DeansMusings

I have worked in Iran and done business with Israel. I know people in both countries and won't take sides, or discuss the politics of the conflict. I think this war should not have started if the leadership of each country worked in their country's interest. The irrationality around some of the decision making makes this conflict scary, while being of interest to a dispassionate observer like me.  A lot has been written on the ongoing war, examining subjects from military operations, oil supplies and political analysis – with analysts of all ideological biases weighing in. However, I don’t think enough has been written about the timelines and compulsions for each side - which in my view will determine how this conflict will be fought and end. This article looks at disparate factors that will influence the conflict. Weapon stocks : There are three variables, all of which point to the current war – waged by missiles and drones from long range lasting for no more than a month. ...

 I am writing this part after a long gap, as there were more informative posts on subjects I wanted to cover, and because the overall direction of the war was in line with what I had mentioned earlier.  The war has also gone on longer than the Great Patriotic war, leading to some `blogger fatigue'. Last article (part 16) in this series: Ukraine war - part 16    My view is that 2026 will be the year that Russia achieves its territorial objectives in Ukraine and will be in a position to propose a peace deal that will not involve Ukraine giving up territory since they will not be in control of any territory Russia needs. In a previous blog piece in Feb 25, I had suggested that a peace deal could involve the war ending on the then front line, with an exchange of territory (Russian held territory outside four provinces claimed by Russia, in return for territory in the Donbass not yet occupied by it) that would lead to a final truce line. https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/...

I decided to write this, as the narrative in the Indian media gives the impression that the Iranian warship IRIS Dena (Islamic republic of Iran ship DENA) was invited to India for the international fleet review we hosted and on departing, ship was sunk by a US submarine. It has been alleged that the sinking of an unarmed ship, with mostly cadets under training, was a war crime and a snub to India, since the ship was `under our protection’. At the least it questions our credentials in being the guardian of the Indian ocean, or allowing our `guest’ to be killed in cold blood. I have a different view and one not speculated on by the media. I think it was an audacious and high risk gamble by the Iranian navy, to target US merchant shipping, in the event of war. That gamble failed. The gamble involved 3 Iranian warships (not just the IRIS Dena) that were deployed far from home waters, to carry out what might have been a surprise attack on US supply or merchant shipping, in an unexpected are...

I decided to write on the book controversary after actually reading the manuscript of the book, which is yet to be published and because I thought the row in Parliament and on social media lacked an understanding of the facts, or the background in which a sentence in a 400 page book was taken out of context. While I believe there was nothing wrong in how this particular incident was handled (and the outcome was in our favour) it was to me, as someone exposed to corporate decision making, and as an amateur enthusiast in military history, a case study on the interaction between the political and military leadership in a conflict. Having read several military biographies, I found this quite dry. Several issues that might be of interest to a non military reader, where the Chief was uniquely placed to comment - were mentioned in a perfunctory manner.   The controversary. A paragraph in the book suggested that when Chinese tanks approached an Indian position on 31st August 2020,...