missile launch and shoot at those missiles when most vulnerable.

That's not happening, so my conclusion is Iran is able to deny airspace to cover their ballistic missile launches. If they have sufficient deterrence, Israeli planes would just leave the area. If they didn't have deterrence, Israeli planes would be hunting for launches of ballistic missiles.

However, regardless of Iran's capability, Russia and China can supply more, and I don't know what Iran's plan is or decision making criteria. All I can say is that if I was making decisions for Iran I wouldn't escalate with the US unless I had assurances of anti-air supply from Russia and China.

Now, I have not said that what follows from all my points is that Iran will therefore win an air war with the US.

My main points are:

1. If Iran is trying to escalate, or even simply risking escalation, with the US, it's only a reasonable thing to do with in a state of belief that Iran will be supplied with air defence from Russia and China (that they "got their back") and also in the state of belief that those systems will work.

2. All Iranian critical military assets are under ground, so Iran maybe preserving anti-air capability. They clearly have a lot of ballistic missiles that work, so they may have also a lot of anti-air missiles.

Of course, there are other potential explanations for Iran's actions, and it's possible that no system on the planet could defeat US air power.

However, if you were Russia and China, defeating the US in a large air battle would be something you would probably want to do, so they may try. If the cost are to Iran, they may have little reason not to give it a go.

NBC News’ Richard Engel says the nature of the strike and the well-defended target indicate Iran’s retaliatory strike was a “symbolic attack.” Qatar was also reportedly informed ahead of the attack. — RogueAI

We'll have to see how Trump responds.

Why I (personally) would avoid such an attack if I wanted to avoid escalation, is that Trump may anyways react to the "symbol" the same as a non-symbolic attack.

And if you reached out to the US to try to be reassured that your symbolic attack won't cause further escalation ... how exactly would you trust anything the US says about it?

To me, situation seems beyond trading symbols, but I definitely could be wrong. We'll have to see what Trump does tomorrow to see what direction things are going in.

In addition to this attack, Iran is still striking Israel, so pressure is anyways quite high to go to war with Iran, so why add a symbol to the mix if you wanted to deescalate.

For example of why keeping it "symbolic" is not a risk averse move, Trump's statement about Iranian retaliation was literally all caps and categorical:

ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. — Trump

So faced with these kinds of statements, you'd find some other non-attacking-US way to retaliate if you wanted to avoid escalation.

If you don't want to avoid escalation, then that would only be reasonable with assurances from Russia, such as may have been provided in the Putin's meeting with the Iranian foreign minister this morning, on the subject of air defence.

Regardless of the state of Iran's current air defence system, Russia can provide more. Just as Russia essentially wiped out Ukrainian air defences in the first days of the war and had air supremacy, but then with the West's help Ukraine started to regain air deterrence, shot a few planes down, pushed Russia's planes back to operating behind the line of contact, Russia could potentially do (assuming their systems are good enough) the same to the US in Iran.

Following comments by Medvedev, it looks like the Russians might be floating the idea of giving Iran nuclear weapons. Medvedev stated "several countries" were ready to do so (the other presumably being China).

I've long wondered whether this option was being considered, but I assumed this was too hot considering the taboo on nuclear proliferation.

Medvedev has a reputation for making extreme statements, though. It's hard to say whether they're actually serious or just looking to provoke chaos/a reaction in the US-Israeli camp.

Medvedev has a reputation for making extreme statements, though. It's hard to say whether they're actually serious or just looking to provoke chaos/a reaction in the US-Israeli camp. — Tzeentch

US and Israel have teased if not directly threatened nuclear weapons use, so Medvedev / Russia is at minimum just counter threatening for the deterrent effect.

Obviously threatening nuclear weapons use is not some sort of special right of the US and Israel and others can do it too.

Israel and the US need to take into consideration that Iran is supplied with nuclear weapons, including North Korean, but also needs to take into account that even after a nuclear strike on Iran that Iran could nevertheless complete development of a nuclear weapon and strike back. It would be diplomatically horrendous obviously for Israel to strike Iran with nuclear weapons, but that may not even prevent Iran developing nukes of their own and counter-striking.

Without nuclear weapons, I really don't see how Israel could potentially resolve things on their own. When your opening move is assassinating negotiators, it's difficult to declare that everyone had fun and to just call it a day.

If the US also can't force a resolution due to anti-air supply by Russia and China, very quickly the only option left is nuclear weapons.

If Iran (and Russia and co.) can successfully deter Israel from using nuclear weapons then it's really not in a good position.

Trump extends an olive branch:
"Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their ‘system,’ and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured,"

I had to verify it directly on Truth Social, be sure it's not a prank, full message:

Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA — Trump

If this is true, turns out the code is that ALL CAPS is a bluff (that's likely to work because ... all caps, what can you do) and normal punctuation is supposed to be trustworthy.

Wars over, CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT’S TIME FOR PEACE!

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Honestly, I think we can go ahead and wrap up this whole philosophy business.

You don't think Iran looks incredibly weak and pathetic right now?

Weak and pathetic would be Iran unable to strike Israel: missiles intercepted, launchers interdicted, no common and control.

Iran is defeating Israel and US missile defence.

As for this recent attack on US bases, seems the gamble was Trump would take that as a win and not escalate further. In this sort of escalation game, doing nothing keeps the tension, so once you've "responded" then the other side has the option to deescalate.

However, Iran sent missiles, I heard 40 missiles but it's hard to verify, at Israel as an immediate response.

Iran has demonstrated it can survive mass assassination of commanders and then retaliate the same day (after Israel's initial strike), keep hitting Israel everyday, defeat missile defences of US and Israel, clearly manage to deal with continued covert activity in Iran, and generally unite the people.

If this is the end of US involvement, then Iran in the final analysis Iran deterred further US involvement and can keep striking Israel to missile exhaustion, and once that happens Iran can produce cheap drones to keep sending at Israel as well as the odd ballistic missile.

Israel has no advantageous end game it can perform by itself (nuclear weapons being not exactly advantageous).

The situation is difficult to evaluate as there's strict censorship now in both Iran and Israel, so it's difficult to know what's going on, but we do know Iran can and is continuing to strike Israel and Israel missile defences and air power can't do anything about that.

So already a massive win for Iran, even if more Iranians have died.

I honestly had zero clue if Iranian ballistic missiles would work as intended, that they could manage to fire them off, and in large numbers day after day. It's impressive. Not easy.

So already a massive win for Iran, even if more Iranians have died. — boethius

:lol:

I don't know what information you have been following, but Israel's initial decapitation strike did not work; commanders were replaced, Iran retaliated. Sure, people died but their replacements maybe more effective.

Then Iran has struck Israel with missiles and drones every single day since. If Israel owns the skies over Iran, why aren't they able to disrupt and suppress that?

Iran defeated US and Israeli missile defence, about 5 layers, day 1 and even that level of performance (that does not prevent missiles falling) cannot possibly be sustained.

The reports are Iran has successfully moved all of its enriched uranium and critical enrichment equipment to safer locations.

Israel can strike Iran too, sure, but nothing of critical military importance (which is all under ground).

And considering everything important is under ground, what would actually have a chance of seriously disrupting Iran's military capability would be mass bunker bustering. If the US is now out of the war after dropping 6 giant bombs on non-military-critical civilian infrastructure, that means Iran is basically military safe.

Israel can destroy civilian infrastructure, including prisons for some reason, but that doesn't degrade Iranian military capability and is basically just wasting ammunition, and Iran can destroy civilian infrastructure too.

Maersk has paused going to Haifa; that is a pretty big disruption.

And in the long term view, this sort of war is far more damaging to Israel's economy than it is Iran, not simply because Israel is smaller in size and population, but Israel is driven by the high tech sector and there's not only destruction of laboratories Iran has already achieved but this sort of long term disruption causes many "knowledge workers" to leave, along with lots of other duel citizens. Iranians, on the other hand, aren't going anywhere and the oil will still be in the ground when the war ends.

Serves no purpose otherwise. — Mikie

Oh, I don’t agree with that. I think the disabling of the Iranian nuclear capacity is crucial. My point rather was scepticism about Trump’s motivation.

Every Israeli that leaves Israel and doesn't return is a fatality in economic terms.

Israel hans't banned people from leaving (except rich people on boats) because people are excited to stay. That's the biggest win Iran is achieving in terms of security metrics. Less Israeli population, less power, less skills, less threat in the future. And this economic cost of missiles blowing up infrastructure, laboratories, ports, disrupting normal life, removing the "sense of Western style safety", is in addition to the economic costs Israel had already incurred due to operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, along with boycotts due to those actions.

Israel is a small country that has millions of citizens with duel nationality that can easily leave, in addition to something like a million ultra-orthodox citizens who don't serve in the military and many don't really work, then there's the Arab population that are there but not necessarily committed to the Zionist project.

Oh, I don’t agree with that. I think the disabling of the Iranian nuclear capacity is crucial. My point rather was scepticism about Trump’s motivation. — Wayfarer

It is in no way disabled.

The main capability is the designs needed to enrich uranium; those obviously aren't destroyed.

Iran has developed multiple generations of homegrown enrichment designs and expertise. This sort of technology is really finicky and you need trial and error to optimize things.

In addition, there's no indication that Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium is destroyed, so it's safe somewhere. Enriching to 90% only requires 20% of the energy using the same centrifuge technology (you just run it for longer to get to 90%), which all indications are Iran moved to safe locations before these strikes.

Iran also has its own uranium mines. So, it has the knowledge and expertise needed to enrich uranium to weapons grade and also has the uranium.

Therefore, the only ways to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon would be by agreement or invasion and occupation.

Dropping bombs, but not invading, is the best way to guarantee Iran develops nuclear weapons.

Israel hans't banned people from leaving (except rich people on boats) because people are excited to stay. That's the biggest win Iran is achieving in terms of security metrics. Less Israeli population, less power, less skills, less threat in the future. And this economic cost of missiles blowing up infrastructure, laboratories, ports, disrupting normal life, removing the "sense of Western style safety", is in addition to the economic costs Israel had already incurred due to operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, along with boycotts due to those actions. — boethius

But for their proxies in Gaza being annihilated, their nuclear facilities being devastated, their being under attack by the strongest military force on the planet, their enemy being a 3,000 year old civilization that is relentless, and that they agreed to a cease fire, Iran's got them just where they want them.

But for their proxies in Gaza being annihilated — Hanover

They haven’t.

their nuclear facilities being devastated — Hanover

They haven’t.

their being under attack by the strongest military force on the planet — Hanover

True — by air, not on the ground.

their enemy being a 3,000 year old civilization that is relentless — Hanover

You mean a government that is psychopathic and genocidal. True.

I wouldn’t say Iran has “won” anything. Except perhaps bringing China and Russia closer to them. But most of these US/Israeli war crimes have been largely stupid and ineffective, especially if the goal was regime change or stopping the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Otherwise, they’ve made great political theater for Trump and Netanyahu.

I think the disabling of the Iranian nuclear capacity is crucial. — Wayfarer

And they haven’t done that. So what was the point?

And they haven’t done that. — Mikie

We don't know that. Just as I wouldn't necessarily believe that their capability has been eliminated, there's also no reason to think it's survived. And I think you're over-estimating the resilience of the regime. They've had many of their top scientists eliminated and whether or not they succeeded in saving some enriched product, their manufacturing base has been hugely diminished. They're already in deep shit economically and isolated politically and militarily. And as much as I dislike Trump, I think the US has the upper hand. If - big if - Iran and Israel do agree to the ceasefire that Trump has (perhaps prematurely) announced, I don't think Iran is going to be in a position to dictate any terms.

Just think about it for a minute. Even if they took out all sites and materials, which they haven’t, Iran still have the knowledge to do so, and now an even greater incentive to start again — with deeper bunkers. So what was the achievement?

They're already in deep shit economically and isolated politically and militarily. — Wayfarer

And you know this how? They’ve been damaged, but now they’ll be more determined than ever and their powerful allies can very easily help. It’s unlikely that Russia or China simply give them nuclear weapons (although Pakistan is a question mark), but they can certainly help the country rebuild militarily and economically.

So the regime change is a fail, the nuclear “destruction” is bullshit media propaganda, and really nothing has been accomplished beyond taking out some military leaders — who will be replaced. This was an Israeli war crime — and they sucked the US in as well. Much like the Gaza genocide (“We’re eradicating Hamas”), this is a total failure and will only make Israel less safe and their enemies more determined and numerous.

So you’re rooting for the mullahs?

So you’re rooting for the mullahs? — Wayfarer

Rooting for? This isn’t the World Wrestling Federation, sorry.

They've had many of their top scientists eliminated and whether or not they succeeded in saving some enriched product, their manufacturing base has been hugely diminished. They're already in deep shit economically and isolated politically and militarily. And as much as I dislike Trump, I think the US has the upper hand. If - big if - Iran and Israel do agree to the ceasefire that Trump has (perhaps prematurely) announced, I don't think Iran is going to be in a position to dictate any terms. — Wayfarer

The US has had the upper hand in this for a while but that hasn't really changed the calculus when it comes to the Iranian negotiating position. And there's also the matter that the Israelis won't trust whatever promise to never make nukes they may agree to.

Even if they took out all sites and materials, which they haven’t, Iran still have the knowledge to do so, and now an even greater incentive to start again — with deeper bunkers. — Mikie

Unfortunately this will probably be the new argument that the neocons and the Israelis will use to convince the US to get involved further. There's no point in leaving Iran to rebuild their nuclear capacity after everything that just happened to them so a regime change operation is the only necessary course of action to truly secure peace. There is a very good chance that the Iranians moved their stockpiles and they have probably decided that getting a nuclear weapon is the only reasonable way to get deterrence.

So the regime change is a fail, the nuclear “destruction” is bullshit media propaganda, and really nothing has been accomplished beyond taking out some military leaders — who will be replaced. This was an Israeli war crime — and they sucked the US in as well. Much like the Gaza genocide (“We’re eradicating Hamas”), this is a total failure and will only make Israel less safe and their enemies more determined and numerous. — Mikie

This goes back to the question of whether Iran is rational or not. I believe they're rational. They haven't disrupted shipping, they made a pathetic face-saving attack on the U.S., and their terrorist proxies have been silent (but that could be because they've been decimated). Rational regimes respond to rewards and punishments and Iran has just been punished severely. I doubt the 85 year old Ayatollah wants to spend the rest of his life in hiding. Other top officials and generals certainly don't want to be killed in future air strikes. Israel has shown that no one is safe. They can get you with a beeper or they can get you with a plane. If you're Iran, at this point, don't you just say, "fuck it, the nuke's not worth it"?

There is a very good chance that the Iranians moved their stockpiles and they have probably decided that getting a nuclear weapon is the only reasonable way to get deterrence. — Mr Bee

Or they can look at their neighbors who aren't getting bombed and just abandon the nuke program.

Like Iraq?

neocons — Mr Bee

What neocons? Who are you talking about?

I believe that if Iraq had been fully cooperative with Hans Blix and his team, they could have avoided that war. Possibly not, but Iraq is also a special case because they'd already used WMD's and invaded a neighbor and played fast and loose with UN inspectors all through the 90's and then, when they wanted desperately to be believed about not having WMD's, they had no credibility and STILL wouldn't cooperate fully with Blix and his team.

None of that matters to the actual reason the war started. The US wanted to go to war with Iraq as much as the Israelis do now with Iran, because they perceive the Iranian regime itself as an existential threat.