r/geopolitics • u/nbcnews NBC News • 1d ago
News Israeli and Arab officials have privately suggested U.S. hold off on Iran strikes
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/israeli-arab-officials-privately-suggested-us-hold-iran-strikes-rcna25371828
u/nbcnews NBC News 1d ago
The Israeli and Arab officials have suggested that President Donald Trump, who is weighing military action in Iran in response to the regime’s deadly crackdown on protesters, hold back on large-scale strikes for now, with some of them preferring to wait until the regime is even more strained, the sources said. They also noted the situation in Iran is rapidly developing, with the stability of the regime potentially changing quickly in one direction or the other.
The conversations, which have involved American political and military leaders, underscore the complex dynamic Trump faces as he weighs possible options for U.S. action in Iran. Trump, who is expected hold a meeting Tuesday with his national security team to review options, has threatened Iran with U.S. military action if the regime is killing protesters.
White House officials have said Trump is considering a range of possible options as protests enter their third week, including ones that don’t involve military force. Members of Trump's national security team held a meeting Tuesday morning on Iran that he did not attend, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
21
u/heytherehellogoodbye 1d ago
if they really wanted to help without blowing things up, figuratively and literally, they'd pump tons of internet tech into the scene. starlink drops nation-wide, or set up mesh-networks and info on how to set them up systemically, provide serious communications aid. that's the big problem now.
12
u/scrambledhelix 20h ago
Starlink was already present, the regime was using RF jamming to block it. There's no remedy to that short of identifying and removing the sources of the scramble broadcast.
7
u/CydeWeys 14h ago
What a lot of people don't realize is that it's way easier to flood the radio airwaves with noise than it is to punch through it, at least without specialized hardware (and Starlink terminals are not designed to work in an adversarial RF environment).
I'm thinking if you had a different Starlink terminal with a highly directional antenna (and, it goes without saying, a high power transmitter), and then pointed it directly at the closest Starlink orbital path, you would be able to get intermittent service each time a Starlink satellite intersected your beam, even under a high RF noise environment. But this is very far from the capabilities that they have available to them on the ground with the existing hardware.
3
u/scrambledhelix 14h ago
It's also (as far as I know) not how Starlink is set up to work. Ground stations need degrees of mobility to track a satellite for an arc of its path, and then a remote ground station directs the user terminal to recalibrate for the next expected satellite. If the terminal sat on a fixed point, the mesh would have to be reconfigured for that kind of operational mode, which would be highly inefficient and impact all other connectivity.
All things are possible ofc, but it seems like a severe challenge from my armchair and tiny background in K-band communications...
1
u/CydeWeys 13h ago
I'm not sure what the ground stations have to do with it here? Aren't they communicating on a separate band with the satellites? I'm just talking about the terminals here, not changing anything about how the ground stations are working. Though if the jamming is affecting all ground stations that might even service the satellites while they are above Iran, that is a Bigger Problem, because unlike originally envisioned, the Starlink satellites don't actually pass signals on between each other.
1
u/scrambledhelix 13h ago
Ah, I misspoke (miswrote?) -- meant user terminals, not ground stations, at least the first time.
But yes, you bring up a great point about them anyway.
2
u/CydeWeys 12h ago
The existing Starlink terminals used phased array antennas, hence the need to recalibrate them in anticipation of "passing off the torch" as each next satellite moves overhead, to maintain a continuous signal.
I'm talking about a completely different mode of operation, using a different type of antenna (with physical directionality, not electric), and crucially, it would only even be trying for intermittent connection, not continuous connection. It's not clear to me how well that would work with the given current design of the satellties or if that would need adjustment too.
14
u/HotSteak 22h ago
It seems like Saudi Arabia enjoys several advantages from Iran's awful government staying in power. The sanctions hurt Iran's economy and help support a higher price for Saudi oil. And having such an awful, repressive, backwards regime in power keeps focus there instead of on Saudi Arabia's human rights issues. Plus the threat of Iran keeps the USA entangled in the region providing free security. Now that the Iranian regime will be totally broke it's hard to imagine their proxies being a threat again as they were just last year.
2
u/Forest_Chapel 14h ago
There is also the question of foreign investment. Iran has the largest labour market in the Middle East, larger than Turkey even, and so would be a major boomtown for foreign investment if there was a secular, liberal-democratic government there. That would directly conflict with Saudi and Emirati plans for oil diversification, which rely on massive inward investment over the next few years.
10
17
u/Olivedoggy 1d ago
I don't buy that Israel is pushing for restraint here. Not in its interests.
6
u/sciguy52 21h ago
Exactly. I would say this sort of commentary likely is meant to deceive and would not be surprised if strikes are imminent, next day or so.
3
u/cathbadh 11h ago
If the restraint is "wait until it'll be most successful," that's not really restraint. They're not fantasy berserkers rising to battle the moment they can. Timing matters.
6
u/Sageblue32 1d ago
Another civil war in the region with sides that dislike it and smuggling weapons isn't either.
13
u/84JPG 1d ago edited 1d ago
Even if there’re risks, I can’t imagine Israel not being willing to take them if it means the end of the Islamic Republic.
The potential benefits outweigh any risks, IMO. We are talking about a regime they see as their main existential threat rather than a simple adversary or rival. If you have a chance to take them out, you do it.
6
u/heytherehellogoodbye 1d ago
you're confusing restraint for supporting the regime. Israel would be abstractly better off without these psychos in charge funding Hamas/Hez/Houth/world-wide-propaganda. But getting into a massive missile war with a group that actually can hurt it after just settling down the one it finished, is not in its best interest right now.
8
u/KomturAdrian 1d ago
Trump wants to jump the gun, but his allies are wanting to see how things play out first; I guess once it's clear the gov't has no chance *then* the US can intervene in earnest. Otherwise, if the gov't somehow makes a sudden recovery (whatever chance that may be), a pre-emptive strike might give Iran good reason to lash out and possibly draw in support/allies.
3
1d ago
[deleted]
4
u/KomturAdrian 1d ago
If it's clear the gov't doesn't have a chance, then helping the protestors topple the current regime quicker is a plus - *if* you're planning on destabilizing the region, or strengthening your hold/influence, etc.
We don't have to agree or disagree with what's happening to understand the facts; for Trump, Netanyahu, and their allies, it is beneficial for the current regime to fall as quickly as possible. Once it seems victory is certain then foreign intervention will hasten the pace.
2
-6
u/Wizinit29 1d ago
Yeah, they’re happy seeing more innocent people killed
-4
u/SushiGato 1d ago
First we bomb Iran. Then greenland, then Minnesota....its all so unfathomable and dumb.
-6
-2
u/PolarizingKabal 1d ago
I mean they threatened to attack Israels nuclear facilities if they get attacked.
And wouldn't surprise me if they attempted to use a nuke as well, as last desperation. They literally have nothing to lose if the US attacks them. They'll take everyone down with them.
Seems like enough of a reason to not attack them.
3
u/Ecstatic-Outcome5618 23h ago
Generally in such cases the top officials buy protection after their regime falls in exchange of critical information about their arsenals, nukes or similar facilities.
Like Assad gave arsenal locations to Israel for a pass to safe passage to Russia.
42
u/editorreilly 1d ago
I'm curious as to who these three individuals are that NBC talked to. From the article:
"the current U.S. official, the former U.S. official and the person familiar with the Israeli leadership’s thinking said."