The Israel-Iran War ?

[Jacob]

Bosnia and Libya.  Then there's France acting solo in the Sahel and the UK solo in Falklands and Sierra Leone.

Fair points.

I meant in the Middle East, which I should've specified. Arguably one could include Libya in the Middle East (if you think of it as "the Islamic World"), but it is also Mediterranean.

[Sheilbh]

I think Sheilbh outlined one preferred outcome - that energy flows from the area are not massively disturbed by this conflict. Seems like we're aligned with China on this and (possibly?) the US (and of course the exporters themselves).

Beyond that, I think you're right. I don't see a strong European interest here, beyond preserving the rules based international order (that ship is sailing) and stopping nuclear proliferation (seems like that ship is also sailing).

And, of course, Europe doesn't have particularly many levers to pull here either.

Yeah.

To energy I'd add avoiding a refugee crisis in a country that's significantly more populous than Syria, Afghanistan or Libya all of which have had big impacts on Europe - and avoiding any spillover that destabilises Turkey. I think those are kind of "neutral" outcomes that basically everyone in Europe would want to avoid. On those I think any language about "regime change" is not helpful.

As I say I do wonder if, on the hawkish side, there's an opportunity to bind the US more tightly to Europe and to in effect bring the US in on the other side of a (different) conflict with a Russian aligned state and if there's opportunity there for European Ukrainian policy. But that strikes me as very, very high risk.

[Jacob]

I agree with all of this and I'm not saying I'd expect "a" European position or even just talking about politicians. There wasn't a single European position in 2003 and one of the differences I find striking is - so far - the lack of protests.

I think the lack of protesting may come down to some combination of:

• Whoever is going to protest against Israel is already protesting.
• The Iranian regime doesn't have good PR, so few people want to speak on their behalf (notwithstanding sympathy for Iranians suffering under the regime). Whatever you may think about the Palestinian cause, they have a much better PR operation in the West than Iran.
• During the Iraq War(s), there was a sense that the US was acting on behalf of us (the West), and that our governments may involve us. There's little to no such sentiment now, this is obviously Trump and Nethanyahu's show.
• There are a bunch of other crises to occupy people's attention - for me chiefly Trump's ongoing dissolution of "the West"; and Russia's attack on Ukraine and threat to Europe.

[Jacob]

Yeah.

To energy I'd add avoiding a refugee crisis in a country that's significantly more populous than Syria, Afghanistan or Libya all of which have had big impacts on Europe - and avoiding any spillover that destabilises Turkey. I think those are kind of "neutral" outcomes that basically everyone in Europe would want to avoid. On those I think any language about "regime change" is not helpful.

I think Europe would like to avoid a refugee crisis on general humanitarian grounds, but - maybe I'm being naive - I kind of think Iran's too far for Iranians to arrive in Europe en masse without some sort of Syrian scenario where Europe accepts refugees on humanitarian grounds. I don't think that's as likely as it was during the Syrian civil war.

The risk to Turkey is more substantial, of course, but Turkey has more levers to pull as well.

As I say I do wonder if, on the hawkish side, there's an opportunity to bind the US more tightly to Europe and to in effect bring the US in on the other side of a (different) conflict with a Russian aligned state and if there's opportunity there for European Ukrainian policy. But that strikes me as very, very high risk.

I think there's something to that - that it would be beneficial for Europe if the US gets dragged into an intense proxy war with Russia in Iran. It would lessen Iran's ability to support Russia, and potentially even cause Russia to divert forces from Ukraine.

I think some sort of quid pro quo re: Ukraine in return for support on Iran is a bit tenuous (or as you say, high risk) because a) Trump is too devoted to shitting on Europe to actually give credit for any support; and b) Trump can't be relied on to keep any deals.

I see that more as a potential silver lining from one possible scenario than an objective to pursue.

... but I'm not a European decision maker

[jimmy olsen]

There is no point trying to discern a grand strategy because the two key actors are entirely consumed by domestic politics.

You can look in vain for any strategic reason for the timing of Israel's attack.

I agree that Bibi's domestic issues are the reason this has been done. But I wouldn't say there are no strategic reasons for the strike at this time from the perspective of an Israeli hawk.

The collapse of Assad's government and the crushing of Hezbollah within the last year has opened a window through which the Israeli's can attack and only be retaliated against by Iran itself. That wasn't possible before.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I disagree on the domestic issues for this. I think the domestic issues are a big part of how and why Bibi has conducted the Gaza War, but I think this is different. Bibi has long made it clear he wants to attack Iran to degrade their capabilities.

I think he saw a unique confluence of diplomatic and military events that meant there was an opportunity where this could be done.

Iran uniquely helped this along, I think, by showing its hand as being incredibly weak after the tit-for-tat missile exchanges earlier in the year. This revealed fatal weakness in Iran's abilities to defend its skies, and went against a lot of defense wonks talking points on a potential conflict with Iran going back 15 years.

I think the other element is it has been made clear there won't be diplomatic consequences. Remember the rest of the world's pressure has basically resulted in a few ICC warrants--which several of the most important powers signatory to the Rome Statute have essentially said they view as invalid / unenforceable, severely undercutting the already weak legitimacy that institution has.

[Bauer]

There are news outlets reporting Trump has already approved strikes and is holding off on the final order awaiting Iran deciding to abandon their nuclear program.

One thing that occurs me to is how Trump is rumoured to be deeply jealous of Obamas Nobel peace prize and is desperate to show he's the one who can bring "peace".  He's failed at his Ukraine Russia "negotiations" and may be jumping at the new opportunity.

I'm beginning to think it's going to happen at least to strike key targets.

What a day we live in though when the US president is pondering assassination of a foreign leader on social media.  This is what it's come to...

[Bauer]

I think the other element is it has been made clear there won't be diplomatic consequences. Remember the rest of the world's pressure has basically resulted in a few ICC warrants--which several of the most important powers signatory to the Rome Statute have essentially said they view as invalid / unenforceable, severely undercutting the already weak legitimacy that institution has.

I said earlier in this thread, I feel like Israel is in a position of nothing to lose and may as well try to knock out all their enemies.  After leveling Gaza I don't think attacking Iran moves the needle in much public opinion.

[OttoVonBismarck]

We would have to review the information but my recollection is analysis has reached the public on striking Fordow. I believe that it has basically been said whatever method used to destroy the facility, Iran would be able to rebuild it within a few years.

The perception of finality is false unless some genuine agreement is reached to stop enrichment.

[viper37]

Iran has bombed an Israeli hospital.

Truly a monstrous state.  Only monsters would do that.

[Razgovory]

Turns out bombing a hospital is fine after all.  It just has to have the right type of people in it.

[Grey Fox]

Still thinking that Western morality standard matters.

[crazy canuck]

Turns out bombing a hospital is fine after all.  It just has to have the right type of people in it.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy of your previous positions now?

[OttoVonBismarck]

If the IDF was using the hospital for a military purpose it wouldn't be improper to target it. I'm unaware of any reports to that effect.

We also don't know if Iran targeted the hospital, the intent matters at least under international law, which doesn't criminalize weapons simply because they aren't the state of the art in terms of precision, and certain types of weapons have an higher risk of inadvertently striking civilian targets.

[Valmy]

Iran has bombed an Israeli hospital.

Truly a monstrous state.  Only monsters would do that.

Iran shouldn't bomb hospitals.

But I am pretty sure that never happened. I was told Trump made the toothless.