Pentagon Press Secretary Ryder said that the missiles and drones appeared to be heading north and may have been bound for Israel.

  • LastSprinkles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It looks like it’s all orchestrated by Iran. Hezbollah, under Iran control, Hamas and Yemeni rebels. Hamas shooting at Israel in a way that they clearly knew would necessitate a massive response. What I’m wondering is what they gain from this. Perhaps solidarity from other powers in the Middle East, causing hatred of Israel? I’m also wondering if this is all covering action for China to tie down the US while China attempts to take Taiwan. We might be living through what in the future textbooks will be under the heading of factors leading up to.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m guessing it’s as simple as goading Israel to overreact, which blows apart a main US geopolitical goal of normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab states.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are preventing the Saudis from reestablishing diplomatic ties with Israel for one thing.

    • mawkishdave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is also a way to help out their new best friend Russia by pulling attention from Ukraine. It Russia takes Ukraine it will gain a lot of power, money, and military technology. With how much Iran is helping Russia now you know Iran will get a nice cut.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think its a plan to over extend America. They are designed to fight two wars against major powers alone and win both - but I doubt they can do that with assets tied up in middle east, massive political division and civil unrest at home. Also wouldn’t be surprised if this is seeing what assets can be taken out with a first strike - those carriers aren’t as safe that close to land as you would think.

      Edit: Korea also kicking off - similar theatre to China/Taiwan but another player in the mix

      • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        The size of these conflicts are tiny. The US military can fight two MAJOR conflicts simultaneously. By comparison, the Ukraine and the Middle East barely count as one. Many people don’t understand the size of the US military and it’s ability to project power. It would take two massive wars the size of WWII to overextend the US currently. If something like that were to happen, NATO would obviously be stepping in, adding a massive backing to an already massive military.

        The only military in the world that could even begin to deplete the USAs ability to respond indefinitely would be China and that is super questionable (Especially in light of the laughable showing from the Russian military, there’s serious question as to what kind of paper tiger China is at this point. There’s no question they are going to be more formidable than the Russian military, but there’s a lot of speculation that it won’t be by much. They have too much corruption and grift, the same as the Russian military, just not quite as extensive). They don’t have the material, supply, and logistic to fight a sustained and protracted battle with the US. The US, being effectively an isolated country, has the largest Navy in the the world and is literally built around a logistics chain that requires absolutely NO land transport. The US can have a full logistical chain anywhere in the world, all feeding back from the US mainland if necessary and sustain that indefinitely.

        • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          At a surface level - yes. Best thing the can do is take out two of the 12(??) Supercarriers that US holds. But doing so would make America more cautious with them, hold them out at longer ranges and show the vulnerability - not to mention other countries hesitation of letting vulnerable nuclear reactors Traverse their waters, or the American publics hesitation to put their peoples lives at risk in someone else’s war. Follow on then with the slowing of arms to Ukraine, loss of support to Japan, South Korea, Philippines and that cluster in the Middle East and other powers do start to rise.

          • aphonefriend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you talking about? You’re entire scenario is based off someone(?) having enough coordinated firepower to sink not one, but two US carrier battle groups and then the US leaving them alone long enough for “powers to rise”? That isn’t realistic in this time period.

            If anyone in the world attacked and sunk a single US carrier on purpose, one of two things immediately happen: A. That country is invaded with hellfire and massive destruction, or (in the case it was a super power who did it) B. World War 3.