• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Can HA really take Galilee or Jerusalem in the next war ?

JustLeb

JustLeb

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
In his last interview with the Mayadeen SHN gave an overview of what might be the case in of next war with Israel.
He alluded that hundreds of thousands of fighters will be involved, no doubt he meant in addition to HA, there will be Irakian PMU, probably Syrian, Iranian, and Yemenies volunteers too.
His interview gives the viewer the impression that many surprises are lurking and that the target of the war might not be only occupying Galilee as said in the previous years but the liberation of Jerusalem !!!

I would like to call upon the generals of this forum, veterans of the Syrian war, the master strategists and tacticians to analyse these claims and give their opinions about what is true and what might be psychological warfare.

Please keep the discussion technical and away from the usual political rhetoric

نصر الله للميادين: قرار ترامب يعني نهاية إسرائيل ويجب دعم المقاومة بالسلاح


 
  • Advertisement
  • My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    We saw that iranian support alone was not enough to tip the scale in Syria, and to an extent neither in Iraq. If we agree that the rise of daesh was a foreign power decision from start - before it became self supported at some point- its defeat could not have been possible at such a speedy rate without the same, and without equally big foreign powers active military engagement against it as well.

    It took many months to conquer back Raqqa and Mosul, in spite of the overwhelming airbombing campaign that the US was conducting there on a daily basis.
    Same for the russian airbombing support against daesh and nusra in Syria, that made it possible to reverse the imminent defeat that was awaiting Assads forces evreywhere. Heck, at some point, the rebels were knocking on the doors of Latakia.

    Without the russians, and americans, active military support, daesh may still have been defeated, or may not, my guess is "not", since the opposite means daesh would have still enjoyed direct or indirect support from the americans and/or their allies.

    Enter Israel-moumena3a war: a completely different story. Without the russian air support, and with the whole might of own Israeli military capacities - that are not to be compared with daesh- plus the entire US military resources in addition to some western countries like England, I say: good luck being in hubris mode to HA, comparing its victories against daesh in Syria and Iraq to invading and conquering Israel.
    Am I defeatist? Not the least. I admire SHN for his bold position, his courage and his stamina, but I think he's too smart to know that taking back Jerusalem under the prevailing world order conditions, with only the support of hundreds of thousands of iraqis, afghanis and yemenis, qualifies as no more than a day dream. What SHN is saying simply belongs to the usual smart rhetorics of terror-balance.
    But at the same time, that doesn't prevent him from truly hoping for the realization of these thoughts, one day in an unknown future.

    What is more alarming and which can be deduced from these rhetorics, is the gloomy outlook ahead: this sets up the stage of what we should expect for this country for the next 10 years. It's all still about wars, fears, invasions and retaliations. The cycle of death, suffering and insecurity continues to embrace us.

    signed: Commander in chief, @moi.
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    We saw that iranian support alone was not enough to tip the scale in Syria, and to an extent neither in Iraq. If we agree that the rise of daesh was a foreign power decision from start - before it became self supported at some point- its defeat could not have been possible at such a speedy rate without the same, and without equally big foreign powers active military engagement against it as well.

    It took many months to conquer back Raqqa and Mosul, in spite of the overwhelming airbombing campaign that the US was conducting there on a daily basis.
    Same for the russian airbombing support against daesh and nusra in Syria, that made it possible to reverse the imminent defeat that was awaiting Assads forces evreywhere. Heck, at some point they were knocking on the doors of Latakia.

    Without the russians, and americans, active military support, daesh may still have been defeated, or may not, my guess is "not", since the opposite means daesh would have still enjoyed direct or indirect support from the americans and/or their allies.

    Enter Israel-moumena3a war: a completely different story. Without the russian air support, and with the whole might of own Israeli military capacities - that are not to be compared with daesh- plus the entire US military resources in addition to some western countries like England, I say: good luck being in hubris mode to HA, comparing its victories against daesh in Syria and Iraq to invading and conquering Israel.
    Am I defeatist? Not the least. I admire SHN for his bold position, his courage and his stamina, but I think he's too smart to know that taking back Jerusalem under the prevailing world order conditions, even with only the support of hundreds of thousands of iraqis, afghanis and yemenis, qualifies as more than a day dream. What SHN is saying simply belongs to the usual smart rhetorics of terror-balance.
    But at the same time, that doesn't prevent him from truly hoping for the realization of these thoughts, one day in an unknown future.

    What is more alarming and which can be deduced from these rhetorics, is the gloomy outlook ahead: this sets up tu

    signed: Commander in chief, @moi.
    I agree on most of your analysis mainly the question of technological difference and the virtually unlimited resources and support that the israelis can count on and receive from the Western powers.

    However as a general who studied the WWII (european theater) extensively and contributed int he planning of the Syrian war :D
    I still see a scenario in which limited victory can be achieved even though the odds are not high, let's say it would be more like a gambling than a military planning.

    This scenario is based on taking Galilee for sufficient amount of time (several months) in order to claim this limited victory.
    First we will assume that HA & allies were able to capture Galilee by some sort of genius military trick.
    The hard job now is to be able to keep it under their control for several months.
    I can see this possible provided that those extreme conditions are satisfied (which might be very unlikely):

    1- keep the israeli military occupied on several fronts, mainly Gaza and West Bank as well as Golan heights, this will immobilize many units and keep them away from the Galilee battle

    2- be able to deal a severe blow to the israeli military in the early stages of the war, which forces them to take a step back and start planning for longer war (measured in months and not weeks). This might happen if HA & allies can inflict a severe defeat on the israelis such as wiping out a complete division. For example suppose the israelis react swiftly to the fall of Galilee and commit all military units they have in the area without thorough planning, which might result in a painful defeat. Of course losing many units will force them to stop the offensive and start preparations for the next phase.

    3- be able to reduce to the minimum the effect of israeli air superiority, maybe having some good SAMs or keeping military airports under constant bombardment to disable them...

    4- retain all the civil populations in place so to prevent the israelis from using scorched earth tactics.

    Otherwise I don't see how can this be accomplished.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    In his last interview with the Mayadeen SHN gave an overview of what might be the case in of next war with Israel.
    He alluded that hundreds of thousands of fighters will be involved, no doubt he meant in addition to HA, there will be Irakian PMU, probably Syrian, Iranian, and Yemenies volunteers too.
    His interview gives the viewer the impression that many surprises are lurking and that the target of the war might not be only occupying Galilee as said in the previous years but the liberation of Jerusalem !!!

    I would like to call upon the generals of this forum, veterans of the Syrian war, the master strategists and tacticians to analyse these claims and give their opinions about what is true and what might be psychological warfare.

    Please keep the discussion technical and away from the usual political rhetoric

    نصر الله للميادين: قرار ترامب يعني نهاية إسرائيل ويجب دعم المقاومة بالسلاح


    Where is the Lebanese state in all of this? The President and the government and the Lebanese Parliament are the Lebanese state, not SHN. I am waiting for an answer to this interview (not just the segments reproduced here) from PMA, and Hariri. And Berri or other parliamentary blocs should call for a special session in Parliament to discuss this issue.

    Iranian wissaye galore.
     
    Last edited:
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I agree on most of your analysis mainly the question of technological difference and the virtually unlimited resources and support that the israelis can count on and receive from the Western powers.

    However as a general who studied the WWII (european theater) extensively and contributed int he planning of the Syrian war :D
    I still see a scenario in which limited victory can be achieved even though the odds are not high, let's say it would be more like a gambling than a military planning.

    This scenario is based on taking Galilee for sufficient amount of time (several months) in order to claim this limited victory.
    First we will assume that HA & allies were able to capture Galilee by some sort of genius military trick.
    The hard job now is to be able to keep it under their control for several months.
    I can see this possible provided that those extreme conditions are satisfied (which might be very unlikely):

    1- keep the israeli military occupied on several fronts, mainly Gaza and West Bank as well as Golan heights, this will immobilize many units and keep them away from the Galilee battle

    2- be able to deal a severe blow to the israeli military in the early stages of the war, which forces them to take a step back and start planning for longer war (measured in months and not weeks). This might happen if HA & allies can inflict a severe defeat on the israelis such as wiping out a complete division. For example suppose the israelis react swiftly to the fall of Galilee and commit all military units they have in the area without thorough planning, which might result in a painful defeat. Of course losing many units will force them to stop the offensive and start preparations for the next phase.

    3- be able to reduce to the minimum the effect of israeli air superiority, maybe having some good SAMs or keeping military airports under constant bombardment to disable them...

    4- retain all the civil populations in place so to prevent the israelis from using scorched earth tactics.

    Otherwise I don't see how can this be accomplished.
    My dear general colleague, wax generals like us do not scratch things from the residues of their imagination unless they are on vacation amusing themselves with playing beit byout. :lol:

    I think you have injected a considerable amount of unrealistic wishful thinking and scenarios on behalf of the invading HA & co forces.
    Serious business:
    1- Gaza, west bank and the Golans do not qualify to be seriously taken as "fronts", being able to tie up much of them Israelis military resources. That we do know already.

    2- We know that war victories are not the same as victories in battles; these are often the lucky combination of surprise elements, well preparations, tricks and deceit, enemy mistakes and a good portion of luck. Let's say the Israelis commit all the mistakes they are supposed to commit in order to swiftly lose the entire Galilee in a matter of a day (because that's how quick such defeat should be) how long does it take for their airpower to cut off all the supply lines to the invading forces, before they are completely encircled and then finished off?

    3- Until they can show us some effective toys of these, able to take down Israelis planes, this remains fiction. We see Israelis bomb almost on weekly basis in Syria. Even with the S-300 in place, as they say, not a single F-16 has been downed yet.

    4- Taking entire civilian population of a city as hostages may be the only one daring and effective operation. This will definitely prevent direct Israeli airstrikes against the invading forces, now dug inside Israeli civilians; but most importantly, this will present a huge psychological blow to the entire Israeli population: Even if this will render it more resilient and determined to defend itself, at the same time it will make it more consious about its vulnerability, which would serve as a humbling insight for the coming peace talks. But then, the invading forces will need to get inside such a city first.
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Where is the Lebanese state in all of this? The President and the government and the Lebanese Parliament are the Lebanese state, not SHN. I am waiting for an answer to this interview (not just the segments reproduced here) from PMA, and Hariri. And Berri or other parliamentary blocs should call for a special session in Parliament to discuss this issue.

    Iranian wissaye galore.
    The problem with your righteous nagging is that it is right in essence, but you do not offer an acceptable solution to the matter; a solution that does not involve risks of unrests and things that may be worse than the current temporary eclipsing of the Lebanese state's role.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    The problem with your righteous nagging is that it is right in essence, but you do not offer an acceptable solution to the matter; a solution that does not involve risks of unrests and things that may be worse than the current temporary eclipsing of the Lebanese state's role.
    There is a president a prime minister and a Parliament paid handsomely by the people. This is their job not mine. I am asking them to do the job we pay them for.
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    There is a president a prime minister and a Parliament paid handsomely by the people. This is their job not mine. I am asking them to do the job we pay them for.
    And they are doing exactly that. Fa sheel hal 7emel 3an dahrak laken :lol: Else, they are waiting for your more concrete suggestions that do not enter us in a cycle of civil war. So what do you suggest?
     
    L

    lebanese1

    Legendary Member
    And they are doing exactly that. Fa sheel hal 7emel 3an dahrak laken :lol: Else, they are waiting for your more concrete suggestions that do not enter us in a cycle of civil war. So what do you suggest?
    He wants them to get on their knees and beg Tramb to allow the Lebanese army to defend the country against Israel with the adequate and needed equipment and arms.
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Where is the Lebanese state in all of this? The President and the government and the Lebanese Parliament are the Lebanese state, not SHN. I am waiting for an answer to this interview (not just the segments reproduced here) from PMA, and Hariri. And Berri or other parliamentary blocs should call for a special session in Parliament to discuss this issue.

    Iranian wissaye galore.
    khayeh Zouzou
    did you read that the discussion in this thread should be technical away from the political rhetoric...???
    Here is a secret I would like to share with you, when I wrote this sentence I had you in mind :D

    So please if you don't have something of military value to share with this board of generals, take the political debate to another thread :)
    Or you can take the good points evoked by general @My Moria Moon and reply to them one by one, instead of el 7arta2a 3ala PMA :p :p
     
    gramsci

    gramsci

    Legendary Member
    In his last interview with the Mayadeen SHN gave an overview of what might be the case in of next war with Israel.
    He alluded that hundreds of thousands of fighters will be involved, no doubt he meant in addition to HA, there will be Irakian PMU, probably Syrian, Iranian, and Yemenies volunteers too.
    His interview gives the viewer the impression that many surprises are lurking and that the target of the war might not be only occupying Galilee as said in the previous years but the liberation of Jerusalem !!!

    I would like to call upon the generals of this forum, veterans of the Syrian war, the master strategists and tacticians to analyse these claims and give their opinions about what is true and what might be psychological warfare.

    Please keep the discussion technical and away from the usual political rhetoric

    نصر الله للميادين: قرار ترامب يعني نهاية إسرائيل ويجب دعم المقاومة بالسلاح


    Russia will never accept that israel get defeated in any war against islamist motivated milithia .. Eventhough russia dont agree with the israeli alliance with the americans .. Remember there are one millions of israelis of russian origin , and russia consider that in the middle east israel must be under its influence..
    Nasrallah know that very well and he knows that he cannot do such war .. So its just a psychological Repellance warfare ..
    The israeli issue can be resolved only politically and not military.. And of course not by a islamic fondamentalist party .whatever nasrallah try to sugar coat his islamic ideology..
     
    Walidos

    Walidos

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think occupying some land for some time is feasible, holding on to it is not: either the Israeli military will be able to recapture or a US lead coalition will intervene. In my opinion, HA weapons are better made use of defensively, and all the rest is psychological warfare...

    Having irakisnor Syrians or Yemenis or whoever fighting on our lands will be a disaster and we must not let it happen
     
    Abotareq93

    Abotareq93

    Legendary Member
    As long as Israel is a strategic need to the West, nobody will be allowed to defeat it. Remember what happened in 1973 when Syria and Egypt were on the brink of defeating Israel, the US military forces intervened directly to prevent such defeat.
     
    gramsci

    gramsci

    Legendary Member
    My reply above is on political level that overcoat the military level.

    From a military point of view, i guess getting galilee is possible , its geography permit it in two jjoint action from golan and south lebanon.. But there is still many factors to be taken in consideration :
    - the golan hights geography , and lessons that can be taken from 1973, and how much it can be penetrable or there it could be a corridor in which encircle the galilee ..
    - the air power superiority of israle, in the last 2006 it failed big time against military objectives and it caused only devastation for civilians and civil infrastructure.. In a guerrilla warfare the air warefare is not sufficient if is doesnt accompany a coordinated ground battles..
    - the possibility that israel get volunteers from all over the world to fight with them ( i presume this could be happen the same way hizballah get volunteers ) .
    - the cost of it on the civilian on both side ..

    The scenario is horrifying..
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    My dear general colleague, wax generals like us do not scratch things from the residues of their imagination unless they are on vacation amusing themselves with playing beit byout. :lol:

    I think you have injected a considerable amount of unrealistic wishful thinking and scenarios on behalf of the invading HA & co forces.
    Serious business:
    1- Gaza, west bank and the Golans do not qualify to be seriously taken as "fronts", being able to tie up much of them Israelis military resources. That we do know already.

    2- We know that war victories are not the same as victories in battles; these are often the lucky combination of surprise elements, well preparations, tricks and deceit, enemy mistakes and a good portion of luck. Let's say the Israelis commit all the mistakes they are supposed to commit in order to swiftly lose the entire Galilee in a matter of a day (because that's how quick such defeat should take) how long does it take for their airpower to seal off all the supply lines to the invading forces, before they are completely encircled and then finished off?

    3- Until they can show us some effective toys of these, able to take down Israelis planes, this remains fiction. We're seeing them bomb almost on weekly basis in Syria. Even with the S-300 in place, as they say, not a single F-16 has been downed yet.

    4- Taking entire civilian population of a city as hostages may be the only one daring and effective operation. This will definitely prevent direct Israeli airstrikes against the invading forces, now dug inside Israeli civilians; but most importantly, this will present a huge psychological blow to the entire Israeli population: Even if this will render it more resilient and determined to defend itself, at the same time it will make it more consious about its vulnerability, which would serve as a humbling insight for the coming peace talks. But then, the invading forces will need to get inside such a city first.
    dear general :) I agree with you and i was very honest in saying my scenario is highly unlikely.
    HA has shown in the past that he is good at defensive battles, and in syria he was good at the offensive but under almost friendly sky.
    I also raised concerns similar to yours when years go SHN said they might take Galilee.

    but lets return to the map to see how can this be done.
    1- I agree that Gaza won't be a big front, but in 2014 Hamas & Co forces were estimated to some 40k, so at least you need 20K better equipped israeli troops on the defensive side, in case of an offensive I estimate that you need more than that.

    2- On the west bank so far Mahmoud Abbas has chosen to get along with the israelis, but in a period of extreme turmoil probably he might not be able to control the situation and a real front similar to Gaza might be open. You might say wishful thinking, but the idea is that if you are planning for a big war like that, it will be natural to seek how can you distract the enemy on secondary fronts

    3- As for Golan, I agree 100% with any one who says Basho won't do anything, he has a long history in this domain. He doesn't even need Putin to spank him.

    4- this of course will lead to the main front, the lebanese one (which has been active for a long time):
    * I don't know how is it feasible to secretly mass thousands of fighters in the south or even on the syrian/lebanese/israelis border (assuming that basho will give those volunteers a blind eye) without being discovered which of course lead to preemptive strikes.
    * Given this complicated situation, the bulk of the offensive will lie solely on HA shoulders.
    * So the most logical assumption is that HA will open the first stages of the war and the rest of the shia fighters will join in later
    * HA should have already dug tens or even hundreds of tunnels across the borders in order to be able to move 5k to 10k fighters in a matter of hours behind enemy lines with clear and reachable objectives.
    * Such situation if successful will create a big mess and disorder within the military hierarchy, and units on the borders not knowing what is happening exactly around them will be tempted to flee to avoid encirclement (PS. this is not a fantasy, it happened almost in every war in history).

    * The remaining thing that is really complicated is the logistics, how can HA be able to reinforce and supply its fighters to hold their ground.
    are the tunnels sufficient for such big task ???!!!! I doubt it because big trucks loaded with weapons and munitions as well as other supplies are needed on daily bases to supply 10k fighters. These supply lines are very exposed to air raids.
     
    Last edited:
    Manifesto

    Manifesto

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Not possible, man. As our dear Moria Moon already stated, it's taken forever for Hezbollah and its allies to beat a bunch of primitively-armed rebels. Do you really think they would be capable of bypassing Israel's defense system and capturing Jerusalem? That's really ambitious even by Saladin's standards.

    I'm not really a general, but I used to play Red Alert and Age of Empires, so I know a thing or two about military strategies and stuff.
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I'm not really a general, but I used to play Red Alert and Age of Empires, so I know a thing or two about military strategies and stuff.
    Ohoo that's more than enough man to become general in this forum :D :D
    You can think of yourself as an academic general while @My Moria Moon is a field general ;)
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    khayeh Zouzou
    did you read that the discussion in this thread should be technical away from the political rhetoric...???
    Here is a secret I would like to share with you, when I wrote this sentence I had you in mind :D

    So please if you don't have something of military value to share with this board of generals, take the political debate to another thread :)
    Or you can take the good points evoked by general @My Moria Moon and reply to them one by one, instead of el 7arta2a 3ala PMA :p :p
    What I said was not political rhetoric, it was a sovereignty comment. You asked the Generals to comment :) if you want to me to continue in the spirit of your gaming exercise, I am saying generals act based on decision of the state who represents its people through its democratic institutions.
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    khayeh Zouzou
    did you read that the discussion in this thread should be technical away from the political rhetoric...???
    Here is a secret I would like to share with you, when I wrote this sentence I had you in mind :D
    Feel honored @joseph_lubnan. Your forum existence has become so influential that only the thought of you is now able to alter the course of thread topics, thus future events, weather forecasts and perhaps one or two ants destinies. :eek:
     
    Top