If Israel does respond to Iran - both sides still want to keep it low key - can’t ever be a world war
- with many factors operating to help stop escalation
The news is full of speculation about a regional conflict or even impossibly a world war. But if you look at the situation it just doens’t have any of the “fuel” you would need for a larger war. I thought I’d do a post about all the things acting to STOP escalation.
Iran’s strike was dramatic and surprising but it was low key. It was just to maintain national dignity - they want to de-escalate. They did many things to reduce the impact to Israel and make sure Israel was prepared and ready to stop their missiles. Also, Putin is urging Iran to de-escalate.
Meanwhile, Israel wants to make a point but it has nothing it needs to achieve except to show to Iran that it also has ballistic missiles, which everybody knows already. Israel is enjoying a rare moment of the world on its side for once, distracting from the Gaza Strip after the condemnation of its attacks on those Western aid workers.
Everything is against expansion of the conflict. Escalation doesn’t happen on its own. It's humans making these decisions rather than automatons. Humans are able to make decisions that are in their own best interest and have many ways to de-escalate.
Here are some of the things I’ll expand on in this blog post as bullet points. I find that some scared readers and autistic readers find bullet points especially useful.
Iran and Israel don’t have any military objectives to achieve
The attacks are just symbolic
Iran just wants to maintain national dignity and to deter Israel from attacking its consulates
Israel just wants to show it is as strong as Iran and to deter Iran from firing ballistic missiles at it again.
Iran’s proxies kept a low profile, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq and the Houthis fired only a few missiles.
The two countries are 1000 km apart and can’t realistically fight each other on the ground
It’s not practical for Israel to even do a bombing campaign against Iran, the risk would be too high because of the large distance, need to refuel and Iran’s air defence capabilities
Iran’s drones were only symbolic, like pressing the buzzer to let Israel know it was about to attack, it is far too far away to overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system - Hezbollah could nuy didn’t join in
The drones didn’t deplete interceptors for the ballistic missiles as that’s a different system
both sides can only attack each other with medium range ballistic missiles
no way anyone uses nukes
their own populations wants them to have stopped already
the international community on both sides wants them to have stopped already
Israel is enjoying a rare time of international support from the world and its Arabic neighbours and any strong reply risks losing that
Russia won’t get involved whatever happens
The Ayatollah is careful to prevent escalation and can to veto any decisions by the president or legislature, and is in charge of the army, here for instance he vetoes the president’s decision to sack his intelligence chief in 2011. Iran Ayatollah vetoes Ahmadinejad | News24.
The news is full of people saying why they think that this could lead to escalation and regional war. I thought I’d help counteract that, which is mainly spin and journalist hype and political grandstanding, by doing a graphic to show some of the many factors acting to slow down and stop escalation.
Text on graphic: Just some of many factors acting to prevent escalation
Politics, geography and military capabilities ALL act against escalation
Iran wants to protect national dignity and deter attacks on its consulates
Israel wants to show it can do whatever Iran does and deter Iran's ballistic missile strikes
Nobody has any sensible military objectives.
Iran's only allies, Syria and Lebanon, far weaker and didn't take part in the attack.
Israel: small country to defend, excellent air defences and ultra-modern missiles.
Too far for Iran to overwhelm Israel's air defences with slow drones or cruise missiles.
Iran: Huge country to defend and weak air defences.
Less advanced missiles.
The only way for Israeli planes to get to Iran without flying over other countries.
Iran may be able to shoot down Israeli planes.
Plus these are humans not automatons - neither side wants escalation and we have many ways to stop it.
Likely worst case: both sides may lob a few more medium range ballistic missiles to make a point.
Background graphic from Google Maps
SHORT SUMMARY OF THE SITUATION FROM THE BBC
This is from James Landale, Diplomatic correspondent from the BBC based on what he heard from the Israeli side:
There will be an Israeli response but as coordinated as possible.
Wisely and not from the gut.
Clear and decisive.
Trying to signal the narrative before it happens.
Options for them.
1. Does it attack Iran or one of its proxies. He expects they will attack Iran proper to match Iran attacking Israel for the first time.
2. Israel’s aim is to find a way to do it that is effective, sends a message, deters Iran from doing this again, but without escalating.
Maybe strike a military base to avoid causing substantive casualties
Main risk here is it doesn't always happen as intended so they will need to consider that too. If they could cause more damage than intended.
RUSSIA, NORTH KOREA AND CHINA WILL NOT GET INVOLVED
So let's start with Russia, China and North Korea. This is because many scared people in our group are nowhere near the Middle East and the only reason they are scared is because, based on media spin and click bait, they think Russia or China or both will come in on the side of Iran. Some also worry about North Korea because of media exaggerations of North Korea’s capabilities.
If you follow this blog or our group hopefully you know that Iran has no interests outside the Middle East and couldn’t fire as much as a chocolate chip cookie to hit countries in most of Europe or the Americas. If you don’t know that, see my previous debunk here:
So what about China? That’s an easy one, China has no interest in Israel or the Palestinian cause or anything to do with this conflict. Just about its only interest is in oil exports from the region.
What about North Korea? Again that’s an easy one. North Korea has no interest either, it is very far away. It's only interest is in the income it can get from illicit arms sales. Some North Korean arms have got into Hamas hands probably via Iran. That does NOT mean that North Korea has any interest in joining in any conflict in the area.
. Evidence shows Hamas militants likely used some North Korean weapons in attack on Israel
And North Korea can't fight a world war. Its nukes are only for a deterrent and it would only use them if the US and South Korea were trying to take over North Korea in a massive attack.
So, what about Russia?
RUSSIA WILL NOT GET INVOLVED
No matter what happens, Russia is not going to get involved. Russia and Israel have close relations. Many Russian Jews are in Israel. Although Zelensky is Jewish he has not been able to get significant military support from Israel. E.g. the Israeli Iron Dome technology would be very useful for Ukraine to protect against Russia but Israel doesn't want to give it to Ukraine because it values its relation with Russia.
Historically Russia has close ties with Syria but it withdrew many of its soldiers and its equipment to use in the war and tried to recruit Syrian fighters to fight against Ukraine, an unpopular decision in Syria. Russia would not support Syria or Iran against Israel and it has no interest in Yemen. The Russian missiles in Lebanon come indirectly from Syria without Russian approval. Others are knock-offs from Iran.
So Russia doesn't have sides here. It has ties with both sides and it has been strongly in support of a ceasefire since early on in October 2023. It is also weak and caught up in Ukraine, but even if the Ukraine war hadn't happened, Russia wouldn't support Iran against Israel.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER ARABIC / MUSLIM COUNTRIES? ONLY SYRIA, LEBANON AND THE REBEL HOUTHIS IN YEMEN AS POTENTIAL IRAN ALLIES - ALL ARE FAR WEAKER THAN IRAN
So we just have Syria, and Lebanon as potential allies. China has no interest in this on either side. India and Pakistan certainly won't get involved. Other Muslim countries in the area are Sunni and have been often opposed to Iran (Sunni and Shia Muslims get on well in India but they are often opposed to each other in the Middle East)
Of those, two countries, Lebanon emphatically does not want to engage in a larger war with Israel. It has seen the bombing of Gaza Strip and doesn't want similar bombing of Lebanon. It could fight back more effectively than Hamas and for a while could even shoot down planes until Israel destroys its air defence capabilities, but couldn't prevent Israel flattening large areas of Lebanon from the air. That is a war it definitely doesn't want and unlike Hamas its political wing is a minority element of a democratically elected government.
Syria certainly doesn't want an escalation with Israel. Meanwhile, the Houthis are rebels in Yeman, aer too far away to be relevant and seem to be reluctant to be associated with it too.
On the Israeli side, several Arab nations are okay with shooting down drones and missiles headed for Israel from Iran. But those drones and missiles aren't a serious challenge for the Iron Dome air defence anyway. They were more like a way for Iran to ring the doorbell for Israel to let it know the missiles are on their way so it could be prepared, e.g. get its planes in flight so that the missiles hitting the air fields would cause minimal damage. They will not get involved in a direct attack on Iran to defend Israel.
WHY IRAN DID THE STRIKE - VERY OPPOSED TO ESCALATION - JUST TO RESTORE NATIONAL DIGNITY AFTER AN ISRAELI MISSILE STRIKE ON ITS CONSULATE IN SYRIA
Meanwhile Iran throughout has said it wants a ceasefire in Gaza Strip and is very opposed to any enlarging of this to a larger war. It is only responding like it did for the sake of national dignity which is so important to it. Amal Saad, lecturer at Cardiff University’s School of Law and Politics who specializes in the study of the Iran-backed Lebanese political movement and militia Hezbollah put it like this:
TWEET My comments to @NBCNews about how Iran’s response was a matter of national dignity:
QUOTE Iran, Saad said, was humiliated by Israel’s bombing of its diplomatic compound, and national dignity is “one of Iran’s foundational values.” It would have been impossible for Iran “to absorb that type of humiliation” she said. It “would mean Iran is no longer Iran.”
https://twitter.com/amalsaad_lb/status/1779522386640965669
In the worst case that's the risk. The war continuing and even escalating between Israel and Iran just for reasons of national dignity on Iran's side and on Israel's side, because Israel wants to prove to the world that it too has ballistic missiles - and some have suggested, also to boost Netanyahu’s chances of staying as president for a bit longer.
ALL IRAN’S ALLIES WERE VERY LOW KEY: HEZBOLLAH, HOUTIS OR IRANIAN FIGHTERS IN SYRIA
Nobody else in the region wants to be caught up in it, not even Iran’s allies. One of the most notable things about the attack is that Hezbollah didn’t get involved in trying to overwhelm the Iron Dome. It fired a few symbolic missiles that’s all (correction, initial reports were saying they fired nothing).
https://twitter.com/ianellisjones/status/1780026947570934250
US wouldn't join in on the Israeli side to prop up Netanyahu and its likely none of the Arab states is going to come in on Iran's side to support its national dignity. It seems that not even Hezbollah or the Houthis or Iranian fighters in Syria wanted to get involved so far, just Iran itself. The other Arab states for sure have no reason to support Iran’s national dignity.
Also Iran is at a huge disadvantage in a direct tit-for-tat as Israel has far better missiles, more accurate, faster, and immensely better air defences than Iran.
Iran might shoot down many of the Israeli ballistic missiles and cruise missiles but many would get through and Israel can cause significant damage. While Iran is far too far away for a direct attack,
So - there is absolutely no possibility of any world war and it is unlikely to escalate much.
Even if Israel tries its best to provoke Iran with a second attack on Iran or its proxies, Iran is not likely to do much unless Israel does something very major again like killing another top Iranian general.
But it can never be a world war that's just impossible.
NEITHER SIDE HAS ANY MILITARY OBJECTIVES - ISRAEL DELIBERATING CAREFULLY
Israel is deliberating carefully. At the time of writing this, the most likely response may be a very limited strike against maybe one or two targets in Iran, enough to say "We have ballistic missiles too" which of course the world knows already. Neither side has any military objective, it is mainly about national pride:
for Iran, national dignity,
for Israel, to show to the world that whatever Iran does it can do too.
Also deterrence
for Iran to deter attacks on its consulates and embassies
for Israel to deter direct attacks on Israel by Iran
Once that is over there is nothing else to fight over because they have no military objectives.
So it is just a matter of how much each sides feels it needs to do for these symbolic reasons before it's satisfied that it has made its point. This doesn't give much fuel for a war.
One way to slow things down is simply for both sides to deliberate for a long time before replying until the world loses interest.
The whole thing was clearly symbolic on Iran's side and hopefully will be on israel's side too if it does respond. If so and given that the US is not in favour of any responses at all by Israel it may well end at that point.
MORE ABOUT WHY RUSSIA CAN’T JOIN IN - RUSSIA HAS NEVER ATTACKED ISRAEL, MANY RUSSIAN JEWS IN ISRAEL - ISRAEL ONLY WEAKLY IN FAVOUR OF UKRAINE - RESOLUTELY NEUTRAL ON GAZA STRIP
Russia has never attacked Israel as in on good terms with it. There are large numbers of Russian Jews in Israel. Russia has strong ties with both Israel and Iran and wouldn't come in on either side even if it was as strong as in spring 2022. Nobody serious has even suggested they would get involved that I've seen. It makes no sense. Their ties with Israel are too strong to fight Israel even though they also have ties with Iran.
Israel from its side hasn't given its Iron Dome technology to Ukraine.
Anyway Russia is so caught up in the Ukraine war and has so many troubles of its own that it has essentially withdrawn its soldiers from everywhere else as far as the disputed islands near Japan and its withdrawn most of its forces from Syria to fight in Ukraine. It has also withdrawn nearly all its soldiers from the long frontier with NATO even though Finland and Sweden joined NATO making it stronger rather than weaker with a longer more continuous border with Russia.
Russia's military is so depleted by the Ukraine war, it wasn't even strong enough to support Armenia against Azerbaijan in the one-day war in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023. It's not going to want to be involved in anything else outside Ukraine for a long time.
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90768
It's possible that Iran has supplied Russia with short-range ballistic missiles which Russia is very short of. Russia might in turn have promised to send its Russian Su-35 fighter jets and Mil Mi-28 attack helicopters. If so then likely none have reached Iran.
About the possible secret agreement here:
Iran and Russia Enter A New Level of Military Cooperation • Stimson Center
And here:
. Media: Iran finalizes deal to buy Russian fighter jets, helicopters
The Su-35 is roughly equivalent to Israel's F-16 and is nowhere near the capability of its F-35s which are almost radar invisible. The Su-57 is Russia's equivalent of the F-35 but is only a prototype and a long way away from being read for combat if it ever is.
Russia has nothing like the F-35 but the Su-35 would be a significant upgrade to Iran's fleet of ancient models of fighter jet. If the intelligence is correct, this is a purely commercial arrangement, and they are not allies and it does NOT mean that Russia would come to the aid of Iran. Russia is resolutely neutral on the topic.
Nobody reliable has ever suggested that Russia would support Iran or attack Israel in any source I've seen.
On Gaza Strip it's been resolutely neutral. It has far stronger ties with Jews than with Palestinians. Yes, weapons from Russia get to Hamas and Hezbollah but not directly. It gave weapons to Iran and Syria and Hamas and Hezbollah get their weapons from those countries not Russia.
Russia has been calling for a ceasefire in Gaza Strip since October.
I know this idea is very common on the internet but nobody reliable says this.
Russia is incredibly weak at present. Even after withdrawing almost all its soldiers and equipment from other theaters in the world and even with all its military might focused on Ukraine it was only able to advance a few miles in Avdiivka in its entire winter campaign.
And there is no way Russia would give nukes to Iran, it was one of the signatories of the JCPOA. And nukes can't be used to win wars.
ISRAEL IS 1000 KM FROM IRAN - IT COULDN’T INVADE IRAN ON THE GROUND - AND IRAN COULDN’T INVADE ISRAEL
As for Israel, it is 1000 km from Iran. It couldn't invade Iran and Iran couldn't invade Israel without involving its proxies and Hezbollah very much don't want to start a war that would end with catastrophic bombing of Lebanon similar to the bombing of Gaza Strip..
What we may get is a tit-for-tat of military strikes.
Realistically Israel is not likely to send jets as far as Iran. The many countries between wouldn't give them permission to fly. Iran could fly along the Red Sea but when they got to Iran they would be very far from home and though the F-35s are almost invisible to radar, a bombing run would have many other planes including the bombers themselves, and could be shot down. An F-35 could be shot down too with a lucky hit. They wouldn't want to take that risk.
This is an analysis from a while back nothing to do with the current situation but it goes into why it is not easy for Israel to send bombing missions to Iran if they ever wanted to do it.
. Will Israeli jets be able to bomb Iran without being shot down?
So, that’s a remote possibility. Not impossible they send fighter jets. Totally impossible to send soldiers or tanks on the ground.
Most likely a tit-for-tat of ballistic missiles fired back and forth but with long periods of deliberation each time.
But Iran knows that it will come off worse from a long exchange. That’s because Israel has a smaller country, easier to defend and with far better technology.
Also the motive isn't there. The Ayatollah who has the last word on decisions in Iran is very opposed to any risk of escalation and he is in charge of the army, can veto any laws in the legislature and has the last word on any judicial decisions.
IRAN HAS A MUCH LARGER COUNTRY TO DEFEND AND IS VERY CAREFUL ABOUT ESCALATION
Iran has a much larger country to defend with a much less capable air defence system and much less advanced ballistic missiles. It's strong point has always been the asymmetry using its proxies.
Neither side wants an all-out war between Israel and Lebanon. And there isn't really that much that Iran could do in such a war except to lob some ballistic missiles at Israel to distract it, with Israel lobbing missiles back at Iran.
Iran could try to send its armies to Israel through Syria but Syria wouldn't want that and its tanks would be very vulnerable to the Israeli missiles. Also to get to Syria it would have to go through Iraq and that won’t happen.
In Iran, the Ayatollah is very opposed to any form of escalation and has the last word. He is the head of the army, the legislature and the judiciary in Iran - he can override any law, and tell the army what to do and he has final decision on any judicial action.
The ordinary people in Israel want it over already. The Iranian government is not popular at present with its people and the ordinary Iranians want it over already.
Seems most likely that Israel does a ballistic missile strike on an Iranian military base to make a point but low key just to match what Iran attacked Israel for the first time but low damage so as not to escalate.
Iran just says it will be met with a response. It doesn't say what. So that could be anything including e.g. another strike on Syria. The US and allies continue to tell it not to do anything and take the win. So Israel is on its own in any response.
Some hardline Israelis want an immediate response but others more clear headed are saying not to do that. So the war cabinet has had 3 meetings so far and all they've decided after 3 meetings is they will do some response it seems.
The important thing is it won't be supported by its Western allies which limits the potential for escalation.
Iran attack 'will be met with response', Israel's army chief says - BBC News
JOURNALISTS MOTIVATION TO HYPE THINGS UP TO MAKE THEM SEEM MORE IMPORTANT FOR CLICKS AND VIEWS
Journalists have a motivation for hyping things up and making them seem more important than they are.
By a regional war they mean a war with Israel supported by the US on one side and Iran, Syria and Lebanon on the other side. The Houthi rebels in Yemen would also join in and Hamas.
Nobody else would come in on Israel's side. The UK wouldn't get involved. It is not to do with NATO as no NATO country is threatened, Israel is not part of NATO. China has no interest at all, only interest is in oil exports from the MIddle East. Russia definitely would not get involved.
RUSSIA CAUGHT UP WITH UKRAINE WAR
This is nothing to do with the Ukraine war. Israel is more or less neutral on the Ukraine war, lukewarm supporter of Ukraine but won't give it the Iron dome. China is also more or less neutral, lukewarm supporter of Russia.
Russia in turn has strong ties with both Israel and Iran. But not an ally of either of them.
Russia has never attacked Israel. It supplied weapons to Iran and to Syria in the past. Iran makes copies of the Russian weapon systems. But it doesn't supply Hamas or Hezbollah, they get their weapons from Syria or Iran not from Russia.
Russia is resolutely neutral in the Gaza Strip conflict and has called for a ceasefire immediately since early on in October 2023.
Russia is also very weak. Russia's military is so depleted by the Ukraine war, it wasn't even strong enough to support Armenia against Azerbaijan in the one-day war in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023. It's not going to want to be involved in anything else outside Ukraine for a long time.
The Russian equivalent of NATO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) formed in 2002 of six post-Soviet states: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan is basically no longer functioning because Russia has shown in Armenia that it no longer has the spare military capacity to support members of the alliance.
Russia is just focused on Ukraine and that is taking all its capacity as a military power to advance a few kilometres a month in small pockets in eastern Donbas. Which may not continue for much longer as Ukraine's allies are helping it fix its shell supplies shortage. That is for a separate debunk. Russia is so weak or so strategically dim or both, it can't dislodge Ukraine from two outposts across its front line at Verbove and Krynky across the Dnipro river after an entire winter campaign.
Anyway Russia is certainly not going to get involved or China. Nobody even talks about Pakistan or India they won't get involved.
In a war between Israel and Iran, then Egypt and Jordan would
be on Israel's side if forced to take a position but would do their best to stay out of it. Saudi Arabia also on Israel's side against Iran. Even though all of them are strongly in support of Palestinian rights but they are opposed to Iran and its terrorism and they are Sunni Muslims and though Sunni and Shia get on well with each other in India in the Middle East they are historically opposed to each other.
So even the largest regional war is Israel supported by US v. Lebanon + Syria + Iran. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc all doing their best to stay out of it.
But Hezbollah in Lebanon see what Israel did in Gaza Strip and don't want to be bombed like that.
It is notable that none of the Iranian allies got involved in their drone attack on Israel, not even Hezbollah which fires lots of drones every week. Nor the Houthis, they didn't even lob one drone from Yemen towards Israel. They also would want to stay out of any conflict between Iran and Israel.
IRAN IS ONLY ABLE TO PRODUCE RADIOACTIVE URANIUM IN GAS FORM - ONE WEEK AWAY OF PRODUCING ENOUGH URANIUM HEXAFLOURIDE GAS FOR A BOMB - MONTHS AWAY FROM A FIRST CRUDE BOMB - YEARS AWAY FROM A NUKE ON A MISSILE - AND NUKE ARE ONLY USEFUL AS A DETERRENT
Nobody in the region has nukes except Israel. Iran is at least 2 months and most likely 6 months away from the first crude bomb - the 2 months is only if it has a secret program it started 4 months ago which is not likely at all. It is one week away from making enough uranium hexafluoride gas for a bomb but you can't make a nuke from gas. It is years away from a nuke that could fit in a missile and has no allies to give it the technology while Saudi Arabia could get there in weeks because it bankrolled Pakistan's nukes. So Iran would be at the bottom of the heap in terms of nuclear powers with Saudi Arabia and Israel above it - it wouldn't like that.
Nukes are only useful as a deterrent. Iran and Saudi Arabia both want a nuclear-free Middle East if only Israel would join in. Even if we ended up with all three having nukes, they would just be a deterrent and nobody could win with nukes.,
“REGIONAL WAR” HERE MEANS IRAN AND ISRAEL AND POSSIUBLY RELUCTANT HELP FROM LEBANON - SYRIA LETTING MISSILES THROUGH ITS AIR SPACE - US HELPING ISRAEL DEFEND ITSELF AND SUPPLYINUG WEAPONS TO ISRAEL- EVERYONE ELSE KEEPS OUT OF IT - BUT NOBODY WANTS THAT ESPECIALLY NOT HEZBOLLAH
So a regional war means a war involving most likely only Iran and Israel with maybe some very reluctant help from Lebanon, and Syria just letting missiles through its ir space.
Israel and Iran are about 1000 km apart, they can't do a land invasion of each other. Not likely Iran tries to invade Israel via Syria. So it is just lobbing missiles against each other.
In a tit-for-tat like that, Iran comes out worst because Israel has far better missiles and an amazingly good defence system that shoots down nearly everything, probably the best in the world for this sort of thing. A small country that can cover its territory densely with super advanced air defences.
Iran has a huge territory to defend and far less advanced air defences and far less precise missiles. So Iran won't want a tit for tat to continue for long as it would come out far the worst.
If Israel does another response to Iran, Iran's likely to delay its reply and use longer and longer delays in hope that Israel loses interest and to use its proxies instead. As we saw with this
one delays by Iran in its response cause lots of problems for Israel and none for Iran. So Iran would likely use longer and longer delays.
Also - Iran could respond by seizing more Israeli ships and other
things that don't invite a direct military response.
Or just do nothing. Remember Iran's aim is to de-escalate for sure. It needs to protect its national dignity but it is more important to prevent any kind of escalation.
Especially since the US said very strongly it doesn't support
any response by Israel that also helps with de-escalation.
Israel may do some military response against Iran. But Iran would then want to keep it very low key and there is no way it accelerates we are talking about more and more deliberation and pauses not a rapid tit for tat exchange. Most likely Iran doesn't reply back at all if Israel does a response. But instead uses its proxies or finds some other way than a direct reply. And Israel's government will be very unpopular if they respond in a way seen as a deliberate escalation in reply to Iran. The ordinary Israelis do NOT want a regional conflict or escalation and are already quite fed up with their government in many ways.
These are some of the main things I've said in various comments in the group and I can write this all up as a debunk with sources.
The US said very clearly they are not behind them and advised them not to which will help a lot with de-escalation and Iran would likely not continue a direct tit-for-tat like that.
Iran wants to de-escalate.
Iran only has Lebanon and Syria on its side plus the Houthi rebels far away from Israel in Yemen and Hamas of course but they are not able to do much.
And Lebanon, and Syria don't want to be involved in any regional war.
A regional war would just be Lebanon / Syria / Iran against Israel supported by the US, perhaps Jordan involved in the fighting very reluctantly on the Israel side but trying to keep neutral.
Iraq / Saudi Arabia / Egypt / Jordan would all be doing their best to stay neutral in any such war. They are opposed to Iran and though they support the Palestinians wouldn't fight with Iran against Israel.
North Korean weapons only get to the area through its illegal sales to Iran and North Korea has no interest in any of this. It has its nukes only to deter any attempt by South Korea plus the US to overthrow its government in a sudden military strike. All countries with nukes only have them as a deterrent as they can't be used to win wars - because anyone who uses a nuke as a first strike will then have almost the entire world opposed to them to try to find a way to stop them ever using nukes ever again. With weak countries like Iran if it developed a nuke and used it first, then the US and Israel would just destroy its nuclear capabilities with military strikes, - conventional not nuclear.
Same also with North Korea, if it ever used a nuke everyone including China would be focused on making sure it never uses them again. Which they would achieve pretty quickly.
NK knows that and there is no way it uses nukes for a first strike against anyone, it's only defensive.
But everyone wants an end to this except Israel possibly and in Israel the ordinary Israelis aren't keen on it either only the government. In Iran the ordinary Iranians don't want to be involved in this, the government is currently quite unpopular in Iran and the Ayatollah has the last word on everything there a bit like a monarch but a religious post, and he is very opposed to any escalation
I have not seen anyone reliable say that Russi would help Iran fend off the US and Jordan. UK is only indirectly involved through a small amount of supply of weapons to the Middle east and doesn't have troops in the area. It sent soldiers to Syria in the Syria civil war and to fight against ISIS and to Iraq but it is only involved in the current conflict in supply of weapons to Israel.
Meanwhile Israel will certainly not use nukes. It’s the same thing - that would end all the international collaboration, nobody would be able to support it any more, even the US. It would then be on its own in the Middle East without the help of allies and its defense industrial base is not up to the task of supporting a major war.
The “Samson option" plus the Biblical story of Samson leads uninformed people to think that if Israel uses a nuke it will destroy the world but it makes no sense. All it is is the usual deterrent theory that if anyone attacks Israel itself in a big way like a major attack that seriously threatens the survival of the nation of Israel, which Hamas didn't do, that they would use nukes.
As usual this is not because nukes would help in that situation. It would make it worse. But it feels that using the threat of nukes can prevent that situation ever arising. That is the normal way nukes are used.
In reality they wouldn't use it except for something really major that isn't going to happen like a massive attack by the combined armies of several of its neighbours like Egypt, Jordan and Iran all together, say. But nowadays Israel's military power is greater than all it's neighbours put together due to its use of superior technology. So it doesn't even need nukes to deter such an attack. Not really. Egypt and Jordan are not going to mess with Israel militarily and are on generally reasonable terms with it though of course opposed on Palestinian rights.
UK IS NOT EVEN ACTIVE IN THE REGION EXCEPT FOR OPERATION SHADER AGAINST DAESH IN SYRIA AND IRAQ
The UK's only current activity is in its operation Shader against Daesh in Syria and Iraq which it does with strikes from its Typhoon jets.
QUOTE STARTS
In response to increased Iranian threats and the growing risk of escalation in the Middle East, the UK Government has been working with partners across the region to encourage de-escalation and prevent further attacks.
We have moved several additional Royal Air Force jets and air refuelling tankers to the region. These will bolster Operation Shader, which is the UK’s existing counter-Daesh operation in Iraq and Syria. In addition, these UK jets will intercept any airborne attacks within range of our existing missions, as required.
It's not going to get involved in this except to protect its own fighter jets in their operations against Daesh and is working towards deescalation.
U.S. officials, meanwhile, are urging Israelis to be measured in any response, two U.S. officials and a diplomat familiar with the issue said.
However, U.S. officials also perceived that attack as somewhat limited and highly-telegraphed, hoping to both save face for Tehran but not escalate into a larger, regional war. The U.S. officials believed that Iran had to attack with an eye on a domestic political audience. But it did so with an announcement of slow-moving drones and missiles that were likely to be shot down — and its initial public statement included the language “the matter can be deemed concluded,” a signal that Tehran did not want more violence.
. biden-netanyahu-u-s-wont-join-counter-strike-iran-00152130
The G7 are looking into non-military measures. Like sanctions, the main problem is that Iran is already sanctioned so much it would likely make little difference. But that is about all they can do apart from diplomatic protests.
QUOTE Sunak said that coordinating any measures - which could include sanctions - among allies would ensure they had the maximum impact on Iran and those who may be sanctioned.
G7 Working on Package of Measures against Iran, Says British PM Sunak
Some 70 Iranian drones were shot down by fighter pilots from the 494th Fighter Squadron based out of RAF Lakenheath and the 335th Fighter Squadron from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., a senior official said.
The destroyers USS Arleigh Burke and USS Carney in the eastern Mediterranean Sea took down between four and six ballistic missiles, officials said.
Meanwhile, an Army Patriot missile battery deployed to Irbil, Iraq, shot down a ballistic missile headed from Iran toward Israel.
. White House says US troops helped repel Iranian attack on Israel from air, sea and land
...
Some of the U.S. units involved were part of a move by Washington over the last week to bring additional aircraft and ships to the region, in anticipation of the attack.
“Thanks to these deployments and the extraordinary skill of our service members, we helped Israel take down nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles,” President Joe Biden said late Saturday in Washington.
. White House says US troops helped repel Iranian attack on Israel from air, sea and land
WHAT IS A REGIONAL WAR IN THIS CASE? NOT A WAR INVOLVING RUSSIA OR CHINA - JUST ISRAEL / SOME US SUPPORT ON ONE SIDE, IRAN WITH MAYBE VERY RELUCTANT SUPPORT RROM LEBANON AND SYRIA ON THE OTHER - DOESN’T SEEM LIKELY OR PLAUSIBLE
A war involving more than two countries actually fighting. It is hard to see it happening in the Middle East because neither Syria nor Lebanon want to be involved.
But it would be a war involving Israel on one side supported by the USA and on the other side Iran, Lebanon and Syria with some support from the Houthis. Possibly some other Muslim countries coming in on the side of Israel, none others joining Iran.
Russia and China would NOT be involved. Nor would Pakistan or India.
NATO would not be involved. Israel is not in NATO. It’s never applied. It may not even be eligible.
Justin Dell looks at whether Israel could join NATO. He makes various points - it is not in Europe and is outside of the North Atlantic Region. However arguably Turkey isn’t really part of Europe and Georgia has been a NATO candidate and is east of Israel and very far from the Atlantic.
It’s partly political - if Israel was in NATO, then NATO would get embroiled in a commitment to protect Israel and Israel would get involved in protecting NATO. Neither would want to do that.
. Special Report: Could, Should, and Would Israel Become a NATO Member?
Anyway for whatever the reason it is not in NATO and no prospect of joining it.
The Ukraine war is just a war between Russia and Ukraine. Nobody else has joined in on either side. Also it is mainly localized to the south and east of Ukraine. So it isn't a regional war.
The reason a regional war is still not likely is that Lebanon would be worst affected in such a war and it's seen what Israel is capable of doing in Gaza Strip and the last thing they want is for Israel to start bombing southern Lebanon in a similar way. They could do more damage back to Israel than Hamas but Israel would soon overwhelm their air defences and make it harder for them to fight back.
In Iran's attack nobody else joined in on their side. Hezbollah, Syria even the Houthis were noticeable by their absence, not a single missile from any of them to join in with the Iranian ones.
They don't want the situation to escalate, don't want to distract attention away from Israel and the Gaza Strip situation, and don't want to attract an Israeli bombing campaign after seeing what it did in Gaza Strip and is still doing there.
The reason they are called regional is because they are larger than a war between two countries but smaller than a world war. They vary a lot in size and intensity. The largest would include the Yugoslav wars, and the wars in western Africa involving several countries around the Congo basin. At a lower level of intensity, the disputes between Turkey, Syria and Iraq about the Euphrates irrigation.
We have had many regional wars since WW2. We have never had a world war.
Remember countries don't want to go to war. In this case NOBODY IN THE AREA WANTS A LARGER WAR.
To turn into a world war some major power would need to come in on Iran's side as Iran is not even capable of fighting a world war. But Iran’s only possible allies are Syria, and Lebanon which are far weaker so it CAN'T become a world war. Meanwhile, none of the other Muslim states in the region are likely to come in on Israel’s side to attack only for defence and most are Sunni and would certainly not attack Israel to maintain Iran’s national dignity!
NORTH KOREA HAS NO POLITICAL / MILITARY INTEREST IN THE MIDDLE EAST
North Korea has no interest either, it is very far away. It's only interest is in the income it can get from illicit arms sales. Some North Korean arms have got into Hamas hands probably via Iran. That does NOT mean that North Korea has any interest in joining in any conflict in the area.
Evidence shows Hamas militants likely used some North Korean weapons in attack on Israel
And North Korea can't fight a world war. It's nukes are only for a deterrent and it would only use them if the US and South Korea were trying to take over North Korea in a massive attack.
I understand why you are asking this as there are so many stories claiming a regional war and a world war, and they never explain the term regional war. But remember that dramatic stories go higher in search results than the duller more carefully written ones. Also journalists of even mainstream media write click bait headlines and hype up the story too. Remember everyone except Israel wants an immediate ceasefire in Gaza Strip.
Israel's motive for striking the consulate is unclear but it may be to distract away from the Gaza Strip and Iran doesn't want to take that bait. Iran did a very restrained response given what Israel did to it. This was low key though surprising and dramatic.
It is carefully calibrated so that Israel doesn't need to do anything and US doesn't want it to reply.
Iran has always been very careful about escalation. It will surely continue to be so.
And the US has made it very clear it doesn't support a continuing tit-for-tat with Iran. It told Netanyahu to stop at this point.
Netanyahu may not do as Biden asked of him. But he totally knows and understands that if he does anything he is on his own. So the US is very unlikely to get dragged in.
And the US would not get involved in a big war with Iran it most definitely doesn't want that. Nor does Iran.
There is no way anyone there can attack the US itself or wants to but there is no way that the US wants to be involved in some large-scale war involving its forces in the Middle East.
WHO SHOULD WE USE AS SOURCES? NO SINGLE GOOD SOURCE IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA - NEED TO BE DISCRIMINATING AND WATCH OUT FOR BIASES AND SPIN
The BBC is good but you need to be discriminating and be aware of the biases. Some of their journalistic articles are good but others tend to have clickbait titles and they tend to say things that are dramatic at the start of the article but then when you get to the end find the article debunks itself. It's the more dramatic ones that get shared of course. But not as bad for that as Sky News.
I get some of my best material from their experts they interview on live TV. Their diplomatic correspondents are good and tend to give a reasonable summary, also some of their experts they interview not involved in the war.
I don't know of a good outlet to recommend in its totality for this sort of thing. During the attack I used the Times of Israel live blog, they were accurate about what was happening and ran the stories faster than anyone else I was using. But they wouldn't be accurate ee.g. about Israeli bombing in Gaza Strip where all the Israeli news underplay what is going on there by way of such things as attacks on hospitals, bombs hitting aid workers, doctors, journalists, the blockades, medical issues, etc and tend to blame it all on Hamas which doesn't make sense.
So you need to be discriminating and think "is this source reliable for this?" "Who is this writing under the BBC mast head" etc.
I don't know of a short cut around that.
And basically watch out for spin. If an article is only presenting one side and missing out lots of things that you know to be true that they must also know which would undermine their conclusion, it's spin and you won't get a clear picture. So you look elsewhere and for an article like that the main question is "why are they spinning it" and you may not find an answer sometimes it's obvious but sometimes it's not clear and sometimes it may just be to get a more dramatic story.
US AND PARTNERS TRYING TO GET TOGETHER A DIPLOMATIC RESPONSE
The US and partners are trying to get together another different response that is diplomatic plus sanctions, even if symbolic, to satisfy Israel. If however Israel does a military response, Iran will want to keep it low key too. That is not a situation that is likely to lead to escalation when both sides want to keep it low key and both sides have lots of options. There is no territory at dispute here, they can't attack each other directly as they are 1000 km apart. Iran's proxies didn't even join in on the attack. They want it to be over already too.
If Israel does one more response it would be the same thing from Iran's side, it would delay and delay on its side too.
JORDAN AND OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE AREA ARE NOT INVOLVED - EXCEPT UNDERSTANDABLY AND INDIRECTLY SHOOTING DOWN DRONES THAT VIOLATE THEIR AIR SPACE
If Israel does respond against Iran it's likely medium-range (conventional of course) ballistic missiles fired - they are 1000 km apart. Then that's likely the end of it as Iran knows it will come out worse of an exchange like that. But whatever happens, Jordan won't be involved except possibly shooting down more drones from Iran if it sends more drones - but those were likely just a kind of alarm call to Israel as it can't seriously do anything to Israel using drones or cruise missiles. They don't even work to overwhelm its anti-ballistic missile defences.
Nobody sees Jordan as involved in any way in what happened. And if it does happen, the ballistic missiles would likely target military targets perhaps the bases in Iran that fired the missiles at Israel.
Then another long pause. It's understandably a bit scary but remember that if there are more ballistic missiles they will fly over intermediate countries, and nobody would target Jordan.
Remember that what Iran says it will do is one thing, what it actually does is another.
IRAN DOESN’T HAVE A NUKE AND CAN’T HAVE A NUKE IN LESS THAN MONTHS FOR A CRUDE NUKE YEARS FOR A BALLISTIC MISSILE - AND WANTS A NUCLEAR FREE MIDDLE EAST LIKE SAUDI ARABIA
Iran has enough enriched uranium to turn it into highly purified uranium hexafluoride GAS for one nuke in a week, for several nukes in a few weeks. But you can't make a nuke from gas. You then have to turn it into metal, then you have to design the bomb. If the aim is a crude nuke that you can only explode at home, you can get it in 6 months and then do a test explosion to show the world you have a nuke. If the aim is a nuke you can put in a missile and fire at another country then that's several years of research.
Iran doesn't have any allies to give it the technology. Saudi Arabia does because it bankrolled Pakistan's nukes. If Iran starts a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia will win it and will likely have nukes it can fit in a missile within weeks.
Iran doesn't want this. It would be the underdog under Saudi Arabia and Israel. Also both Iran and Saudi Arabia want a nuclear free Middle East and always have if only Israel would join in. But Israel won't disclose its nukes, the only nuclear power not to disclose its nukes to the world.
NUKES ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR DETERRENCE NOT TO ATTACK
Nukes are only useful for defense. If any country ever used a nuke, then as Boris Johnson put it about Russia, it would immediately put it “He would immediately tender Russia's resignation from the club of civilized Nations."
Text on graphic: Q. Asked if Putin would use a tactical nuke.
Boris Johnson’s view: Not a realistic possibility of nukes Boris Johnson says that if Putin uses a nuke:
- “He would immediately tender Russia's resignation from the club of civilized Nations."
- "It would be a total disaster for his country."
- "Russia would be put into a kind of cryogenic economic freeze"
- "There's a lot of of willingness to give Putin the benefit of the doubt. That will go the minute he does anything like that [if he uses a nuke]."
- "And above all in his own country I think he would trigger an absolutely hysterical reaction".
"So I don't think that is a realistic possibility [for Putin to use nukes]." Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of UK during first few months of Ukraine invasion Screenshot from: .Exclusive with Boris Johnson on the Ukraine conflict (4:51)
For more about this see my:
It is the same for Iran, Israel, any country that did that. Nobody would want to be associated with them any more, they'd lose all their allies if they have any, and the rest of the world would be focused on how to eliminate their nukes.
In the case of Iran it wouldn't take much, conventional ballistic missile strikes or bombing raids organized by the US and Israel on its nuclear facilities - and most of the rest of the world would support them if Iran had already used a nuke.
There is just no way either Israel OR Iran would use nukes, and Iran doesn't have them and has never shown any signs of starting along the path to develop them. It could do that secretly for 4 months of the 6 months to develop a nuke but experts tell us we'd know at least 2 months in advance so we know for sure it doesn't have nukes and given the context / history it seems highly unlikely it has started on that route.
In Iran's case then it wouldn't take much, a few missile strikes from Israel and the US to destroy its nuclear capabilities which its air defences would not be good enough to stop.
There is nothing to suggest Iran even starting on that path. It likely still wants to be able to return to some agreement like the Iran deal. There are many downsides to actually seriously developing a nuke as you see. If it did it would be as a deterrent as with any other nuclear weapon state.
I have a section about this here:
And about how nukes are no use or a first strike they are only a deterrent and the whole point is to prevent another country invading you not to attack anyone.
BLOG: How nuclear deterrents work - like a bodyguard - their job is to prevent fights
Even the Soviet Union never had "first strike" capability - couldn't "Win" even if it had suddenly unexpectedly used all it snukes at once it still couldn't overwhelm NATO.
Boris Johnson's remarks here:
IGNORE ANY STORIES ABOUT THE ONGOING CONFLICT BETWEEN HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL - THIS IS NORMAL SINCE OCTOBER
Hezbollah fires dozens of rockets at Israel in volleys usually several times a week. Normally all are shot down. Israel kills a little over one Hezbollah commander per week at present.
QUOTE Baz was the sixth Hezbollah officer with a rank equivalent to a brigade commander to be killed by Israel in recent months, according to the IDF. The military has said that more than 30 Hezbollah commanders have been killed in its strikes in the past six months.
. hezbollah-commander-killed-in-idf-strike-as-attack-drones-injure-3-in-northern-israel
TOO FAR APART FOR A GROUND WAR AND VERY RISKY FOR ISRAEL TO USE PLANES TO ATTACK IRAN FROM THE AIR - LEAVES ONLY BALLISTIC MISSILES
This is expanding on the graphic I opened this blog post with:
The countries are too far apart from each other to have a major ground war, none of the other countries want to be involved on either side, not even Lebanon wants to join Iran, the most they can do if it is just Israel and Iran is lob ballistic missiles at each other - or Israel could send fighter jets to Iran flying along the Red Sea but that would be rather risky for Israel if any of them got shot down or had an accident even if by some lucky chance. Iran has good anti-aircraft capabilities. The F-35s are radar-invisible to Iran but wouldn't be totally invulnerable to some lucky hit from the ground. Also for large bomb loads, Israel would need to send other non-stealth aircraft and those would be more vulnerable.
This is an article about how risky it would be for Israel to do a major bombing campaign against Iran at a distance of 1000 km even with its stealth F-35s and its other anti-air defence technology.
. Will Israeli jets be able to bomb Iran without being shot down?
It's unlikely that Israel would risk something like that over a minor matter like this.
So it's lobbing ballistic missiles back and forth and then we get to see how good Iran's defences against ballistic missiles are, we already now the Israeli defences are excellent.
But it's highly unlikely that Iran would do another ballistic response in reality against Israel and whatever they did they would pause a long time too. The main way to de-escalate if they do continue like this would be longer and longer pauses until hopefully both sides lose interest in continuing this pointless exchange that would achieve nothing.
SUGGESTION: IF ISRAEL DOES A LIMITED BALLISTIC MISSILE RESPONSE TO IRAN - IRAN MIGHT TAKE A LEAF OUT OF BIDEN’S BOOK AND “TAKE THE WIN” AFTER IT SHOOTS DOWN AT LEAST SOME OF ISRAEL’S MISSILES
Netanyahu is taking his time to respond - some of the far right wanted a response almost immediately. Slowing down is one way to de-escalate by itself.
If they were like Vulcans, purely logical beings, then "take the win" seems the clear choice. However, emotionally, Israel is in a different situation from its allies. They are taking things slowly and trying to act from the head rather than the gut. But they have these things to consider.
1. They want to deter Iran from doing more strikes directly from Iran - they don't want this to become a new normal. Even a Vulcan could think like this.
2. They have a lot of political pressure from their own people most of which do want some kind of direct strike back. This is because of the psychological effect of experiencing a barrage of over 100 ballistic missiles which they all saw - these need to be intercepted at a great height and would be seen pretty much throughout Israel.
3. Netanyahu is under pressure from the far right in his party which he depended on to get into power. Some of them are hawks (Netanyahu seems a hawk to many outside Israel but other members of his war cabinet are far more hawkish than him) and need to be placated.
4. They may feel they need to show Iran that they also have ballistic missiles that can hit Iran. Iran knows that intellectually but Israel has never used them against Iran just as Iran has never used them against Israel.
5. Out of national pride - though their allies are urging them to divert that instead into a sense of accomplishment in the remarkable effectiveness of their air defences.
But of course
6. If they do retaliate directly to Iran, they want their retaliation to be the end of the exchange. It's not much of a deterrent against ballistic strikes if Iran replies back again.
Iran from its side wants
1. To deter Israel from attacking its consulate
2. If Israel attacks Iran it will want to deter Israel from attacking Iran again with ballistic missiles.
3. To maintain their national dignity.
But of course
4. For anything they do similarly to end the exchange for good.
But they have no military objective. No reason to keep going except to try to find an end point where they feel they have made their point emphatically enough and can stop.
Both want to quit while they are ahead. But if Israel returns with a low key direct ballistic missile hit on Iran, and Iran manages to shoot down some of the ballistic missiles, Iran may well take that as a win on its side. It may exaggerate the success of its air defences, deny any reports of damage by Israel and the allies, and display the debris of any downed Israeli missiles to the world and use that to boost a message that it is able to shoot down the Isrraeli ballistic missiles. It probably does have that capability.
QUOTE STARTS
In November 2022, Iranian officials displayed an improved Bavar-373, which they said had the range of its radar detection improved from 350km (217 miles) to 450km (280 miles) and is now equipped with advanced Sayyad 4B surface-to-air missiles.
It can reportedly lock on targets – including long-range ballistic missiles, drones and stealth fighter jets – at up to 400km, track 60 targets and engage six targets at once, and hit them at a range of up to 300km (186 miles).
Iranian state media have said the system is in some aspects superior to the Russian-made S-300 system and is even comparable to the more advanced S-400 batteries, which are some of the most advanced systems in the world. The Bavar-373 has not seen battle outside of military exercises in Iran, but experts regard it as a component of one of the densest air defence networks in the world.
..,,Arman, which was unveiled in November 2022, is mounted on the back of military trucks and ready to deploy within minutes. It comes in two versions, using active or passive electronically scanned array radars – which are accurate and difficult to jam – and is designed to combat tactical ballistic weapons meant for battlefield use in under 300km (186 miles).
. How well could Iran defend itself against a potential Israeli attack?
Likely some of the ballistic missiles get through but Iran only needs to be able to shoot down one of them to present that as a win to its allies.
This also gives both Israel and Iran information about how good or bad Iran's air defences are and where they need improvement.
I expect if Israel does fire ballistic missiles against Israel that this may be one way that Iran would turn it into a "win" on its side in order to not need to retaliate again.
I.e. taking a page out of Biden's book on their side.
Whatever happens, both sides want to avoid escalation. I haven't seen anyone say this, but one obvious way to do that is to have longer and longer periods of deliberation between strikes.
If it is a week of deliberation now, and later it extends to a month, two months, three months, by then the international community has lost interest.
But Israel won't want that scenario. Whatever it does it will want it to be the last and to ensure that Iran won't reply again. That's what is so difficult as there is no way they can eliminate Iran's ability to respond. There likely is a fair bit of behind-the-scenes diplomacy going on that we don’t know about as it is best done out of the glare of publicity.ing.
COMMENTS DISABLED FOR FIRST FEW HOURS
This is because there are click bait stories in the red top tabloids FALSELY shouting world war as they do many times a year and if I leave this open to comments it may get uninformed comments by people who haven’t read it and just seen the title of the post.
I write this to help scared people and they are easily triggered by such comments.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME AS I DON’T GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR MANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTS
If you need to talk to me about something do contact me it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages).
Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:
I usually get those messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
Want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
SHORT DEBUNKS (NEW)
I have just started a new page called “short debunks”. This has all the substantial debunks I do for the Facebook group. As you see I do many more of these, often ten a day, far too many to write them all up as blog posts., It only has the most recent short debunks, it would take ages to update it with older ones.
But if there is something scaring you in the news you may find I have debunked it here already.