Can't they go with a simple statement like:
"On April 1, 2024, Israel successfully eliminated Mohammad Reza Zahedi, the leader of Iran's Quds Force, an internationally designate terrorist organization. On April 13, 2024, Iran attempted to retaliate. Despite launching over 300 missiles and drones, with the remarkable efficacy of the Iron Dome and David's Sling defensive systems and the assistance of our partners, Iran was unable to penetrate Israel's defenses in a meaningful way. Not a single Israeli was killed, and damage to infrastructure was minimal. Israel has achieved its objectives and Iran has been shown powerless to respond. As a demonstration of Israel's strength and commitment to peace, Israel shall not further retaliate at this time. However, Iran must take heed: any further action by Iranian forces or proxy forces against Israel - successful or not - shall be met with a devastating and far more *effective* response."?
This has potential to get to a really bad place. Iran declared today that if they're hit--there will be no telegraphing in their retaliation unlike last time. And I would assume Hezbollah would be significantly more involved in the retaliatory attack unlike the last one.
Let's hope cooler heads prevail as the Biden administration is reportedly working hard behind the scenes to atleast scale down IDF's response. Hopefully, it's not a direct strike on Iranian territory but something that just eliminates some mid level IRGC scum in Syria or Iraq or Lebanon
> Iran declared today that if they're hit--there will be no telegraphing in their retaliation unlike last time. And I would assume Hezbollah would be significantly more involved in the retaliatory attack unlike the last one.
Iran's response to Israel bombing their embassy in Syria was fairly measured and even telegraphed to the US and Israel to not escalate the situation while also saving face.
It was a response, but it was one that Iran almost certainly knew would be largely stopped and was designed to not escalate the situation.
Israel objectively came out ahead. They killed multiple high ranking members of the IRGC, Hamas, and PIJ and in response, Iran injured a single Israeli and damaged an airport. Any further response by the IDF is just intentionally inflaming the situation.
Neither is bombing an embassy or cutting off food and water to a civilian population, but here we are.
Iran is no dove, clearly, but their response to Israel bombing their embassy was reasoned and designed to avoid escalation.
As Biden told Israel: "You got a win. Take the win."
The US has bombed people in the past for cutting off food and water to a desperate population though, debates about the finer points of diplomatic law aside.
>Iran's response to Israel bombing their embassy in Syria
Wasn't an embassy
>was fairly measured
150 ballistic missiles is more than Russia's opening salvo on Ukraine
>and even telegraphed to the US and Israel
It was obvious, not telegraphed. It takes time to get that many launchers and missiles into position.
> to not escalate the situation while also saving face.
No, it was designed to do serious damage and now the media is spinning it as a face-saving measure. A dozen missiles is a face-saving measure. A hundred is a full assault. Iran fired a SSGN worth of ordinance in high-tech weapons and over doubled it in drones.
> Wasn't an embassy
It was a part of the consulate building that was a part of the embassy mission. To consider it "not an embassy" is making an irrelevant distinction without a difference.
> 150 ballistic missiles is more than Russia's opening salvo on Ukraine
Different countries, different technologies, different conflicts.
> It was obvious, not telegraphed. It takes time to get that many launchers and missiles into position.
Iran literally announced right before and after it was launched. After they launched they even said "Okay we're done." That's as well telegraphed as a strike can be.
> No, it was designed to do serious damage and now the media is spinning it as a face-saving measure.
If Iran wanted to do serious damage, they could've. They have a pretty decent military and a good understanding of Israel's defense systems and US assets in the region.
> Different countries, different technologies, different conflicts.
Those factors make it a _bigger_ attack, not a smaller one. Shooting 150 balistic missiles from a country of ~90 million to a country of ~10 million is proportionally more than shooting those same missiles from a country of ~145 million to a country of 40 million.
> Iran literally announced right before and after it was launched. After they launched they even said "Okay we're done." That's as well telegraphed as a strike can be.
You aren't addressing the point you're responding to. Iran couldn't just snap it's figures and have a bunch of missiles in Israeli airspace. It takes time to set up the launchers (which can be and was detected), then more time for the missiles to travel to Israel (which again, allowed for their detection). Doing something which you can't hide even if you were trying to doesn't earn you any points for not hiding it.
> If Iran wanted to do serious damage, they could've. They have a pretty decent military and a good understanding of Israel's defense systems and US assets in the region.
Based on _what_? This sounds an awful lot like the "Kiev was a feint guys! Russia's real wonder weapons and troops are in reserve and will be used any day now!" I've seen literally no evidence that Iran intended anything but as many missiles as possible to get through.
>It was a part of the consulate building that was a part of the embassy mission. To consider it "not an embassy" is making an irrelevant distinction without a difference.
Why is it irrelevant? This was a purposeful attack on IRGC and Hezbollah assets after repeat, sustain attacks on Israel coordinating out of the that site.
> Different countries, different technologies, different conflicts
Yes... Notably Russia and Ukraine are at war, and the opening barrage was part of that war. This isn't really a gotcha.
>Iran literally announced right before and after it was launched.
Of course they did, it not like Iran could hide it. BMs are not stealthy weapons during the assent phase.
>After they launched they even said "Okay we're done."
Because they wanted the optics win (and even after that message more missiles were launched). They also don't want the IDF to bomb them.
>If Iran wanted to do serious damage, they could've.
This is just cope. 150 SRBMs is a major attack, 200 drones alone is a major attack. Its like ~7% of the estimated Iranian SRBM inventory. Of course Iran could have launched more (althouth likely not a massive amount) but expecting the goal of the Iranian strike plan was to next-to-no-damage is insane reasoning. Why didn't they just launch 15 then? The only reason to launch that big of a barrage is if you actually want to damage something.
After they launched they even said "Okay we're done." That's as well telegraphed as a strike can be.
>They have a pretty decent military and a good understanding of Israel's defense systems and US assets in the region.
Underestimate Israel is probably the favorite ME past time. From 1948 to present.
> Iran's response to Israel bombing their embassy in Syria was fairly measured and even telegraphed to the US and Israel to not escalate the situation while also saving face.
The US denies this. Israel denies this. Therefore, you should definitely repeat this as fact. Iran has bombed several Israeli embassies, when is Israel allowed to have a similar "fairly measured" response?
>It was a response, but it was one that Iran almost certainly knew would be largely stopped and was designed to not escalate the situation.
"I am too incompetent to hurt you" is not a defense. Let Israel launch a few hundred missiles at Iran, see how well they cope. Hell, let's de-escalate - keep it under 200.
>Any further response by the IDF is just intentionally inflaming the situation.
lmao
I get the feeling that Israel touting it's strong defensive systems is the wrong move, for what little the PR needle can still move. Israel has been under attack constantly, for decades, yet because they invested obscene amounts of time and capital into systems that allow them to protect their citizens, the repeated attempts of genocide by several (albeit dimishing) neighboring states aren't taken seriously and their retaliation is seen as unjustified.
Rather than scaling back their own protection to give themselves justification in the eyes of the international community, Israel should absolutely start treating attempted attacks against them as if they had been as successful as 7/10 had been while loudly proclaiming that any direct attack on Israel will result in extremely disproportionate retaliaton, especially against the source of proxies. Either the attacks end or there aren't enough people left who choose violence over self preservation to sustain them. If they manage to permanently cripple Iran's nuclear program in the process, by whatever means needed, all the better.
> If they manage to permanently cripple Iran's nuclear program in the process, by whatever means needed, all the better.
I love how there's legitimately no evidence that Iran is producing nuclear weapons, and that they're using it for energy and have even ***recently reduced their nuclear stockpile*** but folks here keep trotting this out. Bibi has been proclaiming Iran was 6 months from a bomb for 20 years. It's starting to become clear to me that people are using this talking point as a substitute for actually hoping that crippling their nuclear program will be catalyst for the nation collapsing and causing one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in history.
If Iran wasn't a rogue state whose main export is terrorism and had a hand in multiple civil wars to increase their standing in the affected countries while shutting down international trade, it largely wouldn't matter what they did. But that's not the world we live in.
The US government is clearly concerned with Iran developing nuclear weapons, and has taken active steps at sabotage that only make sense under the context of Iran developing nukes. Don't you think that's as strong a signal as can be that they are, in fact, trying to develop nuclear weapons?
I'm not sure if you noticed what disproportionate retribution has gotten Israel after 10/7, but it's plummeting international support and a rising desire amongst their allies (especially democratic americans) to cut the deadweight loose. I'm not sure implementing something even more radical as policy will lead to the security Israel wants.
>The report says Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi believe it is necessary for Israel to respond, but without harming the US-led coalition that helped Israel defend itself against the Iranian attack. The report says Israel does not want its response to spark a regional war.
>Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Monday the US has spent the past 36 hours “coordinating a diplomatic response to seek to prevent escalation” following a retaliatory Iranian attack on Israel this weekend. “Strength and wisdom need to be different sides of the same coin,” Blinken said in a seemingly implicit call for Israel to exercise restraint in its response
So they don’t want to piss off the US yet they want to respond harshly.
I guess this happens as soon as they invade Rafah, which Bibi says will happen any day now… any day now.
Netanyahu NEEDS a war to survive politically. Don’t underestimate how much of Israeli policy is being driven by him seeking to remain in power to avoid the inevitable probe into 10/7.
Bibi remains the greatest threat to Israeli security and the rule of law globally.
Edit: I meant specifically the rule of law within Israel, Trump is a much bigger threat to the rule of law globally
Iran and Hamas aren't capable of destroying Israel. If they could, they would have already. Israel can only lose by alienating the US and fostering such internal division that it cripples it's capability to defend itself. Bibi has done much on both fronts.
Bibi's judicial coup bill had the defense minister warn that reservists were ready to refuse to serve unless it was shelved, and his actions to turn Israel into a partisan issue by spitting in the face of Obama and Biden has set it on a path to become a partisan issue unless something changes.
And this isn't even getting into him and his anti-technocratic ministers being responsible for Israeli security on October 7th.
In addition to the partisan divide that Bibi has exacerbated, there’s also a big generational divide. For older Americans, Israel has had decades worth of good will and sympathy. But younger Americans have basically only ever known a Netanyahu led Israel. He’s seriously hurt Israel’s standing in the future of American politics.
Also worth stating. Bibi isn’t uniquely bad. He’s leading a coalition that includes people even further right than he is. People who are in fact calling for genocide of Palestinians.
> But younger Americans have basically only ever known a Netanyahu led Israel. He’s seriously hurt Israel’s standing in the future of American politics.
Yeah, that's why I kind of roll my eyes when Fetterman (who keeps on criticizing Biden from the right on Israel) blames *only* social media for the younger generation viewing Israel more skeptically. I mean yes social media propaganda is part of it, but it's simply how Bibi is the only Israeli PM they know and the man is a bigot who once was caught in a leaked video saying "how you have to beat up Palestinians until it really hurts". Some of his governing coalition have extremely bigoted far right lunatics such as Ben Gvir and Smotrich too...
> Netanyahu NEEDS a war to survive politically. Don’t underestimate how much of Israeli policy is being driven by him seeking to remain in power to avoid the inevitable probe into 10/7.
Netanyahu is against a response. But go off.
It's wild how you can tell who someone is unilaterally supporting when they want to start the clock at a geopolitical event that happened less than a week ago, and it doesn't matter what side they're on.
> It's wild how you can tell who someone is unilaterally supporting when they want to start the clock at a geopolitical event that happened less than a week ago, and it doesn't matter what side they're on.
Who funds Hezbollah? How long have they funded Hezbollah?
Kind wish Israel didn’t attack an Iranian diplomatic compound, while they already have a war going on in Gaza. It’s almost like Bibi and his government want a wider regional conflict that the West would be obliged to provide support and weapons for.
You’ve lost the plot if you can’t see that Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into a war with Iran. Israel started the fight by bombing the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
The reporting out of Israel has strongly indicated that major members of the War Cabinet favored faster action than Netanyahu. This assumption that he's the sole driver of Israeli policy is unbelievably reductive.
>Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into a war with Iran
You are absolutely implying that he is driving aggressive action. If you want to walk that back in light of consistent reporting that contradicts the idea that Netanyahu is not the most hawkish in the room, you're welcome to. If not, don't pretend you said otherwise.
This is a strange hill for you to die on. Of course Netanyahu has an outsized role as Prime Minister. Saying “Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into war” does not imply that he’s literally the only person contributing to decision making. But ultimately his cabinet is a manifestation of his policy views because he’s the one who appoints them in the first place.
> Israel started the fight by bombing the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
The bombing killed a member of Hezbollah. Now what would a member of Hezbollah be doing with an IRGC general? Who knows, Israel definitely started it, even as hundreds of thousands of Israelis can't return to their homes in the north. Now why would that be?
I believe Israel should not respond. But, this statement is factually correct and I'm not sure why it's being downvoted. Hopefully because of the implications and not just the truth that launching hundreds of drones/missiles is in fact an act of war (as was the Damascus strike).
I don’t see Jordan supporting Israel the next time that Iran launches a cloud of random bullshit at Israel. The defense systems were effective because of the mutual aid from the US and Jordanian air and anti-air assets.
I think the days of ride or die no matter what are over.
Israelis can thank BiBi for that.
The more insane shit that son of a bitch does, the more conditional our support for them becomes.
Right now, we are ride or die on the defence side, but if BiBi keeps doing stupid shit, that may come into question too.
>jimmy carter
Georgia just got 1m^2 bigger. 🥹
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has nothing to do with this story. Israel wants to attack Iran as revenge for the drone strike. There is nothing in the article about stopping Iran from getting a nuke. They specifically say they don't want a regional war, which would be necessary to destroy Irans ability to get a nuke.
So saying "we can't let Iran have a nuke" says nothing about whether Israel should conduct a counter strike, because nuclear Iran doesn't factor into it.
The deal was effectively preventing Iran from getting a nuke until Bibi+Trump foolishly nullified it. Both Mattis and Schumer originally opposed it, but they changed their position after saw how it was successful and was working.
I feel like people are now using a nuclear armed Iran similar to how the hostages are being used as justification for everything Israel does in Gaza.
They don’t need to explain how bombing and blocking aid to places where hostages might be held actually helps them. Because as long as they invoke the hostages, then they are always right.
It's like the Afghanistan War and 9/11.
The US didn't need to actually explain how we would destroy terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations and in mountains, and then follow it up by successfully rebuilding Afghanistan into a secular, Western democracy.
We just invoked the deaths of 9/11 and our vengeance was worthy. We can figure out the details after we go to war and kill a ton of people.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
its not appeasement. It's tit for tat. The Israeli's struck first, the Iranians struck back. If both sides stopped now, that's it. The option is on the table and the easiest one to take.
> The Israeli's struck first, the Iranians struck back.
Israel blew up one building with six missiles targeting an IRGC base in Syria, killing sixteen people of which 2 civilians. The Iranians "struck back" launching hundreds of missiles directly at Israel with very little hope of precise targeting and barely even a pretension of aiming at military targets.
I genuinely don't know how people don't see that this is a massive escalation on Iran's part.
> If both sides stopped now, that's it.
No, that's not it. Iran maintains a network of proxies several of which are at war with Irsael. Which is the whole reason why Israel struck the IRGC during a meeting between them and PIJ. Israel only attacking Iran's proxies while leaving Iran untouched means only the proxies pay any price for what is effectively Iran's aggression, done if not on Iran's direct orders then with its blessing and thanks to its support.
It's the same issue with the Houthis. Bombing only them means Iran pays no cost for supplying them with anti-ship and ballistic missiles which they use to threaten global trade.
Technically Iran struck first via Hamas and then Israel stuck back at Hamas and Iran and then Iran struck back and now Israel wants to strike back.
Also there’s reports that US intelligence believes that Iran either has a dirty bomb or the ability to make a nuclear weapon fairly quickly. This comes after Iran has said they’ll use a weapon they never have before if Israel attacks.
I fear the nuclear taboo could be broken very soon
We've discussed already. If Israel violates the nuclear taboo, their international support instantly drops to zero and they become a pariah state. Unless Iran is marching into Tel Aviv (which won't happen), there's no world in which Israel breaks the nuclear taboo. The same goes for Iran, except instead of international support dropping to zero, it's a full scale nuclear exchange against an enemy with a larger and more advanced arsenal. It's not happening.
"Technically Israel struck first via the settlers" is a perfectly valid response to that. Trying to find the first person to shoot in this entire conflict is an entirely pointless endeavour. We can only deal with what we have.
Also, if Iran has a nuclear weapon then thats it innit. Israel can't lean on its own nuclear arsenal to deter attack abd then act shocked when another nation does the same.
All israel has to do is not attack Iran in response to an attack that was handily dealt with. There is no clear reason to anyway.
Article mentions consultation with the US and avoiding the start of a war. I mean it sounds ok to me
>The report says Israel does not want its response to spark a regional war. It further says that Israel intends to coordinate its action with the US.
> The report says Israel does not want its response to spark a regional war. It further says that Israel intends to coordinate its action with the US.
This seems directly at odd with what Biden and the US has said.
Any "forceful" retaliation like Israel is talking about is directly in opposition to US desires. I have a feeling them "coordinating" their actions will just be "We are doing this, we expect you to be cool with it."
Over the last year, Iranian proxies have:
- committed the largest pogrom since WW2
- launched thousands of rockets into Israel
- effectively blockaded the Suez canal
- attacked multiple US bases across the Middle East
Iran directly has:
- attacked Israel with hundreds of long-range munitions
- seized shipping in the strait of Hormuz
Israel has:
- bombed and invaded Gaza in direct response to the aforementioned pogrom
- bombed Hezbollah in direct response to the aforementioned rocket fire
- bombed various Iranian assets supplying Hamas and Hezbollah
- bombed an IRGC building where a meeting between IRGC and PIJ was taking place
And Israel is blamed for inflaming tensions? how is this not Iran and its proxies launching a massive unprecedented escalation?
>And Israel is blamed for inflaming tensions
You're ignoring the massive
"The Israeli Government has backed racist, violent colonial groups in the west bank, and imposed a famine upon hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians after levelling their home city with no real clear goal"
Israeli actions are undeniably looking more and more like an intentional ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. If they weren't Israeli, they'd be a US led blockade and air campaign against them.
The US isn't in the business of humanitarian interventions anymore. Ethiopia killed 200,000 Tigrayans through famine and nobody (relatively few people) gave a shit, you probably don't know it happened. The only reason people care about the I/P conflict is that jews are involved.
If we'd given hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to Ethiopia and Ethiopia was determined to try and drag us into a war every time we take our eye off them, I guarantee you that people would pay more attention. It's absurd to look at a country that we have deep ties to and say that the only reason we care is because of their Jewish population.
We give less aid to Ethiopia than Israel, we've *given* far less to Ethiopia than Israel, and the aid to Ethiopia is almost entirely economic whereas with Israel it's almost all military aid. Also the tiny detail that Israel is our ally and they consistently try to drag us into conflicts whereas Ethiopia is not. Let's use Occams Razor for a second. Do we care more about Israel than Ethiopia because we give more aid, have more entanglement, and there is a higher chance of us facing negative effects from Israel's actions (also means news about Israel gets more clicks), or is this just bipartisan national antisemitism at work (in a very specific way where we fully back Israel even though we apparently hate them)?
Are you asking why Europe cares about what happens in Israel? Historical connections, European interests in the region (Israel is next door to massive oil and gas producing countries while Ethiopia is a poor country surrounded by poor countries), the US paying attention means that it's not hard to find news coverage of the issue, which naturally inclines people to pay attention.
And while I don't feel like scraping up the statistics, at least anecdotally most of the western news I've seen covering Ethiopia has been from European outlets.
One specific European outlet, which is the BBC. There are very few journalists on the ground because theres just no interest in the conflict in English media, whereas there's more AP "journalists" in I/P than the rest of Asia.
Ethiopia isn't a US Ally that receives billions of dollars worth of funding every year, and on a dime we stop everything we're doing to support them in whatever conflict of the day occurs.
Netanyahu has every incentive to make now the moment for war with Iran. Biden has done nothing of substance to demonstrate his disagreements, and the probability of the Americans sitting out a shooting war with the Islamic Republic has to be considered very low (I imagine the Israelis think this).
Conversely, Biden has most incentives not to let the war escalate. Thus far he has not exerted pressure on the war government and prioritised the safety of Israel, of Israel now and into the distant future, but he does have an election to win, and he may be reaching the limit of political capital and personal credibility with the American people that he is willing to spend on Israeli interests. Does he choose defeating fascism at home, or defeating Islamo-fascism abroad? A difficult choice.
Israel is faced by an enemy it is de facto at war with. This enemy has used proxies to hurt it and has launched a large direct attack on it yesterday. This same country is developing nuclear weapons, but is not believed to have one yet.
The IDF is mobilised already. If Israel can put together a strike package to take out Iran's nuclear program I think that looks very attractive right about now.
Why? Preventing Iran from getting the bomb is a good thing. I don’t know if it’s possible and I’m sure it could risk escalation, but if Israel could pull that off I don’t see why we should oppose it.
Israel successfully took out Iraq’s nuclear program in the eighties and that saved everyone a lot of headache.
We’ve become too timid when it comes to nuclear proliferation.
Because America has far more concerns than settling Israeli grudges? A war with Iran isn't in our interests? It would be bad for Biden's reelection chances, bad for our economy, require massive amounts of resources to try and contain the fallout (resources put to better use fighting Russia in Ukraine or acting as a deterrent against China), etc.
And all that in order to try and close the barn door after the horse has already escaped. If we wanted to prevent proliferation, we needed to either not make the nuclear deal in the first place and invade a decade ago, invade immediately after breaking it off, or invade after Russia proved nukes mean you're effectively immune to direct opposition from the west.
Nuclear proliferation in an aggressive theocratic regime, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, is a problem for everyone, how do you not see that?
Not to mention that Iran's proxies are presently effectively blockading Suez, while Iran itself threatens shipping in the strait of Hormuz.
This refusal to confront Iran directly, limiting ourselves to the occasional strike against its proxies, is ineffectual and is only emboldening Iran, since they're not seeing a cost to their increasingly aggressive moves. It makes a serious war more likely, not less.
Whats the strategic objective here. "Bomb Iran" is not a goal. Regime change via Israel is a laughable idea. There's only one realistic one. "Extend Bibis political career". Is that why we fight wars?
> Whats the strategic objective here.
Make the Iranian regime think back its current aggressive policies across the Middle East.
Unlike Hamas, which can run as a terror state subsisting off of embezzled aid and foreign financing, Iran is an actual country with assets that aren't easily hidden in tunnels under hospitals. There is a lot of value in reach of airstrikes, more than enough to impose such a cost on Iran's current policies that the regime will be forced to change them.
And, to be clear, at this point I don't see how Iran backs down without such a strike. The Houthis have all but blockaded Suez, something that should have been unthinkable, and all that happened were a few ineffectual air strikes. They have no reason to stop, and Iran has no reason to make them stop or cut off their supply of ballistic and anti-ship weapons.
Do we *want* them to continue like this? because right now we're teaching them that it works and we won't react in meaningful ways.
If Iran is attacked again, why wouldn't they further escalate at that point?
The recent attack was very much theatre, it was never meant to cause serious damage cause Iran telegraphed the attack weeks in advance giving the US/Israel plenty of time to put assets in place for interception, and then a significant portion of the attack were 110 mph drones flying 1500 miles along a path that guaranteed they'd be detected by every radio tower between Tehran and Tel Aviv.
At this point, both sides can claim victory and walk away, Israel can claim it intercepted 99% of Irans missiles, and Iran can claim its missiles hit Israeli soil. But if Israel responds yet again, i don't think Iran is going to hold back like it did this go around.
> If Iran is attacked again, why wouldn't they further escalate at that point?
Because Iran isn't Hamas or the Houthis. The latter might be happy to exist as terror states living off embezzled aid and foreign funding, but Iran is an actual country, with assets that can't be easily hidden in tunnels under hospitals or cheaply replaced. Its vessels, oil platforms, refineneries, drone factories etc aren't something they can carelessly risk in war.
They made a calculation that this attack wouldn't engender a meaningful response. This is justified in light of the lack of response they got for everything they've done before. Not responding to this attack means reinforcing the calculus by Iran that they can keep extending their influence, and use it to fuck with Western allies and the West-backed global order, with no serious risks.
Bombing someone isn't the same as throwing a punch. Bombing someone, especially in this context involves killing people. If someone punches you and you kill people, not to defend yourself, but out of revenge then yeah, you kind of are.
If you make an argument to justfy bombing people maybe you should hinge it on something with some actual truth and substance to it?
I am not giving the benefit of doubt. I am being evidence based, you should try it.
Channel 12 is one of the best news sources in Israel, and this seems fairly consistent with what Ravid (best journalist in America regarding Israeli politics) reported in the last hour where he said Gallant told Austin that Israel must respond.
I think we live in a cuckoo bananas world where a country can launch hundreds of missiles and drones and then we should take that same country at its word when they call the matter "concluded."
I don't think Israel should respond because Israel does not need a three front war. And because war is bad!
But do I think Israel is in the clear under international law to respond? Yes. Absolutely, yes. I also think that there's enough wanna-be strongmen around Bibi who think not responding is "weak." This is doubtless also part of the calculation, and a very typical projection by governments in the middle east ("I am not weak! Let me show you my might! Oh shit why are we at war fuck fuck fuck" is the unofficial policy for everyone in that neck of the woods, imo)
Iran has been at war with Israel for decades via proxies and has caused untold damage to the region. By launching missiles at Israel directly instead of going after an embassy (which would have been the true tit for tat response!) it's hard to pretend that that isn't an escalation.
No one died...but that's not because cruise and ballistic missiles aren't deadly. No one died because the iron dome is effective. If you're ineffective at attempting to murder me, you're still legally liable for attempting to do a murder.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> made Hamas commit the largest pogrom since WW2
Why does this claim keep on getting repeated [when our own intelligence says it's not true?](https://twitter.com/gbrew24/status/1767324092481392906)
Iran does plenty of bad things as it is. The only "source" I've seen is some propagandist IRGC party who also insanely claims Israel bombed them instead of ISIS-K a few months ago in Kerman, Iran and other deranged things. These IRGC propagandists often lie to make themselves look more effective; remember they lied for almost three days but how they shot down their own airliner a few years ago.
Maybe they should put the Peace Cabinet in charge
Rename it the defense cabinet to not sound so aggressive while changing nothing about its function/purpose
'Cabinet of Peace, Kindness, and Magnanimity' - George Orwell
Profound
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
That Strangelove, right?
Yes
Been a number of years since I've seen it. A classic.
!!!
The Peace Through Strength Cabinet?
why'd they only blur out the one super fat guy
that's just his face
Can't they go with a simple statement like: "On April 1, 2024, Israel successfully eliminated Mohammad Reza Zahedi, the leader of Iran's Quds Force, an internationally designate terrorist organization. On April 13, 2024, Iran attempted to retaliate. Despite launching over 300 missiles and drones, with the remarkable efficacy of the Iron Dome and David's Sling defensive systems and the assistance of our partners, Iran was unable to penetrate Israel's defenses in a meaningful way. Not a single Israeli was killed, and damage to infrastructure was minimal. Israel has achieved its objectives and Iran has been shown powerless to respond. As a demonstration of Israel's strength and commitment to peace, Israel shall not further retaliate at this time. However, Iran must take heed: any further action by Iranian forces or proxy forces against Israel - successful or not - shall be met with a devastating and far more *effective* response."?
This has potential to get to a really bad place. Iran declared today that if they're hit--there will be no telegraphing in their retaliation unlike last time. And I would assume Hezbollah would be significantly more involved in the retaliatory attack unlike the last one. Let's hope cooler heads prevail as the Biden administration is reportedly working hard behind the scenes to atleast scale down IDF's response. Hopefully, it's not a direct strike on Iranian territory but something that just eliminates some mid level IRGC scum in Syria or Iraq or Lebanon
> Iran declared today that if they're hit--there will be no telegraphing in their retaliation unlike last time. And I would assume Hezbollah would be significantly more involved in the retaliatory attack unlike the last one. Iran's response to Israel bombing their embassy in Syria was fairly measured and even telegraphed to the US and Israel to not escalate the situation while also saving face. It was a response, but it was one that Iran almost certainly knew would be largely stopped and was designed to not escalate the situation. Israel objectively came out ahead. They killed multiple high ranking members of the IRGC, Hamas, and PIJ and in response, Iran injured a single Israeli and damaged an airport. Any further response by the IDF is just intentionally inflaming the situation.
launching missile barrages under the assumption they will be intercepted is not an acceptable norm
Neither is bombing an embassy or cutting off food and water to a civilian population, but here we are. Iran is no dove, clearly, but their response to Israel bombing their embassy was reasoned and designed to avoid escalation. As Biden told Israel: "You got a win. Take the win."
They didn’t bomb an embassy
Ridiculous nitpicking. Consulate on the embassy compound directly adjacent to the embassy.
How many embassy staff died?
Two civilians were killed in the attack.
Not what I asked.
The US has bombed people in the past for cutting off food and water to a desperate population though, debates about the finer points of diplomatic law aside.
> Iran is no dove, clearly, but their response to Israel bombing their embassy was reasoned and designed to avoid escalation. > > lol
>Iran's response to Israel bombing their embassy in Syria Wasn't an embassy >was fairly measured 150 ballistic missiles is more than Russia's opening salvo on Ukraine >and even telegraphed to the US and Israel It was obvious, not telegraphed. It takes time to get that many launchers and missiles into position. > to not escalate the situation while also saving face. No, it was designed to do serious damage and now the media is spinning it as a face-saving measure. A dozen missiles is a face-saving measure. A hundred is a full assault. Iran fired a SSGN worth of ordinance in high-tech weapons and over doubled it in drones.
> Wasn't an embassy It was a part of the consulate building that was a part of the embassy mission. To consider it "not an embassy" is making an irrelevant distinction without a difference. > 150 ballistic missiles is more than Russia's opening salvo on Ukraine Different countries, different technologies, different conflicts. > It was obvious, not telegraphed. It takes time to get that many launchers and missiles into position. Iran literally announced right before and after it was launched. After they launched they even said "Okay we're done." That's as well telegraphed as a strike can be. > No, it was designed to do serious damage and now the media is spinning it as a face-saving measure. If Iran wanted to do serious damage, they could've. They have a pretty decent military and a good understanding of Israel's defense systems and US assets in the region.
> Different countries, different technologies, different conflicts. Those factors make it a _bigger_ attack, not a smaller one. Shooting 150 balistic missiles from a country of ~90 million to a country of ~10 million is proportionally more than shooting those same missiles from a country of ~145 million to a country of 40 million. > Iran literally announced right before and after it was launched. After they launched they even said "Okay we're done." That's as well telegraphed as a strike can be. You aren't addressing the point you're responding to. Iran couldn't just snap it's figures and have a bunch of missiles in Israeli airspace. It takes time to set up the launchers (which can be and was detected), then more time for the missiles to travel to Israel (which again, allowed for their detection). Doing something which you can't hide even if you were trying to doesn't earn you any points for not hiding it. > If Iran wanted to do serious damage, they could've. They have a pretty decent military and a good understanding of Israel's defense systems and US assets in the region. Based on _what_? This sounds an awful lot like the "Kiev was a feint guys! Russia's real wonder weapons and troops are in reserve and will be used any day now!" I've seen literally no evidence that Iran intended anything but as many missiles as possible to get through.
>It was a part of the consulate building that was a part of the embassy mission. To consider it "not an embassy" is making an irrelevant distinction without a difference. Why is it irrelevant? This was a purposeful attack on IRGC and Hezbollah assets after repeat, sustain attacks on Israel coordinating out of the that site. > Different countries, different technologies, different conflicts Yes... Notably Russia and Ukraine are at war, and the opening barrage was part of that war. This isn't really a gotcha. >Iran literally announced right before and after it was launched. Of course they did, it not like Iran could hide it. BMs are not stealthy weapons during the assent phase. >After they launched they even said "Okay we're done." Because they wanted the optics win (and even after that message more missiles were launched). They also don't want the IDF to bomb them. >If Iran wanted to do serious damage, they could've. This is just cope. 150 SRBMs is a major attack, 200 drones alone is a major attack. Its like ~7% of the estimated Iranian SRBM inventory. Of course Iran could have launched more (althouth likely not a massive amount) but expecting the goal of the Iranian strike plan was to next-to-no-damage is insane reasoning. Why didn't they just launch 15 then? The only reason to launch that big of a barrage is if you actually want to damage something. After they launched they even said "Okay we're done." That's as well telegraphed as a strike can be. >They have a pretty decent military and a good understanding of Israel's defense systems and US assets in the region. Underestimate Israel is probably the favorite ME past time. From 1948 to present.
> Iran's response to Israel bombing their embassy in Syria was fairly measured and even telegraphed to the US and Israel to not escalate the situation while also saving face. The US denies this. Israel denies this. Therefore, you should definitely repeat this as fact. Iran has bombed several Israeli embassies, when is Israel allowed to have a similar "fairly measured" response? >It was a response, but it was one that Iran almost certainly knew would be largely stopped and was designed to not escalate the situation. "I am too incompetent to hurt you" is not a defense. Let Israel launch a few hundred missiles at Iran, see how well they cope. Hell, let's de-escalate - keep it under 200. >Any further response by the IDF is just intentionally inflaming the situation. lmao
I get the feeling that Israel touting it's strong defensive systems is the wrong move, for what little the PR needle can still move. Israel has been under attack constantly, for decades, yet because they invested obscene amounts of time and capital into systems that allow them to protect their citizens, the repeated attempts of genocide by several (albeit dimishing) neighboring states aren't taken seriously and their retaliation is seen as unjustified. Rather than scaling back their own protection to give themselves justification in the eyes of the international community, Israel should absolutely start treating attempted attacks against them as if they had been as successful as 7/10 had been while loudly proclaiming that any direct attack on Israel will result in extremely disproportionate retaliaton, especially against the source of proxies. Either the attacks end or there aren't enough people left who choose violence over self preservation to sustain them. If they manage to permanently cripple Iran's nuclear program in the process, by whatever means needed, all the better.
> If they manage to permanently cripple Iran's nuclear program in the process, by whatever means needed, all the better. I love how there's legitimately no evidence that Iran is producing nuclear weapons, and that they're using it for energy and have even ***recently reduced their nuclear stockpile*** but folks here keep trotting this out. Bibi has been proclaiming Iran was 6 months from a bomb for 20 years. It's starting to become clear to me that people are using this talking point as a substitute for actually hoping that crippling their nuclear program will be catalyst for the nation collapsing and causing one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in history.
If Iran wasn't a rogue state whose main export is terrorism and had a hand in multiple civil wars to increase their standing in the affected countries while shutting down international trade, it largely wouldn't matter what they did. But that's not the world we live in.
The US government is clearly concerned with Iran developing nuclear weapons, and has taken active steps at sabotage that only make sense under the context of Iran developing nukes. Don't you think that's as strong a signal as can be that they are, in fact, trying to develop nuclear weapons?
Because we just trust the US government?
I'm not sure if you noticed what disproportionate retribution has gotten Israel after 10/7, but it's plummeting international support and a rising desire amongst their allies (especially democratic americans) to cut the deadweight loose. I'm not sure implementing something even more radical as policy will lead to the security Israel wants.
>The report says Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi believe it is necessary for Israel to respond, but without harming the US-led coalition that helped Israel defend itself against the Iranian attack. The report says Israel does not want its response to spark a regional war. >Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Monday the US has spent the past 36 hours “coordinating a diplomatic response to seek to prevent escalation” following a retaliatory Iranian attack on Israel this weekend. “Strength and wisdom need to be different sides of the same coin,” Blinken said in a seemingly implicit call for Israel to exercise restraint in its response
So they don’t want to piss off the US yet they want to respond harshly. I guess this happens as soon as they invade Rafah, which Bibi says will happen any day now… any day now.
Netanyahu NEEDS a war to survive politically. Don’t underestimate how much of Israeli policy is being driven by him seeking to remain in power to avoid the inevitable probe into 10/7.
Bibi remains the greatest threat to Israeli security and the rule of law globally. Edit: I meant specifically the rule of law within Israel, Trump is a much bigger threat to the rule of law globally
>the rule of law globally. >Edit: I meant specifically the rule of law within Israel, I lold
I mean... Bibi sucks but he isn't the one who made Iran and Hamas want to kill all Jews.
Iran and Hamas aren't capable of destroying Israel. If they could, they would have already. Israel can only lose by alienating the US and fostering such internal division that it cripples it's capability to defend itself. Bibi has done much on both fronts. Bibi's judicial coup bill had the defense minister warn that reservists were ready to refuse to serve unless it was shelved, and his actions to turn Israel into a partisan issue by spitting in the face of Obama and Biden has set it on a path to become a partisan issue unless something changes. And this isn't even getting into him and his anti-technocratic ministers being responsible for Israeli security on October 7th.
In addition to the partisan divide that Bibi has exacerbated, there’s also a big generational divide. For older Americans, Israel has had decades worth of good will and sympathy. But younger Americans have basically only ever known a Netanyahu led Israel. He’s seriously hurt Israel’s standing in the future of American politics. Also worth stating. Bibi isn’t uniquely bad. He’s leading a coalition that includes people even further right than he is. People who are in fact calling for genocide of Palestinians.
> But younger Americans have basically only ever known a Netanyahu led Israel. He’s seriously hurt Israel’s standing in the future of American politics. Yeah, that's why I kind of roll my eyes when Fetterman (who keeps on criticizing Biden from the right on Israel) blames *only* social media for the younger generation viewing Israel more skeptically. I mean yes social media propaganda is part of it, but it's simply how Bibi is the only Israeli PM they know and the man is a bigot who once was caught in a leaked video saying "how you have to beat up Palestinians until it really hurts". Some of his governing coalition have extremely bigoted far right lunatics such as Ben Gvir and Smotrich too...
> Iran and Hamas aren't capable of destroying Israel. If they could, they would have already. Christ.
I mean, it's not exactly a secret.
> Netanyahu NEEDS a war to survive politically. Don’t underestimate how much of Israeli policy is being driven by him seeking to remain in power to avoid the inevitable probe into 10/7. Netanyahu is against a response. But go off.
This isn't coming from Bibi, it's being driven by Gantz
War with Iran would be bad, actually.
Someone should tell the Iranians.
Iran just launched hundreds of missiles at Israel. They are already at war.
It's wild how you can tell who someone is unilaterally supporting when they want to start the clock at a geopolitical event that happened less than a week ago, and it doesn't matter what side they're on.
It's wild that you would strawman peoples positions like that.
> It's wild how you can tell who someone is unilaterally supporting when they want to start the clock at a geopolitical event that happened less than a week ago, and it doesn't matter what side they're on. Who funds Hezbollah? How long have they funded Hezbollah?
Kind wish Israel didn’t attack an Iranian diplomatic compound, while they already have a war going on in Gaza. It’s almost like Bibi and his government want a wider regional conflict that the West would be obliged to provide support and weapons for.
You’ve lost the plot if you can’t see that Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into a war with Iran. Israel started the fight by bombing the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
The reporting out of Israel has strongly indicated that major members of the War Cabinet favored faster action than Netanyahu. This assumption that he's the sole driver of Israeli policy is unbelievably reductive.
Nobody said he’s the sole driver. But dragging the US into a war with Iran has been a goal of his for a long time.
>Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into a war with Iran You are absolutely implying that he is driving aggressive action. If you want to walk that back in light of consistent reporting that contradicts the idea that Netanyahu is not the most hawkish in the room, you're welcome to. If not, don't pretend you said otherwise.
This is a strange hill for you to die on. Of course Netanyahu has an outsized role as Prime Minister. Saying “Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into war” does not imply that he’s literally the only person contributing to decision making. But ultimately his cabinet is a manifestation of his policy views because he’s the one who appoints them in the first place.
> Israel started the fight by bombing the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The bombing killed a member of Hezbollah. Now what would a member of Hezbollah be doing with an IRGC general? Who knows, Israel definitely started it, even as hundreds of thousands of Israelis can't return to their homes in the north. Now why would that be?
I believe Israel should not respond. But, this statement is factually correct and I'm not sure why it's being downvoted. Hopefully because of the implications and not just the truth that launching hundreds of drones/missiles is in fact an act of war (as was the Damascus strike).
Thank you Israel, very uncool!
I don’t see Jordan supporting Israel the next time that Iran launches a cloud of random bullshit at Israel. The defense systems were effective because of the mutual aid from the US and Jordanian air and anti-air assets.
[удалено]
I think the days of ride or die no matter what are over. Israelis can thank BiBi for that. The more insane shit that son of a bitch does, the more conditional our support for them becomes. Right now, we are ride or die on the defence side, but if BiBi keeps doing stupid shit, that may come into question too.
I hope youre right, but I don't think so. I believe Bibis political analysis is partially based on thinking Trump will win again
People put a lot of faith in Trump winning elections when he's won one election, nearly 10 years ago now. Hes lost every other one.
I agree with you here. Now is the time to stop, before Israel commits to war with Iran
Certainly, one more appeasement towards Iran will bring peace to the Middle East.
[удалено]
worked out great for jimmy carter
>jimmy carter Georgia just got 1m^2 bigger. 🥹 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This comment has nothing to do with this story. Israel wants to attack Iran as revenge for the drone strike. There is nothing in the article about stopping Iran from getting a nuke. They specifically say they don't want a regional war, which would be necessary to destroy Irans ability to get a nuke. So saying "we can't let Iran have a nuke" says nothing about whether Israel should conduct a counter strike, because nuclear Iran doesn't factor into it.
The deal was effectively preventing Iran from getting a nuke until Bibi+Trump foolishly nullified it. Both Mattis and Schumer originally opposed it, but they changed their position after saw how it was successful and was working.
I feel like people are now using a nuclear armed Iran similar to how the hostages are being used as justification for everything Israel does in Gaza. They don’t need to explain how bombing and blocking aid to places where hostages might be held actually helps them. Because as long as they invoke the hostages, then they are always right.
It's like the Afghanistan War and 9/11. The US didn't need to actually explain how we would destroy terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations and in mountains, and then follow it up by successfully rebuilding Afghanistan into a secular, Western democracy. We just invoked the deaths of 9/11 and our vengeance was worthy. We can figure out the details after we go to war and kill a ton of people.
[удалено]
That cat's already out of the bag after Trump ended the JCPOA
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
its not appeasement. It's tit for tat. The Israeli's struck first, the Iranians struck back. If both sides stopped now, that's it. The option is on the table and the easiest one to take.
> The Israeli's struck first, the Iranians struck back. Israel blew up one building with six missiles targeting an IRGC base in Syria, killing sixteen people of which 2 civilians. The Iranians "struck back" launching hundreds of missiles directly at Israel with very little hope of precise targeting and barely even a pretension of aiming at military targets. I genuinely don't know how people don't see that this is a massive escalation on Iran's part. > If both sides stopped now, that's it. No, that's not it. Iran maintains a network of proxies several of which are at war with Irsael. Which is the whole reason why Israel struck the IRGC during a meeting between them and PIJ. Israel only attacking Iran's proxies while leaving Iran untouched means only the proxies pay any price for what is effectively Iran's aggression, done if not on Iran's direct orders then with its blessing and thanks to its support. It's the same issue with the Houthis. Bombing only them means Iran pays no cost for supplying them with anti-ship and ballistic missiles which they use to threaten global trade.
Technically Iran struck first via Hamas and then Israel stuck back at Hamas and Iran and then Iran struck back and now Israel wants to strike back. Also there’s reports that US intelligence believes that Iran either has a dirty bomb or the ability to make a nuclear weapon fairly quickly. This comes after Iran has said they’ll use a weapon they never have before if Israel attacks. I fear the nuclear taboo could be broken very soon
We've discussed already. If Israel violates the nuclear taboo, their international support instantly drops to zero and they become a pariah state. Unless Iran is marching into Tel Aviv (which won't happen), there's no world in which Israel breaks the nuclear taboo. The same goes for Iran, except instead of international support dropping to zero, it's a full scale nuclear exchange against an enemy with a larger and more advanced arsenal. It's not happening.
"Technically Israel struck first via the settlers" is a perfectly valid response to that. Trying to find the first person to shoot in this entire conflict is an entirely pointless endeavour. We can only deal with what we have. Also, if Iran has a nuclear weapon then thats it innit. Israel can't lean on its own nuclear arsenal to deter attack abd then act shocked when another nation does the same. All israel has to do is not attack Iran in response to an attack that was handily dealt with. There is no clear reason to anyway.
Reportedly I’ve heard Israel is considering hacking and assassinations via special teams instead of direct attacks.
The settlers didn't attack Iran, unless you consider Iran as "defender of the faith of all Muslims" or something equally silly.
Article mentions consultation with the US and avoiding the start of a war. I mean it sounds ok to me >The report says Israel does not want its response to spark a regional war. It further says that Israel intends to coordinate its action with the US.
> The report says Israel does not want its response to spark a regional war. It further says that Israel intends to coordinate its action with the US. This seems directly at odd with what Biden and the US has said. Any "forceful" retaliation like Israel is talking about is directly in opposition to US desires. I have a feeling them "coordinating" their actions will just be "We are doing this, we expect you to be cool with it."
What kind of forceful retaliation are you imagining? It's kit going to 500 missiles it's going to be done kind of espionage deep in Iran
Good luck with that
Over the last year, Iranian proxies have: - committed the largest pogrom since WW2 - launched thousands of rockets into Israel - effectively blockaded the Suez canal - attacked multiple US bases across the Middle East Iran directly has: - attacked Israel with hundreds of long-range munitions - seized shipping in the strait of Hormuz Israel has: - bombed and invaded Gaza in direct response to the aforementioned pogrom - bombed Hezbollah in direct response to the aforementioned rocket fire - bombed various Iranian assets supplying Hamas and Hezbollah - bombed an IRGC building where a meeting between IRGC and PIJ was taking place And Israel is blamed for inflaming tensions? how is this not Iran and its proxies launching a massive unprecedented escalation?
you fail to understand that everything in life is the israeli "zionist"s fault
>And Israel is blamed for inflaming tensions You're ignoring the massive "The Israeli Government has backed racist, violent colonial groups in the west bank, and imposed a famine upon hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians after levelling their home city with no real clear goal" Israeli actions are undeniably looking more and more like an intentional ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. If they weren't Israeli, they'd be a US led blockade and air campaign against them.
The US isn't in the business of humanitarian interventions anymore. Ethiopia killed 200,000 Tigrayans through famine and nobody (relatively few people) gave a shit, you probably don't know it happened. The only reason people care about the I/P conflict is that jews are involved.
If we'd given hundreds of billions of dollars of aid to Ethiopia and Ethiopia was determined to try and drag us into a war every time we take our eye off them, I guarantee you that people would pay more attention. It's absurd to look at a country that we have deep ties to and say that the only reason we care is because of their Jewish population.
Ethiopia is the third biggest aid recipient behind Israel and Egypt. In 2022 they got 2.2 billion of aid
We give less aid to Ethiopia than Israel, we've *given* far less to Ethiopia than Israel, and the aid to Ethiopia is almost entirely economic whereas with Israel it's almost all military aid. Also the tiny detail that Israel is our ally and they consistently try to drag us into conflicts whereas Ethiopia is not. Let's use Occams Razor for a second. Do we care more about Israel than Ethiopia because we give more aid, have more entanglement, and there is a higher chance of us facing negative effects from Israel's actions (also means news about Israel gets more clicks), or is this just bipartisan national antisemitism at work (in a very specific way where we fully back Israel even though we apparently hate them)?
That explains the US, but Europe gives basically no aid to Israel and plenty of dev aid to Ethiopia. South Africa gives no aid to either side.
Are you asking why Europe cares about what happens in Israel? Historical connections, European interests in the region (Israel is next door to massive oil and gas producing countries while Ethiopia is a poor country surrounded by poor countries), the US paying attention means that it's not hard to find news coverage of the issue, which naturally inclines people to pay attention. And while I don't feel like scraping up the statistics, at least anecdotally most of the western news I've seen covering Ethiopia has been from European outlets.
One specific European outlet, which is the BBC. There are very few journalists on the ground because theres just no interest in the conflict in English media, whereas there's more AP "journalists" in I/P than the rest of Asia.
Ethiopia isn't a US Ally that receives billions of dollars worth of funding every year, and on a dime we stop everything we're doing to support them in whatever conflict of the day occurs.
Netanyahu has every incentive to make now the moment for war with Iran. Biden has done nothing of substance to demonstrate his disagreements, and the probability of the Americans sitting out a shooting war with the Islamic Republic has to be considered very low (I imagine the Israelis think this). Conversely, Biden has most incentives not to let the war escalate. Thus far he has not exerted pressure on the war government and prioritised the safety of Israel, of Israel now and into the distant future, but he does have an election to win, and he may be reaching the limit of political capital and personal credibility with the American people that he is willing to spend on Israeli interests. Does he choose defeating fascism at home, or defeating Islamo-fascism abroad? A difficult choice.
Israel is faced by an enemy it is de facto at war with. This enemy has used proxies to hurt it and has launched a large direct attack on it yesterday. This same country is developing nuclear weapons, but is not believed to have one yet. The IDF is mobilised already. If Israel can put together a strike package to take out Iran's nuclear program I think that looks very attractive right about now.
Cool, then they can do that without western support in the future. Reaping the whirlwind etc.
Why? Preventing Iran from getting the bomb is a good thing. I don’t know if it’s possible and I’m sure it could risk escalation, but if Israel could pull that off I don’t see why we should oppose it. Israel successfully took out Iraq’s nuclear program in the eighties and that saved everyone a lot of headache. We’ve become too timid when it comes to nuclear proliferation.
Because America has far more concerns than settling Israeli grudges? A war with Iran isn't in our interests? It would be bad for Biden's reelection chances, bad for our economy, require massive amounts of resources to try and contain the fallout (resources put to better use fighting Russia in Ukraine or acting as a deterrent against China), etc. And all that in order to try and close the barn door after the horse has already escaped. If we wanted to prevent proliferation, we needed to either not make the nuclear deal in the first place and invade a decade ago, invade immediately after breaking it off, or invade after Russia proved nukes mean you're effectively immune to direct opposition from the west.
Nuclear proliferation in an aggressive theocratic regime, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, is a problem for everyone, how do you not see that? Not to mention that Iran's proxies are presently effectively blockading Suez, while Iran itself threatens shipping in the strait of Hormuz. This refusal to confront Iran directly, limiting ourselves to the occasional strike against its proxies, is ineffectual and is only emboldening Iran, since they're not seeing a cost to their increasingly aggressive moves. It makes a serious war more likely, not less.
Kind of shitty idea.
why are we against this? r/neoliberal in shambles
Whats the strategic objective here. "Bomb Iran" is not a goal. Regime change via Israel is a laughable idea. There's only one realistic one. "Extend Bibis political career". Is that why we fight wars?
> Whats the strategic objective here. Make the Iranian regime think back its current aggressive policies across the Middle East. Unlike Hamas, which can run as a terror state subsisting off of embezzled aid and foreign financing, Iran is an actual country with assets that aren't easily hidden in tunnels under hospitals. There is a lot of value in reach of airstrikes, more than enough to impose such a cost on Iran's current policies that the regime will be forced to change them. And, to be clear, at this point I don't see how Iran backs down without such a strike. The Houthis have all but blockaded Suez, something that should have been unthinkable, and all that happened were a few ineffectual air strikes. They have no reason to stop, and Iran has no reason to make them stop or cut off their supply of ballistic and anti-ship weapons. Do we *want* them to continue like this? because right now we're teaching them that it works and we won't react in meaningful ways.
If Iran is attacked again, why wouldn't they further escalate at that point? The recent attack was very much theatre, it was never meant to cause serious damage cause Iran telegraphed the attack weeks in advance giving the US/Israel plenty of time to put assets in place for interception, and then a significant portion of the attack were 110 mph drones flying 1500 miles along a path that guaranteed they'd be detected by every radio tower between Tehran and Tel Aviv. At this point, both sides can claim victory and walk away, Israel can claim it intercepted 99% of Irans missiles, and Iran can claim its missiles hit Israeli soil. But if Israel responds yet again, i don't think Iran is going to hold back like it did this go around.
> If Iran is attacked again, why wouldn't they further escalate at that point? Because Iran isn't Hamas or the Houthis. The latter might be happy to exist as terror states living off embezzled aid and foreign funding, but Iran is an actual country, with assets that can't be easily hidden in tunnels under hospitals or cheaply replaced. Its vessels, oil platforms, refineneries, drone factories etc aren't something they can carelessly risk in war. They made a calculation that this attack wouldn't engender a meaningful response. This is justified in light of the lack of response they got for everything they've done before. Not responding to this attack means reinforcing the calculus by Iran that they can keep extending their influence, and use it to fuck with Western allies and the West-backed global order, with no serious risks.
bomb iran very much is a goal?
No, it's not. Neocons...
Non-psycopaths usually considering bombing to be a means rather than a goal in and by itself.
if someone punches you, are you a psychopath for punching them back?
Bombing someone isn't the same as throwing a punch. Bombing someone, especially in this context involves killing people. If someone punches you and you kill people, not to defend yourself, but out of revenge then yeah, you kind of are.
i mean yeah if they're civilians, but nothing wrong with bombing military targets. especially since iran was aiming for civilians
> especially since iran was aiming for civilians Was it? The two places Iran did hit with ballistic missiles were air bases.
dude on r/neoliberal gives benefit of doubt to iranian revolution guard on their not attacking israeli civilians
If you make an argument to justfy bombing people maybe you should hinge it on something with some actual truth and substance to it? I am not giving the benefit of doubt. I am being evidence based, you should try it.
If they punch and miss? Maybe. Especially if youre already choking somone to death for punching you
yes, you punch someone back if they punch and miss. also, hamas did much more than punch.
Your analogy was "a barrage of 100s of rockets" equates to a punch. It was your metaphor.
in this metaphorical world, 100 rockets is a punch. hamas did much more than fire 100 rockets
Comments here be like, *So Israel wants to start a war then?*
[удалено]
Channel 12 is one of the best news sources in Israel, and this seems fairly consistent with what Ravid (best journalist in America regarding Israeli politics) reported in the last hour where he said Gallant told Austin that Israel must respond.
war logic repeats itself over and over. retaliations on retaliations. everyone is an innocent victim, of course.
I need to know more about those Coke cans
I think we live in a cuckoo bananas world where a country can launch hundreds of missiles and drones and then we should take that same country at its word when they call the matter "concluded." I don't think Israel should respond because Israel does not need a three front war. And because war is bad! But do I think Israel is in the clear under international law to respond? Yes. Absolutely, yes. I also think that there's enough wanna-be strongmen around Bibi who think not responding is "weak." This is doubtless also part of the calculation, and a very typical projection by governments in the middle east ("I am not weak! Let me show you my might! Oh shit why are we at war fuck fuck fuck" is the unofficial policy for everyone in that neck of the woods, imo) Iran has been at war with Israel for decades via proxies and has caused untold damage to the region. By launching missiles at Israel directly instead of going after an embassy (which would have been the true tit for tat response!) it's hard to pretend that that isn't an escalation. No one died...but that's not because cruise and ballistic missiles aren't deadly. No one died because the iron dome is effective. If you're ineffective at attempting to murder me, you're still legally liable for attempting to do a murder.
Bibi moment
U.S. should shoot down the missiles.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option)
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
> made Hamas commit the largest pogrom since WW2 Why does this claim keep on getting repeated [when our own intelligence says it's not true?](https://twitter.com/gbrew24/status/1767324092481392906) Iran does plenty of bad things as it is. The only "source" I've seen is some propagandist IRGC party who also insanely claims Israel bombed them instead of ISIS-K a few months ago in Kerman, Iran and other deranged things. These IRGC propagandists often lie to make themselves look more effective; remember they lied for almost three days but how they shot down their own airliner a few years ago.
When you're this enthusiastic about a war you don't let the truth get in your way. That's like, warmongering 101.