Armageddon in The Middle East - Part 3 - Scenarios and Implications

Wherein we consider several conflict scenarios - with the aid of the ChatGPT AI...

Warning - This is going to be a long post. Each part is likely to be cut off by your email service. Remember that there are links to the full article at the top of the email, and that your email service usually provides another means at the bottom of the email to view the full email in a new tab.

So how is this war going to start and play out? Well, from here on out it's all speculation - "informed speculation" as the saying goes but speculation none the less.

As I see it, the probability is that the wider war starts in one of two probable scenarios:

1. One of the parties tires of the "escalatory ladder" and decides to go all in.

2. One of the parties takes an action which forces the other main parties to go all in.

The most likely scenario is a "simple" Israeli invasion of Lebanon. As everyone knows, scores if not hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens have fled northern Israel under Hezbollah bombardment and are placing great strain on the Israeli government by both being expensive to house elsewhere and also lobbying for government action to return them to the north by attacking Hezbollah. One poll recently showed over 70% of Israelis want Israel to attack Hezbollah. However, that may be more nuanced than one might suppose, according to this Ha'arez article (archived).

So Netanyahu really doesn't have a choice in that issue. He also wants to do it because it's part of the plan to eliminate all of Israel's opposition in the near abroad. He also clearly expects the US government to directly assist Israel in doing this - and there is zero evidence that the US won't do this. The US, as I've said before, may be hesitant about starting the Middle East war because of a desire to avoid blame, but both the US military - with its over-inflated opinion of itself - and the US Congress, bought and paid for by the donor class and influenced by the Christian Zionists - will never allow Hezbollah to "win". It only happened in 2006 because the war was so short and Israel's continued existence was never in doubt.

So all Netanyahu has to do is either unilaterally invade or continue to bomb various parties until someone takes enough offense to retaliate sufficiently to cause Israel real pain. He's also the one party who couldn't care less if he gets blamed for starting the war - as long as it doesn't cause the US government to refuse to support him - which for the same reasons already stated will never happen. So Netanyahu is in total control of the situation just as Hitler was in WWII.

So on the one hand we have a unilateral invasion of Lebanon and on the other either a further Netanyahu provocation of one of the other main parties - Hezbollah or Iran - or a retaliation from one or both of those parties which threatens - seriously threatens - the viability of Israel's continuing its operations in Gaza.

Presently everyone is waiting for the promised Iranian retaliation for the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July, 2024. Some idiots are declaring that since Iran hasn't retaliated yet, it means "Iran does not want a war" or that "Iran has been deterred by the increased US military presence in the region". There is no evidence for either assertion. It's pure presumption on the part of these analysts.

I include people like Scott Ritter in that group, since he tends to change his analysis every couple weeks based on whatever happened in the previous news cycle. My analysis - that war between the US and Iran is inevitable - has been the same since 2006, if not before. People - including nations - don't change. This level of historical enmity between countries inevitably results in war - as soon as one or the other party figures out how to start it without being blamed for it, as I have to constantly repeat because everyone simply ignores or forgets that basic human nature fact. Everyone else is also dreading the prospect of a new major war and that inevitably colors their perceptions of the probabilities. I am not subject to that attitude.

So I don't predict the time table for this war to break out fully. Neither do I predict how it will play out. I am merely exploring the possibilities here. But that there will be a wider Middle East war including a war between the US and Iran is a virtual certainty. I always retain a 2 percent measure of doubt in any of my conclusions, but 2 percent in this case is not terribly comforting.

So to return to the issue of how it starts... Basically it doesn't matter how it starts. What matters is what are the likely military moves of each party in the conflict and in what sequence. For this, I turned to the ChatGPT AI and asked it some questions as to how the military situation would probably occur. I assumed that the AI would be trained on the usual military doctrine, most probably completely focused on US military conventional doctrine, and therefore its answers would likely parallel what the US and Israeli military would do. I expected its answers in regard to Hezbollah and Iran would be less useful as their military doctrine is based on asymmetrical and unconventional warfare due to their relatively less powerful military capabilities - what Andrei Martyanov and the Russian military calls "Correlation of Forces and Methods".

I also looked at several books and articles from other sources such as The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) "The Coming Conflict With Hezbollah" , either on the previous 2006 conflict or "informed speculation" on how a future war would play out.

So not all of this is my "informed speculation", let alone "pure speculation." But it's still speculation. Feel free to add your own but don't expect it to be treated as any better.

ChatGPT's first response:

Scenario 1: Hezbollah's Limited Incursion

Hezbollah launches a surprise attack on Israeli military positions in the Galilee, using its advanced missile capabilities to soften up Israeli defenses.

Hezbollah's ground troops, numbering around 10,000-20,000, attempt to capture a small strip of territory in northern Israel, potentially including a key town or settlement.

Israel responds quickly with airstrikes and artillery bombardments, but Hezbollah's anti-tank missiles and fortified defensive positions make it difficult for Israeli ground troops to retake the territory.

The US provides Israel with military aid, including precision-guided munitions and intelligence support, to help Israel regain control of the territory.

After several days of intense fighting, Israel manages to push Hezbollah back into Lebanon, but not before Hezbollah inflicts significant casualties on Israeli forces.

Scenario 2: Israeli Invasion of Lebanon
Israel launches a large-scale invasion of southern Lebanon, with 50,000-100,000 ground troops, in an effort to destroy Hezbollah's military infrastructure and drive the group out of the region.

Israeli airstrikes and artillery bombardments target Hezbollah's command centers, weapons depots, and fortified defensive positions, causing significant damage and casualties.

Hezbollah responds with guerrilla warfare tactics, including ambushes, IEDs, and sniper attacks, which slow down the Israeli advance and inflict casualties on Israeli troops.

The US provides Israel with military support, including air support and intelligence sharing, to help Israel overcome Hezbollah's defenses.

After several weeks of fighting, Israel manages to capture key towns and territories in southern Lebanon, but at a high cost in casualties and resources.

Scenario 3: Hezbollah's Asymmetric Warfare
Hezbollah launches a campaign of asymmetric warfare against Israel, using its advanced missile capabilities to target Israeli cities and infrastructure.

Hezbollah's missiles, including precision-guided munitions, target Israeli airbases, military command centers, and key infrastructure, such as power plants and desalination facilities.

Israel responds with airstrikes and artillery bombardments, but Hezbollah's dispersed and hidden launch sites make it difficult to neutralize the missile threat.

The US provides Israel with military aid, including missile defense systems and cyber warfare capabilities, to help Israel counter Hezbollah's missile threat.

The conflict becomes a war of attrition, with both sides inflicting significant damage on each other, but with no clear victor.

Scenario 4: Israeli Use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons
Israel, facing significant casualties and military setbacks, considers using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Hezbollah's military infrastructure and command centers.

The US, aware of Israel's intentions, intervenes diplomatically to prevent a nuclear escalation, but Israel decides to use tactical nuclear weapons in a limited capacity.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons has a devastating impact on Hezbollah's military capabilities, but also causes significant environmental and humanitarian damage.

The international community, including the US, condemns Israel's use of nuclear weapons, and imposes severe diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel.

The conflict ends with a ceasefire, but the region is left to deal with the long-term consequences of nuclear war.

Scenario 5: Stalemate and International Intervention
The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel becomes a stalemate, with both sides iinflicting significant damage on each other, but with no clear victor.

The international community, including the US, Russia, and European powers, intervenes diplomatically to broker a ceasefire and prevent a wider regional conflict.

A UN-brokered ceasefire is agreed upon, with both sides withdrawing to their pre-conflict positions.

The conflict ends with a fragile peace, but with the potential for future conflicts and tensions between Hezbollah and Israel.

These scenarios are hypothetical and based on my analysis of the military capabilities and strategies of both Hezbollah and Israel. The actual outcome of a conflict between these two parties would depend on a complex array of factors, including the military strategies employed, the level of international involvement, and the political and economic costs of the conflict.

My note: Clearly since October, 2023, we are already in Scenario 3. So we should probably consider Scenario 3 to be the prelude to one of the other scenarios, most likely Scenario 2.

I then asked the AI what would happen if the possibilities for negotiated settlements were taken out of the equation based on the intransigence of the parties seeing the conflict as an "all or nothing" resolution to the decades-long hostility in the region. In this case, the situation becomes more serious...

ChatGPT:

Under these assumptions, the scenarios would likely play out in a more aggressive and escalatory manner, with a focus on achieving military objectives rather than seeking a negotiated settlement. Here are some revised scenarios:

Scenario 1: Decapitation Strike

Israel launches a surprise attack on Hezbollah's leadership, targeting its top commanders and key infrastructure in Lebanon.

The US provides Israel with military support, including airstrikes and intelligence sharing, to help Israel eliminate Hezbollah's leadership.

Hezbollah responds with missile attacks on Israeli cities, but Israel's advanced air defenses and US-provided missile defense systems limit the damage.

Israel and the US then launch a joint operation to destroy Hezbollah's military infrastructure in Lebanon, using a combination of airstrikes, artillery, and ground troops.
The operation is designed to be swift and decisive, with the goal of eliminating Hezbollah as a military force in a matter of weeks.

Scenario 2: Regional War
Israel launches a large-scale invasion of Lebanon, with the goal of destroying Hezbollah's military capabilities and occupying key territories.

The US provides Israel with extensive military support, including airstrikes, artillery, and ground troops, to help Israel achieve its objectives.

Hezbollah responds with guerrilla warfare tactics, including ambushes, IEDs, and sniper attacks, which slow down the Israeli advance.

Iran, Syria, and other regional allies of Hezbollah respond to the invasion by launching missile attacks on Israel and deploying troops to support Hezbollah.

The conflict escalates into a regional war, with the US and Israel facing off against Iran, Syria, and their allies.

The war is marked by heavy civilian casualties, widespread destruction, and a significant humanitarian crisis.

Scenario 3: Siege of Lebanon
Israel launches a siege of Lebanon, using airstrikes, artillery, and naval blockades to isolate Hezbollah and strangle the Lebanese economy.

The US provides Israel with military support, including intelligence sharing and logistics, to help Israel maintain the siege.

Hezbollah responds with sporadic missile attacks on Israel, but the siege limits its ability to launch a large-scale response.

The siege is designed to be a long-term operation, with the goal of slowly strangling Hezbollah and forcing its surrender.

The humanitarian situation in Lebanon deteriorates rapidly, with widespread shortages of food, water, and medicine.

Scenario 4: Escalation to Iran
Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, using advanced munitions and cyber warfare capabilities to destroy key targets.

The US provides Israel with military support, including airstrikes and intelligence sharing, to help Israel achieve its objectives.

Iran responds with missile attacks on Israel and the US, targeting key military bases and infrastructure.

The conflict escalates rapidly, with the US and Israel launching a joint operation to destroy Iran's military capabilities and occupy key territories.

The war is marked by heavy civilian casualties, widespread destruction, and a significant humanitarian crisis.

Scenario 5: Global Confrontation
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah escalates into a global confrontation, with the US and its allies facing off against Iran, Russia, and China.

The conflict is marked by widespread cyber warfare, economic sanctions, and proxy wars in multiple regions.

The US and Israel launch a series of preemptive strikes against Iran's and Hezbollah's allies, including Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.

Russia and China respond with their own military operations, targeting US and Israeli allies in Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific.

The conflict becomes a global struggle for power and influence, with multiple theaters of operation and a high risk of nuclear escalation.

In all of these scenarios, the assumptions of ideological motivations and a lack of honest negotiations lead to a more aggressive and escalatory approach, with a focus on achieving military objectives rather than seeking a negotiated settlement. The conflicts are marked by heavy civilian casualties, widespread destruction, and a significant humanitarian crisis.

Asking ChatGPT for specific actions which the US might do in response to those scenarios elicited this response:

ChatGPT:

Based on previous conflicts between Israel and Lebanese factions during the Lebanese civil war in the 1980s and the 2006 conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, here are some hypothetically likely US actions in the previously generated scenarios that would be similar to its previous actions:

Scenario 1: Decapitation Strike

• The US provides Israel with military support, including intelligence sharing and logistical assistance, to help Israel target Hezbollah's leadership and infrastructure.

• The US may provide diplomatic cover for Israel's actions, vetoing any UN Security Council resolutions that condemn Israel's actions or call for a ceasefire.

• The US may also provide military equipment and munitions to Israel, including precision-guided munitions and advanced aircraft, to help Israel carry out its strikes.

Scenario 2: Regional War

• The US provides Israel with extensive military support, including airstrikes, artillery, and ground troops, to help Israel achieve its objectives in Lebanon and against Hezbollah.

• The US may establish a naval blockade of Lebanon to prevent Iran and other Hezbollah allies from resupplying the group.

• The US may also provide Israel with advanced military technology, such as drones and cyber warfare capabilities, to help Israel gain a strategic advantage over Hezbollah.

• The US may pressure other countries, including European and Arab states, to support Israel's actions and condemn Hezbollah's aggression.

Scenario 3: Siege of Lebanon

• The US provides Israel with logistical and intelligence support to help Israel maintain its siege of Lebanon.

• The US may provide humanitarian aid to Lebanon, but only through Israeli-controlled channels, to ensure that aid does not reach Hezbollah or other "terrorist" groups.

• The US may also pressure the international community to support Israel's actions, arguing that the siege is necessary to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and threatening regional stability.

• The US may provide Israel with military equipment and munitions, including advanced artillery and naval vessels, to help Israel maintain its siege.

Scenario 4: Escalation to Iran

• The US provides Israel with extensive military support, including airstrikes, artillery, and ground troops, to help Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities and military infrastructure.

• The US may establish a naval blockade of Iran to prevent it from importing military equipment and supplies.

• The US may also provide Israel with advanced military technology, such as stealth aircraft and cyber warfare capabilities, to help Israel carry out its attacks.

• The US may pressure other countries, including European and Arab states, to support Israel's actions and condemn Iran's nuclear program.

Scenario 5: Global Confrontation

• The US provides Israel with extensive military support, including airstrikes, artillery, and ground troops, to help Israel attack Hezbollah and Iranian targets in Lebanon and Syria.

• The US may establish a naval blockade of Lebanon and Syria to prevent Iran and other Hezbollah allies from resupplying the group.

• The US may also provide Israel with advanced military technology, such as drones and cyber warfare capabilities, to help Israel gain a strategic advantage over Hezbollah and Iran.

• The US may pressure other countries, including European and Arab states, to support Israel's actions and condemn Hezbollah and Iran's aggression.

I then asked it for more specific details on what the US might do on its part over a specific timeline of events. This was the response:

ChatGPT:

Based on previous actual US actions in Middle East conflicts, here are some likely specific actions the US would take to provide extensive military support to Israel in the hypothetical scenarios:

Initial Support (Days 1-3)

Provide diplomatic support: The US would likely issue statements condemning Hezbollah's aggression and supporting Israel's right to self-defense.

Share intelligence: The US would share intelligence on Hezbollah's military capabilities, troop movements, and command centers with Israel.

Provide logistical support: The US would provide Israel with logistical support, including fuel, ammunition, and medical supplies.

Escalation (Days 4-7)
Deploy aircraft carriers: The US would deploy one or more aircraft carriers to the Eastern Mediterranean to provide air support to Israel.

Conduct airstrikes: The US would conduct airstrikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, including missile sites, command centers, and troop concentrations.

Provide advanced munitions: The US would provide Israel with advanced munitions, including precision-guided munitions and bunker-busting bombs.

Ground Support (Days 8-14)
Deploy ground troops: The US would deploy ground troops to support Israel's ground operations in Lebanon, including special operations forces and infantry units.

Establish a naval blockade: The US would establish a naval blockade of Lebanon to prevent Iran and other Hezbollah allies from resupplying the group.

Provide artillery support: The US would provide Israel with artillery support, including advanced howitzers and rocket systems.

Sustained Support (Days 15-30)
Continue airstrikes: The US would continue to conduct airstrikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and Syria.

Provide cyber support: The US would provide Israel with cyber support, including hacking and electronic warfare capabilities, to disrupt Hezbollah's command and control systems.

Maintain naval presence: The US would maintain a naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean to support Israel's naval operations and ensure the free flow of commerce.

Contingency Planning (Days 30+)
Plan for Iranian retaliation: The US would plan for potential Iranian retaliation, including missile attacks on Israel and US military bases in the region.

Develop contingency plans: The US would develop contingency plans for a wider regional conflict, including the potential involvement of other regional actors, such as Syria and Russia.

Please note that these actions are hypothetical and based on previous US actions in Middle East conflicts. The actual sequence and nature of US support would depend on various factors, including the specific circumstances of the conflict and the policies of the US administration at the time.

I also asked what Israel might do in an invasion of Lebanon over a specific timeline:

ChatGPT:

First 30 Days of Israel Invasion of Lebanon

As a general in the army of a regional power, planning for an Israeli invasion of Lebanon involves understanding both Israel's and Hezbollah's military capabilities, strategic objectives, and potential courses of action. This hypothetical scenario will provide a day-by-day breakdown of the first 30 days of such an invasion. Note that this is a speculative exercise based on available information and typical military doctrines.

Day 1-5: Initial Assault and Air Campaign

Day 1:
Objective: Achieve air superiority, disrupt Hezbollah’s command and control, target missile launch sites.
Actions:
Massive aerial bombardment by Israeli Air Force (IAF) targeting Hezbollah’s infrastructure, including rocket launchers, weapon storage facilities, command centers.
Cyber-attacks to disable Hezbollah’s communication networks.
Artillery barrages along the border to destroy fortifications and soften defensive positions.

Day 2:
Objective: Continue suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and degrade Hezbollah's operational capabilities.
Actions:
Continued precision airstrikes on high-value targets using intelligence from drones and satellites.
Naval blockade enforced by Israeli Navy to cut off supply routes to Hezbollah via sea.

Day 3-5:
Objective: Prepare for ground offensive; clear initial resistance.
Actions:
Airborne special forces operations behind enemy lines to gather intelligence and conduct sabotage missions.
Targeted strikes on logistical hubs to hinder Hezbollah resupply efforts.
Heavy artillery bombardments continue along potential invasion corridors.

Day 6-10: Ground Invasion Begins

Day 6:
Objective: Establish beachheads and secure key entry points into Southern Lebanon.
Actions:
Mechanized infantry divisions supported by tanks cross into Lebanon at multiple points along the border (e.g., Metula, Galilee Panhandle).
Initial clashes with fortified Hezbollah positions; intense combat expected in urban areas like Bint Jbeil and Maroun al-Ras.

Day 7:
Objective: Expand territorial control; secure major roadways for logistics flow.
Actions:
Rapid advance using combined arms tactics (armor, infantry, artillery).
Engineers deployed to clear minefields/IEDs laid by retreating Hezbollah forces.

Day 8-10:
Objective: Encircle major strongholds; pressure Hezbollah’s leadership structure.
Actions:
Coordinated assaults on key towns/cities known as Hezbollah bastions (e.g., Tyre).
Focused efforts on capturing or neutralizing senior Hezbollah leaders.

Day 11–15: Consolidation & Expansion

Day 11–12:
Objective: Secure supply lines; establish forward operating bases (FOBs).
Actions:
Securing critical infrastructure such as bridges/roads for uninterrupted logistics flow.
Establishing FOBs for sustained operations deeper into Lebanese territory.

Days 13–15:
Objective: Stabilize occupied territories; prepare for further advances northward.
Actions:
Intelligence gathering using UAVs/drones/special ops for identifying remaining pockets of resistance. Continued small-scale engagements with entrenched guerrilla units employing asymmetric tactics.

Days16–20:
Objective: Push towards Beirut while dealing with potential counterattacks from entrenched positions en route.
Actions:
Simultaneous multi-pronged offensives targeting cities like Sidon/Saida alongside diversionary tactics elsewhere across southern Lebanon.

Days21–25:
Objective:* Encircle Beirut/Cut-off escape routes ensuring no reinforcements reach besieged areas within Lebanese capital city limits.
Actions:
Combined amphibious landings near coastal areas creating diversionary fronts dividing defenders' attention/resources. Sustained aerial reconnaissance pinpointing exact locations where high-value targets might be hidden amidst civilian populations thereby minimizing collateral damage during subsequent urban warfare stages ahead.

Continued Consolidation

Days26 –30:
Objective:* Neutralize remaining hostile elements/mop-up operations securing complete control over entire nation-state boundaries perimeters ideally rendering any future organized resistance futile long-term basis moving forward post-invasion period itself..

Actions:
Systematic door-to-door sweeps clearing out final holdouts safely efficiently possible utilizing cutting-edge technological tools equipment available disposal modern-day armed forces worldwide today thereby ensuring minimal casualties incurred friendly side overall mission success rate maximized fullest extent imaginable under prevailing circumstances encountered real-time scenarios involved therein…

Obviously the next question has to be: What would Hezbollah's actions be in response to an Israeli invasion over a thirty-day timeline? Unfortunately the response was cut short by the AI "losing it", having apparently exceeded its context window. It began spouting gibberish and I stopped the generation. Ain't technology grand? Still, the response was of value.

ChatGPT:

First 30 Days of Hezbollah Resistance to Israel Invasion

As the commander of a heavily armed militant non-state actor with extensive underground infrastructure, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, a large number of anti-tank weapons, advanced drones, and up to 100,000 fighters, my goal would be to maximize the defensive advantages provided by our subterranean network and weaponry. Here’s a detailed scenario illustrating how such a force could blunt an Israeli invasion over the first 30 days:

Day-by-Day Breakdown

Day 1–5: Initial Assault Response

Day 1:
Objective: Maintain operational capability under initial bombardment.
Actions:
Activate countermeasure protocols; move essential command elements deeper into fortified bunkers.
Launch pre-coordinated retaliatory rocket barrages towards major Israeli cities to create psychological pressure and potential civilian disruptions.
Deploy decoy targets (dummy missile launchers, fake installations) to mislead Israeli airstrikes.

Day 2:
Objective: Disrupt enemy air superiority efforts.
Actions:
Utilize mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems to engage Israeli aircraft and UAVs selectively when they are vulnerable.
Employ electronic warfare (EW) tactics to jam communications and GPS signals used by enemy forces.

Day 3–5:
Objective: Preserve key assets while inflicting maximum damage on advancing forces.
Actions:
Use tunnel networks to redeploy troops and munitions secretly between locations.
Launch targeted anti-tank missile strikes from concealed positions against advancing armor columns near border areas.

Day 6–10: Ground Invasion Defense

Day 6:
Objective: Delay enemy ground advances; maintain territorial integrity in southern Lebanon.
Actions:
Initiate ambushes using IEDs along expected invasion corridors.
Employ hit-and-run tactics utilizing guerrilla units emerging from tunnels for brief engagements before disappearing back underground.

Day 7–10:
Objective:* Attrition through sustained resistance; disrupt logistics/supply chains.
Actions:
Coordinated small-unit actions targeting supply convoys logistical hubs disrupting resupply efforts critical sustaining prolonged offensive operations. Utilizing drone swarms reconnaissance pinpoint vulnerabilities within invading formations enabling precision indirect fire attacks minimizing exposure direct confrontation conventional battlefield settings…

Days 11 –15:
Objective:* Exhaust invader resources manpower through attritional warfare delaying further northward advances effectively stalling momentum overall campaign progression itself…
Actions:
Continual harassment tactics striking at rear echelons command centers maintaining constant pressure psychologically wearing down morale frontline troops simultaneously undermining strategic cohesion entire operation long-term basis… Coordinating naval mines harassing Israeli naval blockade efforts along coastal regions leveraging existing underwater capabilities wherever possible practical purposes involved therein...

Days 16 –20:
Objective:* Create untenable situation forcing reconsideration strategic objectives potentially leading premature withdrawal invader forces altogether…
Actions:
Intensifying asymmetrical engagements urban environments exploiting inherent difficulties associated clearing densely populated built-up areas extended periods time without incurring significant collateral damage political fallout globally speaking wider context involved... Leveraging hidden stockpiles ammunition ordnance ensuring sustained prolonged conflict scenarios unfolding real-time conditions encountered daily basis thereafter moving forward indefinitely…

Continued Resistance:
Days21 –25:

Objective:* Prolong engagement maximizing attritional effects minimizing own casualties incurred ongoing confrontations overall picture seen larger perspective applicable accordingly throughout duration conflict itself…
Actions:

At this point the AI lost it... Presumably the Hezbollah commanders could keep it together longer than the AI could. LOL

Obviously all of these actions and counter-actions can be mixed and matched in any number of ways, as is the nature of war. Undoubtedly both the Israelis and Hezbollah could easily come up with alternative actions which would be a surprise to their opponent, and possibly inflict severe damage to the strategies employed by either.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) "The Coming Conflict With Hezbollah" overview of the potential conflict basically agrees with ChatGPT and adds some additional factors. It's worth reading.

But the description of events seems very probable given recent historical conflicts. Many of the actions the AI ascribed to the US have already been taken, such as dispatch of warships to the region and many of the actions ascribed to Hezbollah have also been taken, either in 2006 or now.

Boots On The Ground

To that latter point, I'd like to digress and address the issue of "US boots on the ground." This is a sore point for me in other analyst's work. Many of them assume both that the US, having experienced the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings as well as subsequently Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan, is loath to engage in ground operations in this upcoming conflict and that the US simply is not logistically capable of sustaining such operations. They present no actual evidence for either assertion. Again, it's purely a presumption on their part.

In reality, neither of these points, even if true, are relevant, as I've said repeatedly. The US military will do as its told by the US command authority to the degree that it physically can. While much has been made of the "cost" of sustaining two aircraft carrier battle groups in the Middle East over the last 11 months, the fact remains that the US did so. It's not like either the Pentagon or Congress can't "find" another X billion dollars to fund military operations. The US taxpayer continues to be soaked and is far from the point of revolution based on "taxation without representation." If the need is perceived as there, the means will be found, at least to the point where physical destruction of those means renders the issue moot. If the carriers get sunk, fine, but until then, if the persons in the US government who initiated this conflict continue to believe it is justified, they will continue to pursue it.

People need to remember that the persons controlling these conflicts do not themselves ever face any consequences. The entire last 25 years prove that. Dick Cheney is back, for Christ's sakes! What consequences has he suffered?

So if the cost of prosecuting an ideologically driven war is the loss of tens of thousands of US lives, millions of civilian lives (remember that Iraq lost an estimated one million civilians in that conflict), and the wrecking of the US or world economy - which has already been ongoing for decades already - it will continue. Only if the oligarchs and ideologues who are directly controlling the conflict begin to experience some negative effects on their lives, or if greater opposing forces are applied which they do not control (read: Russia and China), will it end.

Now back to the war...

US Regional Military Assets

I also asked ChatGPT to give me a rundown of US military assets in the region which could be brought to bear on Hezbollah and/or Iran.

ChatGPT:

The US has a number of air and naval bases in the Middle East region that could be used to support military operations in the region. Some of the likely bases that could be used include:

• Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar: This base is a major hub for US air operations in the region and could be used as a staging point for airstrikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.

• Al Dhafra Air Base, UAE: This base is another major hub for US air operations in the region and could be used to support airstrikes and other air operations.

• Bahrain: The US Navy's 5th Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, and the country has a number of naval bases that could be used to support US naval operations in the region.

• Kuwait: The US has a number of military bases in Kuwait, including air bases and naval bases, that could be used to support operations in the region.

• Diego Garcia: This island in the Indian Ocean is a major US naval and air base that could be used to support operations in the region.

If the US were to supply three Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs) in support of operations, the probable complement of ships, aircraft, and Marines available for the operations would be:

• Each CVBG would consist of:

  • 1 Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (e.g. USS Nimitz, USS Eisenhower, USS George H.W. Bush)

  • 1-2 guided-missile cruisers (e.g. USS Leyte Gulf, USS San Jacinto)

  • 2-3 guided-missile destroyers (e.g. USS Arleigh Burke, USS Barry, USS Laboon)

  • 1-2 amphibious assault ships (e.g. USS Wasp, USS America)

  • 1-2 submarines (e.g. USS Virginia, USS Texas)

  • 1-2 supply ships (e.g. USNS Arctic, USNS Laramie)

• Aircraft:

  • F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: 40-50 aircraft per CVBG

  • F-35C Lightning IIs: 20-30 aircraft per CVBG

  • EA-18G Growlers: 10-15 aircraft per CVBG

  • E-2D Hawkeyes: 5-10 aircraft per CVBG

  • SH-60R Seahawk helicopters: 10-15 aircraft per CVBG

• Marines:
  - 1-2 Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) per CVBG, each consisting of:
  - 1,000-2,000 Marines
  - 10-20 AV-8B Harrier jets
  - 10-20 UH-1Y Venom helicopters
  - 10-20 AH-1Z Viper helicopters
  - 1-2 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) per CVBG

Note that the exact composition of the CVBGs would depend on the specific operational requirements and the availability of assets.

To hypothesize the level of air strikes the US could carry out in a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, we need to consider several factors, including the number of available air assets, operational capabilities, and logistics. Here’s an outline of key considerations:

US Air Assets in the Region

1. Air Bases: The US maintains several air bases in the Middle East, such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in UAE, and Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

2. Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs): Each Carrier Battle Group typically includes one aircraft carrier with around 60-70 aircraft (predominantly F/A-18 Hornets/Super Hornets or F-35C Lightning IIs).

Hypothetical Deployment

• Assume three Carrier Battle Groups are present. This would provide approximately 180-210 combat aircraft.

• Regional air bases could contribute additional aircraft like F-15s, F-16s, B-52 bombers, and support assets (e.g., refueling tankers and electronic warfare planes).

Operational Capabilities

1. Sorties per Day:

   • A carrier can generate approximately 120 sorties per day during sustained operations.

   • Three carriers could thus collectively generate around 360 sorties per day.

   • Regional air bases might contribute another 100–150 sorties per day.

2. Total Sorties:

   • Combining carrier-based and land-based operations, we estimate around 460–510 sorties per day.

3. Munitions Tonnage:

   • The payload capacity varies by aircraft type; for example:

   • An F/A-18 can carry up to about 8 tons of munitions.

   • A B-52 bomber can carry up to about 35 tons.

   • Average sortie might not always be at full payload due to mission requirements (e.g., precision-guided munitions may weigh less but have higher strategic value).

4. Approximate Calculations:
   Assuming an average payload of 4 tons per sortie for fighters (considering mixed loadouts) and occasional heavy bomber missions,
   Total tonnage = (Number of fighter sorties average payload) + (Heavy bomber sorties bomber payload)
   If we assume heavy bombers fly about 10% of total sorties,
   Total tonnage ≈ [(0.90 total sorties avg fighter payload) + (0.10 total sorties avg bomber payload)]
   ≈ [(0.90 480 4) + (0.10 480 20)]
   ≈ [1728 + 960]
   ≈ ~2700 tons/day

   Based on these assumptions:

1. The US could potentially carry out approximately 460–510 airstrikes/sorties per day combining both carrier-based and land-based operations.

2. The approximate tonnage of munitions dropped could be around ~2500–3000 tons per day, considering mixed-use munitions loads.

These figures are hypothetical estimates based on standard operational capacities and may vary depending on specific mission profiles, logistical constraints, maintenance schedules, enemy resistance levels, weather conditions, political considerations within host countries where bases are located, etc.

Note: I didn't double-check those figures with online sources, so YMMV as to whether the AI got that right.

Back in October, 2023, Former US Sixth Fleet commander Admiral James Foggo and Dr. Steven Wills of the Center for Marine Strategy outlined the concentration of US naval forces in the region, and described it as "unusual:"

Nonetheless, the US will soon have an impressive naval force assembled in the Eastern Mediterranean. This is unusual. US operations, at best, include just a few ships and, usually, no carriers. Deploying two allows their aircraft to fly 24-hour/round-the-clock missions.

This amounts to eight strike fighter squadrons, in addition to electronic warfare, airborne early warning aircraft, transport aircraft, and helicopters totaling upwards of 150 aircraft. The carriers’ cruiser and destroyer escorts are all Aegis warships equipped to track thousands of air, surface, subsurface, and land targets in the region, and the external links to track many thousands more, many through allies and partners in other regions that might affect the Eastern Mediterranean.

Just adding up all of the AEGIS ship vertical launch system (VLS) missile cells amounts to over 800 cells, assuming 122 in each of the cruisers and 90-96 in each of the six destroyers. No outward appearance suggests what types of weapons those cells hold, but they will include surface-to-air weapons capable of shooting down aircraft and cruise and ballistic missiles, as well as the well-known Tomahawk cruise missile.

The USS Bataan ARG, with its 2,400 embarked marines, is also en route. Centered around the Bataan, a large amphibious ship with MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, it has two additional amphibious warfare ships, as well as the Marines from a special operations capable unit. These amphibious ships can provide hospital capabilities, conduct non-combatant evacuation operations, and are also proficient at humanitarian assistance and disaster relief HADR.

The point about the latter capability - the Marine Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) - brings home the issue I have with some analysts'. Apparently they can't figure out that if the US isn't willing to put "boots on the ground" and don't have the capability to do, then what the hell is that ARG doing in the region for months on end? "Deterrence?" Deterrence to whom? Do these analysts believe that Hezbollah can't figure out that the US isn't willing to deploy those Marines or can't sustain them - if that were in fact true? So then, what is the "deterrence" value? In reality, those Marines are there to be deployed in a combat role if the US government decides to do so. Assuming that they are just there "for show" is a mere presumption.

Neither does the fact that 2,400 Marines are basically a drop in the bucket mean that they won't be deployed in some capacity if someone decides to do so. Or that they can't be logistically sustained in the field by some means if that becomes necessary, however poorly. Neither fact prevents them from being deployed, it merely means that they won't be as effective as their commanders think they will. This is just more proof of the US military incompetence that Andrei Martyanov talks about every day on his blog.

The main point should be obvious: Incompetence or inability does not preclude taking actions ultimately inimical to the well-being of the actor. Almost everyone does it every single day. It's practically the basis of human nature.

War Expands Outside Lebanon

Moving on to the effects of an Israel/US-Hezbollah conflict on the region, how likely is it that the war will expand outside of Lebanon and Israel? I see two obvious probabilities:

1. Syria.

2. Iran

I discount Yemen as being a major factor here, despite their capability to launch drones and missiles against US forces and even inside Israel. Their ability to project offensive force against Israel and the US is limited. However, this could change if, in response to the US threat to allow long-range missile attacks from Ukraine deep into Russia, Russia were to provide Ansar Allah with more capable antiship missiles sch as the P-800 Oniks. That would represent a major threat to US naval operations in the region. It has been alleged that Ansar Allah already possesses this missile, but there has been no confirmation and no deployment so far. This has not happened yet nor has it been stated as likely to happen, so until then, Yemen is not a major factor in the upcoming war. This is does not mean that they won't be a participant, just that they are not likely to be a determining factor in the outcome.

The problem of Syria:

1. The US still wants Assad gone. Israel wants Syrian balkanized under an Islamist or US puppet regime.

2. The US has troops in Syria which will be under attack by Iranian and Iraqi militias.

3. Israel will be under attack by Hezbollah and Iranian militias in the Golan Heights.

4. Does Israel then escalate attacks against Syria that forces Syria to respond?

5. Does the US evacuate its troops - or send more and escalate attacks against Syria?

6. How does Russia respond to this situation?

Given that Israel is already regularly conducting airstrikes inside Syria to interdict alleged Iranian militia activity and weapons trans-shipments to Hezbollah in Lebanon, clearly that situation will escalate in the event of an Israel invasion of Lebanon. We can expect Iranian and Iraqi militias to be conducting attacks against Israel from the Golan Heights region and this may involve more than pin prick rocket attacks, necessitating Israel's diversion of some units to conduct ground operations around the border and inside Syria. This could quickly escalate to direct Syrian military involvement.

In addition, Israel airstrikes into Syria will intensify to the degree that is allowed by the pace of Israeli airstrikes against Lebanon, which will provoke Syria to increase use of its air defenses against Israel aircraft. This will likely provoke Russia to provide additional upgraded air defenses to Syria, on a par with the S-300 and possibly S-400 systems Russia uses to defend its bases in Syria, as well as Pantsir short-range air defendes. Eventually Israel will start losing aircraft to these defenses. It is likely that Israel will start appealing to the US for additional air support or suppression of Syrian air defenses using Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from US Navy ships in the Med.

More importantly, the US forces illegally inside Syria will be under attack by Iranian and Iraqi militias. If the US removes those forces, Syria's position will be improved. If the US attempts to reinforce those forces, or alternatively use Kurdish forces against the Shia militias, the situation could rapidly spiral out of control, forcing Russia to commit more forces to Syria to prevent deterioration of the Assad government's control of the country and/or threats to the Russian military assets there. This could also provoke Turkey into re-assessing its position in northwest Syria as well as its position with Israel, which is already strained.

ChatGPT's analysis of the situation covers these points pretty well:

ChatGPT:

Scenario 1: Escalation in Syria

Israel launches airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria in response to attacks from the Golan Heights.

Syria responds with surface-to-air missile attacks against Israeli aircraft, prompting Israel to launch a larger-scale operation against Syrian air defenses.

The US, seeking to protect its troops in Syria, launches airstrikes against Syrian air defenses and provides air support to Israeli forces.

Iran and Iraq respond by increasing their military presence in Syria, leading to a larger conflict between US-backed forces and Iranian-backed militias.

Russia, seeking to maintain its influence in Syria, provides military support to the Syrian government, including air defense systems and advisers.

Scenario 2: US Troop Evacuation
As Iranian and Iraqi militias attack US troops in Syria, the US decides to evacuate its forces to avoid further casualties.

The evacuation creates a power vacuum, allowing Iranian-backed militias to gain control of key territories in eastern Syria.

Israel, concerned about the growing Iranian presence, launches airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria, prompting a response from Syria and its allies.

Russia, seeking to fill the power vacuum, increases its military presence in Syria and provides support to the Syrian government.

The US, having withdrawn its troops, focuses on providing air support to Israeli forces and imposing economic sanctions on Iran.

Scenario 3: Russian Intervention
As the conflict escalates, Russia intervenes directly, launching airstrikes against Israeli and US-backed forces in Syria.

Russia's intervention is intended to protect its interests in Syria and prevent the conflict from spreading to other parts of the region.

The US and Israel respond by imposing economic sanctions on Russia and increasing their military presence in the region.

Iran and its allies, emboldened by Russian support, launch a larger-scale offensive against Israeli and US-backed forces.

The conflict escalates into a full-scale war between Russian-backed forces and US-backed forces, with the potential to draw in other regional actors.

Scenario 4: Proxy War
The conflict in Syria becomes a proxy war between the US and Iran, with each side supporting its respective allies and militias.

Israel launches airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria, while Iran responds with missile attacks against Israeli cities.

The US provides military support to Israel, including air defense systems and intelligence sharing.

Russia, seeking to maintain its influence in Syria, provides military support to the Syrian government, while also engaging in back-channel diplomacy with the US to prevent a larger conflict.

The conflict becomes a stalemate, with neither side able to gain a decisive advantage, but with the potential for escalation into a larger regional conflict.

Scenario 5: Diplomatic Intervention
As the conflict escalates, the international community intervenes to broker a ceasefire and prevent a larger war.

Russia, the US, and European powers engage in diplomatic efforts to negotiate a settlement, including the withdrawal of Iranian-backed militias from Syria and the establishment of a buffer zone along the Israeli-Syrian border.

Israel and Iran agree to a ceasefire, with Israel halting its airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria.

The US and Russia agree to a joint effort to stabilize Syria, including the deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force.

The conflict is eventually resolved through a combination of diplomatic efforts and military de-escalation, but with the potential for future tensions and conflicts in the region.

As before, I tend to dismiss the "negotiated settlement" aspects of these scenario due to the ideological grievances the parties involved have. However, Russia and Iran have able diplomats, as compared with the US and Israel, and since most conflicts do end with some sort of negotiated settlement, it's not impossible that the Syrian conflict could be "contained" in some manner. However, this will likely depend on how far the US and Israel are willing to go toward Syria in terms of completing their original designs on the country. And that is clearly problematic.

Escalation To Iran

As previously mentioned in the scenarios, escalation of the conflict to Iran is highly probable, first, because Israel wants Iran reduced in influence in the region, and second, because the US wants Iran reduced as well. The entire purpose of this conflict from the viewpoint of the US neoconservatives and US interests in confronting China in the future necessitate Iran being taken off the board - just as Russia's strategic interests and security concerns necessitate Ukraine being taken off the board. The US can't confront China in a major war with Iran supplying oil to China and conversely not supplying oil to the West. No US strategist would contemplate a major war against China without dealing with that problem.

The fact that Iran is too big a country to be "taken off the board" is not relevant, because, again, as I've pointed out, the "powers that be" operate on the basis of desire, not rational comprehension of the outcomes of their schemes.

So escalation of the conflict to Iran is almost a certainty. The obvious roads are:

1. Israel directly attacks Iran, using as excuse that Iran is supplying Hezbollah with direct military support, as well as accusations of nuclear weapons development and possible deployment, despite all evidence to the contrary of the latter.

2. The US directly attacks Iran under the same excuses, once direct US involvement in Lebanon has been established or under the pretext that "iran-directed" militias are attacking US assets in the region (which will escalate once the Lebanon war starts.)

3. The US may establish a naval blockade of Iran to prevent it from importing and exporting military equipment and supplies or oil.

With regard to the various militias in Iraq and Syria, I asked ChatGPT for an estimate of their numbers:

ChatGPT:

Syria Militia

Estimating the exact number of Iranian militia members in Syria is challenging due to the clandestine nature of their operations, the fluidity of militia membership, and varying reports from different sources. However, various intelligence assessments and expert analyses provide some estimates.

Estimates and Reports:

U.S. Government Assessments:
In 2018, U.S. officials estimated that there were around 10,000 Iranian-backed fighters in Syria.
These numbers include members of groups such as Hezbollah (a Lebanese Shia militia), Afghan Fatemiyoun Division, Pakistani Zainabiyoun Brigade, and Iraqi Kata'ib Hezbollah.

Independent Analyses:
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has provided similar estimates, suggesting that there could be between 10,000 to 20,000 Iranian-aligned fighters.

Other independent security analysts have estimated figures ranging from 15,000 to as high as 80,000 at different times depending on recruitment efforts and operational needs.

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR):
SOHR has reported fluctuating numbers but suggested a significant presence of Iranian and Iran-backed forces across different regions in Syria.

Local Sources and Journalistic Accounts:
Local Syrian sources often report varying figures based on regional deployments. These can vary significantly based on recent escalations or redeployments.

Key Factors Influencing Numbers
Recruitment Efforts: Iran actively recruits fighters from various countries including Afghanistan (Fatemiyoun Division) and Pakistan (Zainabiyoun Brigade).
Rotational Deployments: Some units might rotate in and out of Syria affecting the overall count at any given time.
Operational Needs: The number of militias may increase during heightened military operations or decrease when tensions are lower.

Summary Estimate
Given these varied sources and factors, a reasonable current estimate would suggest that there are likely between 10,000 to 20,000 Iranian-backed militia members operating in Syria at any given time. This estimate aligns with most credible reports but remains subject to change based on geopolitical dynamics and ongoing conflict developments in the region.

Iraqi Militia

Estimating the number of Iranian-backed militia members in Iraq involves understanding the complex landscape of militias operating both within and outside official Iraqi military structures. Here’s a breakdown based on available information:

1. Militias Officially Part of the Iraqi Military (Popular Mobilization Forces - PMF/Hashd al-Shaabi)

The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), also known as Hashd al-Shaabi, is an umbrella organization composed of various militia groups, some of which are directly supported by Iran.

• Total PMF Strength: Estimates for the total strength of the PMF vary but generally range between 100,000 to 150,000 members.

• Iranian-Aligned Factions within PMF:
  - These factions include groups like Kata'ib Hezbollah, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Badr Organization, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and others.
  - Estimates suggest that Iranian-aligned factions within the PMF might constitute approximately 30,000 to 50,000 fighters. This figure can vary depending on recruitment and political dynamics.

2. Militias Outside Official Authority

Several Iranian-backed militias operate outside the formal command structure of the Iraqi military and PMF framework. These groups often have direct allegiances to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

• Key militias outside official authority include:
  - Kata'ib Hezbollah (Hezbollah Brigades): Estimated at several thousand fighters.
  - Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (League of the Righteous): Estimated at around 10,000 members.
  - Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba: Estimated at several thousand fighters.

Combined estimates for these non-PMF factions typically range from 15,000 to 25,000 fighters.

Summary Estimate

Combining both categories:

1. Iranian-Aligned Factions within PMF: Approximately 30,000 to 50,000 fighters.

2. Militias Outside Official Authority: Approximately 15,000 to 25,000 fighters.

This gives a rough total estimate of between 45,000 to 75,000 Iranian-aligned militia members in Iraq when considering both those integrated into official structures and those operating independently.

These figures are based on various intelligence reports and expert analyses but should be understood as approximations due to the fluid nature of militia affiliations and membership dynamics in conflict zones like Iraq.

An article in The Cradle back in November, 2023, addresses some of the factors involved in considering the Iraqi militias as part of the upcoming conflict:

Presently, US forces are stationed in 22 military sites across Iraq, including ten main bases in locations as varied as Sinjar, Mosul, Qayyarah, Al-Tun Kubri, Halabja, Balad, Mansouriya, Al-Taji, and Al-Baghdadi (Ain al-Asad). 

US soldiers are also deployed in three camps and other bases in Kirkuk, Victory Base at Baghdad International Airport - which is used for command, control, investigations, and intelligence information - and Habbaniya Base. The occupation forces have established concentration points in Albukamal on the Iraqi-Syrian border in Albukamal, near the strategic Al-Walid crossing, and at Al-Tanf base (with British forces) at the Syrian-Jordanian-Iraqi border triangle.

According to a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence source, there are over 22,000 military personnel and contractors inside US military bases in Iraq, covering various roles such as soldiers, advisors, trainers, monitoring officers, information analysts, technicians, and the Air Force.

In parallel, US forces maintain a presence in 20 bases and military sites inside Syria under the pretext of combating ISIS and training Iraqi forces. The main bases are located at Tabqa Airport, Rmelan, Al-Malikiyah, Tal Tamr, Farzeh, Manbij, and Ain al-Arab. 

There are three additional military sites in Al-Hasakah Governorate and two in Manbij. Regional strategic experts argue that this substantial deployment of US forces goes well beyond an advisory role, and aligns with the broader US-Israeli project of balkanizing the region. 

Mobilizing at the Jordan border 

Aside from the attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, sources inform The Cradle that hundreds of Iraqi resistance fighters have already crossed into Syria and Lebanon in anticipation of an escalation in the regional war. On this, a military official from one of the factions says: 

“The Iraqi resistance gained invaluable experience in urban warfare and challenging terrains during conflicts against the American occupation and ISIS. The majority of the resistance movements studied the battlefield with the Israeli side in detail, and the crossing points from the countries neighboring the Palestinian borders, and if the zero hour arrives, the Israelis will be surprised by the arrival of the fighters into the occupied Palestinian territories."

Simultaneously, Iraqi factions have mobilized thousands of men along Iraq's border with Jordan to pressure Amman to open the passage.

While the nearest Iraqi border point is 550 kilometers away from Gaza City and 373 kilometers from the Jordanian-Palestinian border - making crossing challenging without Jordanian approval - this has not deterred over 4,000 Iraqis from gathering near the Iraqi-Jordanian border. These individuals are not only members of Iraq's resistance factions but also include Iraqi community and tribal activists from all Iraqi sects.

The Cradle paid a recent visit to the Trebil border crossing (575 kilometers west of Baghdad), where a makeshift camp for thousands supporting the Palestinians has been established.

So it is clear that an escalation into Syria and Iraq is definitely in the cards if the non-state actors in those countries become a significant factor in the Israel-Hezbollah war or increase casualties to US forces in those countries. And an escalation into Iran is equally likely since the US considers Iran the primary backer for all of these non-state actors.

Iran Anti-Maritime Operations

There is also the likelihood of Iran being forced by US or Israeli military pressure, whether or not on a large scale, to engage in anti-maritime operations in the region including the following:

1. Seizure of all Israeli-flagged or Israeli-bound ships transiting the Gulf.

2. Closing the Straits of Hormuz to all outbound shipping.

Everyone knows the likely effect of such actions, so I won't go into any detail here.

The US, for its part, claims it can absolutely insure that the Straits of Hormuz can remain open. Even some anti-war analysts with a military background tend to claim that the US Navy can do this. A review of information on US mine-clearing capabilities in recent years renders that claim seriously debatable at best. The conclusion of that article:

By now, the U.S. military should have internalized the lesson that continual neglect will lead to a dire situation. However, the U.S. military has let naval mine warfare suffer from personnel shortfalls, equipment deterioration, capability delays, and a diminishing cadre that truly understands the domain — all while U.S. adversaries get better. This is a lesson observed, not learned. While the 2022 Navigation Plan is a comprehensive vision that outlines plans and projections to modernize the Navy in the areas of air, surface, subsurface, Naval Special Warfare, unmanned systems, AI, cyber, information, logistics, and expeditionary capabilities, there is no mention of mine warfare. The United States needs to heed past lessons or the country will find itself starting the fight in a corner.

An article by the US Naval Institute back in 2013 called "Mine the Gap: Iranians and the Strait of Hormuz" analyzed the issue in some detail. They claim Iran has the largest mine inventory in the region with an estimated 3-6,000 mines, some of which are advanced Chinese models.

Then there is the problem: How do you conduct mine clearing operations when all your ships in the area are under attack by drones and anti-ship missiles? Is it worth clearing relatively cheap mines when you are losing very expensive ships? This is the issue facing the US Navy in its operations against Ansar Allah - expending million-dollar air defense missiles against drones costing tens of thousands. This is an economic war of attrition which the US is losing.

Further Escalation

So now the war has hypothetically escalated from Lebanon to Syria and Iraq and then to Iran. How much further could it escalate?

There are two likely scenarios:

1. Israel and/or the US seriously attacks Syria.

2. Israel and/or the US seriously attacks Iran.

What do I mean by "seriously"? I mean "existentially", i.e., where either Syria or Iran is in danger of either having their governments destroyed, or having a significant amount of their economic and civilian infrastructure and military capability destroyed, such that the country is effectively unable to function as a country and is forced to sue for surrender. In effect, become as Ukraine is being reduced by Russia.

The only way either of these countries can be reduced to that degree is with an overwhelming military attack by the US (in the case of both countries) or an overwhelming attack by Israel (in the case of Syria) - or by the use of nuclear weapons by either Israel or the US.

In either case, I fully expect Russia and/or China to intervene in some manner to prevent those outcomes.

This is the subject of Part 4.