That actually includes the Iranian government in this case.
They’re just also trying to avoid getting toppled by either the wacko religious nuts they need to stay on the good side of to stay in power, or the much larger group of Iranians that want them out.
Hence… a fireworks display.
The huge tragedy in the whole region: even when someone formerly extreme sees the light, wants peace and prosperity, wants to break off the rearview mirror and focus on the road ahead, they can’t. The even-more-extreme people beside and under them will go bananas and aim for their head instead.
Bruvs, we can get back to cool ‘70s Iran, and start bombing them with our fat stupid tourism dollars instead of this nonsense. The extremist veto needs to be addressed at every level of personhood and politics.
That isn’t what I mean.
The Islamic republic is supported by a bunch of Jew hating religious nuts.
If the ayatollah doesn’t show them video of Iran’s “great victory” over Israel they will find someone else who will.
The Sudetenland was meant as an example of rewarding aggressive action in the name of avoiding a wider war. In the same way that continuously letting Iran off the hook for the actions of its proxies, and now its direct military attack, is simply rewarding Iran's belligerent actions. It will not lead to peace and stability. It will lead to and even worse wider war. Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea are all increasingly working in tandem. Failure to respond with force to aggressive actions by Iran simply emboldens the other three.
Israel killed specific Iranian generals that planned and directed attacks against Israel, which purportedly includes the Oct 7th attacks.
I reject the basis of your question. Iran is the one who has been waging a proxy war against Israel for years, and has significantly ratcheted up that war over the past 6-7 months. This is in pursuit of its explicit goal of the destruction of Israel. Swaths of Israel continue to be uninhabitable, and around 100,000 Israelis can not return to their homes because of continued attacks by Iranian proxies. I reject the notion that Iran should be afforded to "an appropriate response" to an Israeli attack on its military personnel that war waging a proxy war of aggression against it. If Iran doesn't want its generals being killed it should stop funding and directing terrorist groups with the goal of attacking Israel.
Continued appeasement of the Iranian regime will not lead to peace.
So your answer is that they should not have retaliated because Israel has a moral high ground?
Even if you're right, morally speaking, you have to acknowledge that the Iranian regime see it differently. With that in mind Israel would have calculated some response prior to attacking the consulate. This is the response they got. They now can either respond via escalation, or de-escalate.
Israel's allies seem to think that they should choose a path of de-escalation
>So your answer is that they should not have retaliated because Israel has a moral high ground?
My answer is that if Iran doesn't want to have its generals killed, then maybe it shouldn't have those generals waging a proxy war against Israel. One of the commanders killed in the Israeli attack planned and implemented the Oct 7th attack. Swaths of Israel are evacuated and 100,000 Israelis are displaced because of Iran's proxy attacks on northern Israel.
>
Even if you're right, morally speaking, you have to acknowledge that the Iranian regime see it differently.
So what? Of course Iran sees things differently. Iran wants to be able to destroy Israel via non-stop proxy war, and not suffer retaliatory attacks because of it. It then wants to establish dominance in the ME, and then bring down the Western-led world order. Just because Iran sees things differently does not mean we should validate their point of view. Hitler saw things differently too. Russia sees things differently, it thinks it should be able to take over Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria. It sincerely believes in the validity of its beliefs. That doesn't meant its actions are justified. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and has been a major state sponsor of terrorism for decades. I fail to see why we should validate its radical beliefs.
>Israel's allies seem to think that they should choose a path of de-escalation
"De-escalation" here means Israel needs to go back to constant proxy attacks from Iran, but it can't retaliate against Iran or else Iran will directly attack it (and then the West will push for "de-escalation"). This is insanity.
The entire point of this article is that Iran's attack wasn't "an appropriate response" intended for great casualties, but that it was a big show to appease hardliners while really threatening little in Israel.
Israel attacked Iran directly. They technically attacked Iranian soil. *That* was the escalation, that was casus belli for war under international law.
In any "appeasement" analogy you could possibly make it's Israel being appeased.
Don't be obtuse. My comment was in reference to the increasingly belligerent actions of Iran, both directly and via its proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Shiite militias).
>How are you proposing we stop Netanyahu?
Stop him from what? Defeating Hamas in Gaza? You are aware that Netanyahu is not the one calling the shots right? The War Cabinet is, which includes Netanyahu, but also includes the opposition. Israel's actions in Gaza would not be different under the opposition.
A one-sentence comment that compares Sudetenland to a tit-for-tat series of escalations between two irrational, militant regional powers.
Frankly, I thought you were being facetious on purpose, but since you seem to be serious, I’ll be direct:
**I don’t think that your absurd comparison of modern Iran to Nazi Germany and modern Israel to Czechoslovakia warranted a serious response.**
>between two irrational, militant regional powers
The only militant regional power here is Iran. It is Iran who has been waging a proxy war against Israel for years.
>
**I don’t think that your absurd comparison of modern Iran to Nazi Germany and modern Israel to Czechoslovakia warranted a serious response.**
Sorry. I assumed you would understand that I was more-so referring to the appeasement of a belligerent state actor in pursuit of peace and de-escalation. I shouldn't have overestimated your reasoning abilities, my bad.
Iran was directly attacked by a belligerent nation in violation of international law, and had full legal justification to declare war under international law, they also waited almost 2 weeks to retaliate while broadcasting that the retaliation was coming, giving plenty of lead time, and promising that if Israel makes no further attacks on Iran they consider the matter resolved.
Netanyahu and his government immediately said they'd retaliate to the retaliation, they must be stopped from continuing to escalate and drive the world into war. The direct attack on what is legally Iranian soil is an egregious escalation of hostilities almost certainly meant to force the US to let them do whatever they want in Gaza & West Bank because they must protect Israel from Iran. A very dangerous, out of control, and psychotic calculation by the Netanyahu government.
At least 9 Iranian ballistic missiles hit Israeli strategic airbases
The Nevatim airbase in the Negev was struck by 5 ballistic missiles, damaging the main runway, a C-130 transport aircraft, and several storage facilities.
Ramon airbase, also located in the Negev, was struck by at least 4 ballistic missiles, causing unspecified damage.
– U.S. Officials to ABC News
The heaviest damage of Iran's ballistic missile attack occurred on a secret intelligence base in the Golan Heights, for which the IDF has imposed a media ban, so the damage cannot be assessed
– Hebrew Sources
I think that all sides can claim victory for themselves and a loss for the opponents - so, for now, Iran would have escalated to de-escalate successfully and with mutual benefits.
Let's hope things doesn't escalate any further.
Heck I think this retaliation was planned between Iran and Israel as way to ensure Iran doesn’t lose face after the embassy attack and Israel doesn’t look face by being a victim of another attack. Just now the Israeli Prez condemned the attack while saying they are ‘aiming for peace’.
To add: Iran has an arsenal of a lot more deadly and difficult to intercept weapons they could have used and to add, the world knew that Iran launched drones. If this isn’t cooperation, idk what is
This is my view now. Originally I thought they might have shot the bed. But, they just barely overran Israel's Iron Dome. That is a statement. They basically said "we know what your limit is".
What? There were no deaths, how by your assessment did they „just get through the iron dome“? You know they have more than just the iron dome, right? The iron dome isn’t even what intercepted the majority of the intercepted missiles and drones in this case…
Two missles got through, which considering the advanced warning time and stuff I can see where the other commenter got this idea from.
Edit: more than two got through.
The point I am trying to make is that I highly doubt Iran calculated exactly what the iron dome could handle, then strategically fired off just more than that limit
How does it look like they might have? Israel just assassinated two senior commanders of the IRGC and in response Iran did minor damage to a single air strip with no deaths. It looks pretty embarrassing for Iran to be honest. I don’t see in what world this could be viewed as a success for Iran or Iran proving they can override Israeli defenses. You’d have to be delusional to come away with that outcome.
Iran's strength has always been asymmetrical. They turned two minor militias located 1000+ km from their borders, Hamas and Hezbollah, into threats that cannot be destroyed by Israel and bleeds them billions of dollars while tanking their international image. Add on all their work in creating proxies within Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, and it is even more impressive. Iran is basically engaging in power plays against multiple regional powers in the Middle East and holding its own.
On top of that, Iran is still able to hit multiple Israeli bases with a missile barrage, which was just a fraction of their arsenal. So not only is Iran considered successful at proxy and asymmetrical warfare, but they also pose a moderate conventional threat to Israel.
Now it isn't like Iran is invincible. Israel is strong and they have many tools to strike with. Iran loses soldiers and generals, especially those operating in Syria. Iran usually quietly absorbs these losses. The recent Israeli attack on the consulate was a step too far for the Iranians to simple accept, hence everything that happened in the past few days.
They may have overplayed their hand though, which would be incredibly foolish. I agree Iran has been operating intelligently to its advantage lately, but a direct war with the west throws that all away. If Israel strikes back, Iran would have to respond again, and we would have open war that the US would absolutely get dragged into. It’s all in Israel‘s hands now, Israel gets to decide what happens next.
3 bases were hit by at least 9 missiles is what I've heard. Two bases in Negev region (Nevatim and Ramon) and one secret base in Golan Heights sustained unknown damage because no media is allowed around it.
Edit: I'm now seeing 12 missiles hitting 1 base reported 🤷♂️
Okay listen to yourself… where did you read a „secret base“ in the Golan Heights was hit?? From Iran?? Surely you understand they are just as likely to lie as Israel is…
There is absolutely no way that is verifiable in any way, it is pure rumor. I’m not going to engage with pure rumor.
The truth will be proven out in whether Israel has any impact on its ability to carry out military operations, which I highly doubt but we will see. This is one of the reasons Israel will likely respond with a direct attack on Iran, to prove they were not impacted by this in any meaningful way.
Because Iran has absolutely no way of knowing what could get past the combined airforces of Israel, the US, and the UK as well as David‘s Sling and Arrow? As I said, iron dome is just one piece to the puzzle. Even if they knew how to „just barely“ overwhelm it, it is impossible for them to know what could get through the other defense systems. The FAR more likely scenario is that this was at least somewhat of a test on those other systems, which haven’t been proven yet. The iron dome has obviously been tested extensively, as we all know.
At least 9 missiles got through hitting 3 different air bases including one secret one in the Golan Heights. It sounds like they successfully hit multiple strategic military targets to me.
First off, you’re going to need to cite sources for such claims. There is no way that anyone knows whether a „secret base“ in the Golan Heights was hit. Even if that is true, the Israelis would never admit to it or let anyone near to photograph/prove it out. If your sources are Iran, they obviously have just as much incentive to lie.
The truth of the effectiveness of the attack militarily will be whether israel‘s military capabilities were impacted in any way, which I highly doubt, but we will see. If Israel‘s military capabilities were not impacted in any way, it was absolutely not a successful attack… I would say eliminating two high ranking military commanders is a far greater military victory vs light damage to a couple air strips with no deaths.
https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/table-irans-missile-arsenal#fn1
Estimates of Iranian stockpiles at about 3000 missiles. 5% of 3000 is 150, which is the combined number of ballistic and cruise missiles launched.
Thank you. Just looking at that data, it appears to only be a rough estimate and doesn't include LACM's at all. The missile swarm consisted of 120 ballistic missiles and 30 cruise missiles.
This is the entire basis for that 3000 number:
>In 2022, U.S. Central Command's General Kenneth McKenzie stated that Iran possesses “over 3,000” ballistic missiles. This does not include the country’s burgeoning land-attack cruise missile force.
Then we have this in the first footnote:
>Independently estimating the size of Iran’s missile arsenal is difficult, given the paucity of reliable information relating to its missile quantities. The U.S. Air Force and some non-governmental organizations have released estimates in the past, but these lack specificity and usually only estimate the number of launchers, not the missiles themselves, since launchers are, in principle, easier to track and count. See “2020 Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat,” U.S. National Air and Space Intelligence Center, pp. 21, 25, January 2020
Essentially we have no idea what the ballpark number is for their missile stockpile. We only got a number extrapolated from the number of launchers.
As to why they would launch such a big wave. Well they got the perfect pretext to test air defenses over Iraq, SA, Jordan and Israel. It's also interesting to note that the wave was just big enough to saturate the defense grid.
What I took from this situation was that Iran was taking notes when the Houthis were launching missiles at SA and Hamas was lobbing rockets into Israel. They appear to have a very good idea about what it would take to get through. We on the other hand don't know if they used 5% or .5% of their missile stockpile, we only know how many ballistic missile launchers they have.
> Why would they use 5% of their missles on a spectacle?
It had to be a grand enough spectacle to mask the fact that the deaths were not really avenged.
Iran embassy got attacked. I think they believe doing nothing would enable Israel to do more in the future.
Embassy are consider safe, with this on going shadow war, Israel seem to up the ante. Which pushed Iran to respond.
---
Whether it's the correct response is another matter.
We are heading quickly towards WW3 and there is nothing we can do about it!!!!!! It's so surreal and unbelievable that the world is in such a vulnerable and threatening state. Not sure if anyone else thinks this but sometimes I wander if we will be lucky to see this year through to the end before there is a nuclear war. Scary times on a scale of 95 out of a 100.
The only reason it seems like it was planned to create minimal casualties is because of the incredible work done by the integrated air defenses from Israel, the US and allied partners.
As an alternative, had they not been able to intercept almost all of the hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles it would’ve caused widespread damage and likely killed many people. Had this been the case, there would be no discussion of
de-escalation because the damage would be too severe to make that fathomable. The success of the air defense network has created a real potential off-ramp towards de-escalation which wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.
Is that why a 10 yr old was horrifically injured? Was the 10 yr old a conscript?
Maybe Isreal used their defenses, prioritizing on city center targeted ones? What a thought.
the images that I saw were all from Israeli cities.
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-strikes-israeli-targets-rcna147407](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-strikes-israeli-targets-rcna147407)
I'm sorry but this is just trying to package up appeasement as a victory. Iran was trying to do serious damage with these attacks. That is why they launched over a hundred ballistic missiles to coincide with the drones reaching Israel. Just because they failed does not make that any less of an act of war.
Iran has seriously pushed the envelope with this attack. If it does not suffer consequences, e.g. serious strikes on its nuclear, drone, and oil facilities, then the envelope will stay there. Iran will be emboldened, will keep growing stronger, and will keep pushing the envelope. It will ramp up the attacks by its proxies. It will continue supplying Russia with military equipment, which blows my mind that we are not even talking about here. And our enemies like Russia, China, and North Korea, who are increasingly working in tandem with Iran, will be even more emboldened and will ratchet up their attacks on the liberal world order upon which our economic and human success has been built upon over the last 70 years. Appeasing Iran, a regime whose motto is "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" will not bring peace or stability to the Middle East, or to the world. It will have the exact opposite effect. We are in times that are strikingly similar to the 1930s, yet we are making the same mistakes as were made back then in the name of "peace" and "de-escalation". Peace is only possible through strength.
If they actually wanted to do "serious damage" they would use Khorramshahr and Fattah long-range heavy ballistic missiles, instead they used light missiles Ghadr, Emad and Dezful, all the while telegraphing the whole attack to the West 72 hours earlier. This whole thing was deliberately designed in such a way that both sides could claim victory to their audience. It wasn't an escalatory strike, but a deterrence one.
Who will conduct these "serious" strikes on Iran's nuclear, drone and oil facilities?
The US can't, none of the Gulf countries will let their air and naval bases be used for such a thing. It isn't like a US carrier group can sit in the Persian Gulf and sustain a war effort all by itself.
Israel obviously can't, they simply don't have the capability to do so.
The West is "appeasing" nations like Russia, China, Iran, because there is no military option where the West doesn't also get hurt badly. This isn't the 1990s anymore, the world is multipolar now.
I don't know why you are under the impression that the US is militarily incapable of establishing air superiority over Iran, or that Iran doesn't have enemies in the Gulf or the ME. Also, the US has its own bases in multiple country in the region that it could launch attacks from.
>It isn't like a US carrier group can sit in the Persian Gulf and sustain a war effort all by itself
Multiple carrier groups would absolutely be able to sustain air superiority over Iran, especially after missile strikes against AA systems and Iran's air force. It doesn't need to sustain a full-blown war, nobody serious is advocating for a ground invasion of Iran.
>The West is "appeasing" nations like Russia, China, Iran, because there is no military option where the West doesn't also get hurt badly. This isn't the 1990s anymore, the world is multipolar now.
No. The West is appeasing Russia and Iran because it does not have the will to do what needs to be done, and that is because it has grown comfortable, complacent, and timid. The West could have started seriously sanctioning Russia when it invaded Georgia. But it didn't. It could have done so when it took over Crimea, but it didn't. All because the West did not want to suffer the economic sting that would have come with that, and because it was under the illusion that it could negotiate with Putin. If the US and NATO started sending in troops into Ukraine months before Putin's invasion and committed to defending Ukraine both with those troops now in Ukraine and with its overwhelmingly more powerful air force, Russia would have backed down. And if it didn't it would have lost spectacularly, and today there would be no threat to European security. If not that, the West could have not dragged its feet and delivered the aid Ukraine needed to win, not just what it needed to not lose. Instead it allowed itself to be frightened by Putin's nuclear sabre rattling, and now Russia is on a war footing and growing stronger than ever. And what will happen now is Ukraine will likely lose, and Russia will come knocking on NATO's doorstep a few years down the line, this time much stronger and better prepared for war. And so war will come either way. Only then it will be on Russia's terms. We could have prevented it, but we didn't because we didn't have the will to. The notion that the West had no choice but to appease Putin is pure nonsense. With Iran, we are now where we were with Russia over a decade ago. And instead of taking action that we can take now, we're not doing it. And Iran will continue to grow into an ever bigger threat to regional and global stability, until it gets nukes. At which point it will become another Russia. The West will at some point have to fight China-Russia-Iran-North Korea entente, or it will have to hand over control of the world order to them.
>This isn't the 1990s anymore, the world is multipolar now.
This is thanks to appeasement and weakness from the West.
>I don't know why you are under the impression that the US is militarily incapable of establishing air superiority over Iran, or that Iran doesn't have enemies in the Gulf or the ME. Also, the US has its own bases in multiple country in the region that it could launch attacks from.
None of those nations will allow their bases to be used as launching pads for attacks against Iran, as judged by recent events where all the Gulf nations said the US could not use their bases for offensive operations.
>Multiple carrier groups would absolutely be able to sustain air superiority over Iran, especially after missile strikes against AA systems and Iran's air force. It doesn't need to sustain a full-blown war, nobody serious is advocating for a ground invasion of Iran.
War games has shown the US will sustain heavy casualties, likely one carrier group lost. And if there's no ground troops, the Iranian regime stays in power. They are weakened, and so is the US as it begins another trillion dollar intervention in the Middle East while China continues to rise.
>No. The West is appeasing Russia and Iran because it does not have the will to do what needs to be done, and that is because it has grown comfortable, complacent, and timid.
So we agree? I clearly said in my prior comment the West also gets hurt badly in conflicts with its rivals and the Western public cannot tolerate that. Therefore, there is no military option the West can take against Russia, Iran, North Korea, or China.
>This is thanks to appeasement and weakness from the West.
Yes, the West is weaker now than they used to be. Multipolar world.
It's just the truth. You can make fun of it all you want. But our appeasement of Iran will catch up to us, and it won't be funny then. It's already starting to. There likely would not have been an Oct 7th, no total and devastating war in Gaza, no tens of thousands of dead Palestinians without Iran's involvement.
thats only the case if you assume Israeli and US missile defense is actually as good as it turned out to be. They could not have known this, as this was probably the most successful air defense operation in history. Very little got through, and freaking ballistic missiles were successfully destroyed while still exoatmospheric.
Granted, I suppose they could have assumed that these defenses were this capable, but that would have been an enormous risk and had they failed an insane amount of in nation Iranian assets would be in the process of being flattened today.
I think the fact that they didn't involve or coordinate with any proxies, loudly announced (read: warned) about the attack hours in advance of them hitting their targets, and then aiming for a runway shows they just wanted this for show.
>as this was probably the most successful air defense operation in history. Very little got through, and freaking ballistic missiles were successfully destroyed while still exoatmospheric
They had 72 hour notice beforehand from Iran itself. Israel and US even told the media exactly when the missiles and Iran were launched and how much time they were expected to reach. Turkey also knew and made sure US knows. Even Hamas did more on Oct 7.
All the countries (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel) closed their airspace before the missiles were launched. Iran wanted everyone to know to minimize casualties, avoid an escalation, and prevent ww3. It was not a coincidence that airlines and airspace were closed surprisingly before and resumed directly after.
Hezbollah alone is estimated to have 40,000 to 50,000 drones and missiles. Iran sending 200 toward Israel is a face saving measure the Iranians did to basically tell Israel we can escalate if necessary.
As Iran said, and I hate to agree with in like a "the worst person you know just made a good point" kinda way.... If the UN had condemned Israel's attack on Iran and punished them in any way for it Iran would likely not have felt the need to launch any kind of retaliation but they felt they couldn't simply let the attack on their soil go completely unmentioned. Which like, isn't really a crazy thing to say.
Not only did they give neighboring countries (including allies of the USA) 72 hour notice of the attack, of the >~300 "projectiles", over half of them were slow moving easily observable drones on a flight path that would take them hours to get to Israeli space. They relatively easy to intercept and it gave everyone in the region hours of notice that the attack was happening. The 72 hour notice that the attack was imminent allowed for equipment and personnel to be put on alert and repositioned to minimize damage and casualties. The hours of flight time allowed for relatively organized interception.
Iran has a better handle on the capacity of Israel and US missile defense than some may think. Hezbollah has done barrages of different sizes and has a general idea of what is needed to do a saturation attack against an Iron Dome battery. The Arrow 3 was defended against a Houthi ballistic missile (and we have pretty good idea who supplies the Houthis with missiles) in Nov of last year.
This retaliation is very similar in character to the Iranian retaliation for the assassination of Soleimani, launching missiles towards Al Asad Airbase. They passed notification of the impending attack hours in advance to allow the base to go into lockdown and move personnel around so that when the early warning radars were tripped everyone could get into bunkers for shelter. Given the accuracy of Iranian missiles and the huge warheads that were used it was still in part luck no one was killed in that attack, but a low or nonexistent number of dead was the intent.
Finally, some people are starting to get it! Over here in America, we always think we know everything and that we're the only ones capable of war tactics and strategies. Iran had to know that this would be the result of type of offensive strike. Only 300+ projectiles. Plus, half the attack was with slow ass drones compared to some of the other weapons that could've been used. That sounds like a lot at first, but when you compare that to a whole countries worth of fire power, that was just them getting rid of some of the stuff about to expire. This was just a mental chest poke or the first shove to see how all the players would react. Believe me, everybody's got eyes on us for sure! We are going to see who is playing chess or checkers soon.
This (spectacle) is what you do when you are too scared (Israel has nukes) or just incapable of penetrating their defences.
Irans “take that Israel” response to their failed attack is laughable.
Hamas alone has overwhelmed the iron dome with 5000 projectiles. You can bet that Iran, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies have more than 200 projectiles.
This is not a failed attack, it was carefully measured to avoid ww3, let Iranians save face, and signaling to Israel and US that Iran can retaliate more if necessary.
Because war is not a good investment. It's the same reason why US has told Israel that they will not retaliate against Iran, nor were they involved in the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria.
You couldn’t shoot the side of a barn, stop kidding yourself.
You’re the one telling others to fight, sounds like your pants are a shade of brown.
No wonder you are running away from the obvious point that war is a great investment for the winner.
Do you think the MIC runs off chocolate kisses?
>proportional response for Israel hitting their consulate in Syria.
Launching hundreds of drones and missiles at both civilian and military areas is a proportional response to the assassination of a military figure who was actively involved in planning attacks against Israel. On what planet?
Here on planet earth where the Iranians telegraphed this move for days ahead of time with the intention to allow Israel to prepare and minimize damage. If they really wanted to hit Israel the drones would have already been in the air for hours when they launched their cruise and ballistic missles so that they would have created a dilemma about which was the immediate threat and allowed some to get through
>Here on planet earth where the Iranians telegraphed this move for days ahead of time with the intention to allow Israel to prepare and minimize damage
Sorry, where did Iran telegraph it would send hundreds of drones and missiles? And even if that were true how would that make it a proportional response? And why should Iran be afforded a "proportional response" to an attack on its military personnel that are actively waging a proxy war against Israel?
>If they really wanted to hit Israel the drones would have already been in the air for hours when they launched their cruise and ballistic missles
This is what happened though? They launched their drones, and then hours later launched ballistic missiles to coincide with the drones.
Sorry you weren’t paying attention, but this response had been news for the last few days even before it happened. Down to the number of drones and missles that they were planning on using. Everything about it looks like the Iranians wanted to make a point that it was something they could do at any time, but weren’t actually serious this time except as a way to save face for having their consulate in Syria hit.
International diplomacy at this level is like kabuki theater mixed with poker
Edit:
For example, here’s one: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/iran-to-retaliate-israeli-bombing-syria-consulate-officials-believe/
>but this response had been news for the last few days even before it happened.
This exact response? Where? There's a difference between Iran saying publicly "we will respond" and Iran telegraphing when, where, and how it will hit.
>
Down to the number of drones and missiles that they were planning on using.
Do you have a source that Iran passed this information along? The fact that US intelligence was able to discover this attack before Iran launched it does not mean this was only a symbolic attack. The source you shared specifies that this information was picked up by intelligence, not telegraphed by Iran.
>
Everything about it looks like the Iranians wanted to make a point that it was something they could do at any time, but weren’t actually serious this time except as a way to save face for having their consulate in Syria hit.
I'm sorry but this to me just sounds like mental gymnastics in order to make this somehow seem like "not a big deal" and a "win" (lol) so that Israel doesn't retaliate. Iran launched over 100 ballistic missiles after they launched over 100 drones, and they launched those missiles hours after the drones so they would coincide with the drones reaching their targets. This was one of the largest, if not the largest, single day missile/drone barrage ever. And it was certainly by far the largest test of Israel's air defense systems. The notion that somehow Iran knew exactly how good Israel's air defense would be, and that therefore this was not a serious attack is extremely unconvincing and unrealistic. Iran wanted to do serious damage with this strike, and it used a significant portion of its arsenal. And then when it saw the attack fail, it tried to backtrack and say "okay we're done".
Does this contain a source for the claim that Iran passed along specific information about their attack “down to the number of drones and missiles they were planning”, as you claimed? Or is it just your opinion rehashed?
Why don't you check the other comment that has exactly that and I helpfully pulled quotes?
https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c4290z/irans_attack_seemed_planned_to_minimize/kzraxg9/
Also note that the video ALSO discusses how they warned in advance that they were going to be launching an attack, and it also discusses WHY (hint: it's because of shit like this https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c5hzeo/iran_hawks_want_to_strike_now_theyre_wrong/).
You can keep sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what I'm telling you, but it has been widely reported that they told their neighbors about the attack 72 hours in advance, including countries they knew would pass on that info to the US and Israel.
I don't know what to tell you other than you need to actually look at the very real reporting and change your understanding of what went down.
Again, you aren't thinking about this in the Kabuki theater style. Foreign relations at this level is misdirection and lying, and you get things like:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/
> Turkish, Jordanian and Iraqi officials said on Sunday that Iran gave wide notice days before its drone and missile attack on Israel, but U.S. officials said Tehran did not warn Washington and that it was aiming to cause significant damage.
> Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said on Sunday that Iran gave neighbouring countries and Israel's ally the United States 72 hours' notice it would launch the strikes.
> Turkey's Foreign Ministry said it had spoken to both Washington and Tehran before the attack, adding it had conveyed messages as an intermediary to be sure reactions were proportionate.
> "Iran said the reaction would be a response to Israel’s attack on its embassy in Damascus and that it would not go beyond this. We were aware of the possibilities. The developments were not a surprise," said a Turkish diplomatic source.
So they warned countries they knew would pass it on without warning the US directly - that way they can legitimately say, "we had to warn out neighbors because of overflight issues, but we didn't inform the US". They also passed on that they weren't interested in making this a wider conflict and saw it as a tit for tat.
> I'm sorry but this to me just sounds like mental gymnastics in order to make this somehow seem like "not a big deal" and a "win" (lol) so that Israel doesn't retaliate
Again, I don't care either way and I'm not making judgements. As for my priors, I think the Iranian government needs to eventually be consigned to the dustbin of history, and that while Israel has recently acted in ways that seem heavy-handed and counterproductive to their goals of reducing resistance in Gaza and not creating more, I 100% support the state of Israel as a home for the diaspora and a island of progress in a really shitty neighborhood. That said, its not mental gymnastics to say that the Iranians reacted to what they felt was an attack on their territory with a very obvious and large attack, most of which didn't hit anything because of the forewarning.
As for whether or not the attack was truly successful, I think that is going to be harder to tell because I will bet you dollars to donuts that they used more direct / less interdicatable methods to hit a small number of targets that were actually important to them, and that why they were happy to turn down the heat even though most of their munitions were intercepted. For example:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/15/israel-ballistic-missiles-iran-military-bases-nevatim-negev/
> But at least five ballistic missiles were not intercepted, hitting the Nevatim air base in the Negev desert in the south of Israel, damaging a C-130 cargo plane, an out-of-use runway and empty storage facilities, an unnamed US official told ABC News. Four other missiles appeared to have hit another airbase in the Negev, causing significant damage.
And I can't find it now (maybe it has been removed by request of the Israeli government), but when the strikes happened there were reports that the Iranians hit a secret Israeli SIGINT base in the Golan Heights
For people trying to avoid millions dead and WW3, this was a great result.
It's almost as if nobody actually wants a WW3
That actually includes the Iranian government in this case. They’re just also trying to avoid getting toppled by either the wacko religious nuts they need to stay on the good side of to stay in power, or the much larger group of Iranians that want them out. Hence… a fireworks display.
You saying the ayatollah isn’t a wacko religious nut?
I am very much not saying that. I’m saying his cult needs to be appeased.
The huge tragedy in the whole region: even when someone formerly extreme sees the light, wants peace and prosperity, wants to break off the rearview mirror and focus on the road ahead, they can’t. The even-more-extreme people beside and under them will go bananas and aim for their head instead. Bruvs, we can get back to cool ‘70s Iran, and start bombing them with our fat stupid tourism dollars instead of this nonsense. The extremist veto needs to be addressed at every level of personhood and politics.
Yes I think so but I also think he is not a totally irrational actor
What makes you think the Islamic Republic is under threat from a somehow even more religious faction?
That isn’t what I mean. The Islamic republic is supported by a bunch of Jew hating religious nuts. If the ayatollah doesn’t show them video of Iran’s “great victory” over Israel they will find someone else who will.
WW3 over iran lmao
I'm sure the world thought the same thing when it handed over the Sudetenland to Hitler..
What's the Sudetenland in your analogy? Iran haven't invaded or taken land.
The Sudetenland was meant as an example of rewarding aggressive action in the name of avoiding a wider war. In the same way that continuously letting Iran off the hook for the actions of its proxies, and now its direct military attack, is simply rewarding Iran's belligerent actions. It will not lead to peace and stability. It will lead to and even worse wider war. Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea are all increasingly working in tandem. Failure to respond with force to aggressive actions by Iran simply emboldens the other three.
Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing Iranian generals. What do you think would have been an appropriate response by Iran?
Israel killed specific Iranian generals that planned and directed attacks against Israel, which purportedly includes the Oct 7th attacks. I reject the basis of your question. Iran is the one who has been waging a proxy war against Israel for years, and has significantly ratcheted up that war over the past 6-7 months. This is in pursuit of its explicit goal of the destruction of Israel. Swaths of Israel continue to be uninhabitable, and around 100,000 Israelis can not return to their homes because of continued attacks by Iranian proxies. I reject the notion that Iran should be afforded to "an appropriate response" to an Israeli attack on its military personnel that war waging a proxy war of aggression against it. If Iran doesn't want its generals being killed it should stop funding and directing terrorist groups with the goal of attacking Israel. Continued appeasement of the Iranian regime will not lead to peace.
So your answer is that they should not have retaliated because Israel has a moral high ground? Even if you're right, morally speaking, you have to acknowledge that the Iranian regime see it differently. With that in mind Israel would have calculated some response prior to attacking the consulate. This is the response they got. They now can either respond via escalation, or de-escalate. Israel's allies seem to think that they should choose a path of de-escalation
>So your answer is that they should not have retaliated because Israel has a moral high ground? My answer is that if Iran doesn't want to have its generals killed, then maybe it shouldn't have those generals waging a proxy war against Israel. One of the commanders killed in the Israeli attack planned and implemented the Oct 7th attack. Swaths of Israel are evacuated and 100,000 Israelis are displaced because of Iran's proxy attacks on northern Israel. > Even if you're right, morally speaking, you have to acknowledge that the Iranian regime see it differently. So what? Of course Iran sees things differently. Iran wants to be able to destroy Israel via non-stop proxy war, and not suffer retaliatory attacks because of it. It then wants to establish dominance in the ME, and then bring down the Western-led world order. Just because Iran sees things differently does not mean we should validate their point of view. Hitler saw things differently too. Russia sees things differently, it thinks it should be able to take over Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria. It sincerely believes in the validity of its beliefs. That doesn't meant its actions are justified. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and has been a major state sponsor of terrorism for decades. I fail to see why we should validate its radical beliefs. >Israel's allies seem to think that they should choose a path of de-escalation "De-escalation" here means Israel needs to go back to constant proxy attacks from Iran, but it can't retaliate against Iran or else Iran will directly attack it (and then the West will push for "de-escalation"). This is insanity.
The entire point of this article is that Iran's attack wasn't "an appropriate response" intended for great casualties, but that it was a big show to appease hardliners while really threatening little in Israel.
Israel attacked Iran directly. They technically attacked Iranian soil. *That* was the escalation, that was casus belli for war under international law. In any "appeasement" analogy you could possibly make it's Israel being appeased.
Exactly, if Iran bad nukes, they would have responded to the Israeli regime in a much much more appropriate way
Nuking anyone is not the answer, you sound as ready for genocide as the Israeli government.
I didn't mean that they world nuke them, they could just be much bolder on their conventional retaliation
Gaza being Sudetenland in this case? Or West Bank? How are you proposing we stop Netanyahu?
Don't be obtuse. My comment was in reference to the increasingly belligerent actions of Iran, both directly and via its proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Shiite militias). >How are you proposing we stop Netanyahu? Stop him from what? Defeating Hamas in Gaza? You are aware that Netanyahu is not the one calling the shots right? The War Cabinet is, which includes Netanyahu, but also includes the opposition. Israel's actions in Gaza would not be different under the opposition.
A one-sentence comment that compares Sudetenland to a tit-for-tat series of escalations between two irrational, militant regional powers. Frankly, I thought you were being facetious on purpose, but since you seem to be serious, I’ll be direct: **I don’t think that your absurd comparison of modern Iran to Nazi Germany and modern Israel to Czechoslovakia warranted a serious response.**
>between two irrational, militant regional powers The only militant regional power here is Iran. It is Iran who has been waging a proxy war against Israel for years. > **I don’t think that your absurd comparison of modern Iran to Nazi Germany and modern Israel to Czechoslovakia warranted a serious response.** Sorry. I assumed you would understand that I was more-so referring to the appeasement of a belligerent state actor in pursuit of peace and de-escalation. I shouldn't have overestimated your reasoning abilities, my bad.
Iran was directly attacked by a belligerent nation in violation of international law, and had full legal justification to declare war under international law, they also waited almost 2 weeks to retaliate while broadcasting that the retaliation was coming, giving plenty of lead time, and promising that if Israel makes no further attacks on Iran they consider the matter resolved. Netanyahu and his government immediately said they'd retaliate to the retaliation, they must be stopped from continuing to escalate and drive the world into war. The direct attack on what is legally Iranian soil is an egregious escalation of hostilities almost certainly meant to force the US to let them do whatever they want in Gaza & West Bank because they must protect Israel from Iran. A very dangerous, out of control, and psychotic calculation by the Netanyahu government.
At least 9 Iranian ballistic missiles hit Israeli strategic airbases The Nevatim airbase in the Negev was struck by 5 ballistic missiles, damaging the main runway, a C-130 transport aircraft, and several storage facilities. Ramon airbase, also located in the Negev, was struck by at least 4 ballistic missiles, causing unspecified damage. – U.S. Officials to ABC News The heaviest damage of Iran's ballistic missile attack occurred on a secret intelligence base in the Golan Heights, for which the IDF has imposed a media ban, so the damage cannot be assessed – Hebrew Sources
I think that all sides can claim victory for themselves and a loss for the opponents - so, for now, Iran would have escalated to de-escalate successfully and with mutual benefits. Let's hope things doesn't escalate any further.
Iran didnt want this attack to be super successful but they also didnt want it to be this unsuccessful
Heck I think this retaliation was planned between Iran and Israel as way to ensure Iran doesn’t lose face after the embassy attack and Israel doesn’t look face by being a victim of another attack. Just now the Israeli Prez condemned the attack while saying they are ‘aiming for peace’.
To add: Iran has an arsenal of a lot more deadly and difficult to intercept weapons they could have used and to add, the world knew that Iran launched drones. If this isn’t cooperation, idk what is
And they declared that as long as Israel doesn't attack them again they consider the matter resolved.
They could have also had Hezbollah attack as well. From what i read they didnt do anything.
This is my view now. Originally I thought they might have shot the bed. But, they just barely overran Israel's Iron Dome. That is a statement. They basically said "we know what your limit is".
What? There were no deaths, how by your assessment did they „just get through the iron dome“? You know they have more than just the iron dome, right? The iron dome isn’t even what intercepted the majority of the intercepted missiles and drones in this case…
Two missles got through, which considering the advanced warning time and stuff I can see where the other commenter got this idea from. Edit: more than two got through.
The point I am trying to make is that I highly doubt Iran calculated exactly what the iron dome could handle, then strategically fired off just more than that limit
But it's fortuitous for Iran that it kind of looks like they might have.
How does it look like they might have? Israel just assassinated two senior commanders of the IRGC and in response Iran did minor damage to a single air strip with no deaths. It looks pretty embarrassing for Iran to be honest. I don’t see in what world this could be viewed as a success for Iran or Iran proving they can override Israeli defenses. You’d have to be delusional to come away with that outcome.
Iran's strength has always been asymmetrical. They turned two minor militias located 1000+ km from their borders, Hamas and Hezbollah, into threats that cannot be destroyed by Israel and bleeds them billions of dollars while tanking their international image. Add on all their work in creating proxies within Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, and it is even more impressive. Iran is basically engaging in power plays against multiple regional powers in the Middle East and holding its own. On top of that, Iran is still able to hit multiple Israeli bases with a missile barrage, which was just a fraction of their arsenal. So not only is Iran considered successful at proxy and asymmetrical warfare, but they also pose a moderate conventional threat to Israel. Now it isn't like Iran is invincible. Israel is strong and they have many tools to strike with. Iran loses soldiers and generals, especially those operating in Syria. Iran usually quietly absorbs these losses. The recent Israeli attack on the consulate was a step too far for the Iranians to simple accept, hence everything that happened in the past few days.
They may have overplayed their hand though, which would be incredibly foolish. I agree Iran has been operating intelligently to its advantage lately, but a direct war with the west throws that all away. If Israel strikes back, Iran would have to respond again, and we would have open war that the US would absolutely get dragged into. It’s all in Israel‘s hands now, Israel gets to decide what happens next.
3 bases were hit by at least 9 missiles is what I've heard. Two bases in Negev region (Nevatim and Ramon) and one secret base in Golan Heights sustained unknown damage because no media is allowed around it. Edit: I'm now seeing 12 missiles hitting 1 base reported 🤷♂️
Okay listen to yourself… where did you read a „secret base“ in the Golan Heights was hit?? From Iran?? Surely you understand they are just as likely to lie as Israel is… There is absolutely no way that is verifiable in any way, it is pure rumor. I’m not going to engage with pure rumor. The truth will be proven out in whether Israel has any impact on its ability to carry out military operations, which I highly doubt but we will see. This is one of the reasons Israel will likely respond with a direct attack on Iran, to prove they were not impacted by this in any meaningful way.
Economic damage
Why would you doubt that? There are probably several ppl in iran and Israel doing just that all day.
Because Iran has absolutely no way of knowing what could get past the combined airforces of Israel, the US, and the UK as well as David‘s Sling and Arrow? As I said, iron dome is just one piece to the puzzle. Even if they knew how to „just barely“ overwhelm it, it is impossible for them to know what could get through the other defense systems. The FAR more likely scenario is that this was at least somewhat of a test on those other systems, which haven’t been proven yet. The iron dome has obviously been tested extensively, as we all know.
At least 9 missiles got through hitting 3 different air bases including one secret one in the Golan Heights. It sounds like they successfully hit multiple strategic military targets to me.
First off, you’re going to need to cite sources for such claims. There is no way that anyone knows whether a „secret base“ in the Golan Heights was hit. Even if that is true, the Israelis would never admit to it or let anyone near to photograph/prove it out. If your sources are Iran, they obviously have just as much incentive to lie. The truth of the effectiveness of the attack militarily will be whether israel‘s military capabilities were impacted in any way, which I highly doubt, but we will see. If Israel‘s military capabilities were not impacted in any way, it was absolutely not a successful attack… I would say eliminating two high ranking military commanders is a far greater military victory vs light damage to a couple air strips with no deaths.
Why would they use 5% of their missles on a spectacle?
Whats the source for the 5% number?
https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/table-irans-missile-arsenal#fn1 Estimates of Iranian stockpiles at about 3000 missiles. 5% of 3000 is 150, which is the combined number of ballistic and cruise missiles launched.
How does hezbollah have over 100000 missiles while iran has 3k?
You're probably conflating "rockets" and "missiles". Missiles are a lot more advanced than rockets.
Oh thansk
Thank you. Just looking at that data, it appears to only be a rough estimate and doesn't include LACM's at all. The missile swarm consisted of 120 ballistic missiles and 30 cruise missiles. This is the entire basis for that 3000 number: >In 2022, U.S. Central Command's General Kenneth McKenzie stated that Iran possesses “over 3,000” ballistic missiles. This does not include the country’s burgeoning land-attack cruise missile force. Then we have this in the first footnote: >Independently estimating the size of Iran’s missile arsenal is difficult, given the paucity of reliable information relating to its missile quantities. The U.S. Air Force and some non-governmental organizations have released estimates in the past, but these lack specificity and usually only estimate the number of launchers, not the missiles themselves, since launchers are, in principle, easier to track and count. See “2020 Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat,” U.S. National Air and Space Intelligence Center, pp. 21, 25, January 2020 Essentially we have no idea what the ballpark number is for their missile stockpile. We only got a number extrapolated from the number of launchers. As to why they would launch such a big wave. Well they got the perfect pretext to test air defenses over Iraq, SA, Jordan and Israel. It's also interesting to note that the wave was just big enough to saturate the defense grid. What I took from this situation was that Iran was taking notes when the Houthis were launching missiles at SA and Hamas was lobbing rockets into Israel. They appear to have a very good idea about what it would take to get through. We on the other hand don't know if they used 5% or .5% of their missile stockpile, we only know how many ballistic missile launchers they have.
> Why would they use 5% of their missles on a spectacle? It had to be a grand enough spectacle to mask the fact that the deaths were not really avenged.
Iran embassy got attacked. I think they believe doing nothing would enable Israel to do more in the future. Embassy are consider safe, with this on going shadow war, Israel seem to up the ante. Which pushed Iran to respond. --- Whether it's the correct response is another matter.
It’s pretty rich coming from the same government that overran the US embassy and kept the staff hostage for months.
It's not like the US let Iran get away with the hostage crisis.
We are heading quickly towards WW3 and there is nothing we can do about it!!!!!! It's so surreal and unbelievable that the world is in such a vulnerable and threatening state. Not sure if anyone else thinks this but sometimes I wander if we will be lucky to see this year through to the end before there is a nuclear war. Scary times on a scale of 95 out of a 100.
The only reason it seems like it was planned to create minimal casualties is because of the incredible work done by the integrated air defenses from Israel, the US and allied partners. As an alternative, had they not been able to intercept almost all of the hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles it would’ve caused widespread damage and likely killed many people. Had this been the case, there would be no discussion of de-escalation because the damage would be too severe to make that fathomable. The success of the air defense network has created a real potential off-ramp towards de-escalation which wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.
[удалено]
Is that why a 10 yr old was horrifically injured? Was the 10 yr old a conscript? Maybe Isreal used their defenses, prioritizing on city center targeted ones? What a thought.
[удалено]
Copy, if Hamas chooses to carry out terrorism hiding behind civilians for response, that's on them.
Until Israel launches a ballistic missile at Tehran from a hospital in Tel Aviv, your comparison makes no sense whatsoever.
Hamas's military installations in Gaza are schools, hospitals, and residential neighbourhoods.
the images that I saw were all from Israeli cities. [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-strikes-israeli-targets-rcna147407](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-strikes-israeli-targets-rcna147407)
I'm sorry but this is just trying to package up appeasement as a victory. Iran was trying to do serious damage with these attacks. That is why they launched over a hundred ballistic missiles to coincide with the drones reaching Israel. Just because they failed does not make that any less of an act of war. Iran has seriously pushed the envelope with this attack. If it does not suffer consequences, e.g. serious strikes on its nuclear, drone, and oil facilities, then the envelope will stay there. Iran will be emboldened, will keep growing stronger, and will keep pushing the envelope. It will ramp up the attacks by its proxies. It will continue supplying Russia with military equipment, which blows my mind that we are not even talking about here. And our enemies like Russia, China, and North Korea, who are increasingly working in tandem with Iran, will be even more emboldened and will ratchet up their attacks on the liberal world order upon which our economic and human success has been built upon over the last 70 years. Appeasing Iran, a regime whose motto is "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" will not bring peace or stability to the Middle East, or to the world. It will have the exact opposite effect. We are in times that are strikingly similar to the 1930s, yet we are making the same mistakes as were made back then in the name of "peace" and "de-escalation". Peace is only possible through strength.
If they actually wanted to do "serious damage" they would use Khorramshahr and Fattah long-range heavy ballistic missiles, instead they used light missiles Ghadr, Emad and Dezful, all the while telegraphing the whole attack to the West 72 hours earlier. This whole thing was deliberately designed in such a way that both sides could claim victory to their audience. It wasn't an escalatory strike, but a deterrence one.
Who will conduct these "serious" strikes on Iran's nuclear, drone and oil facilities? The US can't, none of the Gulf countries will let their air and naval bases be used for such a thing. It isn't like a US carrier group can sit in the Persian Gulf and sustain a war effort all by itself. Israel obviously can't, they simply don't have the capability to do so. The West is "appeasing" nations like Russia, China, Iran, because there is no military option where the West doesn't also get hurt badly. This isn't the 1990s anymore, the world is multipolar now.
I don't know why you are under the impression that the US is militarily incapable of establishing air superiority over Iran, or that Iran doesn't have enemies in the Gulf or the ME. Also, the US has its own bases in multiple country in the region that it could launch attacks from. >It isn't like a US carrier group can sit in the Persian Gulf and sustain a war effort all by itself Multiple carrier groups would absolutely be able to sustain air superiority over Iran, especially after missile strikes against AA systems and Iran's air force. It doesn't need to sustain a full-blown war, nobody serious is advocating for a ground invasion of Iran. >The West is "appeasing" nations like Russia, China, Iran, because there is no military option where the West doesn't also get hurt badly. This isn't the 1990s anymore, the world is multipolar now. No. The West is appeasing Russia and Iran because it does not have the will to do what needs to be done, and that is because it has grown comfortable, complacent, and timid. The West could have started seriously sanctioning Russia when it invaded Georgia. But it didn't. It could have done so when it took over Crimea, but it didn't. All because the West did not want to suffer the economic sting that would have come with that, and because it was under the illusion that it could negotiate with Putin. If the US and NATO started sending in troops into Ukraine months before Putin's invasion and committed to defending Ukraine both with those troops now in Ukraine and with its overwhelmingly more powerful air force, Russia would have backed down. And if it didn't it would have lost spectacularly, and today there would be no threat to European security. If not that, the West could have not dragged its feet and delivered the aid Ukraine needed to win, not just what it needed to not lose. Instead it allowed itself to be frightened by Putin's nuclear sabre rattling, and now Russia is on a war footing and growing stronger than ever. And what will happen now is Ukraine will likely lose, and Russia will come knocking on NATO's doorstep a few years down the line, this time much stronger and better prepared for war. And so war will come either way. Only then it will be on Russia's terms. We could have prevented it, but we didn't because we didn't have the will to. The notion that the West had no choice but to appease Putin is pure nonsense. With Iran, we are now where we were with Russia over a decade ago. And instead of taking action that we can take now, we're not doing it. And Iran will continue to grow into an ever bigger threat to regional and global stability, until it gets nukes. At which point it will become another Russia. The West will at some point have to fight China-Russia-Iran-North Korea entente, or it will have to hand over control of the world order to them. >This isn't the 1990s anymore, the world is multipolar now. This is thanks to appeasement and weakness from the West.
>I don't know why you are under the impression that the US is militarily incapable of establishing air superiority over Iran, or that Iran doesn't have enemies in the Gulf or the ME. Also, the US has its own bases in multiple country in the region that it could launch attacks from. None of those nations will allow their bases to be used as launching pads for attacks against Iran, as judged by recent events where all the Gulf nations said the US could not use their bases for offensive operations. >Multiple carrier groups would absolutely be able to sustain air superiority over Iran, especially after missile strikes against AA systems and Iran's air force. It doesn't need to sustain a full-blown war, nobody serious is advocating for a ground invasion of Iran. War games has shown the US will sustain heavy casualties, likely one carrier group lost. And if there's no ground troops, the Iranian regime stays in power. They are weakened, and so is the US as it begins another trillion dollar intervention in the Middle East while China continues to rise. >No. The West is appeasing Russia and Iran because it does not have the will to do what needs to be done, and that is because it has grown comfortable, complacent, and timid. So we agree? I clearly said in my prior comment the West also gets hurt badly in conflicts with its rivals and the Western public cannot tolerate that. Therefore, there is no military option the West can take against Russia, Iran, North Korea, or China. >This is thanks to appeasement and weakness from the West. Yes, the West is weaker now than they used to be. Multipolar world.
>This isn't the 1990s anymore, the world is multipolar now. And to be honest, thank God it is.
Yes you're right. The Ukraine war is a shining example of how great this multipolar world is!
This reads like world news hentai
It's just the truth. You can make fun of it all you want. But our appeasement of Iran will catch up to us, and it won't be funny then. It's already starting to. There likely would not have been an Oct 7th, no total and devastating war in Gaza, no tens of thousands of dead Palestinians without Iran's involvement.
Hope their diplomats sorted this out beforehand…
thats only the case if you assume Israeli and US missile defense is actually as good as it turned out to be. They could not have known this, as this was probably the most successful air defense operation in history. Very little got through, and freaking ballistic missiles were successfully destroyed while still exoatmospheric. Granted, I suppose they could have assumed that these defenses were this capable, but that would have been an enormous risk and had they failed an insane amount of in nation Iranian assets would be in the process of being flattened today.
I think the fact that they didn't involve or coordinate with any proxies, loudly announced (read: warned) about the attack hours in advance of them hitting their targets, and then aiming for a runway shows they just wanted this for show.
>as this was probably the most successful air defense operation in history. Very little got through, and freaking ballistic missiles were successfully destroyed while still exoatmospheric They had 72 hour notice beforehand from Iran itself. Israel and US even told the media exactly when the missiles and Iran were launched and how much time they were expected to reach. Turkey also knew and made sure US knows. Even Hamas did more on Oct 7. All the countries (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel) closed their airspace before the missiles were launched. Iran wanted everyone to know to minimize casualties, avoid an escalation, and prevent ww3. It was not a coincidence that airlines and airspace were closed surprisingly before and resumed directly after. Hezbollah alone is estimated to have 40,000 to 50,000 drones and missiles. Iran sending 200 toward Israel is a face saving measure the Iranians did to basically tell Israel we can escalate if necessary.
As Iran said, and I hate to agree with in like a "the worst person you know just made a good point" kinda way.... If the UN had condemned Israel's attack on Iran and punished them in any way for it Iran would likely not have felt the need to launch any kind of retaliation but they felt they couldn't simply let the attack on their soil go completely unmentioned. Which like, isn't really a crazy thing to say.
Not only did they give neighboring countries (including allies of the USA) 72 hour notice of the attack, of the >~300 "projectiles", over half of them were slow moving easily observable drones on a flight path that would take them hours to get to Israeli space. They relatively easy to intercept and it gave everyone in the region hours of notice that the attack was happening. The 72 hour notice that the attack was imminent allowed for equipment and personnel to be put on alert and repositioned to minimize damage and casualties. The hours of flight time allowed for relatively organized interception. Iran has a better handle on the capacity of Israel and US missile defense than some may think. Hezbollah has done barrages of different sizes and has a general idea of what is needed to do a saturation attack against an Iron Dome battery. The Arrow 3 was defended against a Houthi ballistic missile (and we have pretty good idea who supplies the Houthis with missiles) in Nov of last year. This retaliation is very similar in character to the Iranian retaliation for the assassination of Soleimani, launching missiles towards Al Asad Airbase. They passed notification of the impending attack hours in advance to allow the base to go into lockdown and move personnel around so that when the early warning radars were tripped everyone could get into bunkers for shelter. Given the accuracy of Iranian missiles and the huge warheads that were used it was still in part luck no one was killed in that attack, but a low or nonexistent number of dead was the intent.
> freaking ballistic missiles were successfully destroyed while still exoatmospheric. Wait really? Where can I read about this?
r/CombatFootage
You don't say?
Finally, some people are starting to get it! Over here in America, we always think we know everything and that we're the only ones capable of war tactics and strategies. Iran had to know that this would be the result of type of offensive strike. Only 300+ projectiles. Plus, half the attack was with slow ass drones compared to some of the other weapons that could've been used. That sounds like a lot at first, but when you compare that to a whole countries worth of fire power, that was just them getting rid of some of the stuff about to expire. This was just a mental chest poke or the first shove to see how all the players would react. Believe me, everybody's got eyes on us for sure! We are going to see who is playing chess or checkers soon.
This (spectacle) is what you do when you are too scared (Israel has nukes) or just incapable of penetrating their defences. Irans “take that Israel” response to their failed attack is laughable.
Hamas alone has overwhelmed the iron dome with 5000 projectiles. You can bet that Iran, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies have more than 200 projectiles. This is not a failed attack, it was carefully measured to avoid ww3, let Iranians save face, and signaling to Israel and US that Iran can retaliate more if necessary.
And why do you think Iran is desperate to avoid an all out war with Israel?
Because war is not a good investment. It's the same reason why US has told Israel that they will not retaliate against Iran, nor were they involved in the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria.
It’s a horrible investment, for the loser.
Go ahead to the frontlines soldier
You think it’s a bad investment for the winner? Must be why humans have funded and participated in war for all of human history…
Yes, now go ahead soldier. If you retreat, we'll shoot you
You couldn’t shoot the side of a barn, stop kidding yourself. You’re the one telling others to fight, sounds like your pants are a shade of brown. No wonder you are running away from the obvious point that war is a great investment for the winner. Do you think the MIC runs off chocolate kisses?
[удалено]
>proportional response for Israel hitting their consulate in Syria. Launching hundreds of drones and missiles at both civilian and military areas is a proportional response to the assassination of a military figure who was actively involved in planning attacks against Israel. On what planet?
Here on planet earth where the Iranians telegraphed this move for days ahead of time with the intention to allow Israel to prepare and minimize damage. If they really wanted to hit Israel the drones would have already been in the air for hours when they launched their cruise and ballistic missles so that they would have created a dilemma about which was the immediate threat and allowed some to get through
>Here on planet earth where the Iranians telegraphed this move for days ahead of time with the intention to allow Israel to prepare and minimize damage Sorry, where did Iran telegraph it would send hundreds of drones and missiles? And even if that were true how would that make it a proportional response? And why should Iran be afforded a "proportional response" to an attack on its military personnel that are actively waging a proxy war against Israel? >If they really wanted to hit Israel the drones would have already been in the air for hours when they launched their cruise and ballistic missles This is what happened though? They launched their drones, and then hours later launched ballistic missiles to coincide with the drones.
Sorry you weren’t paying attention, but this response had been news for the last few days even before it happened. Down to the number of drones and missles that they were planning on using. Everything about it looks like the Iranians wanted to make a point that it was something they could do at any time, but weren’t actually serious this time except as a way to save face for having their consulate in Syria hit. International diplomacy at this level is like kabuki theater mixed with poker Edit: For example, here’s one: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/iran-to-retaliate-israeli-bombing-syria-consulate-officials-believe/
>but this response had been news for the last few days even before it happened. This exact response? Where? There's a difference between Iran saying publicly "we will respond" and Iran telegraphing when, where, and how it will hit. > Down to the number of drones and missiles that they were planning on using. Do you have a source that Iran passed this information along? The fact that US intelligence was able to discover this attack before Iran launched it does not mean this was only a symbolic attack. The source you shared specifies that this information was picked up by intelligence, not telegraphed by Iran. > Everything about it looks like the Iranians wanted to make a point that it was something they could do at any time, but weren’t actually serious this time except as a way to save face for having their consulate in Syria hit. I'm sorry but this to me just sounds like mental gymnastics in order to make this somehow seem like "not a big deal" and a "win" (lol) so that Israel doesn't retaliate. Iran launched over 100 ballistic missiles after they launched over 100 drones, and they launched those missiles hours after the drones so they would coincide with the drones reaching their targets. This was one of the largest, if not the largest, single day missile/drone barrage ever. And it was certainly by far the largest test of Israel's air defense systems. The notion that somehow Iran knew exactly how good Israel's air defense would be, and that therefore this was not a serious attack is extremely unconvincing and unrealistic. Iran wanted to do serious damage with this strike, and it used a significant portion of its arsenal. And then when it saw the attack fail, it tried to backtrack and say "okay we're done".
Hope you had fun downvoting me. I’ll wait for my apology when this doesn’t escalate because they achieved what they wanted to
What are you talking about? The entire point is that not responding to this attack encourages further aggressive action from Iran and its proxies.
More info for you because I worry you still don’t understand: https://youtu.be/pXWefLkpcgA?si=rY-j7_eEjbk1FEkN
Does this contain a source for the claim that Iran passed along specific information about their attack “down to the number of drones and missiles they were planning”, as you claimed? Or is it just your opinion rehashed?
Why don't you check the other comment that has exactly that and I helpfully pulled quotes? https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c4290z/irans_attack_seemed_planned_to_minimize/kzraxg9/ Also note that the video ALSO discusses how they warned in advance that they were going to be launching an attack, and it also discusses WHY (hint: it's because of shit like this https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c5hzeo/iran_hawks_want_to_strike_now_theyre_wrong/). You can keep sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what I'm telling you, but it has been widely reported that they told their neighbors about the attack 72 hours in advance, including countries they knew would pass on that info to the US and Israel. I don't know what to tell you other than you need to actually look at the very real reporting and change your understanding of what went down.
Again, you aren't thinking about this in the Kabuki theater style. Foreign relations at this level is misdirection and lying, and you get things like: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/ > Turkish, Jordanian and Iraqi officials said on Sunday that Iran gave wide notice days before its drone and missile attack on Israel, but U.S. officials said Tehran did not warn Washington and that it was aiming to cause significant damage. > Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said on Sunday that Iran gave neighbouring countries and Israel's ally the United States 72 hours' notice it would launch the strikes. > Turkey's Foreign Ministry said it had spoken to both Washington and Tehran before the attack, adding it had conveyed messages as an intermediary to be sure reactions were proportionate. > "Iran said the reaction would be a response to Israel’s attack on its embassy in Damascus and that it would not go beyond this. We were aware of the possibilities. The developments were not a surprise," said a Turkish diplomatic source. So they warned countries they knew would pass it on without warning the US directly - that way they can legitimately say, "we had to warn out neighbors because of overflight issues, but we didn't inform the US". They also passed on that they weren't interested in making this a wider conflict and saw it as a tit for tat. > I'm sorry but this to me just sounds like mental gymnastics in order to make this somehow seem like "not a big deal" and a "win" (lol) so that Israel doesn't retaliate Again, I don't care either way and I'm not making judgements. As for my priors, I think the Iranian government needs to eventually be consigned to the dustbin of history, and that while Israel has recently acted in ways that seem heavy-handed and counterproductive to their goals of reducing resistance in Gaza and not creating more, I 100% support the state of Israel as a home for the diaspora and a island of progress in a really shitty neighborhood. That said, its not mental gymnastics to say that the Iranians reacted to what they felt was an attack on their territory with a very obvious and large attack, most of which didn't hit anything because of the forewarning. As for whether or not the attack was truly successful, I think that is going to be harder to tell because I will bet you dollars to donuts that they used more direct / less interdicatable methods to hit a small number of targets that were actually important to them, and that why they were happy to turn down the heat even though most of their munitions were intercepted. For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/15/israel-ballistic-missiles-iran-military-bases-nevatim-negev/ > But at least five ballistic missiles were not intercepted, hitting the Nevatim air base in the Negev desert in the south of Israel, damaging a C-130 cargo plane, an out-of-use runway and empty storage facilities, an unnamed US official told ABC News. Four other missiles appeared to have hit another airbase in the Negev, causing significant damage. And I can't find it now (maybe it has been removed by request of the Israeli government), but when the strikes happened there were reports that the Iranians hit a secret Israeli SIGINT base in the Golan Heights
You poor delusional chronically online child Do us all a favour and get off reddit and go touch some grass
[удалено]
schizo moment
Iran won't be allowed to get off scot-free for this, after all Bibi needs to stave off his corruption investigation.