Fabian Hoffmann@FRHoffmann1
Apr 14
11 tweets
Sharing some initial reflections here on the implications of last night's missile raid by Iran for the likelihood of a regional war, the role of nuclear weapons in Israel's deterrence posture, and the evolving technological landscape of modern warfare. 1/11
First, while the missile raid was targeted and calibrated in nature, it constituted a massive assault clearly intended to overwhelm Israel's missile defense system.
In my opinion, this was more comprehensive than what you would typically classify as a "signalling strike". 2/11
This puts Israel in a tough spot. From a deterrence and future bargaining perspective, not responding at all will be a difficult sell to decisionmakers.
But without US support, 
cannot sustain an effective air campaign against Iran and might face the prospect of defeat. 3/11
cannot sustain an effective air campaign against Iran and might face the prospect of defeat. 3/11 
Israel could, of course, risk a war and hope for US intervention, as an Israeli defeat would be highly disadvantageous from a US perspective.
The prospect of eventual nuclear use by Israeli could also play a role in getting the US to intervene. 4/11
In fact, the latter is a key reason why has nuclear weapons in the first place.
Israel's nuclear arsenal serves two main purposes:
1) Deter 'existential' threats to 's survival as a nation.
2) Compel outside (specifically US) intervention. 5/11
has nuclear weapons in the first place.
Israel's nuclear arsenal serves two main purposes:
1) Deter 'existential' threats to 's survival as a nation.
2) Compel outside (specifically US) intervention. 5/11If Israel were to face defeat in a conventional war, Israel would prepare for nuclear use and make these preparations visible to allies.
Nuclear weapons would act as a "catalyst," prompting US intervention to help resolve the regional conflict (politically or militarily). 6/11
Israel's nuclear weapons are not intended to deter any kind of conflict, and most certainly not the kind of missile raid we saw last night.
They are supposed to deter existential threats and help terminate wars before existential threats arise.
In the Middle East, but also beyond it, the local balance of power is almost always more deterministic of deterrence success and failure.
This is why Israel upholds a credible conventional deterrent, which includes a robust integrated air and missile defense system. 8/11
Talking about missile defense: Last night's attack was another strong reminder of how far we have come in terms of making ballistic missile defense effective.
The question no longer is "does it work?" but rather "can we make it cost-effective?". 9/11
Israel was able to defend this initial attack fairly well, but would likely struggle against consecutive follow-on attacks (similar to Ukraine).
As noted by @John Ridge 🇺🇸 🇺🇦, in a prolonged conflict, Israel would have to go after Iran's launchers. 10/11 twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/s
John Ridge 
@John_A_Ridge
Apr 14
View on Twitter
Absolutely malding. While its true Iran's inventory of ballistic missiles is larger than Israel's inventory of Arrow 2 and 3 interceptors, Israel is not going to standby and let Iran saturate their magazine depth.
They will begin targeting and neutralizing threats left of launch
Lastly, Iran's missile raid once again drives home the point that modern wars are missile wars.
Effective missile defense and credible counterstrike capabilities are crucial to deter adversaries.
The resistance of 
governments to acknowledge this fact is exasperating. 11/11
governments to acknowledge this fact is exasperating. 11/11
Fabian Hoffmann
@FRHoffmann1
Doctoral Research Fellow @NuclearOslo @UniOslo. Defense policy, missile technology, and nuclear strategy. Views are strictly my own. Speaks 🇬🇧🇩🇪🇫🇷.
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .