... escalation ladder to make deterrence credible. Once interceptors are depleted and enough of the "eyes" are gone then they'll likely start racheting up.
That's why it's such a race to degrade their capacity before the defensive magazine runs out.
The goal is to degrade the interception capability enough to force a political settlement.
There's a weird song and dance going on here that I don't really understand, but the impression that I get is that they want to have the ability to threaten and escalate while preserving their ...
The assumption was that the regime was on the ropes and that a decapitation strike would tip it over the edge. Now that that's obviously not going to work "winning" is exhausting their ability to project power outside their borders. That has also turned out to be underpants gnomes all the way down.
There's a very clear vision for what "winning" looks like here. Syria or Lebanon. The goal is (was?) to collapse the regime and then "mow the lawn" periodically to keep it from being a regional power again.
It's interesting that they view the bantu... separation model supported by the gulf states/Egypt/Jordan as the best option. I wonder how practical that is given what's going on now.
They're absolutely screwed. I wonder if the Iran war was partially to bring Europe to heel by tightening control over MENA resources to prevent them from hedging.
There was already a proxy war with the KSA and UAE so there is little good will to burn. The implied goal of current attacks is to make the question the value of having US bases on their soil. The KSA is already on the record stating they feel "betrayed" by the relative allocation of interceptors.
Capacity being some form of native deterrence.
I think they start hedging. If you're under the thumb of a coercive state the "play" is to supplicate until you can build your own capacity.
Charitably, I think the idea (also in June) was to provoke a regime collapse and then negotiate with the remnants from a position of strength to impose a settlement. The fact that there was no plan B does not bode well though.
That's why there's this mad dash to attempt to destroy enough magazine so that this doesn't happen. What I don't see is the political off ramp. Without any sort of credibility to back up promises and guarantees, the only "partners" are the other gulf states. What can they offer?
Isn't the problem much larger than this? From a limited understanding their play is to drain intercepter stocks. Once interceptor stocks are limited, then they can extort by targeting *supply* (Abqaiq, Ras Tanura, Fujairah etc) which is much harder to bring back online.
Watching the flailing and inability to have any sort of message discipline is fascinating in a train wreck sort of way.
I'm really curious to see how things fracture after this election cycle. Traditional Dems are getting whigged and the entrenched reaction will be educational.
There's an impedance mismatch. LLMs are obviously useful as a summarize and autocomplete tool. They are a very poor tool for disciplining labor (except as a MacGuffin to fire people and burn your capacity).
There's been an assumption from Biden onward that you don't need to persuade or manufacture consent anymore. The current internal crackdown and the new military adventurism are part of that. They're woefully unprepared for when elites start to feel pressure and fracture.
I have a pocket and adore it
Can you explain the credibility matrix here? I have no idea who to trust when the stories conflict.
As others have noted, the goal here is likely Lebanon or Syria. Let the state fracture and then "mow the lawn" every so often. How the gulf states react to having another Yemen at their doorstep is another issue.
One way to view this is as an attempt by insecure elites to build a moat and shrink the tent at the same time to preserve their standing.
There's a dawning realization by the gulf states that they are not "in the tent" from a western perspective. Their reaction *after* this is over will be telling.
So which side do the western powers pick when KSAT comes into conflict with UAEI? Seems like a sophies' choice.
They're spelling out who's going under the bus! They could conceivably alienate every ally in the region.
Not being told what to think and the whole "whatever" attitude by the admin is not how the base works. You get them into a froth and pit them against the "fifth column" against the action. If you *don't* do that they feel just as alienated as the minority. This will definitely not end well.
Neera is especially bad.
2500 yen is pretty dear on a Japanese salary. Basically ensuring foreign tourists with a smattering of locals.
Doesn't this end up excluding Japanese tourists?
Legitimacy matters! A lot! Consent that cannot be manufactured must be coerced. People will put up with a lot more when they think "vote harder" might actually do something.
The Alan Davis run is my favorite Captain Britain by far.
Naomi got herself a block for that.
