THREAD: Whether Israel's micro-drone strike against Iran was launched from inside Iran or from neighbouring countries, this very underwhelming response (which was essentially a repeat of similar strikes Israel has conducted over the past few years) demonstrates the following:
-that Iran's retaliatory strike succeeded in achieving short term, "immediate deterrence"
-that Israel's deterrence posture vis-a-vis its enemies has been considerably weakened
-that Israel's over-reliance on US military assistance has constrained its war-making 2/
-that Israel can no longer project an image of deterrence nor the more modest goal of restoring military prestige
-that neither overwhelming brute force against Palestinians (cumulative deterrence) nor underwhelming strikes against Iran (classical deterrence) have succeeded 3/
-that Israel has failed at both deterrence and compellence: it has failed to prevent Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas from taking undesirable actions (deterrence), and has failed in forcing them to change their behaviour (compellence). In fact, it has only confirmed the logic of their behaviour to them 4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: Iran and Hizbullah seem to have mastered the strategy of sub-threshold retaliation—a type of response that straddles the line between deterrence and escalation. 1/
This was demonstrated by Iran's recent strikes against Israel, as well as Hizbullah's strikes on Israel's Meron air intel base in January. Both of these strikes were responses to Israeli provocations in which it totally abandoned the previous rules of engagement 2/
Both responses appear to have been carefully calibrated to avoid a full-scale war in the region which Israel appears intent on achieving, while still sending a message of deterrence and capability. In this sense, they transcended "symbolic" strikes 3/
THREAD: The region is entering uncharted territory where the previous strategic paradigm and rules of engagement no longer apply. From now on, any Israeli action will be met with a direct and collective response by the Axis. 1/
Regardless of what Israel does next, there is no going back to the status quo ante. This is no longer the Iran that just supports resistance movements with weapons and training. This is the Iran that directly engages in strikes against Israel. 2/
This is a new proactive phase of the Resistance Axis' "offensive defense" strategy, which was officially launched on October 8 when Hizbullah and later other Resistance Axis allies directly intervened in the conflict against Israel. 3/
I don't think the US fully grasps how existential this war is for all the actors in the Resistance Axis. The Axis is aware that the war is existential for Israel but the converse isn't the case. The US' blindness to the existential stakes has dangerous policy implications 1/
These existential stakes are especially high for Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran, for whom a cease-fire would suffice to achieve a strategic victory.
The ability of Hizbullah and Hamas to survive a war and repel an Israeli invasion is a vindication of the "logic of resistance" 2/
If Israel can re-occupy land, then resistance is no longer viewed as effective or rational. Because Hizbullah and Hamas both owe their raison d'etre to resisting Israeli invasion, sustaining the logic of resistance becomes integral to the very existence of these groups 3/
THREAD: Everyday racism cannot explain the deeper, systemic reason behind the Western world's indifference to the slaughter of over 40,000 Palestinians, including at least 13,000 children, compared to its outcry over the deaths of 6 white aid workers 1/
That reason is that Palestinians have been dehumanised by Israel to such an extent that it has normalised the creation of a new extra-legal category of Palestinians as less-than civilians. After 6 months of genocidal war, this category has become ingrained in the western mind 2/
The ease with which Israel has openly declared and waged genocide against Palestinians has served to erase their legal personality as protected civilians and turned them into "unlawful noncombatants", i.e. terrorist sympathisers of an "unlawful combatant" group, namely, Hamas 3/
THREAD: The main reason the war appears to have no immediate end in sight is that Israel doesn't have a strategic vision that goes beyond the extermination of the Palestinian people, while the US lacks a realistic vision. 1/
As expressed by Israeli journalist Amos Harel, Netanyahu wants "perpetual war more than he wants total victory." This explains why the cease-fire talks keep hitting a brick wall, as well as Israel's adoption of a chaotic warfare strategy designed to regionalise the conflict 2/
For its part, the United States' strategic vision remains detached from reality, insisting on imposing regime change in Gaza despite Israel's inability to win the war and believing that continuous pressure on Hezbollah will force it to move its forces away from the border. 3/
Iran's imminent response to Israel will be driven primarily by the need to restore deterrence, as Zahedi's assassination is the most severe blow since Soleimani's killing in 2020 and the 4th attack on IRGC forces since December. But it will be driven by other factors too 1/
Iran's response will also be motivated by the need to ensure that Israel can't act with impunity. The fact that it brazenly violated the Geneva and Vienna Conventions on the same day without even raising an eyebrow in the US and the West is something Iran will seek to address 2/
Iran may retaliate both directly and indirectly through allies. Khamenei's reference to a response by "our brave men" suggests direct retaliation. Given the audacity of the Israeli strike, Iran's response has to go beyond its previous retaliation against a Mossad base in Erbil 3/