A short🧵1/9 on the Israeli air raids into Iran yesterday. This was more than a precision strike, it was a clear demonstration of capability, intent and will. [This replaces a previous thread that mistakenly reposted a misleading video - thank you to all who rightly corrected me]
2/ The raid demonstrates a level of co-ordination and execution that is way more precise, sophisticated and devastating than the salvo firing of some less-than-successful drones or missiles - which is Iran’s only viable conventional means to strike Israel.
3/ We haven’t seen all the results yet but a select number of key targets linked to Iran’s missile and drone capability appear to be the main target - a restrained but potentially debilitating tit-for-tat response that doesn’t appear to have targeted nuclear or oil facilities.
4/ Some of the more sophisticated air defence sites were “suppressed” along the way, and with no reports of any Israeli losses a combination of this, stealth and standoff weapons has proven highly effective against Iranian air defences.
5/ Iran won’t say it, but it will come as a huge shock to them that they can be targeted with such relative ease. The precision of intelligence and attacks, and ease with which it was conducted, despite plenty of notice, means Iran knows Israel can do this whenever it wants to.
6/ it will have shaken any confidence that Iran had in their so called impenetrable Russian-supplied air defence systems. And in a country the size of Iran you can’t defend everywhere- it now appears they can’t defend anywhere.
7/ So, the strikes may have drawn a line in the conventional “war” between the two, and we are yet to see the impact on Iranian production, although we may see clues in Ukraine first if export supplies are impacted.
8/ But the real damage is the signal Israel has sent of what it is capable of doing, even when Iran is at a state of heightened alert. It also has wider implications, as the results will not have been lost on Russia who knows that their equipment is fallible and vulnerable.
9/ And there is an even wider lesson for those who see a new paradigm in deep strike. Drones and missiles may be a tempting solution for many, but it would appear that “the bomber still can always get through”. Now imagine what Ukraine could do given similar means…..ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As I see it, NATO/European Defence has four strategic options in light of recent events. They cannot be separated from the situation in Ukraine, which is fundamental to European security. So what are they? 🧵1/12
2/ Option 1 - Hold our nerve & stay as we are in the belief that the US will see sense and adjust their views on Europe, Ukraine & Russia. I think we are too far gone to take this choice and I can’t believe I’m seeing and saying that! Score 3/10
3/ Option 2 - Reset NATO with a reduced/removed US presence, who would provide assurance by remaining within the Alliance & Article V. It’s where we are currently headed and provides the greatest short term assurance, but requires Europe to backfill enablers and mass. Score 5/10
Seeing as somebody in authority has decided to call early the cause for the terrible air accident in Washington, it might be worth adding some details of what we know and what sort of things the NTSB Investigation team will be looking at. 🧵 1/10
2/ We know that the American Eagle flight (AA5342) was making a cleared approach to Runway 33 at the Ronald Reagan Airport. Whilst a standard approach it is less commonly used than Runway 01, which is the longer runway.
3/ The Army Black Hawk helicopter (PAT25) was flying southbound on Route 1/Route 4, which is flown to the East of the River Potomac and at a maximum height of 200 feet in proximity to the Airport. This Route would take the helicopter underneath the approach lane to Runway 33.
European security and helping Ukraine - what next?🧵1/13. The dire situation in Ukraine, the arrival of N Korean troops, and the (as yet unknown but feared) consequences of the US election, have brought Europe to a cross roads that has been looming on the horizon for decades.
2/ Europe’s over-reliance and high dependency on US leadership and military might dates back to the birth of NATO, and a lack of serious concern post the collapse of the Soviet Union has led us to here - the invasion of Ukraine has been the wake up call that hasn’t yet woken us.
3/ Europe has struggled to square the comfort of NATO, with the largely overlapping security needs of the EU. But, the US and the UK have also been instrumental in undermining any attempt to allow the EU security apparatus to develop, in order to avoid upsetting the status quo.
So, what are the defence & security implications of an incoming Trump Presidency? And what might it mean for NATO, Europe and the UK? Peace & stability or to Hell in a handcart? A🧵1/14
2/ It’s fair to say we shouldn’t assume that he will follow through literally on every statement he has made, but with the Trifecta of the popular vote as President and a majority in both Houses he will be emboldened by that mandate.
3/ And we should be prepared for the apparatus of Government to be at least shaken if not dismantled; depending on which and how many of his advisors and backers get top appointments. So the niceties of normal channels and protocols may be a thing of the past.
With the US election imminent, much has been made of European allies not pulling their weight on defence. Looking at the pure numbers, there is a case to answer. GDP: 🇺🇸$15.7Tn🇪🇺$16.6Tn; Population: 🇺🇸316m🇪🇺510m. Using GDP alone it should be somewhere close to a 50:50 split. 1/13
2/ Although, if you used GDP per Capita you could come to a very different conclusion, but for the sake of simplicity let’s stay focussed on pure GDP as the yardstick.
3/ Direct funding of the NATO institution is calculated by an equitable share of gross national income, and funding on defence capability also aims for a minimum of 2% of GDP - the reality shows a wide distribution of attainment on the latter, so let’s explore this a bit more:
We need to talk about nukes. A tactical nuclear🧵1/20. When people imagine nuclear exchanges they understandably tend to focus on Doomsday scenarios - but there are plenty of smaller weapons out there - especially in Russia. state.gov/report-on-the-…
2/ Some still believe that nuclear stand-offs are a thing of the past since the end of the Cold War. Whilst some view the threat as a binary choice between capitulation or Armageddon - the latter view has become particularly prevalent in our handling of the situation in Ukraine.
3/ The reality is that neither of these are accurate and what is also clear is how much we have forgotten about the nature of the threat, how it might be used and what that means for our own nuclear posture and policy. NATO is certainly concerned. nato.int/docu/review/ar…