[Goose]

Getting both sides to agree to stand down from further attacks may well be very difficult. I fear that Israel is more likely to launch another attack simply due to who is running their country and we have never shown an absolutely willingness to cut off the money and weapons we provide.  we talk a good game but we don't play like we are serious.

Israel knows full well they are our only viable ally in the middle east. Threatening to "cut them off" isn't credible because doing so would cede a complete victory to Iran. They believe (correctly IMO) that we won't do that. There is a "red line" somewhere but it has been proven by experience it is very hard to cross. I believe the administration sent the right message by simply saying we wouldn't "participate" in a direct attack on Iran. Considering who is running Israel ATM it would be unwise to publicly "threaten" Israel. It would look like interfering in their "internal affairs" and would quite possibly "force" the government into doing exactly what we don't want them to do. This is especially true when they don't believe our threat anyway.

I think there is a great chance of a miscalculation by one side or the other. 

Totally agree. As you point out, the internal political situation in Israel doesn't give one lots of confidence in a "measured" response.

The fact that Iran and its "allies" launched so many weapons and so few go through may contribute to further miscalculation. How long is Jordan willing to "defend" Israel

Jordan's position is they were merely "defending their airspace". I suspect they were told by both the US and Israel to "Defend your airspace or we will do it for you". Jordan will do so as long as they can get support for their F-16s, which is probably forever.

and how long are the UK and the USA willing to continue to burn through anti missle and drone inventories?  Does Iran have enough drones and cruise type missles to eventually saturate the Israeli defenses?

Good question. Nobody knows the answers yet, but we all may unfortunately find out. Israel has the capability to shoot down essentially all the drones and cruise missiles launched against it by using the IAF. They have an adequate AWACS system, although they greatly benefit from the "early warning" the US AWACS assets can give them and from the availability of tanker support. To do this the IAF would have to violate the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Saudi Arabia. They need "room to operate". If they get that, they will be fine against drones and cruise missiles. The operational tempo could, over time, grind them down. I doubt Iran has the resources to do that.

Against short-range ballistic missiles the Iron Dome and its successor work well, but they are also subject to saturation. IMO Iran has a better chance to at least locally run Israel out of reloads. It will take lots of missiles, but these missiles are very cheap and Hezbollah already has lots of them. Increasing that inventory significantly in the short term may be impossible because of "shipping" difficulties.

IMO the real danger is medium range ballistic missiles launched from Iran proper. As Israel has pointed out, their only defense is the Arrow system and that there is no "second shot" option if one misses/malfunctions. It is entirely possible that Iran can launch more such missiles than Israel can intercept. This is especially the case if Iran uses lots of cheap "decoys" that look like weapons but are just radar targets. It is even more possible that Iran can run Israel out of Arrow interceptors over a period of days. Of course, as that point approaches Israel will feel compelled to directly and kinetically attack the launchers and those that operate them. Not Good.

I think an Israeli attack on targets in Iran proper is probably a bridge too far.  Such an attack would probably trigger an expansion of the war. I don't see how Iran can maintain its standing in the anti Israel world if it allows such attack to go seriously unpunished. I fear our ability or willingness to give Israel a short leash is very weak.

IMO all true. Unfortunately IMO it may already be inevitable there will be a wider war. If Iran believes they "got away" with direct missile attacks on Israel they will inevitably repeat them somewhere down the road. Israel as a matter of "normal operation" kills Iranian Revolutionary Guard bigwigs whenever possible, even if not in "retaliation" for a particular Iranian action. Iran will "respond" again, and the second time will not be the charm. This mess needs to stop NOW, but it probably won't.

[Goose]

Getting both sides to agree to stand down from further attacks may well be very difficult. I fear that Israel is more likely to launch another attack simply due to who is running their country and we have never shown an absolutely willingness to cut off the money and weapons we provide.  we talk a good game but we don't play like we are serious.

Israel knows full well they are our only viable ally in the middle east. Threatening to "cut them off" isn't credible because doing so would cede a complete victory to Iran. They believe (correctly IMO) that we won't do that. There is a "red line" somewhere but it has been proven by experience it is very hard to cross. I believe the administration sent the right message by simply saying we wouldn't "participate" in a direct attack on Iran. Considering who is running Israel ATM it would be unwise to publicly "threaten" Israel. It would look like interfering in their "internal affairs" and would quite possibly "force" the government into doing exactly what we don't want them to do. This is especially true when they don't believe our threat anyway.

I think there is a great chance of a miscalculation by one side or the other. 

Totally agree. As you point out, the internal political situation in Israel doesn't give one lots of confidence in a "measured" response.

The fact that Iran and its "allies" launched so many weapons and so few go through may contribute to further miscalculation. How long is Jordan willing to "defend" Israel

Jordan's position is they were merely "defending their airspace". I suspect they were told by both the US and Israel to "Defend your airspace or we will do it for you". Jordan will do so as long as they can get support for their F-16s, which is probably forever.

and how long are the UK and the USA willing to continue to burn through anti missle and drone inventories?  Does Iran have enough drones and cruise type missles to eventually saturate the Israeli defenses?

Good question. Nobody knows the answers yet, but we all may unfortunately find out. Israel has the capability to shoot down essentially all the drones and cruise missiles launched against it by using the IAF. They have an adequate AWACS system, although they greatly benefit from the "early warning" the US AWACS assets can give them and from the availability of tanker support. To do this the IAF would have to violate the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Saudi Arabia. They need "room to operate". If they get that, they will be fine against drones and cruise missiles. The operational tempo could, over time, grind them down. I doubt Iran has the resources to do that.

Against short-range ballistic missiles the Iron Dome and its successor work well, but they are also subject to saturation. IMO Iran has a better chance to at least locally run Israel out of reloads. It will take lots of missiles, but these missiles are very cheap and Hezbollah already has lots of them. Increasing that inventory significantly in the short term may be impossible because of "shipping" difficulties.

IMO the real danger is medium range ballistic missiles launched from Iran proper. As Israel has pointed out, their only defense is the Arrow system and that there is no "second shot" option if one misses/malfunctions. It is entirely possible that Iran can launch more such missiles than Israel can intercept. This is especially the case if Iran uses lots of cheap "decoys" that look like weapons but are just radar targets. It is even more possible that Iran can run Israel out of Arrow interceptors over a period of days. Of course, as that point approaches Israel will feel compelled to directly and kinetically attack the launchers and those that operate them. Not Good.

I think an Israeli attack on targets in Iran proper is probably a bridge too far.  Such an attack would probably trigger an expansion of the war. I don't see how Iran can maintain its standing in the anti Israel world if it allows such attack to go seriously unpunished. I fear our ability or willingness to give Israel a short leash is very weak.

IMO all true. Unfortunately IMO it may already be inevitable there will be a wider war. If Iran believes they "got away" with direct missile attacks on Israel they will inevitably repeat them somewhere down the road. Israel as a matter of "normal operation" kills Iranian Revolutionary Guard bigwigs whenever possible, even if not in "retaliation" for a particular Iranian action. Iran will "respond" again, and the second time will not be the charm. This mess needs to stop NOW, but it probably won't.