Raising to Crowd minus 10. I'm updating based on reporting from the Times of London and also their podcast here. If those tanks that are massing go in, there could likely be an "authorization of military steps" which would resolve this as Yes. Moving in to Lebanon does not necessarily mean a rerun of what's been happening in Gaza. It might be just clearing Hezbollah out from the belt of land in the southern area that was supposed to be demilitarized anyway.
-0.483828
Relative Brier Score
216
Forecasts
79
Upvotes
Forecasting Calendar
Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forecasts | 13 | 26 | 402 | 216 | 1138 |
Comments | 10 | 10 | 53 | 38 | 275 |
Questions Forecasted | 8 | 18 | 69 | 40 | 168 |
Upvotes on Comments By This User | 15 | 16 | 144 | 79 | 467 |
Definitions |
Why might you be wrong?
There's a scramble of last-minute diplomacy, especially from the United States, which does not want to see the conflict escalated, since the US is so tied in with Israel.
These are all close to zero in this timeframe.
Going up a little along with the Crowd. Often in forecasting, it's important to realize one's personal limitations and understand the wisdom of one's fellow forecasters.
At the moment, however, I'm maintaining under 50%. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 caused a lot of headaches, and then not to mention the 2-decade occupation of Lebanon before that. The IDF has just eased restrictions on residents of northern Israel; this is not something I would imagine they would do if a declaration of war/ground invasion were imminent. Also, it's important to note that Israel has been struggling with its image in the international community. This is something that may limit Israel's abilities to declare war with Hezbollah in the absence of a clear casus belli.
@johnnycaffeine , good info. The fact that the Israeli Home Front Command lifted restrictions in some northern Israel cities is significant. They have continued to strike "120 Hezbollah Targets" on Sunday (today), and caused "significant damage."
Why do you think you're right?
I have not seen anything yet that would cause me to want to go above the base rate. Djibouti was an easy win for China, and I'm just not sure another one is doable for them quite yet. The US recently used its softpower to deny China a base in Gabon:
The US move comes after what American officials say were Chinese attempts to establish a military training facility in the Atlantic coast nation, which US officials believe could serve as a precursor to a permanent base. The US maintains a sprawling network of military installations around the world — including in China’s backyard — but views any Chinese base on the Atlantic as a red line.
The package, which isn’t finalized, will be unveiled during a visit to the US by Gabonese interim President Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema in late September or early October, the people said. It will also include radar to help the country monitor illegal fishing, an expansion of its partnership with the West Virginia National Guard, and assistance with conservation in its national parks.
Why might you be wrong?
Tanzania and Mozambique are the next areas where China will make its attempt, according to Bloomberg:
While a Chinese military presence on Africa’s eastern seaboard would likely be less worrying for the US than Atlantic access, it would enhance China’s ability to project power into the Indian Ocean, as well as in the Middle East. The waters around southern and eastern Africa have also become more strategically significant as Houthi militant attacks on shipping in the Red Sea force many commercial vessels to sail around the southern tip of Africa.
China conducted trilateral military drills with the two countries last month.
However:
Tanzanian Defence Minister Stergomena Tax and Mozambican Transportation and Communications Minister Mateus Magala both said via text message that they’re unaware of any plans to build bases or station Chinese troops in their respective countries.
Why do you think you're right?
The Israelis are well aware that their ground incursion in Lebanon in 2006 was very difficult. Good history of it here, btw. That subject had to have come up many times in the war cabinet proceedings, that they don't want history to repeat. They don't want to fight Hezbollah in what one might call a "fair fight," where Hezbollah's fighters can do all sorts of ambushes and draw the IDF ground troops into various traps they've prepared. Plus the Israelis have had enough trouble in Gaza as it is.
And so, what has happened instead is they've used the Mossad and Israeli Air Force to wipe out much of Hezbollah in a low-risk manner. This tweet from Israel says it all.
So at this point, I would find it surprising if we saw a war declaration (or equivalent) like they did with Hamas. There is a method of forecasting where you go with weighing what outcomes would make you more surprised, so I'll go with that.
Why might you be wrong?
On the other hand, there are stories such as this from the Washington Post: Israeli troops on Lebanon border say they’re ready for ground invasion
So the option of a declaration of war and going in would also not be too surprising.
Moving this up to be closer to the Crowd, but to me it seems like Israel is taking out Hezbollah without a declaration of war, etc.
A lot of great points from the other forecasters, such as @DKC mentioning Cameroon, here.
A long-term base rate visualization is at VOA News. I haven't crunched the numbers, but from looking it, maybe 30%-35% of 6-month periods since the turn of the 21st century have had successful coups.
Good article here from WarOnTheRocks discussing various factors involved, which may boost that base rate, for example:
Moreover, the recent withdrawal of French and European troops, who had been at the forefront of counter-terrorism efforts in the region, coincides with the emergence of private military companies. These companies, operating with less transparency and accountability, may exacerbate the existing security vacuum. Simultaneously, the “reckless exploitation of natural resources” by external actors and corrupt local leaders threatens the region’s stability. This volatile combination is likely to foster increased instability, potentially leading to more coup attempts. Furthermore, such circumstances could inadvertently strengthen populist support for regimes that emerge in the aftermath of these coups.
There are also a ton of uncertainties (since it's not like we know what plots are underway). Also, it's notable that the resolution criteria require a successful coup. This is a strong argument for going with the long-term base rate; however, I want to nudge it upward due to factors such as the recent withdrawal of French and European troops.
Washington Post: Israel tells Washington it plans imminent ground operation in Lebanon, U.S. official says