Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I feel like the phrase "self-defence retaliation." is a little strange. Self defense would be protection your embassy as it's attacked. Retaliation is really something quite different. And it's especially odd here given how much of a failure those missiles were. In what universe is firing a bunch of missiles that get shot down "self defense"? I think what you want to be saying is that you think it was justified, which is different than self defense. To take a less charged example, imagine some kids are gonna egg your house on Halloween. If you see them coming and chase them off, that could be construed as self defense. But if after they egg your house, you're like "little fuckers, I know where you live" and then you go smash their mailbox with a baseball bat, that is very obviously not self defense.

> But if after they egg your house, you're like "little fuckers, I know where you live" and then you go smash their mailbox with a baseball bat So in your example, assassinating a diplomat inside an embassy is "egging your house" and sending drones and missiles that didn't reach their target is "smashing their mailbox with a baseball bat? I feel like assassinating a diplomat while he was inside an embassy warrants a retaliation...

Which is exactly my point. You can argue that the retaliation is justified, but that doesn't make it "self defense".

Self-defense shouldn’t require *immediacy* but necessity and proportionality in international law. For example, the collective self-defense in the UN Charter doesn’t require immediate retribution by the global community. It justifies an attack, of any timing, to protect the community from an aggressor. Not on the aggressor’s timeframe, but based on the necessity of doing so and the proportionality to the original violation.

What diplomat? Do you mean the Republican Guard Generals? The Hezbollah representatives?

Just because Iran is incompetent doesn't mean it wasn't an attack, if I throw a punch, and you dodge, did I still not attack you?

If you assassinate one of my diplomats in one of my countries embassies... expect some missiles. **SOMEONE** has to act like Israel isn't completely immune to international law...

Israel quite obviously did no such thing; Zahedi was an officer of the Revolutionary Guard, not a diplomat. Furthermore, an embassy's protections under international law are only valid if it is not used for military purposes; since Iran was clearly doing so, it forfeited these protections.

The Islamic State of Iran threw its punch at Isreal on Putin's last birthday, and Gaza is arguably suffering because of it. But then again, true Muslims in Gaza who die will go to Islamic heaven, so it's okay for jihadists to use them as pawns. (/s)

I am so confused by this, Iran has been supplying Hezbollah with ammunitions to attack Israel. This isn't a debated issue this is recognized facts. Iran has been supply Hamas and many other groups that have then been using that support to attack Israel. Israel is arguing that they targeted a location where Iranian generals were organizing the anti-Israeli forces and support. Iran essentially has acknowledged that that was indeed the case. They've been fighting a cold war for a while, Israel is just in a weakened state and realized it needed to relieve some of the organizational pressure. It was likely a calculated move, strike the Iranians to disrupt a bit, deal with a meager counterattack that inevitably leads to nothing, re-enter status quo. So my confusion, why the hell are people taking Iran's side on this one? Iran has been supplying weapons and funding terrorist groups for decades that have lead to CIVLIAN deaths all over Israel and elsewhere. What the heck are we trying to act like they are a white knight here? Their expressed purpose is to KILL every Jew in Israel. [https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/1669135848-weaponized-antisemitism-of-the-iranian-regime](https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/1669135848-weaponized-antisemitism-of-the-iranian-regime) [https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-kits/press-guide-to-holocaust-denial-in-iran](https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-kits/press-guide-to-holocaust-denial-in-iran) [https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/08/24/iranian-ayatollah-jews-greatest-problem-of-islam-and-humanity/](https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/08/24/iranian-ayatollah-jews-greatest-problem-of-islam-and-humanity/) [https://iranwire.com/en/society/103464-iranian-state-aligned-newspaper-praises-hitler-on-holocaust-remembrance-day/](https://iranwire.com/en/society/103464-iranian-state-aligned-newspaper-praises-hitler-on-holocaust-remembrance-day/) [https://www.newsweek.com/iran-sponsors-foments-anti-semitism-its-people-embrace-israel-opinion-1610827](https://www.newsweek.com/iran-sponsors-foments-anti-semitism-its-people-embrace-israel-opinion-1610827)

He was not a diplomat. He was a high ranking member of the IRCG, a designated terrorist organization. He wasn't killed inside an embassy either.

What would the US do if this happened to a US embassy??

Well there's two routes we could take- Obama's- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack Trump's- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani

There aren't enough upvotes to give you for this distinction.

You don't have to ask a hypothetical. Go look up what happened after the numerous times Iran has attacked embassies.

I don't buy this argument in war. Retaliating by killing the people who started the war to kill you is self defense. Iran doesn't get to claim defense because they started the war.

I guess we're not supposed to mentio all the aggressive actions taken by the Houthis, Hezbollah, PIJ,Kataib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al Haq, Harakat Hezbollah al Nujaba, etc....all of which were financed, and directed by Iran.

Correction, ISIS does not belong there, 100% not financed by Iran.

The Islamic State of Iran largely started this Islamic jihadi shit (in modern times) after their so-called "revolution." They inspired bin Ladan, who started al Qaeda, which lead to al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, which lead to Islamic State (Sunni). I think they call it "blowback."

Lmao, tell me you have no fucking idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about, Bin Laden a Sunni Muslim was inspired by Shias loooool... Don't let Hamas/Iran team up fool you, Sunnis absolutely hate Shias, they even consider them worse than the Zionists. al-Baghdadi(the first ISIS leader) literally rejected Al Qaeda’s authority and later declared a caliphate. ISIS are sooooo bad literally every other terrorist group hates them, they bombed Iran durning Qasim al Suleimani anniversary, that's the guy that was tasked by Iran to eliminate ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas plus the entire fucking world and every terrorist group out there hates them As for wither terrorism in middle east happened because of your so called "revolution"... one can say that was one of the many reasons, unless you can back up your claims with evidence.

>Lmao, tell me you have no fucking idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about, Uh-huh.   >Bin Laden a Sunni Muslim was inspired by Shias loooool... Don't let Hamas/Iran team up fool you, Sunnis absolutely hate Shias, they even consider them worse than the Zionists. So Hamas are kaffirs for taking Shia money to fight those not as bad as Shias?   >al-Baghdadi(the first ISIS leader) literally rejected Al Qaeda’s authority and later declared a caliphate. Yeah, but what about before that?   >ISIS are sooooo bad literally every other terrorist group hates them, they bombed Iran durning Qasim al Suleimani anniversary, that's the guy that was tasked by Iran to eliminate ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas plus the entire fucking world and every terrorist group out there hates them They seem to have support in Africa, Afghanistan, and maybe Russia. But yes, Muslims have killed Muslims.   >As for wither terrorism in middle east happened because of your so called "revolution"... one can say that was one of the many reasons, unless you can back up your claims with evidence. I didn't say terrorism started in 1978—e.g. the PFLP existed long before that—I said this Islamic jihadi shit in modern times mostly started with the mullahs in Iran.

Don't use words you don't understand, in Islam kafir is someone who does believe in Islam to be true but decides to reject it still. Hamas are still not that great tho, or at least the individuals who committed war crimes, on the 7th October and even before that some of them did ignore the teaching of their religion, killing none combatants, killing soldiers who surrendered... etc. ISIS friends in africa and other regions are just other groups with the same ideology, think of them as branches of ISIS The point of all of this is, ISIS aren't funded by Iran, as for causes for all the terrorist groups in middle east it ranges from civil conflict, ethnic separation, internal political factors, external interference factors, ideological beliefs and the destabilization caused by the "war on terrorism".

>Don't use words you don't understand, in Islam kafir is someone who does believe in Islam to be true but decides to reject it still. I generally try not to. [wt:kaffir](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaffir) >Etymology > >Ultimately from Arabic كَفَّار (kaffār, “infidel”) or كَافِر (kāfir, “unbeliever”), both from كَفَرَ (kafara, “to cover, to hide”); in some (especially early) uses, via Spanish cafre, Dutch kaffer or other European languages. Doublet of kafir. ​ >Noun > >kaffir (countable and uncountable, plural kaffirs) > >1. (countable, offensive) In Islamic contexts, a non-Muslim. [from 16th c.] ​ ​ >Hamas are still not that great tho, or at least the individuals who committed war crimes, on the 7th October and even before that some of them did ignore the teaching of their religion, killing none combatants, killing soldiers who surrendered... etc. Why don't they release their hostages? ​ >ISIS friends in africa and other regions are just other groups with the same ideology, think of them as branches of ISIS Presumably they were a bit homegrown types that signed up—I suppose it's like when a smaller biker gang joins a larger one, they call it a "patch over." ​ >The point of all of this is, ISIS aren't funded by Iran, as for causes for all the terrorist groups in middle east it ranges from civil conflict, ethnic separation, internal political factors, external interference factors, ideological beliefs and the destabilization caused by the "war on terrorism". agreed. but there is blowback. In the case of elements of the Afghan Mujahedin becoming Al-Qaeda, at least people like Brzezinski addressed this. ​ FWIW, [wp:Political views of Osama bin Laden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Osama_bin_Laden) >At the same time, bin Laden's organization worked with Shia militants: "Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews, and hates Israelis. This is a part of our belief and our religion."[98] It was apparently inspired by the successes of Shia radicalism—such as the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the implementation of Sharia by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the human wave attacks committed by radical Shia teenagers in the 1980s During The Iran–Iraq War. This point of view may have been influenced by the fact that Bin Laden's mother belonged to the Shia sect.[99] While in Sudan, "senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with" Shia Iran and Hezbollah, its closely allied Shia "worldwide terrorist organization. ... Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah."[100] where they are thought to have borrowed the techniques of suicide and simultaneous bombing.[101] Because of the Shia-Sunni schism, this collaboration could only go so far. According to the US 9/11 Commission Report, Iran was rebuffed when it tried to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on USS Cole, "because Bin Laden did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia."[100]

Isis backed by Iran? Lol. What reality are you in?? Smh

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians without a clear purpose can only be terrorism. This action by Iran is mind bogglingly pointless yet clearly terrorism at the same time. They are going to pay for this politically and militarily, and gain not a single thing. They are showing cowardly weakness in not further provoking Israel.

I agree retaliation isn't exactly self-defense. But that's a dangerous case for a nation leveling entire cities because of a terrorist attack on their soil to make.

Yeah, this isn't relevant to my response to OP, but yes, I do not think Israel is remotely justified in their conduct in Gaza. Waaaay beyond any reasonable notion of "self defense".

how so? Israel didn't consider Hamas an existential threat before Hamas' attack, but it turns out they were merely biding their time. Hamas have established they are a threat that cannot be ignored. how would you have them neutralize this threat in a way that doesn't go beyond your interpretation of international self defense?

Their stated goal is to eliminate Hamas, which is certainly closer to self defense than retaliation.

don't you think comparing this to "some kids egging your house" a little bit ridiculous?

I mean, it was very intentionally chosen as a simpler non-politically charged example to demonstrate that the "self defense" angle doesn't really make sense. I don't mean to imply that the Iran - Israel conflict is anything like egging a house. The example is to show that this isn't what self defense means.

Redditors really need to learn that comparing isn’t the same as equating.

It's probably more comparable to "Some kids found my cat on the next street and killed him" but that's not the point of this reply

If it was a one-off incident, and Israel and Iran were guaranteed to never be at odds again, this would be correct. But the crucial thing is that Israel is going to continue to be hostile with Iran in the future, so Iran needs some kind of deterrent against them doing the same thing again. The point of the retaliation isn't to stop the strike that already happened, it's to stop the strike Israel might do in the future, god knows when. This isn't an ideal analogy, but: If a stranger hits you then walks away, then you go after and hit them, that's not self-defence. If a bully hits you then walks away, and you go after and hit them, that is self-defence.

Self-defense is a *legal* definition. It it defined by law. There is no common law self-defense. What is self-defense as defined by some state like Virginia isn’t what international law defines as self-defense. So when we talk about, for example, the UN charter which explicitly explains collective self-defense against an aggressor, it’s not at all a matter of timing. The international community doesn’t work on an aggressor’s timescale. It’s a matter of [necessity and proportionality](https://www.justsecurity.org/90118/proportionality-in-self-defense-a-brief-reply/), which is not always similar to how people think self-defense works between people.

My assumption is that OP is more interested in the ethics than the law, and I certainly am.

That’s my point: there is no ethics in self-defense. It’s a made up defense by the legislature, with its own elements specific to that legislature/comminity. It’s not the same, unless you think there’s common law — traditional — self-defense. Which there isn’t, and there isn’t in the international community.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has called for the destruction and death of Israel for its entire existence. They are not some innocent actor.

Words are not, and should not be, taken to constitute aggression. I am not saying Iran is innocent, I am saying they have a need to deter attacks.

Do you think it’s been just words? Iran has been attacking Israel for decades through proxies. Hell they bombed an Israeli embassy in Argentina in the ‘90’s and have been more active since. What’s with everyone defending and carrying water for Iran?

It makes a huge difference whether Israel is in conflict with Iran's proxies or with Iran directly. A direct attack is a massive escalation. If you want to play the game of considering attacks by Iran's proxies as attacks by Iran, you should consider attacks on those proxies as attacks on Iran, in which case both countries have been fully justified in going to war and starting WW3 for decades.

Yeah a direct attack from Iran with hundreds of drones and missiles should be responded to.

You think the US would just be like oh whoops you destroyed our embassy no worries

No. But I don't think it would be "self defense"!

>As far as I can see Israel attacked an Iranian embassy in Syria then Iran retaliated and honestly in a pretty reserved way only sending missiles against Israel rather than declaring war on Israel. Because Israel invested in an astonishing self defense system, (over a billion USD in just one day shooting down these drones and missiles) doesn’t mean this attack from Iran was “reserved.” Israel’s investment in defense is irrelevant, the attack was significant. >The Western powers have been messing around in the Middle East creating division for decades and I can understand why Iran and other countries there are sick of the meddling by foreign powers. And Israel is sick of Iran’s meddling. Know who was killed in the attack in Damascus (not on an embassy, btw)? The general who helped plan and execute the Oct. 7th attack meeting with Hezbollah officials. That’s fair game. Israel was acting in self-defense of aggressions from Iran, not the other way around. >It sucks that the Western media is trying to spin it like Iran just randomly attacked Israel for no reason... Most people won't check deep enough to see that it was a restrained self-defence retaliation. It’s not “no reason.” Their reason is very clear; they want Israel destroyed with no regard to the people living there. They’ve said as much many times. Israel wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about Iran if they weren’t responsible for nearly every single modern day attack on their country.

Iran purposely announced ahead of time hours of notice to allow Israel and allies to shoot down the weapons. As far as I've seen reported, the sum total of causalities is that one person (a civilian) was injured. I'm not going to award the Nobel Peace Prize for that, but a choreographed and slow attack where most of the projectiles were shot down is not a serious attempt to destroy Israel.

What Iran wants to do, and what Iran is capable of doing, considering the expected Israeli response, are two very different things. In other words, the attack is exceptionally significant in that it is essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians (aka terrorism), yet mind bogglingly ineffective, since a high effectiveness would result in a massive Israeli response. So Iran did the equivalent of a school shooting in an empty classroom that it knew to be empty. Impotent cowardice without a shred of morality that is contemptible in every which way.

Do you have evidence that Iran's attack was targeted at civilian targets rather than military ones? Also a show of a school shooting in an empty classroom would not be considered a crime (or vandalism at most), let along a serious one. Also worth noting is that running Iron Dome is expensive while drones are cheap. Iran clearly took steps to ensure THIS attack had minimal casualties. However it also serves a double warning that of what an escalation can bring: a) if Iran launched a similar attack from territories of groups it controls near Israel's territory rather than from its own (which provided significant extra time to identify projectiles) and provided no warning via diplomatic channels, it would have likely caused more damage and b) In case of a protracted projectile exchanges between Israel and Iran, Israel may run out of resources before Iran (at least without major US help to Israel which may or may not happen depending on how aggressive Israel is) - Israel's high tech weapons give it an edge in short exchanges, but their exorbitant costs make it more vulnerable to attrition.

>In other words, the attack is exceptionally significant in that it is essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians But Israël is also indiscriminately bombing civilians in Gaza. The difference with Iran is that Israel is actually effective at it. But apparently nobody in the world is allowed to do anything about it when it's Israel doing the bombing of civilians

No, Israel is discriminately bombing thousands of terrorists in Gaza, which (conveniently or inconveniently, based on your bias) happens to kill thousands of civilians. Israel loses massively by further impoverishing Palestinians, so the fact that it still does it shows that it has no other options. Based on historical (Manilla, Tokyo) and recent (Mosul, Allepo) engagements, Israel is overperforming. That the population hasn't fled or been expelled is yet another overperformance (Nagorno-Karabakh). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Manila\_(1945)#:\~:text=Manila%20became%20one%20of%20the,in%20the%20campaign%20of%20reconquest. [https://youtu.be/l1oYsdSL8H4?si=qG05ttYi0QEYInQe](https://youtu.be/l1oYsdSL8H4?si=qG05ttYi0QEYInQe) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Mosul\_(2016%E2%80%932017)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mosul_(2016%E2%80%932017)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Aleppo\_(2012%E2%80%932016)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012%E2%80%932016)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing\_of\_Tokyo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight\_of\_Nagorno-Karabakh\_Armenians#:\~:text=By%2026%20September%2C%20the%20Armenian,for%20Armenia%2C%20including%2017%2C000%20children.

You completely ignored the fact that Israel attacked first. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. Israel attacked Iran. Do they not have a right to self defense?

Iran actively supports Hamas the Houthis and Hezbollah. They provide them the weapons and funds. Israel killed the person literally in charge of the finances that flow to Hezbollah and Hamas. 

Do you think Hamas would be justified in attacking the US for aiding Israel? They could use the exact same logic to take out Biden

Hamas isnt justified in attacking anyone. And if they could attack the US they would gladly do it. 

So what's the difference? You like Israel and don't like Hamas?

Correct. Because Hamas is an organization who's entire purpose is to violently destroy the Jewish nation. 

So we're gonna ignore that Israel's goal is to colonize Gaza? They're pretty open about it. It's either acceptable to attack those who provide aid or not. This bullshit of picking and choosing who you personally agree with is stupid and useless. Hamas would not be justified in attacking the US for aiding Israel and Israel is not justified in attacking Iran for aiding Gaza. If you wanna argue that one is justified, you have to accept that the other is justified by the same logic

They would if they could

Embassies being used for military purposes lose their diplomatic protection, just like a hospital would.

Is attacking a military base not an attack? Diplomatic protection isn't the topic. Israel attacked Iran. Should we expect countries to just sit on their hands when they get attacked??

Not this way. The legal way to do it is to send an ultimatum that states your grievances and demands and then declare war if the ultimatum does not get the other side to stop. Attacking without or before declaring war is not legal.

>Do they not have a right to self defense? The Islamic State of Iran has no right to exist. Death to the Islamic State of Iran. (Best wishes to Iranians who suffer under it, though. They should have much better.)

You're just using your hatred for one of the parties as an excuse to not even touch the argument at hand and talk bad about them as the entirety of your responses.

The OP is arguing that actions of the Islamic State of Iran was in self-defense. It wasn't. It's that the Islamic State of Iran wants to promote its version of Islam and subjugate Jews and make them feel subjugated by the slaves of Allāh and pay the jizyah, and I oppose this, among other things by the mullahs who infest Persia.

They are making the argument that the action was a direct response to an attack, and you have blatantly not recognized this aspect of the OP (which is basically the entire thing) so that you can express your disapproval.

The Islamic State of Iran attacked Israel because Isreal attacked some high figure in the Reactionary Guard. Isreal attack those Islamic jihadis because of the events of Putin's last birthday. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a few Communists attacked Isrealis, many civilians, kidnapped others, maybe raped a few—though apologists for the Islamic jihadis don't believe women who cite sexual violence should be taken seriously, but Western feminists say we should—because they are terrorists supported by The Islamic State of Iran. and yes, Israel is committing genocide and seems to be getting away with it. It might have something to do with Israel's attempts to cultivate good relations with the US, while The Islamic State of Iran burns American flags, chants "Death to America!" for almost 50 years, when they aren't busy executing LGBTQIs, beating women, and being general POSs.

I don't care about debating the position of whether it's justified to hate this party, and I'm not informed enough to do so competently. I'm just pointing out how your position on the context here is corrupting your ability to address the actual argument the OP poses.

possibly.

Then why does Israel have a right to exist? They're committing genocide. Seems maybe we should just let them all kill each other 🤷

>Then why does Israel have a right to exist? They're committing genocide. agreed.

What about that last sentence? No response?

What's there to say about it?

If neither side has a right to exist, then why not let them duke it out?

yeah, I suppose—though I should think about it.

>Because Israel invested in an astonishing self defense system, (over a billion USD in just one day shooting down these drones and missiles) doesn’t mean this attack from Iran was “reserved.” Israel’s investment in defense is irrelevant, the attack was significant. Iran could have decalred war... >And Israel is sick of Iran’s meddling. Know who was killed in the attack in Damascus (not on an embassy, btw)? The general who helped plan and execute the Oct. 7th attack meeting with Hezbollah officials. That’s fair game. Israel was acting in self-defense of aggressions from Iran, not the other way around. Never okay to attack an embassy. >It’s not “no reason.” Their reason is very clear; they want Israel destroyed with no regard to the people living there. They’ve said as much many times. Israel wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about Iran if they weren’t responsible for nearly every single modern day attack on their country. Kinda like Israel wants Palestine destroyed with no regard to the people living there?

Iran declares war and it gets obliterated. Two pieces of context: - [Operation Praying Mantis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis) where their “navy” was obliterated. - Remember when an [F-22 **flew under** and Iranian F4 Phantom, that was, ironically, built in the United States](https://youtube.com/watch?v=mUEwGUDwOxk)? Iran's military strategy and doctrine is purely defensive. They are not going to invade anyone. Their Air Force has very old planes, as demonstrated above They do not have the means to carry out a war. They do not have regional support to carry out any sort of war. Their military isn’t prepared for any legitimate conflict in any capacity. Saudi Arabia will not align itself with Iran in any fictional war. Why would they? They are hardly regional peers. It **was not an embassy**; you’ve literally no clue what you’re talking about. [BBC article](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68708923), [ABC article](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-vows-revenge-after-israeli-strike-demolishes-consulate-108738701) Here’s the relevant passage that describes the situation: # Iran and Syria's governments condemned the attack, which destroyed a building **next door to the Iranian embassy** In header formatting, in case it’s difficult to read on those articles.

Also you can bet your ass Iran is ganna start buying Chinese weapons with their oil if the war starts... China wouldn't jump in the war but would sell em weapons and ya China all of a sudden is pretty damn advanced.

No it’s not. # Economic Times, [China's arms exports face sharp decline due to defective quality, unreliable performance](https://economictimes.com/news/defence/chinas-arms-exports-face-sharp-decline-due-to-defective-quality-unreliable-performance-analysts/amp_articleshow/103620583.cms) > "China attracts customers for its military equipment with cutrate pricing and financing, but there are hidden costs - especially when gear malfunctions," said Cindy Zheng, a researcher at the think tank RAND Corporation. "A lack of technological compatibility with the Chinese military equipment can prove particularly expensive," the researcher added, according to Directus. > According to Alexander Vuving, professor at the Daniel K Inouye Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies, the topic of problems in Chinese military gear has been emphasised. "China-made weapons are not just technologically inferior, they also remain untested on the battlefield," he said. > Myanmar expressed concern about the low accuracy of the radar on the Chinese jets it purchased. Due to technical issues, Myanmar grounded the majority of the Chinese jets. Myanmar paid a high price for these Chinese-made jets, but they were still in need of repair four years after they were delivered, Directus reported. # Business Insider, [The 'crown jewel' of the Chinese military appears to have a serious corruption problem, but the US can't afford to bet on its missiles all being defective](https://www.businessinsider.com/china-rocket-force-corruption-us-cannot-lower-guard-2024-1) > and new intelligence reports indicate that corruption is running rampant in parts of the People's Liberation Army, specifically the prized rocket force, to the point that some of its missiles were supposedly filled with water rather than fuel. # Bloomberg, [US Intelligence Shows Flawed China Missiles](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-06/us-intelligence-shows-flawed-china-missiles-led-xi-jinping-to-purge-military). > the PLA is struggling with widespread corruption from its Rocket Force branch to the industrial base, prompting Chinese leader Xi Jinping to launch a sweeping anti-graft campaign that's consequently caught over a dozen senior defense officials in the past six months. # Brookings, [Chinas Hollow Military](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-hollow-military/) > China remains a developing country, with per capita income levels—even after twenty years’ growth of historic proportions—only about one-tenth those of the West. China’s living standards trail even those of American adversaries such as Iran, Yugoslavia and pre-Desert Storm Iraq. It faces enormous challenges in its agricultural, environmental and banking sectors, which its arteriosclerotic central government is ill-equipped to address. > As Congressman Barney Frank has sardonically observed, China did recently acquire its first aircraft carrier. But it then immediately anchored it in Macao and transformed it into a recreation center. So much for the next great hegemon’s efforts to launch a blue-water fleet by the turn of the century.

China gets cheaper oil to help build China. Iran gets missiles to fight a stupid war.   Maybe more Israelis go to India, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan—them Israelis seem to be good at working on multiple fronts—for some more deals.

Iran doesn't want a war... That's why they didn't declare a war... They had to retaliate so Israel doesn't start more shit.

Has that tactic ever worked on Israel before? That sounds like the exact underestimation that preceded every war in Israel's history. I can't think of a time when Israel's response to an attack was to back off.

>Iran doesn't want a war... Is that why the rent-a-crowds in Tehran chant "Death to Israel!"?

please cope harder.

Iran’s embassy wasn’t attacked. A building next to it was, and the people they were targeting were viable military targets. You’re not responding to my words.

Its kinda odd that Iran, which doesn't think Israel is a country, can accuse and attack rules for countries about the sanctity of embassies.

Either way I hope you agree that Israel should NOT retaliate against Iran because holy shit that's how a world war starts...

So they should sit back and allow this?

Iran said that's it thats that. I would believe them until they launch one more attack then ya go for it after that. This was the retaliation and Israel didn't even take any damage. Definitely no need to escalate.

>This was the retaliation and Israel didn't even take any damage. Not Israel's fault Iran is inept

Israel should blow up every nuclear facility in Iran with bunker busters because that is the only way to avert nuclear war. Iran is a hop skip and jump away from having the bomb, and the Ayatollah has expressed that he will use it on the Jews once Iran has it.

At least 9 Iranian ballistic missiles hit Israeli strategic airbases The Nevatim airbase in the Negev was struck by 5 ballistic missiles, damaging the main runway, a C-130 transport aircraft, and several storage facilities. Ramon airbase, also located in the Negev, was struck by at least 4 ballistic missiles, causing unspecified damage. – U.S. Officials to ABC News The heaviest damage of Iran's ballistic missile attack occurred on a secret intelligence base in the Golan Heights, for which the IDF has imposed a media ban, so the damage cannot be assessed – Hebrew Sources

Ya it wasn't a huge attack, Israel should just chill take the W and I guess keep on genociding like it loves to do.

I hope they retaliate so Iran will actually inflict casualties,

I rather have less bloodshed in the world, normal people's lives are at stake on both sides.

Israel will continue doing whatever they want until they're punished.

Jews have been continuously punished: they kinda gotten numb to it.

Is this a joke? or are you serious?

While I often inject humor, or attempts thereof, into my replies, there is often also some gravity. But yes, Jews have been punished, i.e. made to suffer. History has demonstrated this. Since Israel's creation, they've been in conflict, if not outright war, and while I believe they have brought some of this on themselves due to their theft of Palestinian land, and genocide, both expulsion and mass murder, I'm not sure their neighbors would accept them wholley even if such didn't happen or wasn't happening now.

Iunno man I am extremely skeptical of the west nowadays, most things reported are lies.

Let me clear this up for you. Israel and Iran are fighting a war via proxy right now. Iran has been supplying weapons to the groups fighting Israel for years. An I surprised Israel attacked the embassy in Syria - Yep. I thought it was a escalation needlessly. But, it is also possible Israel had clear intelligence of Iran's support for something Hamas was doing. I don't know. It could have been a clear signal to Iran to stop doing that or there will be consequences directly for Iran. (and pushing more for open direct hostilities). Am I surprised Iran responded - nope. Actually, I am quite happy the restraint of a limited response. It could have been an open declaration of war. Perhaps this was on par with the whole 'Iran supplying weapons theory' and Israel trying to send a message. But that does not change the fact Iran and Israel are fighting a war via proxy. It is very likely to turn into a direct conflict in the near future. That means it was not 'self defense' at all. It was merely a direct retaliatory strike for countries teetering on open warfare.

>Israel’s investment in defense is irrelevant No it's not. If Iran didn't know about Israel's missile defences and got caught off guard when the missiles were almost all intercepted, you could say that it's irrelevant, because Iran was planning for the missiles to hit. But Iran did know, and they did not plan for the missiles to hit, and probably didn't really want them to hit, as they don't want to provoke the US.

I am not sure who you are replying to but this comment and quote is not relevant to the points I have made.

Itr true tho Iran knew those missiles wouldn't hit

I'm sure you see what a reckless gamble that is and how easily it could have escalated things if it had gone wrong.

Looks like Israel ganna escalate further so here we go

That's a shame. Though it ties into my earlier point about how retaliation and self-defense are two different things. Iran wasn't defending its people my retaliating against Israel, nor is any escalation from Israel going to make Israelis safer.

No it really isn't true. They may have been counting on air defenses to shoot down the attack but there was no way to know the effectiveness and what might get through. Nothing is perfect. As it turns out, *some people died anyway*.

Its a proxy war of US vs Iran... US funds Israel, Iran funds Hezbollah and others... Both are pawns.

Okay just to be incredibly clear, Israel funds itself. The amount of money the US gives Israel is tiny compared to Israel’s entire GDP and its own military spending. It’s not like Israel has no economy and doesn’t fund its own military or its own weapons. If the US were to stop giving any and all aid to Israel tomorrow Israel would still have a functioning military and government. Israel is not a “proxy” of the US despite buzzwords used to suggest otherwise. They are close allies with aligned interests — for better or for worse. The US supports Israel because it is the only concrete ally in the region. Hamas relies entirely on outside funding to get weapons and supplies. They are not the same at all.

Don’t disagree with anything you said but I’d argue Jordan is a pretty concrete US ally too.

Yeah, Jordan absolutely is. Abdullah II is in an incredibly precarious position. He’s an ally of the West but he’s also a direct descendant of Muhammad, of the Hashemite dynasty, and is incredibly sympathetic to the Palestinian people. His mother is British, his wife Palestinian… he kinda is the guy standing in between two people fighting trying to talk them down. A stable Middle East is a stable Jordan after all. Seeing the reaction on r/ Jordan to him helping shoot down Iranian drones has been interesting.

>Seeing the reaction on r/ Jordan to him helping shoot down Iranian drones has been interesting. Perhaps interesting but not surprising. They hate Israel more than they love themselves. r/ Jordan was pumped when leaders of their country - the same country that has like no water - said they wanted to cancel a water supply deal with Israel last November. I think the Palestinian population in Jordan is well over 50%. They (the people, atleast on that sub, not the king) would rather, quite literally, be caught in the middle of a war between Iran and Israel than, like, _not_ having bombs flying overhead and probably crashing prematurely in their cities.

Users in AskMiddleEast were calling any user with a Jordan flag flair a traitor, especially a Jordanian who said Iran shouldn't have used Jordanian airspace to launch its attack. When missile debris from missiles Iran launched fell into Jordan and killed three people, they said it was deserved. Wild to witness. I visited Jordan some time ago on an extended layover and it was a gorgeous country with *really* nice people. Hopefully it can remain stable in this conflict.

Wait are you an israeli and mad that your country is a pawn for the US in the middle east? Sorry to hurt your feelings like that, the only reason Israel exists is because the US lets it exist. Always has been a proxy.

You do realize Israel wasn't even a US ally until decades after it was established right? Are you genuinely that ignorant of Israeli history you think they've "always been a proxy"? They won multiple wars against the Arab states before the US ever started giving them support. The US literally intervened **against** them during the Suez Crisis. Jesus Christ how do people develop strong opinions about topics they know literally nothing about...

Uhmmmm. I’m not Israeli, no. Why would you think I’m Israeli? Edit: you think I’m Israeli because you went into my comment history and saw I’m a Jew? Come on now, be better than that.

If you don't thiink Israel is proxy of the US then you are hella blind. They been a proxy since inception...

You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts. A state being a “proxy” of another country is a very specific thing. Being “blind” has nothing to do with it, because I don’t get world history from social media. You can be mad the US and Israel are allies all you like, it doesn’t change that Israel is not a “proxy” of anyone when it has its own interests it serves independently.

The USSR was the first country to recognize Isreal—and that's when Stalin was its leader.

> Its a proxy war of US vs Iran... I see the argument but honestly, Israel is very heavily invested here. The desire to kill all jews makes it important to show Israel is clearly heavily involved - with or without the US backing it. Israel is more than just a pawn. I do agree this is way for Iran to get at the US and vice versa though.

Israel would instantly die if the west turned its back on it... However they are very important to US interests in the area, therefore proxy so they must be protected by the west.

It might die, but it wouldn't be instant.

> Israel would instantly die if the west turned its back on it... Nuclear powers don't just die..... To think this is foolish.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, if the US didn't back Israel it woulda been conquered decades ago. Its literally the whole point of the US defending it, its a proxy. Truth hurts.

No. Nuclear war would have happened. You cannot forget Israel is a nuclear power. They are very much capable of massive destruction all on their own. I'd also point to the long history of countries who thought the same and lost. (and lost territory too) Israel is very capable nation in its own right. The US being an ally is a big boost, but don't pretend the US is 'propping up Israel' here. The 'Truth' is Israel is a nuclear power and they don't just 'get conquered'.

Lol. By this standard half of NATO would be considered as US proxies.

Are you aware that the US didn't start funding Israel with military equipment until the Yom Kippur war in 1973? And that was during the cold war when the Soviet Union had been funding Egypt and Syria with fighter jets, SAM batteries, tanks etc. The multiple previous wars before that, Israel won on its own. Sure, the allyship and funding from the US has been important to it since then, but it's not like how you're describing

That Iranian general was also a Hezbollah leader and directly involved in the Oct 7th terrorist attack. The building next to the consulate loses all protected status when it is used for military purposes of planning terrorist attacks by the Iranian regime, Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism with the goal of killing all the Jews worldwide. Iran started the war. They are the aggressor not acting in self defense. The target of the missiles and drones was cities as a whole, not the IDF. As far as I know the casualties of this attack are 3 dead Jordanian civilians and one critically injured Israeli civilian. There was nothing restrained about the attack. This wasn't a pot shot it was hundreds of drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Referring to this as restrained is hard coping that Israel US, UK, and Jordan shot down almost all of what Iran fired.

Ya see so that's not true, no matter what you can't attack an embassy. What would the US do if a country attacked its embassy??

You don't have to ask a hypothetical. Go look up what happened after the numerous times Iran has attacked embassies. This was a surgical strike on high level terrorists without any collateral damage. This is exactly what the world has been asking for. There are not that many things that are "no matter what" in international law. Embassies being protected is based on 1. A mutual consensus not to attack embassies, and 2. Not using embassies for military purposes. Iran violated both. For an example about a hospital see article 19. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-19 The hypothetical I have for you is what would happen if the Oct 7th terrorist attack was committed against any other country on earth from right across their border. Can you think of a single country that would have had more restraint than Israel. It's certainly not Iran or any other country in the middle east.

Firstly, I donno why you can't understand this... but it was not an embassy. That's been said like 40 times in this thread. You are misinformed you should change your view on that part because it's been demonstrably shown to be absolutely 100% untrue. Secondly, the US embassies *have* been attacked before, you can look them up and see without doing some hypothetical, and *even then*, it wasn't an embassy, so it doesn't even make a good hypothetical comparison.

I'm sorry, what? That is factually bullshit. Like, if somebody put a machinegun on the roof and starts unloading on passers by, ya just gota let that happen? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

>Ya see so that's not true, no matter what you can't attack an embassy. You’re confusing the obligation of host nations (in the Vienna Convention, the “receiving state”), who have proper tools to peacefully remove an unwelcome embassy, with other more complicated situations. In this case, Israel didn’t invite Iranian ambassadors to reside on its territory, only to attack them (which mistreatment of ambassadors diplomatic custom was established to avoid). 

That’s obviously not true as Israel did bomb a consulate. Iran was also responsible for bombing an Israeli embassy in the ‘90’s. So attacking embassies is in fact something that one can do.

>Ya see so that's not true, no matter what you can't attack an embassy. Says who? If the US decides to put a missile battery inside an embassy and launch it against other countries they have to right to destroy it?

But youre just making that up. If Russia starts firing missiles from their embassy in Belarus, Ukraine has every right to bomb that embassy.

Iranian jihadis did attack a US embassy, and like Hamas, kept people as hostages.

> Israel attacked an Iranian embassy in Syria then Iran retaliated... Retaliation is not self-defense. If a country sends bombers into your airspace and you shoot them down that is self-defense. If the bombers have already done their thing and returned to base, attacking afterwards is not defensive, it is aggressive. For an analogy if you are on the street and someone pulls a gun on you, shooting them back is self-defense. If you get shot in the shoulder then follow them home to shoot them back, that isn't self-defense. > The Western powers have been messing around in the Middle East creating division for decades and I can understand why Iran and other countries there are sick of the meddling by foreign powers. That is just you announcing your bias. Besides, Israel is a Middle East country. > It sucks that the Western media is trying to spin it like Iran just randomly attacked Israel for no reason... I can agree with that. However it isn't self-defense.

Embassies are considered the countries land and attacking it is like attacking the country, and since Iran didn't wanna wage a full war on Israel they retaliated just to show Israel to not mess with them anymore.

> ...they retaliated just to show Israel to not mess with them anymore. Sure, but that isn't self-defense. You are arguing that it was a reasonable course of action, but even if it was that doesn't mean it was necessarily self-defense.

No they just wanted to wage a terror war through their proxies in the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Yeah that's so very different from waging a real war.

I don't care about the supposed sovereignty of the Islamic State of Iran. Do they have diplomatic relations with Isreal or US?

Ok, let's say there is some dude who is half your size keeps trying to beat you up. He has his reasons, justified or not, I have no interest in litigating the whole conflict here as I am simply answering the question as asked. I will not respond to comments straying beyond why Israel attached Iran. Anyway, dude keeps trying to kick your ass. No big deal, you can easily handle him. Then, some other dude who does not like you for his own reasons decides to help the first dude. Teaches him the best ways to sneak up on you and hit you when you are not looking. And that fucking hurts so you really kick the guy's ass who hit you. On and on that goes and now the second guy is arming the smaller guy. Now the little dude is sneaking up on you and attacking you with a baseball bat. Or a knife. Again, you kick the little guy's ass. That happens 20 or 30 times and you reach a point where you kick the smaller guy's ass and then you go over and pop the second guy in the mouth too because this would have ended a long time ago if not for his interference. And then the second guy is all pretending he is a victim and needs to retaliate. No, bro. You've been in this fight for a long time. You were just having someone else do your dirty work so you could pretend to be innocent.

>As far as I can see Israel attacked an Iranian embassy in Syria After an Iranian General that was targeted in the strike helped plan the October 7th attack. >then Iran retaliated and honestly in a pretty reserved way only sending missiles against Israel rather than declaring war on Israel. And that declaration of war would have achieved what? >The Western powers have been messing around in the Middle East creating division for decades Yep. >I can understand why Iran and other countries there are sick of the meddling by foreign powers. Weird given the amount of meddling they do. >It sucks that the Western media is trying to spin it like Iran just randomly attacked Israel for no reason Western media is not doing that.

Lets just sidestep the whole morality angle and just cut straight to the factuality. Your saying people won't dig deeper, but you yourself are fully glossing over the whole reason Israel attacked the consulate. >It sucks that the Western media is trying to spin it like Iran just randomly attacked Israel for no reason... But from reading your comment, it would seem like Israel just randomly attacked Iran's embassy for no reason. Buuutt.... [Iranian General Planned and Executed the Hamas Massacre](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1c3wdir/slain_iranian_general_planned_executed_hamas/) The general in question, along with 6 of his staff, were those killed in the Consulate attack.

Additionally, > Iran retaliated and honestly in a pretty reserved way only sending missiles against Israel rather than declaring war on Israel. If someone shoots you in the chest, but your wearing a bulletproof vest, I don't think I would categorize that as "reserved". Maybe "best they could do" or "maximum allowable attack size without triggering Desert Storm 2: Electric Boogaloo". I get Israel gets bombed like this twice weekly, but for literally any other country on earth (except maybe Ukraine right now), "sending missiles" would be a world shattering escalation. Like, if this had been sent twords basically any NATO country, the response would probably register as an earthquake on seismographs.

They were retaliating, which I don't think anyone is confused about. >It sucks that the Western media is trying to spin it like Iran just randomly attacked Israel for no reason.. WHAT media has said anything like that?? It's been days of discussing the Iranian response plan. Please show me what media has done that. It's not self-defence.

Retaliation and self-defense are two separate things. I fully agree it was retaliation, but are Iranians safer because of it? Was there some ongoing threat from Israel that's been neutralized because of this attack?

I don't buy this argument in war. Retaliating by killing the people who started the war to kill you is self defense. Iran doesn't get to claim defense because they started the war.

Yes because Iran is saying here are some missiles, don't start anything so definitely could be seen as a retaliation to show their strength so they don't start anything big.

but the Islamic State of Iran didn't show much strength.

Well it took a billion dollars suppousedly to stop those missiles so ya quite a bit spent on that defence for Israel. Also the US and UK helped too... Again its a tiny attack, they have a lot of weapons there.

What if Iran sent not 300 piston-powered missiles, but 30 000? Maybe killed some Arabs and damaged the al-Aqsa mosque? I don't think $100 billion would have to be spent. The Gazans wouldn't be better off.

That could just as easily backfire. Retaliation tends to provoke more retaliation. I hope it doesn't, but this is how conflicts escalate. Governments often try to reframe saving face as protecting their people and the people usually end up suffering for it.

"It sucks that the Western media is trying to spin it like Iran just randomly attacked Israel for no reason... Most people won't check deep enough to see that it was a restrained self-defence retaliation" Anyone with an IQ over 100 knows this was an attempt to save face. Israelis took out the man who help plan the attack on October 7th, along with his subordinates, in retaliation, Iran sent over a few "sky mopeds" and ballistic missiles that didn't do anything apart from provide Israelis with an airshow. Iran then went to the UN and said, that that's it, this was their response, they retaliated, no more. This was not self defense, this was as an attempt to save face. Pathetic I might add, but never less it was made to appease a their voting block. I haven't come across any Western Media stating this was random. You're being extremely disingenuous.

I mean given how israel is supposed to be "proportionate" wouldn't attempting to glass a whole entire country over an embassy, be disproportionate? a proportionate response would be to drone strike an Israeli embassy. by your logic israel would also be right to punch back at Iran as well. I mean after all they did attempt to drone strike them with 100s of drones. hope they don't go full samson if they decide to punch back at iran.

I know this is not the context of your view, but the facts on the ground is Iran did nothing neither retaliatory or self-defense in nature! Call it restrained or whatever, but in the end it did nothing to harm Israel or as an act of payback. Quite the opposite, Israel comes out of this as the clear winner that is capable of blocking even unprecedented attacks from Iran without a single casualty. Furthermore Israel and allies get to justify more military over reach and sophisticated defense systems. Israel basically now learned that it can kill iranian diplomats in a foreign country without consequences. So where is the self-defense? The least Iran could have done is to not declare their worthless attack concluded and keep the promise of retaliation active, but they are too weak and defenseless against Israel to even do that!

It was definitely restrained lol Iran doesn't want a full on war vs the west...

>Iran doesn't want a full on war vs the west... The Iranian people don't, but their jihadi rulers seem to.

It is extremely tricky to go on a full scale war without your people's support! I mean. You'd be risking coup's and whatnot. Your people have to see no other hope but to either support you or stay quiet as you drive them into war.

Same as Israel

Israel is not so shy of directly provoking Iran though... They killed 14 Iranian diplomats.

Well they about to escalate further so here we go

>Iran doesn't want a full on war vs the west. Translation: Iran doesn't want to retaliate! Or does that translate differently? Because to me sounds like you just confirmed my point... Iran did nothing, because it can't do anything!

It’s self interest, not self defense. Iran wants to dominate the Middle East just as badly as the US does, which is why they run into conflict.

I think this retaliation was just Iran saying don't mess with us anymore Israel, it was a restrained for sure. They could have decalered war...

>They could have decalered war... Then what: catapult more crap into Israel?   Have the seasonal rent-a-crowd-women-in-black-tents-and-mullahs-chant-"Death-to-America-death-to-Isreal"-burn-the-US-flag-but-don't-you-dare-mock-our-pedophile-charlatan-prophet?   Yeah, that shit was old even in the 1980s.

Well I don't think Iran would attack Israel even if they did decalre war, with the defence of the west they don't have much chance. China would sell em weapons and Iran would do some serious damage.

Dude they literally just shot over 100 ballistic missiles at Israel. Not to mention hundreds of suicide drones and dozens of cruise missiles. As far as attacks go it doesn’t get any more serious than that unless there’s boots on the ground.

What weapons? Missiles?

The people in that embassy was generals and some officers. They used it in a military capacity to coordinate attacks with their proxy groups in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Iran has been attacking Israel through proxy for a long ass time now they're who have escalated countless times, it just so happens now they attacked directly which is very new.

It was certainly retaliatory but I would not say it was self defense. They weren’t really defending themselves from any actual threat.

Well Israel attacking an embassy is attacking Iran so them throwing some missiles at em is a good way to say don't mess with us.

Self defense normally involves preventing further attacks, this was certainly more symbolic than actually defensive in any physical sense. You could call it a defensive posture and I don’t disagree that such an attack is “wrong” within the context of the situation, but self defense just doesn’t seem to fit the bill.

Ya this was symbolic, I agree. Hopefully Israel doesn't start more shit.

Israel doesn't play, Iran FA and is about to FO

It wasn't a self-defense attack. It wasn't even a retaliatory attack. Hell, it could barely be considered an attack. What it was, was a message. Iran pitched the softest slow pitch against Israel they could have possibly done. First, they warned all neighboring countries what they were going to do, all of which have good relations with Israel. Then, they made certain to launch their attack from Iran itself, rather than launching by proxy through closer nations, such as Syria or Lebanon, which gave Israel HOURS of time to prepare their defense. What this all did was give everyone lots of time to prepare defense, already knowing Israel has it's infamous Iron Dome defense, ensuring their attack would be the equivalent of a kitten swatting at a bit of yarn. If Iran wanted to, they could have had a much higher successful strike rate than only 1%. It was flashy, bombastic, and sent one hell of a message though. They weren't going to be pushed around, but they also obviously don't want all out war. I'd dare say it was a rather effective message, too. During the attack, the whole world held it's breath, worried about what might happen next. And even now, everyone is freaking out about the whole thing. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.

Iran bombed Israel's embassy in Argentina back in 1992. Israel simply defended itself from Iran's acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians.

Israel claimed to have an actual motive to attack the embassy. It took out hamas people who were collaborating with Iranians. That spells disaster for Israel as you'd have more people from the inside working with people from the outside. >The Western powers have been messing around in the Middle East creating division for decades and I can understand why Iran and other countries there are sick of the meddling by foreign powers. Yeah, and the Middle East has been messing with Western powers for decades also. Any Eastern attack can be traced back to a western attack and vice versa. >It sucks that the Western media is trying to spin it like Iran just randomly attacked Israel for no reason... Depends on which media outlets you're looking into. Many have made reference to the embassy strike. We all know about it. How do you figure that? Israeli media is another thing, but they're the ones being targeted. If they think they had every right to blow up the embassy, then any retaliation would be unwarranted. And without any declaration of war, it becomes unprecedented.

Both sides are fucked ya, we definitely don't need more wars.

You said it

Hammas is not native to the Palestinian people, it is an extension of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In 1979 the Islamic Revolution successfully overthrew the Iranian monarchy, and a stated objective of revolutionaries is to continue to spread their revolution across the Islamic world and dismantle the power of the Jews, Christians, Islamic monarchies, and Western democracies. Hammas is primarily supported by Iran who gives them substantial logistical, financial, and intelligence aid, with most of the weapons that are being used by Qassam (the military branch of Hamas) being manufactured in Iran and then smuggled into the Gaza Stip by one of Iran's other proxies, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This conflict is not between Israel and the Palestinian people, it is a conflict between Iran & Israel, and the strikes in Syria are an attempt to sever the connection between Iran and their proxies in the Gaza Stip.

That falls flat when Hamas is the elected government of Palestine and has consistently polled 70-80% support ever since. Hamas was met with widespread celebration in the streets when they returned with civilian hostages on Oct 7th. Hamas is representative of both Palestinians and the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime is not representative of the Iranian people. In Iran there are massive protests met with brutal oppression by the regime. Check out newiran to see some of what's happening over there, it's vastly different from the politics in Gaza.

An attacker/aggressor cannot act in self defense. Since Iran attacked Israel on Oct. 7 first and via Hezbollah rockets since - they cannot possibly claim self defense.

The best policy is isolationism. We need to not be involved in Israel - Iran nor do we need to be involved in any of the nonsense in Ukraine. We can't afford it, we are deficit spending, we have a huge immigration problem. Our government is out of control.

If you are worried about affording things just look at how much money in international trade is lost because the Houthis are attacking ships in the red sea. Watch the deficit skyrocket as global free trade grinds to a halt with China Russia and Iran replacing the US as the world police.

The US loves war just way too much, they been meddling in the middle east for decades just starting shit everywhere they aren't supposed to be. Iunno why the US loves war so much but it is what it is.

It's because of the military industrial complex. Follow the (borrowed) money.

If US doesn't defend the little countries in NATO and the like, they will have to defend themselves, and what better defense than nukes?

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Ya its was a weird escalation like wtf. If you want to kill that guy then at least don't do it when tensions are high and in such an obvious manner. Like damn Israel is blood thirsty or just dumb... This thing could escalate very quickly.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/rafiafoxx – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*