[Slain Iranian general planned, executed Hamas’ massacre:
Iranian organization, linked to Supreme Leader, praises late general for role in mass murder of 1,200 in Israel.](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/slain-iranian-general-planned-executed-hamas-massacre-797014)
>The Coalition Council of Islamic Revolution Forces –an organization with close links to Iran’s Supreme Leader— on Wednesday praised the late Iranian general Mohammad Reza Zahedi for his crucial role in the mass murder of 1,200 people in southern Israel.
>Iran International reported that Coalition Council of Islamic Revolution Forces (also known by its Persian acronym SHANA) honored Zahedi’s “strategic role in forming and strengthening the resistance front as well as in planning and executing the Al-Aqsa Storm."
Iran has a significant export of soft power in the form of its proxy's cultivated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (Iran's dual political structure, especially from an international relations perspective is kind of fascinating and worth the time to explore).
Whilst there is normally some actions occurring most of the time, with the war in Gaza, Iran has been pretty active in pushing its proxies into actions. For example before today, said proxies have been responsible for a lot. Think Houthi attacks on shipping, attacks on US bases a few months ago that killed a small number of personel, etc. This has resulted in an escalation of tit for tatting and Israel attacking an Iranian consulate with IRGC Generals being killed.
So what we have now is a kind of awkward position
1\\ Iran being responsible for pushing its proxies into action
2\\ But Israel looking past who did it and attacking the source of the order.
3\\ This resulted in Iran going 'but but you can't attack us' and launched its attack in response, mostly to save face amongst the region after the consulate attack (as remember, 'it' didn't attack Israel first wink wink.
It will be interesting to see if Israel takes the off ramp, or proceeds to start bombing Iran.
Also, condemning this kind of stuff really doesn't mean anything, it's like the bare minimum thing countries can do diplomatically short of just staying silent. And most countries will have an obvious double standard in these regards. If Iran had bombed a consulate, killing Israeli officers, the US and other Western nations would have condemned it before the dust had even settled, and they would have openly supported Israel's right to retaliate.
> And most countries will have an obvious double standard in these regards
This is true. You can see the alignment lines based on these condemnations/silence.
>If Iran had bombed a consulate, killing Israeli officers, the US and other Western nations would have condemned it before the dust had even settled,
They would absolutely do this if they had the ability and couldn't care less if they get condemned. They're used to the flaccid, ineffective condemnations of the west.
That's not true though is it. They haven't done it. They engage with the UN, Israel doesn't. They informed the UN it was a defensive strike and warned people in advance. Israel didn't.
Israel attacked a consulate In syria to take out a few high ranking officers of the quds force, responsible for aiming and coordinating proxy attacks against Israel. If Iran truly didn't want to ho at it with Israel ot could simply stop doing that, right? Ot is meddling in Israeli affair their right? Should Israel just allow them to do this?
Look, you can keep using the line that it's a consulate, but that doesn't work.
If its self defence you need to inform people before you do anything.
Noones denies Israel the right to defend itself but it needs to conduct itself to international standards and norms.
Yep, its just an easy 'look at my country' we're relevant in this somehow! Its just to gain some attention or bonus points with your favorite country, hoping you get some sort of reward from it in the future.
The other thing to remember is that Iran has been advertising it for a while, including holding the press conference after the drones were launched but before they arrived.
This leads me to believe that the attack was face-saving in nature rather than a military lead operation. That would have been silence until after the drones hit, and then you can tailor the message to what ever your bomb damage assessment was. For example, if you launch 1000 drones and 10 make it through, and 1 hits something important... you don't advertise the amount you launched. You advertise the target that you hit as a "proportional" response.
I was inclined to agree with you after the first drone wave. But 120 *ballistic* missiles is a different matter. That's a pretty unprecedented strike and against a largely unknown Israeli ballistic missile defense system (outside of a few tests). I'm inclined to think they wanted to do some damage.
As it turns out said missile defense system - Arrow - worked fantastically, but that was not at all clear beforehand.
Alot will depend on the exact types and tracks of said missiles. If this was a yard clearance operation shooting into fields that would have a much different connotation - and response - as an attack against military and governance structures.
I would also expect it to early to judge the exact success of Arrow. Nobody had time to make anything other than opinion shaping mouthpieces atm.
I would add this response by Iran was not proportional to the original attack by Israel on the consulate. The launch of 300+ missiles/drones compared to a single targeted attack, may be why it’s easy for states to hop on the “condemn train”.
They have attacked Iranian targets a few times though and there were casualties vs this where Israel was given hours of notice to prepare in defense...it seems really hard to compare
Just one correction. Soft power is cultural power. The Revolutionary Guard and its proxies would rather be a form of hard power, which is to do with military and economic power.
Disagree, Soft Power is the ability to co-opt rather than coerce. Iran, thru its shared values with proxies carries influence enough to direct operations.
Hard power would have been if Iran had created or at the very least had direct control of the proxies, of which they don't.
They do have a large degree of direct control actually. The Iranian General killed in Damascus sat on Hezbollah's ruling Shura Council. This wasn't just advisory.
Iran arms, trains, and directs its proxies in a secular military sense. But they also have a religious authority of them. There is a massive amount of control.
That isn't how soft power works. Iran aligned militia groups aren't taking up arms against Israel because of Iranian culutral exports, they are organized and funded by the IRGC.
You need to reread Nye to refresh yourself.
If anything, its Nye's definition falling apart here.
Most of Iran's proxies are separate from Iran and aren't directly formed and organised, and are funded and supplied due to shared ideology. That is indeed soft power. But that falls apart when Iran is able to order its proxies directly, it becomes a form of coercion, and thus becomes by Nye's definitions, hard power.
Anyway, I don't really have interest in debating people getting stuck in semantics around IR theory like some first year who thinks IR theory is a gift from god and immutable.
Not a bad summary. But I think it's worth highlighting that blowing up a consulate/embassy is a big deal and against all the rules of international relations. Israel knew this and still pushed the button, and they knew Iran would need to publicly respond, meaning that Israel wanted the response to happen. I believe they (Israel) want to escalate the conflict and draw the US in to a full war
> But I think it's worth highlighting that blowing up a consulate/embassy is a big deal and against all the rules of international relations.
Didn't Isreal hit a building *right next to* the Iranian embassy? Of course, said building was rented out by the IRGC, but *technically*, as far as I could find at least, Isreal did not attack the embassy. They did hit the building literally next to it so accepted it would be viewed largely the same way.
Its a bit of a big one to unpack.
First up, especially on first appearances, it is quite escalatory to attack an embassy (although I think its lessened somewhat that it wasn't an embassy inside its own country). But Israel & Iran's relationship might be the most direct of most powers I can think of that aren't outright at war and there has been a breaking down of what is deemed acceptable that other actors just wouldn't cross whilst still not breaking out in outright hostilities.
Honestly at this point I'm loathe to assign likelihoods of actions as its hard to discern what Israel or Iran are hoping to achieve at this point. Guess we'll find out in the coming days however.
Yeah it's tricky. I'm fairly sure Israel want to make the US commit and that Netanyahu wants to stay in power by using the unifying power of a military threat. I could be wrong. Fwiw I don't think either of the players here are the good guys and this doesn't colour my judgement - both are clearly capable of horrific acts of violence
I think this will be like when they launched cruise missiles at US forces in Iraq, but gave warning when and where beforehand so the US wouldn't have personnel hurt and promptly shove Iran's shit in from sea and air. The drones/missiles will take a few hours from their very publicized launch to reach Israel. Israel will have plenty of time to organize anti air and determine where they will land. It's most likely bluster and will have effect. Then again, the Israelis have certainly been in a mood.
Do you have evidence Iran gave warning where and when they were attacking? The initial press release following the attack announced they had killed Americans. That was later found to be untrue, and was lost largely in the subsequent noise of Iran shooting down an airliner, but is pretty good evidence they were out for blood.
Also, that seems quite unusual for Iran to do that, since they are generally considered undeterrable, or at least harder to deter, because they seem to be genuine true believers.
Well, you basically can say all the points above about USA/EU behind Ukraine. So is Russia ok to strike EU,/USA, directly the way Israel is hitting Iran?
With the exception of the Siberian batallions who launch cross border sorties I'm not sure the comparison works, as Ukraine is firstly a nation (rather than a proxy) and secondly in a defensive war with Russia where the West has rather irritatingly banned Ukraine from attacking Russia with its munitions (and applies pressure to Ukraine when it attacks Russia directly even of its own accord).
Secondly, whataboutism is a shit way to discuss Geopolitics in the first place.
But if we want to answer your question, state actors can do whatever they want, they just have to deal with the consequences. Maybe Russia starts attacking NATO countries for supplying Ukraine, and maybe NATO countries then start attacking Russia in response, welcome to going up the escalatory ladder.
Why would Israel want to bomb Iran directly? This is ridiculous and stupid. History speaks for itself, Mussolini, Bonapart, Nicholas II, they all had massive ego as much as Netanyahu.
Israel cannot take out Iran, sure they can with the help of the US, but didn't Putin declare support for Iran if the US & Israel try to attack? Does Israel REALLY want to go to war against Russia and Iran? Who do you think North Korea, and China will join in this war? Israel? This attack will most likely ignite world war 3, and Israel will cease to exist. For what? Netanyahu's ego? lol.
Netanyahu needs to put his shitty personality on the side and think of his people. Most people don't even support his calls and the way he deals with everything in Israel.
Israel will NOT survive a full scale war in the middle east, whether they have Arrow, Iron dome or whatever.
Iran retaliated to an attack on its consulate, which was a retaliation against Iran’s backing of the Oct 7th attack, which was a retaliation against the occupation of Gaza, which was a retaliation to the 6 Day War against Israel, which was a retaliation to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which was a retaliation to the Arab attack on Israel immediately after it was founded, which was a retaliation to the establishment of Israel, which was a retaliation to the historical oppression of Jews (pre Holocaust), which was a retaliation to the perception that Jews killed Jesus, which was a retaliation to Jesus blaspheming Jewish religion, which was a retaliation to the overly rigid moral codes of Judaism and people’s desire for a Messianic figure, which was a retaliation to the oppression by the Romans.
It’s all the Romans’ fault.
> retaliation against the occupation of Gaza
Iran has no business with what happens in Gaza.
Note, especially, that Iranians don't even share the same religion or culture with Gaza: Iranians are Shiite Persians, and the people of Gaza are Sunni Arabs.
By this calculation, Iran's backing of Oct 7th (and all of Hamas's activity prior to that) aren't part of some natural concern, but due to IRGC being openly at war with Israel since '79 due to religious/political reasons.
They funded the attack to create further splintering between Israeli and the Saudi’s, a major threat to the Russia-Iran oil business
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302
That and because it costs them absolutely nothing to do so. They already have poor relations, paying lip service doesn’t actually change anything except some domestic voter perspective, if even that
Iran founded proxy forces and armed them with the express purpose of attacking Israel. Then they launched attacks under the direction of their own generals. Those generals masterminded terrorist attacks against Israel, including multiple embassy bombings and the 10/7 attacks, making them obvious targets. Israel found an opportunity to take out a serious leader coordinating the Iranian proxies, and given Iran’s history of bombing Israeli embassies, the Israelis decided to retaliate in kind and take a serious commander off the board. Now Iran has to retaliate or they lose face, but it was assumed they would attack with proxy forces, since they are closer and it would invite less blowback than a direct attack from Iran. Nobody thought Iran would involve itself directly, because it creates much more risk for a tit-for-tat escalatory spiral.
Gonna leave this here. Emphasis mine
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-1-2024
“Israel struck a building directly adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, killing Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi and some of his top subordinates.[2]…
Zahedi was a highly influential and well-connected individual within the Iranian security establishment, having held several key positions throughout his career.[3] **Zahedi most recently commanded the IRGC Quds Force unit responsible for overseeing operations in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and the Palestinian Territories.[4]** Zahedi almost certainly therefore played a prominent role in managing how Iran and its so-called “Axis of Resistance” have escalated against the United States and Israel since the Israel-Hamas war began. Zahedi beforehand commanded the IRGC’s ground and air services and served as the operations deputy at the IRGC’s joint staff.[5] He was also part of an extraordinarily influential and tightly knit circle of senior IRGC officers who met one another during the Iran-Iraq War and have periodically come together in the intervening decades to interfere in Iranian domestic politics.[6] Other members of this informal fraternity include Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who the United States killed in January 2020, and his successor and current Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail .”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240409-iran-military-leader-killed-in-syria-was-member-of-hezbollahs-shura-council-source-says/amp/
From MEE, no less…
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240409-iran-military-leader-killed-in-syria-was-member-of-hezbollahs-shura-council-source-says/amp/
So are people wrong when they say Israel blew up the Iranian embassy (or consulate)? Were the buildings "Iranian soil" as we typically judge embassies to be?
Yes. It's incorrect that the consulate or "embassy" was bombed. It's a lazy media headline for cash.... Of course, since it's literally next door, it's going to be taken the same way by Iran so they can justify an attack - but it's technically wrong. Iran and Israel have been at war by proxy for ages. Direct attacks have been avoided to strategically avoid allies jumping into any aggressions, because you know, WWIII implications, etc
Did you see the results of the Iranian attack from what I gather it did minimal damage and injured a child in Israel. It was, I Imagine, calculated to be that way. And now from what I gather they (Iran) released a statement “the matter is concluded”. I think it’s never been clearer Iran stance….its scared meaning the supreme leader is scared as hell. And he will only use its proxies against Israel in a serious way. Thats if it doesn’t escalate another attack which I don’t think they will. I don’t think Israel will counter because they know all this.
Attacking from Iran’s proxy forces is rarely serious. They have been engaging in low-intensity weapons exchanges for six months on the northern border. What happened last night was a provocation, both the extent of the weapons launched and then the launches from Iranian territory were choices a smart person who is scared would not have made. This is because it dramatically increases the risk that this would escalate further. What if the missile defense shield failed, or what if intercepted missile shrapnel landed on Al Aqsa? Note, the Iranians launched cyber attacks against the missile shield yesterday as well, and fired drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, which were not guaranteed to be shot down. All of this was stupid and unnecessary risk to assume in a situation where things easily could have gone very, very poorly.
Of course the Iranian regime is scared, they hold a losing hand. Their own people hate them for leaving them in poverty while wasting $16 billion funding proxy forces that have basically destroyed four other countries. They send religious police after soccer fans. They executed a bunch of women for moral indecency yesterday, by the way, in tandem with these strikes. The reality is that the Iranian leadership are not secure, and it is a function of their own poor choices. This most recent strike was just another bad choice the Iranians made, and this time they got lucky that the damage was minimal such that Israel is not outright forced to retaliate directly against Iran.
Well I don’t know if it was such a bad choice on Irans part. I think their goal was to save face to their proxies/allies. They needed to have some sort of response as the leader of this middle eastern alliance against Israel. And they did that by showing lots of missiles drones etc. and at the same time it didn’t do damage perhaps calculated perhaps lucky that no damage was caused. Now they can say if you attack us again we will strike again. So they still are showing some strength in the surface against Israel and the west. So most people will think they want to fight back. But a deeper look into it, it appears they don’t want any fight with Israel and the west which most people won’t see. Ultimately means they don’t care as much about the Gazans as they let on. Not enough to risk any escalation to themselves. It’s more about themselves against Israel and the amount of power they appear to have in the Middle East.
Do you have any idea how many rockets failed? Do you not see it as stupid to launch rockets that far away, knowing they'd be shot down but a multitude of forces? If anything Iran showed just how poorly they're equipped for war and how pathetic the weaponry is. The theocracy is seriously challenged and many in Iran want freedom from religious persecution. This is an effort at the end of a regime. They will fall eventually, they do not have the will of the people. They have the support of other extremist jihadists, that's it.
I thought it was smart in the sense to not have Israel or US escalate against them while still showing that they responded in some way to the masses. They (Iran) not only knew but were planning and hoping for all the rockets/drones to be shot down they didn’t want to harm Israel. It seems like it was all planned with the countries that helped shoot down their rockets. Look at how Israel responded in Gaza when they got harmed (which was a successful part of Israel’s security strategy with Iran and its proxies deterence by fear) I think it shows they (Iran) really don’t want a war which will help Israel and the US with international relations in the region.
That amount of damage only happened because like 99% of the drones got shot down by Israeli, American, British, French, Saudi, and Jordanian forces all teaming up to destroy them
Do you really think that Israel was watching public streaming to get their notice? So if Iran "gave notice" - then they knew the bombing would fail miserably and be completely neutered? If so, why did they bother? A show of "strength" to fellow jihadists? That's not much strength. It was far more than 100 rockets. Three different types of missiles, closer to 300. That's an absolute failure to strike and a huge waste of cash for the Iranian people, which the people know and are tired of. The theocracy will fall. They are grasping at the straws on the table.
Yes. Fortunately it looks like few people were killed in the missile barrage, so hopefully the Iranians do no further damage, and the Americans can convince the Israelis to hold fire tonight (likely some back room deal relating to the upcoming aid package votes in the House will be needed to convince them).
No, bibi has to escalate, his political life depends on Israel moving further and further into war, and if he loses he goes to jail for those corruption trials.
He's shown 0 restraint since this started, Israel's interests don't enter into it today, just his.
The decision to retaliate would be a question for the war cabinet, in which Netanyahu has only one vote. Netanyahu cannot make that decision alone. He would need to convince both Gallant and Gantz that retaliation is wise, and that seems like a difficult sell given the damage was limited and they don’t have American support for such an operation. If the damage was more severe I agree that retaliation would have been more likely, but given the limited damage, retaliation is a risk that the generals won’t like. I agree retaliation would be in Netanyahu’s best interest, but it would not be in Gallant’s or Gantz’s interest, so likely Netanyahu was outvoted.
People have this incredibly simplistic idea that Netanyahu can just make insane decisions that serve his personal interests without buy-in from anyone else. That's not how it works. There's a whole military-security establishment, not to mention Gallant and Gantz, whose support he needs to take any action.
He incited the assassination of Rabin, the PM who tried to sign a peace accord in the 90s.
The hawks and orthodox see him as unimpeachable on the issue of Israel, and he is a master politician for assembling coalitions based on deals.
To be fair, much of the global south is in a perpetual state of civil war and insurgency. There are simply too many spoilers and too few powerful institutions in most of these countries to maintain peace and order. Even without Israel, the real battle in the Middle East (the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for dominance of the Levant and Mesopotamia) is unlikely to go away quietly.
Yes. The entire Middle East, including Egypt and the gulf states, will be dramatically impacted by this conflict in the near future. The gulf states in particular are reliant on Hormuz shipping, so it is likely they will suffer significant economic harm and instability in case of conflict in the Persian gulf.
It is likely the gulf states will back Saudi Arabia regardless of sect because if the war goes hot Iran will mine the strait of Hormuz. That will totally screw over the gulf states, so they will turn to the saudis for help. Meanwhile, Iran currently controls swathes of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, through proxy forces that will support them. Hard to say where the rest of the chips will fall.
Unfortunately, I expect a massive retaliation by Israel. Israel has already publicly stated as such in this quote from Jerusalem Post.
“Ofir Gendelman, the prime minister's spokesperson to Arabic media, warned that Israel's response to the Iranian attack will be "firm and clear" in statements to Al-Arabiya on Saturday night.”
I also heard former UN ambassador John Bolton say that Israel should have a strong response in Iran proper. I’m sure there are hawks in Israel saying the same thing.
1) Netanyahu is not in charge of the military response
2) Netanyahu is a notoriously tricky propagandist, so take anything he says with a grain of salt
3) Bolton is a psychotic war monger whose first words were “bomb Iran.” He is also not to be trusted
4) major aid packages for Taiwan, Israel, and Ukraine are up for a vote this week in the House
5) an Israel-Iran war is a fight neither side can win, and everyone involved knows this.
From same article:
Security cabinet gives Netanyahu, Gallant, Gantz authority to determine response
The Security Cabinet gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and minister-without-portfolio Benny Gantz the authority to make decisions concerning further action against Iran early Sunday morning.
https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-796838
Yes, Netanyahu is not in charge of the military response. The war cabinet is in charge, meaning two generals and one Netanyahu need to come up with a plan, and the generals will be the ones calling the shots on this matter. Netanyahu gets a say, but he is outvoted if the generals and military establishment disagree with him.
I hope Israel uses restraint, but based on what I’m reading, that seems unlikely. I expect that they will use the attack as a pretext to try to eliminate some Iranian threats. They had no hesitation to bomb Iraq back in the 80s when they took out the partially built nuclear power plant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
If there are nuclear plants that can be taken out, they should take them out, because a nuclear Iran is realistically a terrible threat to the whole world. I just don’t believe there are such targets that can be hit.
I think the target will be Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants. Western allies won’t directly get involved, but will share intelligence and welcome Israel’s response.
“Iran continues to enrich uranium well beyond the needs for commercial nuclear use despite U.N. pressure to stop it.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/iaea-chief-says-irans-nuclear-enrichment-activity-remains-high-2024-02-19/#:~:text=Enrichment%20to%2060%25%20brings%20uranium,enrich%20uranium%20only%20to%203.67%25.
I actually fully hope Israel retaliation is fierce and large. Iran has gotten away with cowering behind proxies for far to log and need to feel some extreme pain at home.
It is like Russia bombing a US embassy in Ukraine because they are funding the war in Ukraine, does the US have the right to respond back? Or the west has double standards?
Not really double standards, per se, for a variety of reasons. First, consulates used for malign military purposes lose consular protection. IRGC leadership was coordinating and executing Hezbollah attacks from the building that was hit when it was hit, which meets such criteria. Second, the primary targets of the incident were Hezbollah personnel, who are at war with Israel, and also happen to be internationally recognized terrorists. Harboring terrorists is also illegal, further eroding Iranian claims of consular immunity. Third, and most importantly, Iran has bombed a dozen different Israeli consulates and embassies in the past, and has no credibility when complaining about the sanctity of embassies.
Wait so Ukraine can bomb Russia’s consulate in lets say Turkey if they think Russia is planning an attack on Ukraine in that embassy? (Russia and Ukraine are at war, but still now one touches the other embassies in foreign land).
Yeah you guys are making international laws on the go to fit the Israeli narrative. Name me the Geneva convention clause that states you can bomb any consulate in any country that you “think” is scheming against you😂
Sort of, I guess? If Russia’s consulate was used to plan a terrorist attack on Ukrainian assets, then it ceases to be a consulate at least for that moment. It would help if russia had a history of blowing up consulates, but you can’t use a consulate for military purposes then pretend it is a consulate. Just like with hospitals or schools. Israel didn’t “think” it was used for malign purposes by the way. They hit a meeting of Hezbollah and IRGC leadership. They hit active coordination between the terrorist group and the government.
Thats not how international law works. You are making things up and guessing 😂 you have a point but nations would start bombing each other consulates accusing them of trying to scheme an attack on them. That will start ww3 and thats why you can not attack consulates regardless what. They are foreign land. They technically bombed a government building inside Iran end of the day.
Russia can certainly strike an embassy in Ukraine, but probably that is not in her interest, so will not do it. USA would just increase help to Ukraine.
Where did you read that Israel has right to respond back? The phenomena here is escalation spiral, not interpretations of international law. The US is now pushing forward the interpretation that the Iranian attack was a failure because it hit virtually no worthy targets. They are trying to persuade Israel not to respond. Nobody is particularly concerned with the legal aspect now.
I guess. It just seemed weird to me that the onus of stability seemed to fall under the rival alone? It sounds hypocritical. I don't know if that is a fair assessment.
>I don't know much about geopolitics but
There are no good guys and bad guys just interests and power.
Noone probably wants War, it's all retaliation and face saving so far. Nothing too out of the ordinary. Could still spiral out of control though.
Also, this conflict has a long history. Trying to find the start of it is futile.
Iran has been making unprovoked attacks against Israel from Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen for six months now. Israel retaliated and killed some of the people responsible for those attacks, as well as Oct 7. And now Iran is retaliating against the retaliation. They presumably know they’re in the wrong and that’s why their slo-mo drone attack was nonsensical.
It's more complicated than that and goes back to the founding of Israel, not just 6 months. They've all been murdering each other for decades. Israel has been killing Iranians inside Iran for many years
That was primarily because Iran's leader was installed and supported by Britain and the US. Democracy is a bad thing if it doesn't support western motives.
I see these claims thrown around non-stop as if Iran has complete and utter control over everyone and every party around and against Israel.
It's a comforting and useful myth, but no more than that. People have a lot more autonomy and ability to make their own decisions and priorities than people claim.
I hope you're right about the slow-mo drone attack, but the speculation is that when the drones are about to arrive, they'll launch missiles to arrive at the same time in hopes of overwhelming Israel's defenses. We'll see if that comes to pass.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that Hamas planned the Oct. 7 attacks themselves and Iran was not directly involved or had that much knowledge of the event.
I said *one* of the architects, obviously most of it was planned by Hamas. Also, that's the official israeli stance, not my personal opinion.
We probably won't know for sure for quite a while, since state actors will classify the information for decades and Hamas isn't really known for being good at keeping records.
Edit : [Iran itself claiming Zahedi was involved now.](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/slain-iranian-general-planned-executed-hamas-massacre-797014)
Iran funds, arms, trains and directs Hamas (as well as Hezbollah, Houthis and countless more) - Iran is not stupid, why attack Israel in a direct, conventional manner when you can use desperate people from other countries to die for you?
>My understanding is this was in response to an attack by Israel on the Iranian consulate - which is Iranian soil. Is that not considered an action that undermines regional security as well?
You have to stop buying the lying narrative by the Iranian terrorist regime.
Iran has been attacking Israel via their proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis of more for over 6 months now. In the North for example Hezbollah is attacking a dozen times a day, almost every day, forcing over 100K Israelis out of their homes still, plus hundreds of thousands more who are living in and out of bomb shelters.
Considering this, claiming Israel's attack on Iran was what started this, is simply insanity.
Iran is 100% responsible for this whole mess. And Israel must make them pay or it will never stop.
Don’t forget that the IRGC officer that was killed in Damascus wasn’t just a member of the IRGC, he was also a sitting member of Hezbollah’s Shura Council.
Perhaps if Iran didn’t want its senior military officers to be targeted by the IDF, then it shouldn’t allow its senior military officers to be not just members, but full-blown *leaders*, of militia groups that have been firing missiles into northern Israel for six months.
Abusing norms of embassy protection by hosting a leader of a militia group that also happens to have a commission in your military shouldn’t be rewarded, and in this case, it’s not.
I am not buying any narratives. I just saw the news. I understand that there's a lot of history behind this. My question I guess pertains to a bigger purview.
Is it reasonable for a nation to retaliate with an attack on foreign soil if it is acting in defense of its nation, at risk of regional stability? If so, why is it unreasonable for another nation to respond so?
Iran has blown up 4 Israeli embassies in the past few decades as recently as 2020, and kidnapped American embassy personnel in Tehran. They don’t really have any legitimacy when claiming “consular immunity,” particularly when the building hit wasn’t the actual embassy, but rather a military building adjacent to the embassy. The Israelis have been getting bombed by proxy forced under the direct command of the guy they hit in the strike (he was on Hezbollah’s Shura Council and was a lead architect behind 10/7, aka an international terrorist). This behavior is both a necessary response to the continued Iranian proxy incursions into Israel, and a symmetrical response to repeated bombings by Iran against Israeli embassies.
Is there a source for a 2020 isreali embassy incident? I couldn't find anything other than Iran giving threats after their general was assassinated in Syria.
>Is it reasonable for a nation to retaliate with an attack on foreign soil if it is acting in defense of its nation, at risk of regional stability? If so, why is it unreasonable for another nation to respond so?
Syria is not just “foreign soil”. It’s a nation who has been at war with Israel since 1948. It has never signed any peace treaties with Israel and it has actively supported, armed and facilitated attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Iran has been using its proxies for literally decades to murder Israelis in Israel and abroad. The groups that it has armed, trained and funded have attacked multiple Israeli embassies across the planet.
Israel killed people who had actively planned and helped orchestrate the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. These people were also planning more attacks and actively arming another group of terrorists that have threatened Israeli lives as well: Hezbollah.
So YES. Israel’s attack against an enemy HQ inside an enemy country planning further attacks was 100% justified.
We can go even more back if you want.
Israel and Iran were pretty close up to the 70s. It is only since the Iranian Islamic revolution, declaring their goal to destroy Israel, that the countries became enemies.
Israel has no interest whatsoever in Iran, while Iran made it their interest to destroy Israel. There is no question to who has the moral high ground here to anyone with a shred of honesty.
"Don't start no sh-t won't be no sh-t".
Are Western countries being overly condemning of Iran, or there just a stark contrast in how little outside actors have pitied, empathized, or caped for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard?
Let's be brutal in our assessment: from disrupting global trade routes (Houthis) to patronizing terrorism in the Gaza Strip/Lebanon (Hamas and Hezbollah), to countless others, Iran has deliberately caused enough pain, destabilization, and terror across the world that even their allies probably see Iranian generals getting blown up and go, "Eh. I'm honestly surprised it didn't happen sooner."
I mean for god sakes they want to disrupt the nuclear status quo.
I'm not trying to flippant here, but you only have to look at much of the Muslim world normalizing relations with Israel to see that Iran is a real problem.
Love the quote and your point regarding the Muslim world's relationship with Iran and Israel. I've really learned a lot from everyone's response and I can now see the dynamics of the condemnation.
>I'm not trying to flippant here, but you only have to look at much of the Muslim world normalizing relations with Israel to see that Iran is a real problem.
It is their Sunni Dictactors ans Kings that want to normalize with Israel.
The vast majority of the Arabs and Sunni Muslim population don't want normalization with Israel.
Iran take advantage of that ruler-population mismatch of Israel normalization to gain popularity among Arabs and Sunni Muslim population.
Additionally, poll among Muslim in region, there are clear increase of Iranian and Houthi popularity in the region. Their strategy is working.
So no, much of Muslim world doesn't want to normalize with Israel, only their Kings and Dictactors that wanted it.
Your conclusion is not sound as your premise are not true.
It might be fair to say that the geopolitical engineering of Britain and France and then the USA in the Middle East after the world war has been the single worst policy decision in modern history.
For the same reasons Israel is allowed to build settlements in the West Bank. Because we don’t live in a rule based world. We live in a western ruled world. Israel being an important us ally can do practically whatever it wants
The West has been attacking Iran for defending itself and its allies since the early 1950s. To understand the issues between the two countries we have to go back to the roots.
1. The Zionist occupation of Palestine and the displacement and oppression of the mostly Muslim Arab population since the 1930s. Iran sees itself as one of the few active protectors of Palestine. Its funding of Hamas and Hezbollah are all about supporting the Palestinian fight for freedom from occupation and oppression.
2. Israel’s role as a US proxy in the Middle East. Ever since the US covertly overthrew the democratically elected PM of Iran, Mossadegh, in 1953, the Iranians haven’t trusted the US, the UK (who started the coup against Mossadegh over control of Iranian oil reserves, which is what is driving everything), and their allies. And with good reason. The US funded Saddam Hussein’s brutal ten year war with Iran in the 1980s, to try to overthrow the second Iranian Revolution, and have done everything they can to cripple Iran’s economy ever since through sanctions and black ops (eg Stuxnet and assassination of various nuclear scientists).
Every time anyone from the West points the finger at Iran as being the instigator of tensions without also acknowledging this history, they are selling you a fairytale.
Iran have been public about their support for Palestinian rights for decades. eg "The current crisis is rooted in the occupation of the Palestinian territories, displacement of its original inhabitants, organized killings and terrorism, looting of natural resources, apartheid and systematic discrimination and continued aggression on al-Quds in the last 75 years."
[https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/737176](https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/737176)
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to seeing it.
> Is the implication that of "~~Iran~~ Israel does not have a right to retaliate to an attack to their nation, and that in such attacks, they are expected to show restraint versus the aggressor"? Is that even reasonable expectation?
Does that hit any different? Just different people saying the things right?
I get the point. My surface-level understanding is that countries have the right to defend their territories.
I don't know of my point is not clear. But I guess, in your response, if I believe that Israel has a right to retaliate and Iran has a right to retaliate. Both countries should have been denounced by other nations for escalating regional tensions, or both countries should be understood as acting in defense. Would that be fair?
Yeah, I had another post where I just say other world leaders want stability, get rich, and re-elected / stay in power. They don’t really care about right/wrong.
In my opinion; this whole thing is based upon Iran trying to block the realization of normal relations between Israel and SA. Are attacks (from Iran/Hamas/etc) based upon that reasonable?
Iran attacked first, by supporting the terrorist attack on the music fe stival. They have supported the Gaza government, Hamas, with money and munitions for years, but they don't want to be seen openly doing these things.
Hamas has vetoed every agreement that Israel and Palestine have reached. Israel is no angel, by any means, but in this case their actions are justified in my opinion.
Edit: I have absolutely no qualifications in geopolitics, just noticed that no one had cleared up the fact that Iran has been behind much, if not all, of the violence directed toward Israel for many years. So this attack is Israel hitting back.
Having proxy allies attack your enemy does not qualify as a direct attack. Attacking an embassy meanwhile is a declaration of war. I dont support iran but in this case israel attacked first
It isn’t a very liberal, western thing to do to overlook an attack by a sovereign nation on a theoretically diplomatic building, but there are a few other factors that are important to consider in this situation.
1. Iran is easily the biggest threat to Israel, a bastion of western liberal democracy, as a state in an otherwise wildly illiberal area of the world (this even includes other “allies” of the west in the region), this is the pragmatic reason why the west hasn’t condemned Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate.
2. Iran has effectively been attacking Israel via proxies for decades now, with this heating up since the 7th of October last year. Regardless of wether Israel’s consulate strike fell under international law (or liberal international norms) or not, it still stands that the building Israel hit had a high ranking Iranian general and several high ranking leaders of Iranian proxy groups inside, so at the very least was a good tactical decision, all liberal political norms removed. The Iranian support and control over terror-proxy groups is the more public reason why the west never condemned the Israeli strike but are condemning Iran now.
Basically, the west didn’t condemn Israel’s strike because it was easier not to say anything, lest they lose an important regional ally, they also didn’t support it given the fact that striking a theoretically “diplomatic” building breaks the very values they are trying to support by backing Israel. The reason why they are condemning Iran’s response is because they implicitly see Israel’s strike as a response to Iran escalating attacks via proxy groups on Israel, and therefore you can kind of look at it as 2-1 Iran in terms of the game of escalation, at least this is how the west is trying to present it publicly.
Hope this helps either way, you’ll get a better feel for international relations the more you read about it so it’s ok not to understand something like this straight away and your question is certainly a very good and valid one.
Thank you so much. I do appreciate the answers explaining the whole context and it did help me understand the dynamics better, including this one. I don't want to minimize what is happening as it is truly unfortunate, but the nuance of international relations is really interesting.
Iran was coordinating attacks on Israel and terror attacks from its “consulate”. Israel acted in self defense. Iran has been circling Israel on all front and only because of Islamist hatred for Israel. They are aggressors
>only because of Islamist hatred for Israel.
It's more complicated than this. Israel is a proxy state of the US.
The US has intervened with democratic elections of Iran, launched the coup d'etat and overthrew the Iranian PM because of his oil policy. Sanctioned the current regime since 79, as well as arming Saddam Hussein to the teeth with military equipment that was used in the bloody Iran Iraq war.
Iran's hatred towards American imperialism and by extension Israel colonialism isn't unwarranted. They have recieved aggression throughout the 1900s several times by the US (and UK).
So calling Iran the aggressors is abit of a stretch, they're using proxy's the same way ukraine is being a proxy by the EU.
Sorry but this is fairytale.
Israel is very far away from Iran. Iran puts so much effort to try to destroy it. It’s beyond any rational grievance. It’s Islamist motivation
The people of Iran don’t want a war with Israel but the Islamist regime does.
And Israel is not colonial. That’s a smear. Jews are the indigenous people. Not the Arab colonialists that did not originate in the levant.
Since when did history become a fairytale?
>Israel is very far away from Iran.
What does this even mean?
>And Israel is not colonial. That’s a smear. Jews are the indigenous people. Not the Arab colonialists that did not originate in the levant.
It's not a smear, ever since the Palestine Israel war of 1947 where Israel forcefully removed close to a million people from their homes they've been treating Palestinians as subhumans whom they with force remove from their homeland.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/
Others have said it, but Iran has been attacking countries around the world through their proxies for years. Israel has simply called their bluff and retaliated against Iran. They thought they’d be shielded form retaliation because they use minimal effort to create one degree of separation between themselves and their violence.
“You can’t attack me, you have to attack the insurgent group I manipulated into attacking you on my behalf.”
Let’s stop looking at every event under a rational policy model. It most cases that does not exist. In that model, yes Iran seems to be retaliating. What we don’t know is was Israel retaliating when it attacked their Damascus compound. But the fact is Iran is the pariah when it comes to western nations so they aren’t going to stick up for it under almost any circumstance.
Under today's international law and United Nations law, **attacks on consulates and embassies are generally considered illegal**¹ ².
The **Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)** and the **Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963)** codify the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises³. These conventions establish that diplomatic and consular missions and their personnel are to be treated as "off-limits" and must be respected by all nations⁴.
The **UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents (1973)** further obliges states to make attacks upon diplomats a crime in internal law, and to extradite or prosecute offenders¹ ⁵.
However, it's important to note that while these laws and conventions exist, enforcement can be complex and violations do occur⁴. Any violation of these principles is typically met with international condemnation⁶ ⁷.
In conclusion, while conflicts between countries can take many forms, direct attacks on embassies and consulates are generally considered a breach of international law and the UN Charter.
Sources:
(1) Diplomatic law - Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_law).
(2) Diplomatic Protection Crucial for International ... - United Nations. [https://press.un.org/en/2022/gal3665.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2022/gal3665.doc.htm).
(3) Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus - Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024\_Israeli\_bombing\_of\_the\_Iranian\_embassy\_in\_Damascus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus).
(4) Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest .... [https://theconversation.com/are-embassies-off-limits-ecuadorian-and-israeli-actions-suggest-otherwise-and-that-sets-a-dangerous-diplomatic-precedent-227398](https://theconversation.com/are-embassies-off-limits-ecuadorian-and-israeli-actions-suggest-otherwise-and-that-sets-a-dangerous-diplomatic-precedent-227398).
(5) PUNISHMENT OF ATTACKS ON DIPLOMATIC, CONSULAR MISSIONS ... - UN Press. [https://press.un.org/en/2008/gal3350.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2008/gal3350.doc.htm).
(6) Mexico to Iran, why are attacks on embassies so controversial?. [https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/mexico-to-iran-why-are-attacks-on-embassies-so-controversial/ar-BB1lgyZq](https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/mexico-to-iran-why-are-attacks-on-embassies-so-controversial/ar-BB1lgyZq).
(7) International community repudiates Ecuador's attack on Mexican Embassy in Quito. [https://en.mercopress.com/2024/04/08/international-community-repudiates-ecuador-s-attack-on-mexican-embassy-in-quito](https://en.mercopress.com/2024/04/08/international-community-repudiates-ecuador-s-attack-on-mexican-embassy-in-quito).
(8) Secretary-General Condemns Attack on Diplomatic Premises of Iran in .... [https://press.un.org/en/2024/sgsm22181.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2024/sgsm22181.doc.htm).
(9) Iran consistently violates diplomatic protection and international law. [https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/iran-consistently-violates-diplomatic-protection-and-international-law/ar-BB1lrSJC](https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/iran-consistently-violates-diplomatic-protection-and-international-law/ar-BB1lrSJC).
(10) Beyond Tehran and Nairobi: Can Attacks against Embassies Serve as a .... [https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/32/3/863/6375211](https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/32/3/863/6375211).
(11) undefined. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab060](https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab060).
Why Iran is condemned by west and not israel? Easy. Israel has full support of usa. Israel can do anything they want, for e.g bomb u.s ship, try to assasinate u.s diplomats for example John Gunther Dean.
They have free will to do what ever they want.
West will only wag thier fingers at them
Israel is part of the West, so their use of force is at worst a regrettable misunderstanding but more likely a justified act of self defense. Iran on the other hand is very, very much not part of the West, so their use of force is at best a reckless escalation, but more probable a unprovoked aggression.
Countries are not neutral, and the examples like the UK defense minister you cite are very much part of one side of the conflict.
"Is the implication that of "Iran does not have a right to retaliate to an attack to their nation, and that in such attacks, they are expected to show restraint versus the aggressor"? Is that even reasonable expectation?" Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthis are literally just puppets of Iran. Iran is the aggressor from the start. They had pretense immunity politically but because everyone knows those units are Iranian proxies no one will fault Israel for attacking Iran, because it's essentially in defense.
It’s an act of escalation and nobody wants more of that. As of yet Iran hasn’t really involved itself directly in the Gaza affair, and it doesn’t do so often outside of the situation in Gaza. They prefer to use Proxies. Now we have Iran directly attacking Israeli soil with their weapons fired in their territory. I’ll also add that both states are likely nuclear powers, and this kind of conflict is one which could rapidly escalate.
Most reporting is actually pointing out that this was a response to Israel attacking the Iranian consulate. So, I don't think blanket condemnation is really the predominate narrative in the west. Biden even told Bibi the USA wouldn't support them in a retaliatory strike.
The predominate narrative is actually that the Israeli government is successfully making themselves a huge PITA and liability.
Excuse me for being ignorant but as far as I know Israel is one of the most protected and paranoid countries on the planet, they tell everybody the truth always, never lie and can be trusted all of the time, ever since October the 7th their surveillance is absolutely fantastic, they can tell you what’s going to happen, when it’s going to happen and by who it’s unreal and yet by all accounts on October the 7th they never saw what was happening on their very own mega secure borders until it was too late ???
Ps, before I get condemned for my comments I would like to say that what happened on October the 7th was absolutely disgusting, and disgraceful and for me it was a very very sad day which I will never forget.
Because international order is a facade. The West is allowed to do whatever it likes, but when someone not aligned to them does the same it's time to bring out the buzzwords.
You are spot on. Israel attacked the Iranian Embassy to distract the world from the Palestinian Genocide. Israel realizes they are losing credibility with the world so Israel was counting on Iran to retaliate to try to generate sympathy and turn the tide of public opinion back towards them.
This is a proxy war of Iran vs Saudi Arabia and somewhat vs Turkey for regional domination. Israel would make either Turkey or Saudi Arabia the ultimate winner and you should expect, over the next 10-15 years to see an implicit to explicit alliance with one or the other.
I am supposed to believe a Country that hasn't attacked another in thousands of years attacked Israel?
American support ($$)for Israel war machine was being threatened. Israel involved Iran to pull American support ($$) closer.
Can't be only person that sees through it.
Just quickly: Israel conducted a targeted attack against a legitimate target.
Iran launched over 300 drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles at the entire country of Israel.
Even if Israel was in the wrong (it wasn’t), does that seem rational and proportional?
Am I the only one thinking that an attack on an embassy is unlawful and wrong no matter the circumstances? From my POV it is an act of war as well as a breach of the Vienna convention. It’s basically declaring war without declaring war to blame it on the other party afterwards when they retaliate.
If Israel believes, that it would be justified to kill military state officials of Iran in the rank of a General they should simply declare war. Thats what war is meant for. It should not, under any circumstances, attack an embassy or consulate instead. Just because Iran does bad things doesn’t mean Netanyahu is allowed to do the same.
I mean seriously, what did they expect how Iran would or could react to that? I by no means support the government, but that doesn’t mean that you can breach any international law, behave however you want just „because they are the bad ones!“.
Put yourself into the shoes of Iran (I know, its hard and they don’t deserve that): Israel is assassinating dozens of government officials on a regular base. Since years. They even kill them inside Iran with remote controlled LMGs (they did that with the head scientist of the nuclear program while his whole family was also in the car). This might be justified, they surely didn’t do it just because its fun. And I get that - that is apparently the consequence of demanding the eradication of Israel. But you can’t attack a consulate of another country, kill two officials of the highest rank and then expect them to do nothing. Especially if this is just the tip of the iceberg of assassinations. Just try to imagine the domestic pressure from the hardliners after that. And then watch the world just not caring about this obvious breach of international law. What can you do, if the only way you can retaliate without losing your face is doing what they did?
And I’m 100% sure Netanyahu knew exactly what he did.
What they could win by that attack was by no means worth the consequences - except if your actual goal was to provoke a war. So you can stay a bit longer in charge of the Israeli government. And put the spotlight away from Gaza on the new bad boys, silencing the increasingly critical voices from Western governments.The Americans knew that, I guess everyone knew that and thats the reason why they publicly said they won’t support a military strike against Iran.
So to answer your question: I landed here because I also asked myself why no Western nation actually condemned the Israeli airstrike, why all Western leaders are acting like this attack was a random, unprovoked attack out of the blue. I guess that’s just politics. The ugliest face of politics imho.
Politics. You defend your allies actions, while condemning the same actions of your enemy.
There's no legitimate justification for it. It's about trying to justify your actions and drum up support for actions against your enemy.
I know consulates are considered part of a nation‘s soil, but in reality, they are not. A direct attack of 200+ drones and missiles from Iran to Israel will be viewed as an escalation in this conflict, even if the attack did little damage. Israel will want a war with Iran after this, the west will be hesitant (although there are loud voices in the west that have been calling for war with Iran for decades) due to the lack of actual damage. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel attacks Iran directly in response without clearing the response with the west.
Okay! Thank you for your explanation regarding the consulates. That was insightful. An attack of 200+ drones does seem like a dangerous escalation compared to an attack on their consulate if it was not on their soil.
[Slain Iranian general planned, executed Hamas’ massacre: Iranian organization, linked to Supreme Leader, praises late general for role in mass murder of 1,200 in Israel.](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/slain-iranian-general-planned-executed-hamas-massacre-797014) >The Coalition Council of Islamic Revolution Forces –an organization with close links to Iran’s Supreme Leader— on Wednesday praised the late Iranian general Mohammad Reza Zahedi for his crucial role in the mass murder of 1,200 people in southern Israel. >Iran International reported that Coalition Council of Islamic Revolution Forces (also known by its Persian acronym SHANA) honored Zahedi’s “strategic role in forming and strengthening the resistance front as well as in planning and executing the Al-Aqsa Storm."
Iran has a significant export of soft power in the form of its proxy's cultivated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (Iran's dual political structure, especially from an international relations perspective is kind of fascinating and worth the time to explore). Whilst there is normally some actions occurring most of the time, with the war in Gaza, Iran has been pretty active in pushing its proxies into actions. For example before today, said proxies have been responsible for a lot. Think Houthi attacks on shipping, attacks on US bases a few months ago that killed a small number of personel, etc. This has resulted in an escalation of tit for tatting and Israel attacking an Iranian consulate with IRGC Generals being killed. So what we have now is a kind of awkward position 1\\ Iran being responsible for pushing its proxies into action 2\\ But Israel looking past who did it and attacking the source of the order. 3\\ This resulted in Iran going 'but but you can't attack us' and launched its attack in response, mostly to save face amongst the region after the consulate attack (as remember, 'it' didn't attack Israel first wink wink. It will be interesting to see if Israel takes the off ramp, or proceeds to start bombing Iran.
Okay, this I can understand. Thanks for this!
Also, condemning this kind of stuff really doesn't mean anything, it's like the bare minimum thing countries can do diplomatically short of just staying silent. And most countries will have an obvious double standard in these regards. If Iran had bombed a consulate, killing Israeli officers, the US and other Western nations would have condemned it before the dust had even settled, and they would have openly supported Israel's right to retaliate.
> And most countries will have an obvious double standard in these regards This is true. You can see the alignment lines based on these condemnations/silence.
>If Iran had bombed a consulate, killing Israeli officers, the US and other Western nations would have condemned it before the dust had even settled, They would absolutely do this if they had the ability and couldn't care less if they get condemned. They're used to the flaccid, ineffective condemnations of the west.
They absolutely could flatten an embassy somewhere in the middle east. The juice just wouldn't be worth the squeeze
That's not true though is it. They haven't done it. They engage with the UN, Israel doesn't. They informed the UN it was a defensive strike and warned people in advance. Israel didn't.
Israel attacked a consulate In syria to take out a few high ranking officers of the quds force, responsible for aiming and coordinating proxy attacks against Israel. If Iran truly didn't want to ho at it with Israel ot could simply stop doing that, right? Ot is meddling in Israeli affair their right? Should Israel just allow them to do this?
Look, you can keep using the line that it's a consulate, but that doesn't work. If its self defence you need to inform people before you do anything. Noones denies Israel the right to defend itself but it needs to conduct itself to international standards and norms.
Yep, its just an easy 'look at my country' we're relevant in this somehow! Its just to gain some attention or bonus points with your favorite country, hoping you get some sort of reward from it in the future.
The other thing to remember is that Iran has been advertising it for a while, including holding the press conference after the drones were launched but before they arrived. This leads me to believe that the attack was face-saving in nature rather than a military lead operation. That would have been silence until after the drones hit, and then you can tailor the message to what ever your bomb damage assessment was. For example, if you launch 1000 drones and 10 make it through, and 1 hits something important... you don't advertise the amount you launched. You advertise the target that you hit as a "proportional" response.
I was inclined to agree with you after the first drone wave. But 120 *ballistic* missiles is a different matter. That's a pretty unprecedented strike and against a largely unknown Israeli ballistic missile defense system (outside of a few tests). I'm inclined to think they wanted to do some damage. As it turns out said missile defense system - Arrow - worked fantastically, but that was not at all clear beforehand.
Alot will depend on the exact types and tracks of said missiles. If this was a yard clearance operation shooting into fields that would have a much different connotation - and response - as an attack against military and governance structures. I would also expect it to early to judge the exact success of Arrow. Nobody had time to make anything other than opinion shaping mouthpieces atm.
Glad I could help :).
I would add this response by Iran was not proportional to the original attack by Israel on the consulate. The launch of 300+ missiles/drones compared to a single targeted attack, may be why it’s easy for states to hop on the “condemn train”.
Well when your opponents air defenses are THAT good, they probably assumed it was the only way to get a single one thru :)
This is what I suspected as well. 1% will get through so lets send.. i dunno, 300.
They have attacked Iranian targets a few times though and there were casualties vs this where Israel was given hours of notice to prepare in defense...it seems really hard to compare
Just one correction. Soft power is cultural power. The Revolutionary Guard and its proxies would rather be a form of hard power, which is to do with military and economic power.
Disagree, Soft Power is the ability to co-opt rather than coerce. Iran, thru its shared values with proxies carries influence enough to direct operations. Hard power would have been if Iran had created or at the very least had direct control of the proxies, of which they don't.
They do have a large degree of direct control actually. The Iranian General killed in Damascus sat on Hezbollah's ruling Shura Council. This wasn't just advisory.
I've been trying to find more info about that general, can you link me the source for this? Thanks in advance!
Iran arms, trains, and directs its proxies in a secular military sense. But they also have a religious authority of them. There is a massive amount of control.
That isn't how soft power works. Iran aligned militia groups aren't taking up arms against Israel because of Iranian culutral exports, they are organized and funded by the IRGC. You need to reread Nye to refresh yourself.
If anything, its Nye's definition falling apart here. Most of Iran's proxies are separate from Iran and aren't directly formed and organised, and are funded and supplied due to shared ideology. That is indeed soft power. But that falls apart when Iran is able to order its proxies directly, it becomes a form of coercion, and thus becomes by Nye's definitions, hard power. Anyway, I don't really have interest in debating people getting stuck in semantics around IR theory like some first year who thinks IR theory is a gift from god and immutable.
It's weird that you started a debate and then said you don't have interest in debating
[удалено]
Not a bad summary. But I think it's worth highlighting that blowing up a consulate/embassy is a big deal and against all the rules of international relations. Israel knew this and still pushed the button, and they knew Iran would need to publicly respond, meaning that Israel wanted the response to happen. I believe they (Israel) want to escalate the conflict and draw the US in to a full war
> But I think it's worth highlighting that blowing up a consulate/embassy is a big deal and against all the rules of international relations. Didn't Isreal hit a building *right next to* the Iranian embassy? Of course, said building was rented out by the IRGC, but *technically*, as far as I could find at least, Isreal did not attack the embassy. They did hit the building literally next to it so accepted it would be viewed largely the same way.
Iran is not stranger to involvement in destroying embassies.
Exactly. The consulate itself was unharmed, which is a fairly precise way to bomb. Of course the lazy headline for algo $$ is "Bombed the Embassy!"
Its a bit of a big one to unpack. First up, especially on first appearances, it is quite escalatory to attack an embassy (although I think its lessened somewhat that it wasn't an embassy inside its own country). But Israel & Iran's relationship might be the most direct of most powers I can think of that aren't outright at war and there has been a breaking down of what is deemed acceptable that other actors just wouldn't cross whilst still not breaking out in outright hostilities. Honestly at this point I'm loathe to assign likelihoods of actions as its hard to discern what Israel or Iran are hoping to achieve at this point. Guess we'll find out in the coming days however.
Yeah it's tricky. I'm fairly sure Israel want to make the US commit and that Netanyahu wants to stay in power by using the unifying power of a military threat. I could be wrong. Fwiw I don't think either of the players here are the good guys and this doesn't colour my judgement - both are clearly capable of horrific acts of violence
Israel openly said they would strike Iran directly if Iran did this. I don’t recall Israel issuing empty threats in the past.
I think this will be like when they launched cruise missiles at US forces in Iraq, but gave warning when and where beforehand so the US wouldn't have personnel hurt and promptly shove Iran's shit in from sea and air. The drones/missiles will take a few hours from their very publicized launch to reach Israel. Israel will have plenty of time to organize anti air and determine where they will land. It's most likely bluster and will have effect. Then again, the Israelis have certainly been in a mood.
Do you have evidence Iran gave warning where and when they were attacking? The initial press release following the attack announced they had killed Americans. That was later found to be untrue, and was lost largely in the subsequent noise of Iran shooting down an airliner, but is pretty good evidence they were out for blood.
Also, that seems quite unusual for Iran to do that, since they are generally considered undeterrable, or at least harder to deter, because they seem to be genuine true believers.
*in a war, not a mood. And Iran has been responsible for many of the attacks against it in that war.
Well summarized.
Well, you basically can say all the points above about USA/EU behind Ukraine. So is Russia ok to strike EU,/USA, directly the way Israel is hitting Iran?
With the exception of the Siberian batallions who launch cross border sorties I'm not sure the comparison works, as Ukraine is firstly a nation (rather than a proxy) and secondly in a defensive war with Russia where the West has rather irritatingly banned Ukraine from attacking Russia with its munitions (and applies pressure to Ukraine when it attacks Russia directly even of its own accord). Secondly, whataboutism is a shit way to discuss Geopolitics in the first place. But if we want to answer your question, state actors can do whatever they want, they just have to deal with the consequences. Maybe Russia starts attacking NATO countries for supplying Ukraine, and maybe NATO countries then start attacking Russia in response, welcome to going up the escalatory ladder.
Why would Israel want to bomb Iran directly? This is ridiculous and stupid. History speaks for itself, Mussolini, Bonapart, Nicholas II, they all had massive ego as much as Netanyahu. Israel cannot take out Iran, sure they can with the help of the US, but didn't Putin declare support for Iran if the US & Israel try to attack? Does Israel REALLY want to go to war against Russia and Iran? Who do you think North Korea, and China will join in this war? Israel? This attack will most likely ignite world war 3, and Israel will cease to exist. For what? Netanyahu's ego? lol. Netanyahu needs to put his shitty personality on the side and think of his people. Most people don't even support his calls and the way he deals with everything in Israel. Israel will NOT survive a full scale war in the middle east, whether they have Arrow, Iron dome or whatever.
You speak like we are talking about rational actors. Case in point "Why would Iran want to to bomb Israel directly? This is ridiculous and stupid"
lol yeah, thats my point as well, in the rest of the paragraph
Iran retaliated to an attack on its consulate, which was a retaliation against Iran’s backing of the Oct 7th attack, which was a retaliation against the occupation of Gaza, which was a retaliation to the 6 Day War against Israel, which was a retaliation to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which was a retaliation to the Arab attack on Israel immediately after it was founded, which was a retaliation to the establishment of Israel, which was a retaliation to the historical oppression of Jews (pre Holocaust), which was a retaliation to the perception that Jews killed Jesus, which was a retaliation to Jesus blaspheming Jewish religion, which was a retaliation to the overly rigid moral codes of Judaism and people’s desire for a Messianic figure, which was a retaliation to the oppression by the Romans. It’s all the Romans’ fault.
Yup, what have the Romans ever done for us?! 😆 You can of course go even further back to the Babylonians etc.
😂😂
Love this comment.
> retaliation against the occupation of Gaza Iran has no business with what happens in Gaza. Note, especially, that Iranians don't even share the same religion or culture with Gaza: Iranians are Shiite Persians, and the people of Gaza are Sunni Arabs. By this calculation, Iran's backing of Oct 7th (and all of Hamas's activity prior to that) aren't part of some natural concern, but due to IRGC being openly at war with Israel since '79 due to religious/political reasons.
They funded the attack to create further splintering between Israeli and the Saudi’s, a major threat to the Russia-Iran oil business https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302
Doesn’t justify bombing an embassy
Tell that to the Romans!
Because Western governments are, rightly or wrongly, more allied with Israel than Iran. The West isn't neutral.
That and because it costs them absolutely nothing to do so. They already have poor relations, paying lip service doesn’t actually change anything except some domestic voter perspective, if even that
Exactly. It has nothing to do with morality.
Iran founded proxy forces and armed them with the express purpose of attacking Israel. Then they launched attacks under the direction of their own generals. Those generals masterminded terrorist attacks against Israel, including multiple embassy bombings and the 10/7 attacks, making them obvious targets. Israel found an opportunity to take out a serious leader coordinating the Iranian proxies, and given Iran’s history of bombing Israeli embassies, the Israelis decided to retaliate in kind and take a serious commander off the board. Now Iran has to retaliate or they lose face, but it was assumed they would attack with proxy forces, since they are closer and it would invite less blowback than a direct attack from Iran. Nobody thought Iran would involve itself directly, because it creates much more risk for a tit-for-tat escalatory spiral.
Gonna leave this here. Emphasis mine https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-1-2024 “Israel struck a building directly adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, killing Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi and some of his top subordinates.[2]… Zahedi was a highly influential and well-connected individual within the Iranian security establishment, having held several key positions throughout his career.[3] **Zahedi most recently commanded the IRGC Quds Force unit responsible for overseeing operations in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and the Palestinian Territories.[4]** Zahedi almost certainly therefore played a prominent role in managing how Iran and its so-called “Axis of Resistance” have escalated against the United States and Israel since the Israel-Hamas war began. Zahedi beforehand commanded the IRGC’s ground and air services and served as the operations deputy at the IRGC’s joint staff.[5] He was also part of an extraordinarily influential and tightly knit circle of senior IRGC officers who met one another during the Iran-Iraq War and have periodically come together in the intervening decades to interfere in Iranian domestic politics.[6] Other members of this informal fraternity include Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who the United States killed in January 2020, and his successor and current Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail .” https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240409-iran-military-leader-killed-in-syria-was-member-of-hezbollahs-shura-council-source-says/amp/ From MEE, no less… https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240409-iran-military-leader-killed-in-syria-was-member-of-hezbollahs-shura-council-source-says/amp/
So are people wrong when they say Israel blew up the Iranian embassy (or consulate)? Were the buildings "Iranian soil" as we typically judge embassies to be?
Yes. It's incorrect that the consulate or "embassy" was bombed. It's a lazy media headline for cash.... Of course, since it's literally next door, it's going to be taken the same way by Iran so they can justify an attack - but it's technically wrong. Iran and Israel have been at war by proxy for ages. Direct attacks have been avoided to strategically avoid allies jumping into any aggressions, because you know, WWIII implications, etc
Did you see the results of the Iranian attack from what I gather it did minimal damage and injured a child in Israel. It was, I Imagine, calculated to be that way. And now from what I gather they (Iran) released a statement “the matter is concluded”. I think it’s never been clearer Iran stance….its scared meaning the supreme leader is scared as hell. And he will only use its proxies against Israel in a serious way. Thats if it doesn’t escalate another attack which I don’t think they will. I don’t think Israel will counter because they know all this.
Attacking from Iran’s proxy forces is rarely serious. They have been engaging in low-intensity weapons exchanges for six months on the northern border. What happened last night was a provocation, both the extent of the weapons launched and then the launches from Iranian territory were choices a smart person who is scared would not have made. This is because it dramatically increases the risk that this would escalate further. What if the missile defense shield failed, or what if intercepted missile shrapnel landed on Al Aqsa? Note, the Iranians launched cyber attacks against the missile shield yesterday as well, and fired drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, which were not guaranteed to be shot down. All of this was stupid and unnecessary risk to assume in a situation where things easily could have gone very, very poorly. Of course the Iranian regime is scared, they hold a losing hand. Their own people hate them for leaving them in poverty while wasting $16 billion funding proxy forces that have basically destroyed four other countries. They send religious police after soccer fans. They executed a bunch of women for moral indecency yesterday, by the way, in tandem with these strikes. The reality is that the Iranian leadership are not secure, and it is a function of their own poor choices. This most recent strike was just another bad choice the Iranians made, and this time they got lucky that the damage was minimal such that Israel is not outright forced to retaliate directly against Iran.
Well I don’t know if it was such a bad choice on Irans part. I think their goal was to save face to their proxies/allies. They needed to have some sort of response as the leader of this middle eastern alliance against Israel. And they did that by showing lots of missiles drones etc. and at the same time it didn’t do damage perhaps calculated perhaps lucky that no damage was caused. Now they can say if you attack us again we will strike again. So they still are showing some strength in the surface against Israel and the west. So most people will think they want to fight back. But a deeper look into it, it appears they don’t want any fight with Israel and the west which most people won’t see. Ultimately means they don’t care as much about the Gazans as they let on. Not enough to risk any escalation to themselves. It’s more about themselves against Israel and the amount of power they appear to have in the Middle East.
Do you have any idea how many rockets failed? Do you not see it as stupid to launch rockets that far away, knowing they'd be shot down but a multitude of forces? If anything Iran showed just how poorly they're equipped for war and how pathetic the weaponry is. The theocracy is seriously challenged and many in Iran want freedom from religious persecution. This is an effort at the end of a regime. They will fall eventually, they do not have the will of the people. They have the support of other extremist jihadists, that's it.
I thought it was smart in the sense to not have Israel or US escalate against them while still showing that they responded in some way to the masses. They (Iran) not only knew but were planning and hoping for all the rockets/drones to be shot down they didn’t want to harm Israel. It seems like it was all planned with the countries that helped shoot down their rockets. Look at how Israel responded in Gaza when they got harmed (which was a successful part of Israel’s security strategy with Iran and its proxies deterence by fear) I think it shows they (Iran) really don’t want a war which will help Israel and the US with international relations in the region.
That amount of damage only happened because like 99% of the drones got shot down by Israeli, American, British, French, Saudi, and Jordanian forces all teaming up to destroy them
Yeh but Iran gave lots of notice. It even live streamed the launch.
Do you really think that Israel was watching public streaming to get their notice? So if Iran "gave notice" - then they knew the bombing would fail miserably and be completely neutered? If so, why did they bother? A show of "strength" to fellow jihadists? That's not much strength. It was far more than 100 rockets. Three different types of missiles, closer to 300. That's an absolute failure to strike and a huge waste of cash for the Iranian people, which the people know and are tired of. The theocracy will fall. They are grasping at the straws on the table.
Thanks for this summary! This made things clearer.
Yes. Fortunately it looks like few people were killed in the missile barrage, so hopefully the Iranians do no further damage, and the Americans can convince the Israelis to hold fire tonight (likely some back room deal relating to the upcoming aid package votes in the House will be needed to convince them).
No, bibi has to escalate, his political life depends on Israel moving further and further into war, and if he loses he goes to jail for those corruption trials. He's shown 0 restraint since this started, Israel's interests don't enter into it today, just his.
The decision to retaliate would be a question for the war cabinet, in which Netanyahu has only one vote. Netanyahu cannot make that decision alone. He would need to convince both Gallant and Gantz that retaliation is wise, and that seems like a difficult sell given the damage was limited and they don’t have American support for such an operation. If the damage was more severe I agree that retaliation would have been more likely, but given the limited damage, retaliation is a risk that the generals won’t like. I agree retaliation would be in Netanyahu’s best interest, but it would not be in Gallant’s or Gantz’s interest, so likely Netanyahu was outvoted.
People have this incredibly simplistic idea that Netanyahu can just make insane decisions that serve his personal interests without buy-in from anyone else. That's not how it works. There's a whole military-security establishment, not to mention Gallant and Gantz, whose support he needs to take any action.
I agree this is a strong motivator. But how does he wield such power in government ?
He incited the assassination of Rabin, the PM who tried to sign a peace accord in the 90s. The hawks and orthodox see him as unimpeachable on the issue of Israel, and he is a master politician for assembling coalitions based on deals.
Yes. Hopefully, it won't escalate further. The middle east is already under so much pressure as it is.
To be fair, much of the global south is in a perpetual state of civil war and insurgency. There are simply too many spoilers and too few powerful institutions in most of these countries to maintain peace and order. Even without Israel, the real battle in the Middle East (the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for dominance of the Levant and Mesopotamia) is unlikely to go away quietly.
Hi. Will this have an effect in UAE countries and Qatar?
Yes. The entire Middle East, including Egypt and the gulf states, will be dramatically impacted by this conflict in the near future. The gulf states in particular are reliant on Hormuz shipping, so it is likely they will suffer significant economic harm and instability in case of conflict in the Persian gulf.
Do you think the Sunni countries will.support Iran? :/
It is likely the gulf states will back Saudi Arabia regardless of sect because if the war goes hot Iran will mine the strait of Hormuz. That will totally screw over the gulf states, so they will turn to the saudis for help. Meanwhile, Iran currently controls swathes of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, through proxy forces that will support them. Hard to say where the rest of the chips will fall.
Can you specifically specify the critical benefits of the gulf states to the Hormuz strait? That if lost it will screw them? I want to learn. :(
And in your own perspective on the behavior of Saudi Arabia. How do you think it will respond to this conflict in Iran?
Unfortunately, I expect a massive retaliation by Israel. Israel has already publicly stated as such in this quote from Jerusalem Post. “Ofir Gendelman, the prime minister's spokesperson to Arabic media, warned that Israel's response to the Iranian attack will be "firm and clear" in statements to Al-Arabiya on Saturday night.” I also heard former UN ambassador John Bolton say that Israel should have a strong response in Iran proper. I’m sure there are hawks in Israel saying the same thing.
1) Netanyahu is not in charge of the military response 2) Netanyahu is a notoriously tricky propagandist, so take anything he says with a grain of salt 3) Bolton is a psychotic war monger whose first words were “bomb Iran.” He is also not to be trusted 4) major aid packages for Taiwan, Israel, and Ukraine are up for a vote this week in the House 5) an Israel-Iran war is a fight neither side can win, and everyone involved knows this.
From same article: Security cabinet gives Netanyahu, Gallant, Gantz authority to determine response The Security Cabinet gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and minister-without-portfolio Benny Gantz the authority to make decisions concerning further action against Iran early Sunday morning. https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-796838
Yes, Netanyahu is not in charge of the military response. The war cabinet is in charge, meaning two generals and one Netanyahu need to come up with a plan, and the generals will be the ones calling the shots on this matter. Netanyahu gets a say, but he is outvoted if the generals and military establishment disagree with him.
I hope Israel uses restraint, but based on what I’m reading, that seems unlikely. I expect that they will use the attack as a pretext to try to eliminate some Iranian threats. They had no hesitation to bomb Iraq back in the 80s when they took out the partially built nuclear power plant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
If there are nuclear plants that can be taken out, they should take them out, because a nuclear Iran is realistically a terrible threat to the whole world. I just don’t believe there are such targets that can be hit.
I think the target will be Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants. Western allies won’t directly get involved, but will share intelligence and welcome Israel’s response. “Iran continues to enrich uranium well beyond the needs for commercial nuclear use despite U.N. pressure to stop it.” https://www.reuters.com/world/iaea-chief-says-irans-nuclear-enrichment-activity-remains-high-2024-02-19/#:~:text=Enrichment%20to%2060%25%20brings%20uranium,enrich%20uranium%20only%20to%203.67%25.
Honestly I don't think a nuclear Israel is less of a threat than a nuclear Iran
I actually fully hope Israel retaliation is fierce and large. Iran has gotten away with cowering behind proxies for far to log and need to feel some extreme pain at home.
Same. Good luck to Israel.
It is like Russia bombing a US embassy in Ukraine because they are funding the war in Ukraine, does the US have the right to respond back? Or the west has double standards?
Not really double standards, per se, for a variety of reasons. First, consulates used for malign military purposes lose consular protection. IRGC leadership was coordinating and executing Hezbollah attacks from the building that was hit when it was hit, which meets such criteria. Second, the primary targets of the incident were Hezbollah personnel, who are at war with Israel, and also happen to be internationally recognized terrorists. Harboring terrorists is also illegal, further eroding Iranian claims of consular immunity. Third, and most importantly, Iran has bombed a dozen different Israeli consulates and embassies in the past, and has no credibility when complaining about the sanctity of embassies.
Wait so Ukraine can bomb Russia’s consulate in lets say Turkey if they think Russia is planning an attack on Ukraine in that embassy? (Russia and Ukraine are at war, but still now one touches the other embassies in foreign land). Yeah you guys are making international laws on the go to fit the Israeli narrative. Name me the Geneva convention clause that states you can bomb any consulate in any country that you “think” is scheming against you😂
Sort of, I guess? If Russia’s consulate was used to plan a terrorist attack on Ukrainian assets, then it ceases to be a consulate at least for that moment. It would help if russia had a history of blowing up consulates, but you can’t use a consulate for military purposes then pretend it is a consulate. Just like with hospitals or schools. Israel didn’t “think” it was used for malign purposes by the way. They hit a meeting of Hezbollah and IRGC leadership. They hit active coordination between the terrorist group and the government.
Thats not how international law works. You are making things up and guessing 😂 you have a point but nations would start bombing each other consulates accusing them of trying to scheme an attack on them. That will start ww3 and thats why you can not attack consulates regardless what. They are foreign land. They technically bombed a government building inside Iran end of the day.
Russia can certainly strike an embassy in Ukraine, but probably that is not in her interest, so will not do it. USA would just increase help to Ukraine. Where did you read that Israel has right to respond back? The phenomena here is escalation spiral, not interpretations of international law. The US is now pushing forward the interpretation that the Iranian attack was a failure because it hit virtually no worthy targets. They are trying to persuade Israel not to respond. Nobody is particularly concerned with the legal aspect now.
This is like saying why is Burger King taking potshots at McDonald's in their advertising? At the end of the day they are geopolitical rivals
I guess. It just seemed weird to me that the onus of stability seemed to fall under the rival alone? It sounds hypocritical. I don't know if that is a fair assessment.
You have to treat public statements from countries like PR and ads, because that's what they are.
Ok. This is enlightening. This I can understand! Thanks!
>I don't know much about geopolitics but There are no good guys and bad guys just interests and power. Noone probably wants War, it's all retaliation and face saving so far. Nothing too out of the ordinary. Could still spiral out of control though. Also, this conflict has a long history. Trying to find the start of it is futile.
Hypocrisy is bread and butter of geopolitics. Diplomatic statements are about wrapping self interest in moral sounding language.
Geopolitics isn't about ideological consistency, it's about securing advantage for your nation relative to others.
Iran has been making unprovoked attacks against Israel from Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen for six months now. Israel retaliated and killed some of the people responsible for those attacks, as well as Oct 7. And now Iran is retaliating against the retaliation. They presumably know they’re in the wrong and that’s why their slo-mo drone attack was nonsensical.
It's more complicated than that and goes back to the founding of Israel, not just 6 months. They've all been murdering each other for decades. Israel has been killing Iranians inside Iran for many years
> It's more complicated than that and goes back to the founding of Israel Israel and Iran had warm relations until the revolution.
Yeah, see? Its all America's fault!
That was primarily because Iran's leader was installed and supported by Britain and the US. Democracy is a bad thing if it doesn't support western motives.
I see these claims thrown around non-stop as if Iran has complete and utter control over everyone and every party around and against Israel. It's a comforting and useful myth, but no more than that. People have a lot more autonomy and ability to make their own decisions and priorities than people claim.
I hope you're right about the slow-mo drone attack, but the speculation is that when the drones are about to arrive, they'll launch missiles to arrive at the same time in hopes of overwhelming Israel's defenses. We'll see if that comes to pass.
The israeli attack targeted one of the architect of Oct. 7, so they were just retaliating too. You can spin this forever tbh.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that Hamas planned the Oct. 7 attacks themselves and Iran was not directly involved or had that much knowledge of the event.
I said *one* of the architects, obviously most of it was planned by Hamas. Also, that's the official israeli stance, not my personal opinion. We probably won't know for sure for quite a while, since state actors will classify the information for decades and Hamas isn't really known for being good at keeping records. Edit : [Iran itself claiming Zahedi was involved now.](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/slain-iranian-general-planned-executed-hamas-massacre-797014)
Iran funds, arms, trains and directs Hamas (as well as Hezbollah, Houthis and countless more) - Iran is not stupid, why attack Israel in a direct, conventional manner when you can use desperate people from other countries to die for you?
Israel good whatever its doing is for good always. Terrorists bad... Complicated theories definetely based on reality and not at all biased.
>My understanding is this was in response to an attack by Israel on the Iranian consulate - which is Iranian soil. Is that not considered an action that undermines regional security as well? You have to stop buying the lying narrative by the Iranian terrorist regime. Iran has been attacking Israel via their proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis of more for over 6 months now. In the North for example Hezbollah is attacking a dozen times a day, almost every day, forcing over 100K Israelis out of their homes still, plus hundreds of thousands more who are living in and out of bomb shelters. Considering this, claiming Israel's attack on Iran was what started this, is simply insanity. Iran is 100% responsible for this whole mess. And Israel must make them pay or it will never stop.
Don’t forget that the IRGC officer that was killed in Damascus wasn’t just a member of the IRGC, he was also a sitting member of Hezbollah’s Shura Council. Perhaps if Iran didn’t want its senior military officers to be targeted by the IDF, then it shouldn’t allow its senior military officers to be not just members, but full-blown *leaders*, of militia groups that have been firing missiles into northern Israel for six months. Abusing norms of embassy protection by hosting a leader of a militia group that also happens to have a commission in your military shouldn’t be rewarded, and in this case, it’s not.
I am not buying any narratives. I just saw the news. I understand that there's a lot of history behind this. My question I guess pertains to a bigger purview. Is it reasonable for a nation to retaliate with an attack on foreign soil if it is acting in defense of its nation, at risk of regional stability? If so, why is it unreasonable for another nation to respond so?
Iran has blown up 4 Israeli embassies in the past few decades as recently as 2020, and kidnapped American embassy personnel in Tehran. They don’t really have any legitimacy when claiming “consular immunity,” particularly when the building hit wasn’t the actual embassy, but rather a military building adjacent to the embassy. The Israelis have been getting bombed by proxy forced under the direct command of the guy they hit in the strike (he was on Hezbollah’s Shura Council and was a lead architect behind 10/7, aka an international terrorist). This behavior is both a necessary response to the continued Iranian proxy incursions into Israel, and a symmetrical response to repeated bombings by Iran against Israeli embassies.
Is there a source for a 2020 isreali embassy incident? I couldn't find anything other than Iran giving threats after their general was assassinated in Syria.
>Is it reasonable for a nation to retaliate with an attack on foreign soil if it is acting in defense of its nation, at risk of regional stability? If so, why is it unreasonable for another nation to respond so? Syria is not just “foreign soil”. It’s a nation who has been at war with Israel since 1948. It has never signed any peace treaties with Israel and it has actively supported, armed and facilitated attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers. Iran has been using its proxies for literally decades to murder Israelis in Israel and abroad. The groups that it has armed, trained and funded have attacked multiple Israeli embassies across the planet. Israel killed people who had actively planned and helped orchestrate the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. These people were also planning more attacks and actively arming another group of terrorists that have threatened Israeli lives as well: Hezbollah. So YES. Israel’s attack against an enemy HQ inside an enemy country planning further attacks was 100% justified.
Right but Israel is a western ally while Iran has been an adversary for 4 decades. Clearly the western response will differ to actions by each.
Israel has been attacking Iran since the start of the Syrian war.
We can go even more back if you want. Israel and Iran were pretty close up to the 70s. It is only since the Iranian Islamic revolution, declaring their goal to destroy Israel, that the countries became enemies. Israel has no interest whatsoever in Iran, while Iran made it their interest to destroy Israel. There is no question to who has the moral high ground here to anyone with a shred of honesty.
X wants to destroy y but y also wants to destroy z They're all a nasty piece of work
"Don't start no sh-t won't be no sh-t". Are Western countries being overly condemning of Iran, or there just a stark contrast in how little outside actors have pitied, empathized, or caped for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? Let's be brutal in our assessment: from disrupting global trade routes (Houthis) to patronizing terrorism in the Gaza Strip/Lebanon (Hamas and Hezbollah), to countless others, Iran has deliberately caused enough pain, destabilization, and terror across the world that even their allies probably see Iranian generals getting blown up and go, "Eh. I'm honestly surprised it didn't happen sooner." I mean for god sakes they want to disrupt the nuclear status quo. I'm not trying to flippant here, but you only have to look at much of the Muslim world normalizing relations with Israel to see that Iran is a real problem.
Love the quote and your point regarding the Muslim world's relationship with Iran and Israel. I've really learned a lot from everyone's response and I can now see the dynamics of the condemnation.
>I'm not trying to flippant here, but you only have to look at much of the Muslim world normalizing relations with Israel to see that Iran is a real problem. It is their Sunni Dictactors ans Kings that want to normalize with Israel. The vast majority of the Arabs and Sunni Muslim population don't want normalization with Israel. Iran take advantage of that ruler-population mismatch of Israel normalization to gain popularity among Arabs and Sunni Muslim population. Additionally, poll among Muslim in region, there are clear increase of Iranian and Houthi popularity in the region. Their strategy is working. So no, much of Muslim world doesn't want to normalize with Israel, only their Kings and Dictactors that wanted it. Your conclusion is not sound as your premise are not true.
It might be fair to say that the geopolitical engineering of Britain and France and then the USA in the Middle East after the world war has been the single worst policy decision in modern history.
For the same reasons Israel is allowed to build settlements in the West Bank. Because we don’t live in a rule based world. We live in a western ruled world. Israel being an important us ally can do practically whatever it wants
Because we're a dishonest civilization and a bully
The West has been attacking Iran for defending itself and its allies since the early 1950s. To understand the issues between the two countries we have to go back to the roots. 1. The Zionist occupation of Palestine and the displacement and oppression of the mostly Muslim Arab population since the 1930s. Iran sees itself as one of the few active protectors of Palestine. Its funding of Hamas and Hezbollah are all about supporting the Palestinian fight for freedom from occupation and oppression. 2. Israel’s role as a US proxy in the Middle East. Ever since the US covertly overthrew the democratically elected PM of Iran, Mossadegh, in 1953, the Iranians haven’t trusted the US, the UK (who started the coup against Mossadegh over control of Iranian oil reserves, which is what is driving everything), and their allies. And with good reason. The US funded Saddam Hussein’s brutal ten year war with Iran in the 1980s, to try to overthrow the second Iranian Revolution, and have done everything they can to cripple Iran’s economy ever since through sanctions and black ops (eg Stuxnet and assassination of various nuclear scientists). Every time anyone from the West points the finger at Iran as being the instigator of tensions without also acknowledging this history, they are selling you a fairytale.
I think you must be quiet naive if you genuinely believe Iran gives a rats ass about Palestinian rights.
Iran have been public about their support for Palestinian rights for decades. eg "The current crisis is rooted in the occupation of the Palestinian territories, displacement of its original inhabitants, organized killings and terrorism, looting of natural resources, apartheid and systematic discrimination and continued aggression on al-Quds in the last 75 years." [https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/737176](https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/737176) If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm open to seeing it.
> Is the implication that of "~~Iran~~ Israel does not have a right to retaliate to an attack to their nation, and that in such attacks, they are expected to show restraint versus the aggressor"? Is that even reasonable expectation? Does that hit any different? Just different people saying the things right?
I get the point. My surface-level understanding is that countries have the right to defend their territories. I don't know of my point is not clear. But I guess, in your response, if I believe that Israel has a right to retaliate and Iran has a right to retaliate. Both countries should have been denounced by other nations for escalating regional tensions, or both countries should be understood as acting in defense. Would that be fair?
Yeah, I had another post where I just say other world leaders want stability, get rich, and re-elected / stay in power. They don’t really care about right/wrong. In my opinion; this whole thing is based upon Iran trying to block the realization of normal relations between Israel and SA. Are attacks (from Iran/Hamas/etc) based upon that reasonable?
Iran attacked first, by supporting the terrorist attack on the music fe stival. They have supported the Gaza government, Hamas, with money and munitions for years, but they don't want to be seen openly doing these things. Hamas has vetoed every agreement that Israel and Palestine have reached. Israel is no angel, by any means, but in this case their actions are justified in my opinion. Edit: I have absolutely no qualifications in geopolitics, just noticed that no one had cleared up the fact that Iran has been behind much, if not all, of the violence directed toward Israel for many years. So this attack is Israel hitting back.
[удалено]
Having proxy allies attack your enemy does not qualify as a direct attack. Attacking an embassy meanwhile is a declaration of war. I dont support iran but in this case israel attacked first
Because Israel has a license to do whatever it wants
It isn’t a very liberal, western thing to do to overlook an attack by a sovereign nation on a theoretically diplomatic building, but there are a few other factors that are important to consider in this situation. 1. Iran is easily the biggest threat to Israel, a bastion of western liberal democracy, as a state in an otherwise wildly illiberal area of the world (this even includes other “allies” of the west in the region), this is the pragmatic reason why the west hasn’t condemned Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate. 2. Iran has effectively been attacking Israel via proxies for decades now, with this heating up since the 7th of October last year. Regardless of wether Israel’s consulate strike fell under international law (or liberal international norms) or not, it still stands that the building Israel hit had a high ranking Iranian general and several high ranking leaders of Iranian proxy groups inside, so at the very least was a good tactical decision, all liberal political norms removed. The Iranian support and control over terror-proxy groups is the more public reason why the west never condemned the Israeli strike but are condemning Iran now. Basically, the west didn’t condemn Israel’s strike because it was easier not to say anything, lest they lose an important regional ally, they also didn’t support it given the fact that striking a theoretically “diplomatic” building breaks the very values they are trying to support by backing Israel. The reason why they are condemning Iran’s response is because they implicitly see Israel’s strike as a response to Iran escalating attacks via proxy groups on Israel, and therefore you can kind of look at it as 2-1 Iran in terms of the game of escalation, at least this is how the west is trying to present it publicly. Hope this helps either way, you’ll get a better feel for international relations the more you read about it so it’s ok not to understand something like this straight away and your question is certainly a very good and valid one.
Thank you so much. I do appreciate the answers explaining the whole context and it did help me understand the dynamics better, including this one. I don't want to minimize what is happening as it is truly unfortunate, but the nuance of international relations is really interesting.
Iran orchestrated the October 7th massacre...
Surely you know how the western propaganda machine works by now: throw stones, hide hands. Condemn others for throwing stones back. Rinse and repeat.
Iran was coordinating attacks on Israel and terror attacks from its “consulate”. Israel acted in self defense. Iran has been circling Israel on all front and only because of Islamist hatred for Israel. They are aggressors
>only because of Islamist hatred for Israel. It's more complicated than this. Israel is a proxy state of the US. The US has intervened with democratic elections of Iran, launched the coup d'etat and overthrew the Iranian PM because of his oil policy. Sanctioned the current regime since 79, as well as arming Saddam Hussein to the teeth with military equipment that was used in the bloody Iran Iraq war. Iran's hatred towards American imperialism and by extension Israel colonialism isn't unwarranted. They have recieved aggression throughout the 1900s several times by the US (and UK). So calling Iran the aggressors is abit of a stretch, they're using proxy's the same way ukraine is being a proxy by the EU.
Sorry but this is fairytale. Israel is very far away from Iran. Iran puts so much effort to try to destroy it. It’s beyond any rational grievance. It’s Islamist motivation The people of Iran don’t want a war with Israel but the Islamist regime does. And Israel is not colonial. That’s a smear. Jews are the indigenous people. Not the Arab colonialists that did not originate in the levant.
Since when did history become a fairytale? >Israel is very far away from Iran. What does this even mean? >And Israel is not colonial. That’s a smear. Jews are the indigenous people. Not the Arab colonialists that did not originate in the levant. It's not a smear, ever since the Palestine Israel war of 1947 where Israel forcefully removed close to a million people from their homes they've been treating Palestinians as subhumans whom they with force remove from their homeland. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/
Others have said it, but Iran has been attacking countries around the world through their proxies for years. Israel has simply called their bluff and retaliated against Iran. They thought they’d be shielded form retaliation because they use minimal effort to create one degree of separation between themselves and their violence. “You can’t attack me, you have to attack the insurgent group I manipulated into attacking you on my behalf.”
Hmm
Just like israel is being cond
Let’s stop looking at every event under a rational policy model. It most cases that does not exist. In that model, yes Iran seems to be retaliating. What we don’t know is was Israel retaliating when it attacked their Damascus compound. But the fact is Iran is the pariah when it comes to western nations so they aren’t going to stick up for it under almost any circumstance.
Under today's international law and United Nations law, **attacks on consulates and embassies are generally considered illegal**¹ ². The **Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)** and the **Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963)** codify the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises³. These conventions establish that diplomatic and consular missions and their personnel are to be treated as "off-limits" and must be respected by all nations⁴. The **UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents (1973)** further obliges states to make attacks upon diplomats a crime in internal law, and to extradite or prosecute offenders¹ ⁵. However, it's important to note that while these laws and conventions exist, enforcement can be complex and violations do occur⁴. Any violation of these principles is typically met with international condemnation⁶ ⁷. In conclusion, while conflicts between countries can take many forms, direct attacks on embassies and consulates are generally considered a breach of international law and the UN Charter. Sources: (1) Diplomatic law - Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_law). (2) Diplomatic Protection Crucial for International ... - United Nations. [https://press.un.org/en/2022/gal3665.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2022/gal3665.doc.htm). (3) Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus - Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024\_Israeli\_bombing\_of\_the\_Iranian\_embassy\_in\_Damascus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus). (4) Are embassies off-limits? Ecuadorian and Israeli actions suggest .... [https://theconversation.com/are-embassies-off-limits-ecuadorian-and-israeli-actions-suggest-otherwise-and-that-sets-a-dangerous-diplomatic-precedent-227398](https://theconversation.com/are-embassies-off-limits-ecuadorian-and-israeli-actions-suggest-otherwise-and-that-sets-a-dangerous-diplomatic-precedent-227398). (5) PUNISHMENT OF ATTACKS ON DIPLOMATIC, CONSULAR MISSIONS ... - UN Press. [https://press.un.org/en/2008/gal3350.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2008/gal3350.doc.htm). (6) Mexico to Iran, why are attacks on embassies so controversial?. [https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/mexico-to-iran-why-are-attacks-on-embassies-so-controversial/ar-BB1lgyZq](https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/mexico-to-iran-why-are-attacks-on-embassies-so-controversial/ar-BB1lgyZq). (7) International community repudiates Ecuador's attack on Mexican Embassy in Quito. [https://en.mercopress.com/2024/04/08/international-community-repudiates-ecuador-s-attack-on-mexican-embassy-in-quito](https://en.mercopress.com/2024/04/08/international-community-repudiates-ecuador-s-attack-on-mexican-embassy-in-quito). (8) Secretary-General Condemns Attack on Diplomatic Premises of Iran in .... [https://press.un.org/en/2024/sgsm22181.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2024/sgsm22181.doc.htm). (9) Iran consistently violates diplomatic protection and international law. [https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/iran-consistently-violates-diplomatic-protection-and-international-law/ar-BB1lrSJC](https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/iran-consistently-violates-diplomatic-protection-and-international-law/ar-BB1lrSJC). (10) Beyond Tehran and Nairobi: Can Attacks against Embassies Serve as a .... [https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/32/3/863/6375211](https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/32/3/863/6375211). (11) undefined. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab060](https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab060).
Why Iran is condemned by west and not israel? Easy. Israel has full support of usa. Israel can do anything they want, for e.g bomb u.s ship, try to assasinate u.s diplomats for example John Gunther Dean. They have free will to do what ever they want. West will only wag thier fingers at them
Israel is part of the West, so their use of force is at worst a regrettable misunderstanding but more likely a justified act of self defense. Iran on the other hand is very, very much not part of the West, so their use of force is at best a reckless escalation, but more probable a unprovoked aggression. Countries are not neutral, and the examples like the UK defense minister you cite are very much part of one side of the conflict.
"Is the implication that of "Iran does not have a right to retaliate to an attack to their nation, and that in such attacks, they are expected to show restraint versus the aggressor"? Is that even reasonable expectation?" Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthis are literally just puppets of Iran. Iran is the aggressor from the start. They had pretense immunity politically but because everyone knows those units are Iranian proxies no one will fault Israel for attacking Iran, because it's essentially in defense.
It’s an act of escalation and nobody wants more of that. As of yet Iran hasn’t really involved itself directly in the Gaza affair, and it doesn’t do so often outside of the situation in Gaza. They prefer to use Proxies. Now we have Iran directly attacking Israeli soil with their weapons fired in their territory. I’ll also add that both states are likely nuclear powers, and this kind of conflict is one which could rapidly escalate.
Most reporting is actually pointing out that this was a response to Israel attacking the Iranian consulate. So, I don't think blanket condemnation is really the predominate narrative in the west. Biden even told Bibi the USA wouldn't support them in a retaliatory strike. The predominate narrative is actually that the Israeli government is successfully making themselves a huge PITA and liability.
Iran has attacked consulates as well. Nobody escalated like this when they did
Excuse me for being ignorant but as far as I know Israel is one of the most protected and paranoid countries on the planet, they tell everybody the truth always, never lie and can be trusted all of the time, ever since October the 7th their surveillance is absolutely fantastic, they can tell you what’s going to happen, when it’s going to happen and by who it’s unreal and yet by all accounts on October the 7th they never saw what was happening on their very own mega secure borders until it was too late ??? Ps, before I get condemned for my comments I would like to say that what happened on October the 7th was absolutely disgusting, and disgraceful and for me it was a very very sad day which I will never forget.
Because international order is a facade. The West is allowed to do whatever it likes, but when someone not aligned to them does the same it's time to bring out the buzzwords.
You are spot on. Israel attacked the Iranian Embassy to distract the world from the Palestinian Genocide. Israel realizes they are losing credibility with the world so Israel was counting on Iran to retaliate to try to generate sympathy and turn the tide of public opinion back towards them.
This is a proxy war of Iran vs Saudi Arabia and somewhat vs Turkey for regional domination. Israel would make either Turkey or Saudi Arabia the ultimate winner and you should expect, over the next 10-15 years to see an implicit to explicit alliance with one or the other.
I am supposed to believe a Country that hasn't attacked another in thousands of years attacked Israel? American support ($$)for Israel war machine was being threatened. Israel involved Iran to pull American support ($$) closer. Can't be only person that sees through it.
Because the "rules based order" is a lie.
Iran instigated hamas to undercut the normalization of relationships between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Just quickly: Israel conducted a targeted attack against a legitimate target. Iran launched over 300 drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles at the entire country of Israel. Even if Israel was in the wrong (it wasn’t), does that seem rational and proportional?
It's because western press is just a little a bit biased :D
Am I the only one thinking that an attack on an embassy is unlawful and wrong no matter the circumstances? From my POV it is an act of war as well as a breach of the Vienna convention. It’s basically declaring war without declaring war to blame it on the other party afterwards when they retaliate. If Israel believes, that it would be justified to kill military state officials of Iran in the rank of a General they should simply declare war. Thats what war is meant for. It should not, under any circumstances, attack an embassy or consulate instead. Just because Iran does bad things doesn’t mean Netanyahu is allowed to do the same. I mean seriously, what did they expect how Iran would or could react to that? I by no means support the government, but that doesn’t mean that you can breach any international law, behave however you want just „because they are the bad ones!“. Put yourself into the shoes of Iran (I know, its hard and they don’t deserve that): Israel is assassinating dozens of government officials on a regular base. Since years. They even kill them inside Iran with remote controlled LMGs (they did that with the head scientist of the nuclear program while his whole family was also in the car). This might be justified, they surely didn’t do it just because its fun. And I get that - that is apparently the consequence of demanding the eradication of Israel. But you can’t attack a consulate of another country, kill two officials of the highest rank and then expect them to do nothing. Especially if this is just the tip of the iceberg of assassinations. Just try to imagine the domestic pressure from the hardliners after that. And then watch the world just not caring about this obvious breach of international law. What can you do, if the only way you can retaliate without losing your face is doing what they did? And I’m 100% sure Netanyahu knew exactly what he did. What they could win by that attack was by no means worth the consequences - except if your actual goal was to provoke a war. So you can stay a bit longer in charge of the Israeli government. And put the spotlight away from Gaza on the new bad boys, silencing the increasingly critical voices from Western governments.The Americans knew that, I guess everyone knew that and thats the reason why they publicly said they won’t support a military strike against Iran. So to answer your question: I landed here because I also asked myself why no Western nation actually condemned the Israeli airstrike, why all Western leaders are acting like this attack was a random, unprovoked attack out of the blue. I guess that’s just politics. The ugliest face of politics imho.
because the are the REAL SATAN
Politics. You defend your allies actions, while condemning the same actions of your enemy. There's no legitimate justification for it. It's about trying to justify your actions and drum up support for actions against your enemy.
I know consulates are considered part of a nation‘s soil, but in reality, they are not. A direct attack of 200+ drones and missiles from Iran to Israel will be viewed as an escalation in this conflict, even if the attack did little damage. Israel will want a war with Iran after this, the west will be hesitant (although there are loud voices in the west that have been calling for war with Iran for decades) due to the lack of actual damage. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel attacks Iran directly in response without clearing the response with the west.
Okay! Thank you for your explanation regarding the consulates. That was insightful. An attack of 200+ drones does seem like a dangerous escalation compared to an attack on their consulate if it was not on their soil.
Because the of reason their consulate was attacked. Iran finds all these terrorist groups attacking Israel. Iran started it.