2024 Iran–Israel conflict #2

Iran needs a minimum credible nuclear deterrent .

Minimum = Enough warheads to destroy several European and American and Israeli cities .

Credible = Visible and believable by the public , all people everywhere .

Nuclear = An atomic bomb not a power station or facility , usable against air , sea , sub- sea , space targets .

Deterrent = To deter from using Nukes against Iran , not wait to be nuked and surrender , foreign office liberal fashion !

24 hours to launch too long ! No Iran left ! Need to launch in 5 minutes .

Israel attacking Iranian nuclear facilities means Iran will likely respond by attacking Israeli nuclear facilities... or perhaps their electricity generation grid... which would be rather devastating I would guess.

Israel now has a much shorter, safer route to attack Iran. It will also allow easy refueling of particularly their F-35 over Syria. The major reasons for all the SyAF etc destruction?

Hence why Russia needs to set up some bases in Iraq. They can't close all the approach routes but they can close some.

JohninMK wrote:

The major reasons for all the SyAF etc destruction?

It was just barbaric opportunism. They destroyed everything, including naval assets of no relevance to IAF operations. Incredibly, despite the massive onslaught, Golani has been sucking up to Israel. I hope it's just posturing, to help get western aid and sanctions relief.
As for Russia setting up bases in Iraq to help prevent an Israeli attack on Iran, the ukraine commitment may still preclude that...

Russia has plenty of spare assets to help defend Iran. It can deploy ground forces for security, an air force, and air defense divisions too. Maybe some Iskanders as well. And, formalize a mutual defense treaty with Iran, same as it has with North Korea.
Failure to defend Iran will mean a huge blow against all current BRICS efforts and partnerships, and more pressingly, regime change operations against friendly or neutral regimes in Central Asia, leading to the emergence of a military threat from that direction as well.

What Russia doesn't have spare assets for is controlling waterways of no relevance to it or vying for for influence in a region where all of its allies have crumbled.

As for all the Syrian equipment; like I said in the other thread, Jihadis or Ukrainians, take your pic who you want to inherit it. The more Israel destroys the better.

Flamming Python
Hence why Russia needs to set up some bases in Iraq. They can't close all the approach routes but they can close some.

How will that change anything in Israeli plans? Russia has two major bases in Syria, plus multiple deployment points throughout the country and that didn't interfere with Israeli plans to strike targets.
For example, while there were some Russian units deployed at T4 airport west of Palmyra, Israeli conducted strikes there, just not in the part where Russians were stationed. Which only shows that there's open line between Russia amd Israel and Russia "compartmentalized" their immediate interest from interest of Iran or Syria.
Like it or not, Russia doesn't see Israel as an opponent.

Israel will be an opponent if it attacks Iran

While Israel was bombing Hezbollah or Iranian militias in Syria that was hardly a cause for concern, and Russia's own mission in Syria was rather more important to jeopardize it
Now however there are no more such missions and hence no more worries

You're being disingenuous. Aforementioned base had Iranian IRGC and SF forces stationed there. Same goes for Aleppo airport. Another example, from top of my head, would be town of Masyaf and facilities around it, which were a main base of operations for Iranians in the country. Not to mention, numerous strikes around in and around Damascus, where even some IRGC generals were killed.
Best Russia could do with eventual Iraqi bases would be to provide Iran with more precise radar picture of western Iraq/Eastern Syria skies.
And, obviously, to sell Iran as much weapons as they want to buy, which is questionable if it will make a difference in short period, as Iranians don't have enough money. Maybe provide them with some loan to buy it. That's all.
Everything else is your projection.  Russia didn't show, so far, that it is ready to make a significant change of policy towards Israel.

I'm not being disingenuous, you're being irrelevant

Russian mission in Syria was to support the SAA and support its own tasks in the Mediterranean and Red Sea.
Doing that helped protect Iran too. Iran could not be reliably assailed while Syria was still standing.
Trying to involve themselves in operations against Israel would risk both the Russian base, and Syria's stability. Russia had no interest in doing so.

Now Syria is gone, so are any Russian objectives associated with it. While Iran is vulnerable. And while Russia may still only have no more than a passing interest in Hamas's operations against Israel, or Hezbollah's, or anyone else's - it very much is interested in Iran's security and stability.
Hence the situations are quite different, and so too does the nature of Russia's involvement need to be.

I can actually sympathize with the idea of just having some radar bases and so on. But I think Russia's involvement in Iran's defense needs to be more serious and more official. If Russia can bolster Iran's defenses enough, Israeli and US strikes might again be out of the picture.
I'm just strategizing here, so take it easy. What Russia's policy and decisions will be in the end, I can't say.

Apparently Russia has an AF base in Libya and that many systems have been moved from Syria to Libya. Can anyone confirm this information?

@ FP

Policy ? What should policy be ? Any policy involves investment in economic , military and political spheres . There are always limitations in effort or means . There are always priorities . But also investment in any particular policy , will yield various outcomes . There is never a total gain or total loss .

Facing different arenas , Russia is faced with different spheres of action : ( 1 ) Europe . ( 2 ) Turkey . ( 3 ) Iran . ( 4 ) China . ( 5 ) USA . Each arena will pose different levels of investments and gain and risk . In such a situation , then putting all your eggs in one basket , when no certainty exists about gains or outcomes , about possibilities or probabilities is not wise .

Overcoming tunnel vision , brought about by collective social and historical memory , influencing foreign policy or misdirecting it , must be avoided . Are there such blind spots in Russia ? Is Russia putting all it's eggs in one basket ?

In my view , Russia may be too focused on Turkey and the Black Sea . This results from historical perspective . But recent events imply a new viewpoint . The investment by Russia towards the Black Sea , may be too heavy . Russian trade to the world , can be brought to a halt fairly easily , by a hostile Turkey , a NATO member .

Reliance on Turkey and R. Azer as trustworthy partners is misplaced . Reliance on Europe has proven to be faulty , and will remain so , for the foreseeable future . The European eye to the West , this vision or historical memory , misdirecting policy must stop . Corrections be made to this perspective . Russian security and power derives from central Asia and it's connection to Iran and the PG . As well As China .

The main focus on investment in effort , should be made in these regions . Both from economic , but also security and military arenas . The USA , must be viewed now as a foe . No reliance or trust can be put in their direction . Again obstacles exist in perspectives that allow Russians to see the Americans , as somewhat similar . I never forget old Radio Moscow broadcasts , repeating " Similarity of two peoples of Russia and America . " very little trust or investment should be placed with the Europeans too , as it will most likely be a mistake , resulting in big losses .

Every non-European and non-Western state is a partner for Russia. That should be Russia's strategy, and pretty much is already anyway.

Not necessarily an ally, or even a friend, but certainly a partner. That's exactly what say, Turkey is, someone Russia can do business with without the threat of aggression and regime change attempts and ideological zealotry from their side, while demanding our resources at rock-bottom prices. That doesn't mean we have to trust them, but we can agree about some basic things.

And the possibility of Turkey turning against Russian interests ? Say in central Asia , as of recently ? Not to say anything about Syria ? It is a question of degree of Reliance . And a question of alternative avenues . And military contingencies , should they try and back stab again . Say this time in the Caucasus ? Even mild and rudimentary economic relations , will not survive this . Alternate sources of tomatoes will be needed ! A mini-submarine or two , parked outside Baku coast .

A frenemy is still much preferable to someone which hates you whether openly or someone who pretends to tolerate you but will switch to hating you at the drop of a hat once the order is given to do so.
Between those two categories, you can account for the entire West when it comes to their relations with Russia.