Iran CAN’T FIGHT A WORLD WAR - may not respond at all to Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate in Syria to keep attention on Israel - if it does respond - likely low key and delayed
- worst case another regional war but neither side want that
This is about the Gaza Strip conflict. Israel killed a couple of Iranian generals in the Iran consulate in Syria a few days ago. Iran has not yet responded and Iran wants to keep it all low key to keep the world's attention on Israel.
Iran will look for a very low key response or not respond at all and delay a long time as it has done. Israel will want to deflect attention away from itself and towards Iran but doesn't want a war with Iran. So Israel has interests in provoking minor escalation, Iran only in de-escalation, nobody wants a larger war. Also Iran's Ayatollah who has the last word on anything Iran does has always been very careful to keep responses low key and to avoid escalation.
Video:
The US is warning of intelligence about a potential larger scale attack by Iran’s proxies on Israel involving hundreds of drones aimed at a military target similar to the Houthi attack on an oil terminal in Saudi Arabia in 2019. Abqaiq–Khurais attack - Wikipedia
This is hard to square with the analysis by other experts that it’s in the interest of Iran to keep low key, the Ayatollah’s long term stance to avoid any possibility of escalation, and that Hezbollah would not want to be involved in any major escalation.
Even if the US is right, the main risk is of the Gaza Strip conflict spilling over to Lebanon - or a worst and unlikely case of strikes on Iran from Israel / the US.
There is no possibility of this affecting countries in Europe and no possibility of any world war.
HEZBOLLAH ROCKETS ARE NOT IN RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY AND NOT UNUSUAL
This is a developing news story that you may see. Hezbollah has fired dozens of rockets from southern Lebanon. However Hezbollah say that this is in response to attacks by Israel on southern Lebanon and don’t mention the embassy attack.
This is not an unusual thing for them to do and no reason at this stage to suppose it is Iran’s response to the embassy attack.
Hezbollah fighters targeted “enemy artillery positions... with dozens of Katyusha rockets” the group said in a statement, adding it was “in response to the enemy’s attacks on... southern villages and civilian homes.”
IRAN CAN’T TARGET ANYWHERE FAR OUTSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST
Iran is more or less in the center of the Middle East. It’s developed ballistic missiles with a range of 2,000 km which is enough to reach anywhere in the Middle east either north or south of it. That is all it needs so it hasn’t developed longer range missiles.
Text on graphic: Iran will look for a low key way to respond to keep world attention on Israel.
and it can’t target anywhere far outside the Middle East
Maximum range of Iran’s missiles shown
Iran does NOT have ICMBs
Iran does NOT have nukes.
We know this as both need testing first.
Background graphic from: Missiles of Iran | Missile Threat
We would see those tests.
Iran CAN'T TARGET THE USA. Its missiles CAN'T REACH THE USA. Iran is not likely to target US forces.
US INTELLIGENCE IS MIXED - EXCELLENT FOR RUSSIA, VERY POOR FOR AFGHANISTAN - NOT THAT GOOD FOR HAMAS OR HEZBOLLAH AND HASN’T BEEN THAT GOOD FOR IRAN
US intelligence is excellent for Russia. It was very poor for Afghanistan where they had no idea that nearly all the pilots and the government planned to leave Afghanistan as soon as the US started to withdraw. I don't know what it's like for Iran. But I don't think it is very good.
It was very poor for Iraq and very poor for North Korea in the past, somewhat better recently.
So it is mixed.
In the case of Iran the final decision is made by a single person, the Ayatollah. It’s likely hard to know what he plans unless they have spies close to the Ayatollah.
BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale’s summary:
He says about the US supposed intelligence:
1. it may be a prediction of the future based on hard intelligence.
2. it may also be the USA trying to deter Iran to try to minimize any response by talking upu the threat now.
3. It also could be an attempt to try to shape expectations so that if and when Iran does respond ti is seen as less escalatory.
President Biden has said he expects an attack against Israel from Iran sooner rather than later.
Unnamed US officials say that attack could involve hundreds of drones and missiles against military targets here in Israel.
That may be a prediction of the future based on hard intelligence.
But it may also be the USA trying to deter Iran to try to minimize any response by talking upu the threat now.
It also could be an attempt to try to shape expectations so that if and when Iran does respond ti is seen as less escalatory.
From Iran's point of view, it has promised it will punish Israel for the attack on its consulate in Damascus, the capital of Syria 12 days ago, but equally, Iranian ministers have said they do not want to widen the scope of this warw and a mass attack using drones and missiles from Iran to Israel would indeed do that.
There has been an attack from Israel this evening across the border from the north.
Hezbollah launching lots and lots of rockets. But that I have to say is a pretty regular occurrence and there is no evidence yet that that is linked in any way or even the start of some kind of Iranian led retaliation.
Also interviewed by the BBC, Michael Singh, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says he thinks the Israeli war cabinet were likely aware of the risk of escalation when they authorized the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria but probably reasoned escalation dominance was on Israel's side. I.e. that they could escalate without a risk of a serious response from Iran.
He thinks based on Iran’s previous actions, it's a mistake to think in terms of a timeline. Israel may get an initial symbolic retaliation. It may then continue, perhaps for years to attack terrorist targets and more vulnerable once Israel and US's guard is down.
He tweeted saying the same thing, and saying in more detail it may be a performative retaliation - i.e. that it does something minor but claims that it has done something much more major. That way Israel would know it was really just minor and woudn’t retaliate but Iran would have something to tell its allies it has done:
https://twitter.com/MichaelSinghDC/status/1778414234121957850
US SOLDIERS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN FIGHTING WITH ISRAEL - THEY JUST SUPPLY THE BOMBS AND INTELLIGENCE AND NEITHER SIDE WANTS A SECOND VIETNAM WAR
The USA is not involved in fighting either Hamas or Hezbolah or Iran only Israel is.
US has troops to help protect Jordan but doesn't fight with Israel.
Even if the US was to attack Iran which is not at all possible, this is not a world war because Iran doesn't have nukes or ICBMs. It would be a second Vietnam.
But the US emphatically does NOT want to be dragged into a second Vietnam which it could never win because even though the US is far more powerful than Iran, there is nobody in Iran who would support the USA in such a war.
And Iran emphatically does not want to be dragged into any larger war. It doesn't want the war to spread to Lebanon a small country next to Israel.
The US has not been directly involved in any of this. It just supplies Israel with weapons.
US soldiers are not fighting in Gaza Strip and won't fight Hezbollah or Iran.
US has soldiers to help protect Jordan.
US destroyers protect shipping in the Red Sea (which indirectly protects Israel from Houthi missiles but Israel can stop them anyway with its iron dome)
But it doesn't have soldiers to help protect Israel.
And the US is being very critical of how Netanyahu conducted the Gaza Strip conflict. It supplies bombs and other weapons and some intelligence but not soldiers and is not itself involved.
US CAN’T START A WORLD WAR EITHER AS IT HAS NO OPPONENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH EITHER NUKES OR ICBMS
It is not possible for the US to start any world war in the MIddle east either.
Because only Israel has ICBMs. So there is nobody there with ICBMs to attack.
The US does not want to attack Iran. Even if they did it would be another Vietnam not a world war.
But the US definitely does not want another Vietnam.
There is no way that the US gets involved in a war with Iran.
IRAN WANTS AN IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE IN GAZA STRIP AND THEIR AYATOLLAH WHO HAS THE LAST WORD ON EVERY DECISION IS VERY OPPOSED TO ANY KIND OF ESCALATION
Iran does not want the war to escalate at all, it wants an immediate ceasefire.
It is impossible for Iran to attack the US.
Iran can only attack troops in the Middle east which it has done occasionally from time to time.
The Ayatollah Khamenei is very opposed to any form of escalation.
And Iran will be especially careful right now.
This is what military analysts say.
Ayatollah Khamamnei is the supreme leader of Iran. He has veto power over anything they do. He is in charge of the military, he has final decisions about the Judiciary etc. He is a religious leader. Not a king - not hereditary - but someone with a good understanding of Islam.
Iran has only ever had two Ayatollahs. The first one died in 1989.
He has the last word on everything.
. Supreme Leader of Iran - Wikipedia
RUSSIA CALLED FOR A CEASEFIRE SINCE EARLY ON, HAS TIES TO BOTH SIDES, IS VERY CAUGHT UP IN THE UKRAINE WAR, AND NOBODY THINKS THEY WILL GET INVOLVED IN ANY WAY ON EITHER SIDE
Russia has ties with Israel as well as Iran and is certainly not on Iran's side against Israel. Russia has called for a ceasefire in Gaza Strip since early on. Nobody involved in the Middle East even has the capability to fight a world war and they are all firmly focused on the MIddle East and only care about other countries in as far as they are involved in the Middle East like the US with its bases there.
Iran also has called for a ceasefire in Gaza Strip and if it does anything it will be carefully calibrated. The Ayatollah of Iran has the last word on anything they do both domestic and foreign policy - not unlike a monarch but a religious cleric. He is firmly opposed to anything that could potentially be escalatory and Iran has always been very careful and will be especially careful now. It wants to keep the focus of the world on Israel as the aggressor in Gaza Strip.
Russia won't get involved.
IRAN WILL WANT TO KEEP THE ATTENTION ON ISRAEL AND NOT BE SEEN AS THE AGGRESSOR ITSELF AND HAS EVEN STRONGER MOTIVES THAN USUAL FOR A LOW KEY RESPONSE
Iran of course doesn’t want a world war and can't fight a world war and is looking for the most low key way to respond.
See my blog post here goes into more detail.
Iran will look for a very low key response or not respond at all and delay a long time as it has done.
Israel will want to deflect attention away from itself and towards Iran but doesn't want a war with Iran.
So
Israel has interests in provoking minor escalation,
Iran only in de-escalation
Nobody wants a larger war between Iran and Israel.
NETANYAHU HAS SOME MOTIVATION TO PROLONG THE WAR BUT NOT FOR A LARGER WAR LIKE ONE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH - IT WOULD BE A LARGER VERSION OF THE GAZA STRIP CONFLICT WITH LOTS OF BOMBING OF LEBANON BUT FAR MORE DAMAGE TO ISRAEL ESPECIALLY IN THE NORTH
Netanyahu has been accused of wanting to prolong war in Gaza Strip, because he knows he is out as prime minister as soon as it is over.
Even if this is true, he won't want it to expand in a major way because the main way the war can expand is a war with Lebanon, a small neighbouring country to the north partly governed by the political wing of Hebollah and unlike Gaza Strip, with a more or less functioning democracy.
Israel can bomb anywhere in Lebanon but Hezbollah can shoot down planes
Hezbollah has many thousands of rockets that can hit the northern part of Israel and overwhelm the Iron dome.
This is the larger war Israel, Iran and Lebanon want to avoid.
Even if Netanyahu is prolonging the Gaza strip conflict to stay in power - he would not want all-out war with Lebanon.
Israel would cause far more damage than Hezbollah but would be badly affected and nobody would “win”
For details see:
Hezbollah certainly don't want a war with Israel, don't want their country to be bombed.
Israel won't want that either because though it would "win" in the sense of causing more damage to Lebanon than Lebanon does to Israel, Hezbollah in Lebanon, unlike Hamas, has the ability to fire tens of thousands of precise missiles at anywhere in Israel and could temporarily overwhelm the Iron dome and cause quite a bit of damage in Israel. Hezbollah also has air defence equipment and can shoot down Israeli fighter jets and bombers until it is neutralized.
But when people talk about the possibility of the war escalating that's the main thing they have in mind, a war with Lebanon. It's not at all likely to escalate as far as a war with Iran itself.
IRAN WON’T WANT TO ATTACK US BASES - NO INVOLVEMENT IN THE EMBASSY ATTACK
And Iran won't want to attack US bases as they are not involved in the embassy attack.
Even if the US joins Israel in attacks on Iran in some future escalation they won't want to be involved in a drawn out war with Iran.
The very worst case here for the US is a second Vietnam, but one they have no chance of winning as they would have almost no sympathizers in Iran.
It is not a world war, that's totally impossible. But no way that US wants a war with Iran and Iran is too powerful for the US to invade like it did with Iraq. Iran can't "win" but the US could never take over Iran in any possible future.
AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF GENERAL SOLIEMANI BY THE USA IN 2019 - IRAN DID A VERY LOW KEY RESPONSE
This may help, my short summary from 2019 after the assassination of general Soliemani by the US, when people were worried that Iran would somehow start a world war in response. I explained back then how a world war is impossible, same today. And Iran did a minimal response. It is a very similar situation today but this time it is Israel killed the generals not the US and Iran is especially careful not to turn the world attention away from Israel because of Gaza Strip.
So Iran is likely to do a much lower key response, one that is de-escalatory and that doesn't bring the US into it.
I wrote these two blog posts in 2019 to explain why the US would not want to get involved in a full-scale war with Iran which would be like a second Vietnam - but not a world war.
BLOG: Simple answers to why we don't risk WWIII because of Iran and the US
BLOG: Why the US can’t invade Iran
IRAN DOESN’T HAVE NUKES, WANTS A NUCLEAR FREE MIDDLE EAST - AND WOULD NEED TESTS FIRST WHICH WE WOULD DETECT EASILY
Iran doesn't have nukes. It doesn't want to develop nukes, it actually wants a nuclear free Middle East if only Israel would join in. Though Iran is not far from making its first nuke it can't have a nuke without first testing it and it would need several tests typically for a nuclear testing program.
Also we can detect a nuclear explosion by various methods from well outside a country. We detected North Korea's tests even though like all the tests since the partial test ban treaty, they were deep underground. They detected it by a combination of the seismic pattern and detecting radioactive emissions - it's not possible to do an underground test without trace amounts of the nuclear material leaking to the surface and we can detect this with exquisitely sensitive instruments.
So it is impossible for IRAN to secretly develop nukes.
Also there is no way that either Russia or Pakistan would give nukes to Iran. They have some shared interests and commercial relationships but they are not allies in that sense.
See my
You need to test a nuke before you can have an effective one as the information about how to make a nuke is not open source.
The only reason that Israel has nukes without testing is because France, Norway and Britain collaborated to help them to make nukes. It is possible that a South African test was actually a test of an Israeli nuke. If not then they just know they work as a result of using the data from tests by other countries.
BLOG: The US Discovery of Israel's Secret Nuclear Project
6 MONTHS TO THE FIRST CRUDE NUKES, 4 MONTHS COULD BE KEPT SECRET, MUCH LONGER TO NUKES THAT CAN GO ON A BALLISTIC MISSILE - NO SIGN THAT THIS HAS STARTED - MANY DOWNSIDES FOR IRAN
Iran might develop a nuke but if so it's not started it yet.
The first nukes are very big and can't be delivered in a missile.
There is no evidence that Iran has started work on making a nuke. It probably still hopes for a renewed deal of some sort twhen the Ukraine war is over.
There are huge downsides for Iran of developing a nuke.
Saudi Arabia would develop one far faster than Iran - Iran wouldn't have a nuke in weeks. It is hard to do. Saudi Arabia however is pals with Pakistan and funded their nuclear program. Iran doesn't have that same connection with Pakistan.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are rivals.
And both Iran and Saudi Arabia want a nuclear free middle East.
And nukes are only useful as a deterrent.
If Iran used a nuke first, it would become a rogue state even more than it is now, a pariah of the world, and it can guarantee that the US and Israel would work together and destroy its capabilities to make nukes.
This doesn't make sense for a country that is very careful not to escalate.
Saudi Arabia would know immediately as soon as they do their first test.
More details about nukes by David Allbright from the Institute of Science and International Security..
It would take 6 months to get to the first crude nukes which it would NOT be able to deliver on ballistic missiles. But it is possible that it could hide the first 4 months of that program.
There is nothing to suggest it is doing this and the US needs to concentrate on discouraging it from this path.
QUOTE STARTS
The unfortunate reality is that Iran already knows how to build nuclear weapons, although there are some unfinished tasks related to the actual construction of them. If the regime’s leadership decided to build them, how would it proceed? How long would it take?
The long pole in the tent of building nuclear weapons is essentially complete. Iran can quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for many nuclear weapons, something it could not do in 2003. Today, it would need only about a week to produce enough for its first nuclear weapon.3 It could have enough weapon-grade uranium for six weapons in one month, and after five months of producing weapon-grade uranium, it could have enough for twelve.
The other major poles in the tent are “nuclear weaponization” and delivery. Iran has a variety of delivery systems, including nuclear-capable missiles: the delivery pole is ready.
Weaponization is the pole that needs more work.
The accelerated program can be accomplished in a matter of six months and would involve activities conducted in far smaller, more disguisable facilities. This path is a more assured way for Iran to establish itself as a nuclear weapons power while leaving little time for the international community to react.
An Iranian accelerated program would not aim to produce warheads for ballistic missiles, a task that could take significantly longer than six months. Nonetheless, a crude nuclear weapon would signal Iran’s entry into the nuclear weapons club as the tenth member, either dramatically via an underground nuclear test or stealthily via leaks about its accomplishment. A missile-deliverable warhead would probably be the next goal of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The outside world would be left to ponder how soon it could reach this capability.
What that means is that Iran may have a six-month timeline, but the United States and its allies may have to react to a much shorter one. Because Iran has achieved very short breakout timelines to produce weapon-grade uranium, it could wait until month four of the six-month timeline to divert its enriched uranium from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, a step likely to be detected by inspectors, although Iran may delay the diversion’s detection by a few weeks by denying inspectors access to the safeguarded sites storing the enriched uranium and containing the centrifuges to be used to take the enriched uranium up to weapon-grade, falsely declaring a fire, an accident, or a security incident. The result is that instead of a six-month warning, Western intelligence agencies may have less than two months to respond.
David Allbright is a top expert on the topic, for instance he has often testified to Congress.
A DIRTY BOMB IS VERY UNLIKELY AS IT IS INEFFECTIVE AND LEAD TO NEAR UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION OF IRAN
As for a dirty bomb, it is technically possible but very unlikely as it is very ineffective. Iran has never used a dirty bomb. Nor has any terrorist ever AFAIK. It is just not a very effective weapon
Most people aren't harmed and you can clean it up or just cordon off the affected area.
The only reason to do it is psychological but this also is a reason to turn the world against you.
If you want everyone in the world to be opposed to you while using a weapon that is very ineffective and achieves little you'd use a dirty bomb.
I.e. never. It's hard to imagine a situation where even a terrorist group would decide to use one, it's also difficult to get hold of and it is dangerous to the person deploying the bomb.
It makes no sense for Iran to use a dirty bomb.
IRAN DOESN’T HAVE OR WANT ICBMS - WOULD NEED TO TEST THEM AND WE’D SEE THOSE TESTS
Iran also doesn't have ICBMs and it doesn't have any interest in developing them. Those also would need testing. Iran has satellites that it puts into orbit., So it could certainly fire a rocket on an ICBM -like trajectory. But it would need to avoid it burning up on re-entry. This takes several tests before a country can get it right and again, like nukes, the technology for building an ICBM that can re-enter the atmosphere without burning up is not open source. Countries have to develop it from scratch or get it from someone else who already has it. Iran could develop this with maybe two or three tests but it has never tried because it has no interest in developing an ICBM.
I talk about the issues involved in testing an ICBM for re-enetry here
BLOG (On science 2.0) North Korean - Likely Used Light Mock Warhead To Fly Further & Not About To Invade South Korea Or US Invade NK
The situation with ICBMs is similar to the situation with nukes. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with an ICBM.
SEE ALSO
For more on all this see:
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.