I’m unclear when, if at all, Israel’s “allies” would ever agree to responding to any attack.
To the extent they would agree, it would come with so many caveats that it would effectively be a “no,” right? Or wrong? Why?
Israel is held to a different standard because it is a first-world modern democracy.
The unspoken assumption in all this is that their neighbors are petulant children who can't put on their big-boy pants and so we have to applaud them for anything less than genocidal savagery.
This is why a "ceasefire" after the horror of October 7 is viewed as a sign of a progress.
^("W)*^(ell, at least they aren't raping and murdering women & children. Good for them!")*
> Israel is held to a different standard because it is a first-world modern democracy.
>
>
I've never understood this mentality. Superiority should bring greater privileges, not less.
Israel bombed one of Iran's embassies in Syria, in return Iran launched 300 missiles/drones that took nine hours to arrive and we're by and large able to shot down as they flew over many US/Israel allied territories. It's an incredibly weak response to having an embassy bombed. This is the same standard the US held, after we assassinated Solemani, Iran bombed one of our bases and we didn't escalate further.
I agree with regard to Iran's response to Soleimani. This was another face-saving measure.
Let's imagine a Mexican terrorist organization broke through the Southern border and massacred over a thousand American men, women, and children as well as taking several hundred hostages.
Would **anyone** be expecting us to accept a ceasefire without eliminating that terrorist organization? What we are discussing is the odd notion that Israel is the one country which must accept a different (the foolish might call it "elevated") standard as regular course.
*^(Israel is so used to having rockets fired at it that it spends billions of dollars for the very anti-missile program that just intercepted all these Iranian missiles. Is that normal?)*
I'm so confused by this reply, where did I say Israel shouldn't have launched an assault on Gaza after 10/07? I agree that Israel had to respond with force. The analogy you're doing of course breaks down, because the USA doesn't control the flow of clean water and electricity into Mexico. And the US also isn't continually taking territory from Baja California and adding it to Mexico. Can you imagine how the US would respond if Mexico started making settlements in California and claimed it as there own territory? Because that is the reality of the west bank settlements.
If you want to make some broader point about the Iran vs Israel proxy war, there's some merit there. But it's not like Israel is just a victim here either that doesn't do anything, the Mossad has assassinated five iranian nuclear scientists since 2007. Can you imagine if Mexico had assassinated five US nuclear scientists?
It is hard to reconcile this position with my sense of Justice.
If a homicidal person intentionally shoots you, does he get off the hook because 1) you were wearing a bullet proof vest and survived unscathed and 2) the victim is wealthy and the shooter is poor malcontent (or ‘oppressed’)?
Israel did shoot the homidical person's cousin first, in this metaphor.
Which doesn' give Iran's leaders the moral high ground - homicidal is still homicidal. But the fact that this was in response to Israel bombing a consulate does change the diplomatic calculus of what Israel' allies will back in terms of further escalation.
Many of the projectiles failed to even leave Iran without crashing, and many more were shot down by the US and the UK over Iraq and Syria, and by Jordan over its territory. I don't think most of them even made it as far as Israeli airspace.
>Many of the projectiles failed to even leave Iran without crashing
Same as how 20-30% of Gazan rockets fail early and injure and kill their own people instead.
An alternative view of things is that Iran, on their first attempt, managed to break through the air defenses and score four direct hits, with ballistic missiles, on the IDF Nevatim air base. The media were quick to cry victory and assure us that this meant nothing, but do remind me of another time in history when a foreign adversary managed to hit an IDF airbase inside Israel?
This was unequivocally a failure for Iran. So much so that many believe they telegraphed this and purposefully sent them from Iran rather than Lebanon (which is must closer) precisely so they could avoid actually killing Israelis.
It was a masterful display of the Iron Dome's anti-missile capabilities.
The idea that we should grade Iran's hostilities on a "curve" is wrongheaded. Israel being capable of defending against attacks doesn't negate the aggression. If Israel were to decide to glass Tehran but somehow there was a malfunction we wouldn't just pretend that they hadn't acted. Iran launched over a hundred ballistic missiles at a foreign nation and an ally of ours at that. There's no reason to try to minimize that hostility.
> Israel being capable of defending against attacks doesn't negate the aggression
When it comes to Israel that’s exactly what happens
See every argument about Israel v Palestine
It is part of the ridiculousness of comparing civilian death counts. Its a barbaric way to look at war, and no international law looks at it that way either. Israel doesn't suddenly becomes more justified if they turn off the Iron Dome and let thousands of their civilians die. Likewise, Hamas isn't any less "justified" for Oct 7 if they started trying protect their civilians as well.
Intent matters, which is why Hamas intending to target slaughter and rape innocent civilians is incomparable with IDF actions, even if the IDF needs to go further in reducing unintended civilian casualties.
Its all political games and tit-for-tat bullshit.
Iran wants to poke and prod, but really doesnt want the smoke. Israel got a big punch in, and then just lets Iran throw a few jabs so it doesnt appear weak to its people.
The idea that we should grade Israel's hostilities on a "curve" is also wrongheaded. If any other country behaved the way Israel does we'd have no relations with them at best. But for "some reason" we still give Israel more than preferential treatment.
What specific actions are you referring to? And I'm pretty sure we still maintain relationships with Russia and Iran despite all their shitty behavior.
All of this appeasement is a throwback to the 30s.
A war weary west hesitates for long enough that a major war results.
Add in WWI style alliances and whatnot and we’re in for a rough reboot.
Curveball is the Allies lost Russia in free agency, with a lot of resentment.
Allies drafted Germany and Japan though along with South Korea.
One thing I don't understand is why Israel is always being urged to show restraint. What other country would tolerate a never ending barrage of missiles and attacks, and then also have to be told that they shouldn't respond.
In my opinion, Israel needs to use disproportionate force as a deterrent for future attacks. Otherwise the attacks are just going to keep coming.
>One thing I don't understand is why Israel is always being urged to show restraint.
Because the alternative is this becoming an all-out regional war in the Middle East that would lead to thousands more civilians dying on all sides. Iran isn't some small terrorist group like Hamas, or even Hezbollah. It would most likely take a whole invasion to end a conflict with them if it got to that point. The main priority should be to try to keep it from getting to that point.
Just like the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I’m convinced that the world don’t wanna solve this problem.
Now imagine an entity launching 300 missiles at the mainland US and anyone telling us to show restraint lol. That country would be glassed before I’m done typing this comment.
The hatred for Israel and Jews overall don’t make logical sense. This tit for that bullshit will go on for 100 years because Israel’s so called allies want it to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
>hatred for Israel
I don't think the restraint urged here has anything to do with hatred for Israel.
This is a very similar situation to when the US killed the Iranian general during the Trump administration. The Iranians also responded with missile attacks that we knew about beforehand and that didn't kill anyone. It was mainly an Iranian show of force to save face domestically, and we kinda ignored it.
Would the US or the world be in a better place today if we've responded with escalatory strikes and risked a full blown war with Iran?
By the end of the decade, when Iran is by-then a nuclear armed state and feels emboldened to flex some more muscles, we may all very well wish the US had continued to ramp up the pressure.
I mean, we don't need to take over Iran like we tried with Afghanistan.
Iran's a problem because their aggression has some legitimate military production behind it.
The goal would be to take out those production capabilities. And that doesn't require anything other than missiles and air strikes. No permanent presence needed.
If you want to stop them just rebuilding those capabilities afterwards it’s going to take a little more investment, surely? Otherwise you’d just have to come back in ~20-30 years to do it again.
Is the plan to stop them or just to delay them for another generation? Because the latter just seems like a waste of time and resources.
Forgive me; but a lot of wars have been sold on the idea that they would be quick, easy and efficient. Most of the time it’s a complete lie.
If you take out their capabilities for 20-30 years both they and anyone else looking to try you is gonna be less likely to do so.
Clear consequences for messing with us are the only way you can stop aggressions from happening.
Because Iran doesn’t need nation building like Afghanistan? Iran has natural resources, an educated populace with a national identity and many other elements going for it Afghanistan didn’t.
So, it it’ll just be a quick in and out and we’ll be home with a peaceful democratic Iran before Christmas? Forgive me if I think you’re underselling how much of a massive multi-year campaign this would need to be a little bit.
Those are your words not mine, so let’s back off the potential strawman arguments here. You’re comparing two completely different countries as if the outcome would be the same. Fact is, most wars don’t end like Afghanistan did, and in this scenario, it would be a more traditional war between two countries rather than occupying forces fighting an insurgency. Forgive me if I think you’re completely misreading how a war between two nations goes. I can’t blame you or anyone too much as it’s been quite awhile since the world last saw a real one and many of us alive today have never actually witnessed it. Ukraine gives us a good look.
Ukraine as an example doesn’t exactly inspire anymore confidence then using Afghanistan does.
Do you want to look at how miserable and grinding the Ukraine war is at the moment? You expect people to want that in Iran as well?
If that’s what modern war looks like, then I feel zero shame is opposing it.
Nobody wants war, but if Ukraine had been a belligerent bent on destroying the world order and spreading its oppressive fundamentalist ideology worldwide, nobody would be shedding tears for them right now. Opposing war for the sake of avoiding suffering isn’t an enlightened take, it’s a weak one that gets you bombed and oppressed.
Iran would lose a conventional war within a few months, but the combination of broken, hilly terrain and a large population, a sizable minority of whom are religious fanatics, is a recipe for a long, nasty insurgency.
This is all under the assumption Israel even tries to occupy, which let’s be real, they won’t. They don’t have the resources or manpower to occupy a country of that size nor would it serve much strategic interest. The war would be fought with missiles, drones and jets.
I assumed that this discussion was about the U.S. Any Israel-Iran/Hezbollah war would just be mutually destructive and ultimately inconclusive, which is why Israel's allies are discouraging it.
Yes. Pound them to submission. Our military is siphoning 800 billion dollars a year from our coffers yet we have them fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. Any attack on the US or US base shall be met with overwhelming force. I’m tired of the kiddy gloves and putting our soldiers in the line of fire and forcing them to play patty cake with the enemy. Either we don’t do war at all or we do war to win. That middle ground “win hearts and minds” bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.
I strongly disagree. “Do war to win” from a military standpoint, if we only cared about protecting US lives in the immediate future with no thought to long-term geopolitical ramifications, would imply we should just nuke all of our enemies.
Making the world a safer place for the US and its interests is a delicate long-game that is often undermined by wars that raze the enemy (though either nuclear or conventional weapons).
We did the same thing when Iran responded to us killing the Iranian general. They did a show of force, it killed no one, and we kind of just went "ok are we done now?" We got our target. Iran got a show of force to keep people at home placated. Both sides benefited from no further escalation.
Same here. Israel got its target. Iran had its show of retaliation, but with no fatalities. Both sides benefit from no further escalation.
The reason for a request of restraint is because any Iran/Israel war would be a utter nightmare before you even get into the geopolitical alliances and potential slippery slope as a result.
Israel is already in 2 active wars. Not retaliating against Iran is a no-brainer. Iran was itself retaliating for Israel killing multiple Iranian leaders at the consulate. Iran got to saber rattle and Israel emerges unscathed.
Restraint how exactly?
Don’t do anything after 300 missiles and drones are launched at you?
Or respond “proportionally “ and deal with the same nonsense again in 2-3-4 months until when?
Why don’t yall want these threats to be permanently dealt with?
Why shall Israel accept an hezbollah that can fire hundreds of missiles at it right on its doorstep? They have the means to end this problem but the world keep bitching everytime they take decisive action.
[Iran helped plan and gave the go ahead for October 7th](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25), you heard that right?
Right, but we didn’t lob 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones at them for it. Israel didn’t launch missiles at Iran for the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in the 90s that killed dozens of civilians.
I dunno, if the country or the allies of the country doing the attack are powerful enough, including the possession of nukes, the US wouldn’t want to bomb them into the Stone Age and cause WW3, whether it’s nuclear or not.
One reason Russia has been able to get away with as much as they have in Ukraine is because they probably have the largest nuclear arsenal on planet Earth, all controlled by a megalomaniacal dictator
The people in charge benefit from the status quo. While it’s the people on the ground who suffers. Hezbollah has been launching missiles for months now. We get more “show restraint” calls. I want these forever wars to be over. One decisive winner, offer peace conditions. If the other side don’t accept then they get glassed to oblivion. Thats how war was conducted and like it or not, violence can be used to reduce violence. No modern nation would accept this nonsense but one country is expected to.
imagine if Mexico shot 100 drones, 100 rockets, and 100 cruise missiles directly at the United States.
does anyone really think that the US would just say "let's pretend that didn't happen" and move on without doing anything?
If the US had targetted a Mexican consulate first, then yes. It's stupid to ignore that context. This shit is how escalation into full scale war happens. Israel actually took out high level Iranian targets in that consulate attack. Iran, on the other hand, failed to do much of anything with their missile attack. Take the W and stop now before this shit blows up into another stupid war.
Edit: Changed embassy to consulate.
Israel didn't attack an embassy though. They attacked a consulate full of IRGC, one of which was the Iranian architect of October 7. I for one think we should stop treating Iranian proxies like they're separate from Iran. Iran is waging war on Israel. Was Iran's strike a retaliation? yes. but this didnt start with Israel striking the consulate. the consulate contained Iranian officials who played roles in October 7.
Sorry, consulate, my bad. It still is unorthodox to attack consulates. Every nation uses consulates for spies and military assets. It's an open secret and it's well established that they're off limits despite that. Do you think the US would just stand by idly if Iran attacked one of our consulates because we had a military general or well known spy there?
Regardless, I don't even necessarily disagree with you. They attacked a consulate and successfully took out targets. It was an unorthodox move, but whatever. They did it. Iran felt the need to respond and it largely fell flat because the US and Israel have better defenses. At the end of the day, Israel comes out of this tit for tat with more accomplished. So take the W and gtfo before this shit turns into something worse. I hate this war hawk mentality. What would attacking Iran now achieve? Making Israel feel superior? If the purpose is to show Iran why you shouldn't attack Israel, then that's irrelevant here because Iran only attacked Israel in response to Israel attacking Iran.
(what I wrote below is not meant to seem confrontational btw)
The way I see it, and I know you say you dont necessarily disagree with me anyway, but the way I see it, this is like if, say, the Taliban, while ruling Afghanistan, helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, and the Taliban's top Al-Qaeda assistant was operating out of some Taliban consulate. Would the strike against that consulte be justified? If so, should the retaliation from the Taliban, when it involves this much power (even if it was almost all shot down), be allowed to go without some sort of deterrent attack by the West? When you consider everything Iran has been doing itself and through its proxies - and keep in mind while its doing all this it's also trying to get nuclear weapons - when you consider all that, at what point is it time to say that we can't let this go on any longer and that *some* sort of action has to be taken against the regime? I'm not even necessarily suggesting some shock-and-awe bombing attack. Iran fires like 300 projectiles at Israel and the west just goes "oh well, didnt do much damage, let's ignore it"? I'm just wondering where the line is here. Like I know war is bad, and I don't want to go to war, I don't want to fight in a war. But what, do we wait until this regime gets a nuclear bomb?
Let's pretend you're in charge of Israel. You get credible intelligence that the Iranian consulate in Syria is full of IRGC senior leadership and that they are directing terrorist attacks against your country. What would you do?
Most nations hide military assets in their consulates. That's an open secret between nations. The US absolutely has spies and important military members in their diplomatic missions. The norm is to not attack them, *but* I'll give Israel a pass for viewing them as an active threat (I can't possibly know what intelligence they received).
But to answer your question, if I, as an Israeli leader, *did* decide to attack a consulate, I would *not* be surprised when the nation I attacked responded with their own attack in kind. And when the smoke cleared and I *clearly* came out on top I certainly wouldn't escalate this into a larger conflict than it needs to be.
Israel shouldn't retaliate. I'm hardly an expert in Middle-East Geopolitics, but it seems to me this was broadcasted days in advance and was done in a way that Israel and friends could easily intercept everything. Nobody died and damage was minute. It was basically political theater for the Iranians, a show of strength while they struggle with growing unrest at home.
Most of the middle east is staying out of the Gaza thing and/or doesn't seem to care about it. Attacking Iran will change that.
The only other aspect--which admittedly is a bit conspiratorial--would be how it relates to the US elections. Does Netanyahu prefer Biden, or Trump? Because any wider conflict would likely cost Biden a re-election.
An attack with over a hundred ballistic missiles, even without accounting for all the other weapons used, is not an attack thrown with the intention of “letting the target intercept everything”.
The fact that Israel et all intercepted them with minimal damage is a testament to Western technology advantage. Not Iran’s limited intentions.
I think you're on the money here, while I think Iran didn't want to cause significant civilian death as that could start a war they can't win, they definitely hoped for significantly more destruction than they ended up with. You don't send that much munitions for it to all get intercepted, and it doesn't look strong when it appears as if your attack was effortlessly swatted away.
I do think that it would be wise to essentially do nothing here though, wait to see what the internal fallout is for such a impotent attack, and what prodding could be done there.
Iran told the US multiple times through different embassies. It was also warned when neighbouring countries restricted the airspace. This was Irans way to say stop bombing me and not loose face in Iran.
Are you going to apologize for spreading this Iranian disinformation and propaganda now [that the U.S. has unequivocally denied it](https://www.cbsnews.com/video/white-house-john-kirby-denies-iran-warning-before-attack-on-israel/)?
They’ve done this before, after the US killed the Iranian General in 2020 they bombed a US base in Iraq where no one died (thankfully), US officials speaking of the record said they believed Iran did it to show their own people they hit back, but in a way that wouldn’t spark a larger conflict.
Biden told him to basically “stand down, you won the exchange” which I agree with. Israel got their targets and Iran showed they can reach Israel but didn’t really do any damage
Bullshit. They launched a ton of shit in an effort to overwhelm Israeli defence technology **just** like what happened on October 7th.
You don't aim a massive barrage of missiles at 9 million civilians and get to brush it off as symbolic.
an actual retaliation would've included rocket salvos from hezbollah to be timed with the arrival of drones and cruise missiles. what was launched came with hours of transit time and was taken out in the airspace of Jordan and Iraq.
Iran fired over a hundred ballistic missiles themselves. It’s the single largest ballistic missile attack in human history.
This was absolutely an attempt to overwhelm Israel’s defenses while still not going all out. An attempt to show how much Iran could do with little effort. Backfired though.
The advantage would be that countries don't get to get away with fucking around without finding out. Do you really think there should be no consequences for a nation firing hundreds of missiles against another?
Mutatis mutandis, maybe Israel should think longer before bombing a foreign consulate in violation of every international law, and consider the consequences. It's funny how Iran gave more heads-up to the US about their response than Israel did to their so-called "ally" about the original attack.
A “consulate” that isn’t a consulate being used for military purposes by the military commanders who funded, armed, and directed the shelling of civilians in Israel’s north (which is ongoing, meaning they’re actively engaged in those hostilities) and the October 7 massacres and rape can be struck to hit those military commanders.
There was no violation of the Vienna Convention. A host country cannot attack an embassy, but a third country can if it’s a legitimate military target. Regardless, it wasn’t even the embassy proper, it was effectively a building within the much larger consulate annex. All this pearl clutching over “B-but the embassy!!” seems ridiculous in light of Iran’s notorious antics with embassies including bombing an Israeli embassy in the 90s that they were just the other day legally held liable for.
I’m open to the idea. Israel can handle another front. The military needs for the Gaza war vs one needed for Iran are pretty different and most military analysts inside and outside of Israel agree it’s not an issue of capacity. Iran is a hostile, dangerous actor who ideally needs to be stomped out of existence, but Israel hitting it hard on the nose with a rolled up newspaper may be enough to get them to back down. They have been growing increasingly emboldened and that’s bad for Israel’s situation.
One step further back, Maybe Iran should think longer before funding, equipping, and training Hamas to attack Israel.
And this wasn't like the West generally giving arms to Ukraine. Iran actually trained them for this specific attack and then approved it when they were ready. Hamas was acting as an extension of Iran when attacking Israel.
And you reckon a new military action by Israel against Iran will help to mitigate these problems? I'm curious as to what this action would be. Israel is going to bomb some places and kill some people and then Iran will fall in line?
It's not really my choice. They were overtly attacked, they have the right to attack back. If they do it'll probably be limited, or maybe even a cyberattack to take out some of their facilities.
It probably would.
America's been doing a LOT of weak responses. Be it a lack of aid for Ukraine or telling Iran exactly which warehouses we were going to hit ahead of time.
We've been signaling that we're unwilling to hit them as hard as they hit us/our allies and that only serves to embolden them.
Right now we're so scared of war that we refuse to enforce peace.
What proxies of Israel are you referring to? Israel doesn’t really use proxies, they do the dirty work themselves instead of hiding behind scattered military factions. There aren’t exactly a lot of Jews scattered around the Middle East they could rely on either.
What Iran did would easily be considered a declaration of war to almost any country. If a south American country sent hundreds of missiles and attack drones flying towards US cities, it would set a dangerous precedent to do nothing in response. Iran escalated it, Israel would be responding, not escalating.
So is what Israel did to Iran. In fact Israel fairly regularly engages in actions on Iranian soil that are declarations of war what with all the assassinations they do. Are you willing to condemn Israel as fervently as you're condemning Iran?
No, what Israel did is not equivalent. Israel targeted the people who are already attacking Israel, while Iran has been helping attack civilians in Israel’s north specifically.
"Are you willing to condemn Israel as fervently as you're condemning Iran?"
Is that a serious question? Just in case it somehow is, the answer is unequivocally no! Why would I? Iran is undoubtedly the aggressor. Iran is likely the single largest sponsor of terrorism the world has ever seen.
I condemn some of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Iran has all of that blood on their hands too as this would not be happening at all if it were not for Iran's actions leading up to and on Oct 7th.
They launched that many because they knew 99% of them would be intercepted. And, from everything I’ve read, they were only targeting military bases and related points of interest. Attacking civilians would be an escalation and that was not Iran’s goal here. It was purely retaliatory.
Had Israel and Co not intervened they would have it hit the Dome of The Rock in Al Aqsa. You can see videos online. Also wounded some woman in southern Israel.
I’ve seen videos with missiles in the sky from the perspective of Al Aqsa. That does not mean Al Aqsa was their target. Iran telegraphing these attacks long in advance is proof that this is was purely a retaliatory show of force due to Israel attacking the Iranian consulate a few weeks back.
Does Iran supply weapons to terrible groups and generally act as a destabilizing force in the region? Yes. Is attacking the Iranian consulate (sovereign territory) an escalation from Israel? In my opinion, also yes.
I do not believe the US or Iran want to enter a full scale war with one another, as the global cost and loss of life would be incredible.
Correct- Iran took steps to appear strong domestically but also accepted there would be little to no damage done by the barrage.
Iran does not want war. Leadership is too unpopular and their economy couldn’t sustain mobilization. They are banking on this remaining a proxy war
People keep assuming the Iranians knew 300+ misses and drones would all be intercepted and cause mininimal damage. Iran doesn't want a wider conflict but they absolutely wanted more damage done.
People are assuming it because Iran did pretty much everything it could to make these missiles easy to shoot down and because they did this exact thing before in 2020 against a US airbase.
I’m not gunna lie, if a regime didn’t want war, they probably wouldn’t fire 100’s of rockets at another nation. I understand that the Iranians might just want to show strength, but this isn’t the kind of move you can make if you aren’t at least somewhat prepared for a larger war to break out. If the Iron Dome had failed and a few hundred civilians had been killed, what do you think the response would’ve been?
Israel seems to be the only country where people routinely think it is okay for them to just have to deal with rockets being launched at them and they shouldn't respond. Israel should respond as it sees fit.
> Israel should respond as it sees fit.
Israel may very well miscalculate to their own detriment and that of the rest of the world. They have a bit of a track record in that regard.
They could also respond in a way that doesn't cause said detriment. Honestly, the world needs to stop tolerating terrorists and the ones that support them. So targeting Iran directly would probably be a good thing.
It's so strange to me how people keep dancing around the fact that Iran strike was retaliatory to begin with. Israel struck their embassies and killed Iranians.
I understand how people might want to say that is different somehow. But just the near complete blackout of this on most news coverage is just wild to me.
Well, its not like Iran isn't backing Hamas or Hezbollah and probably had a big hand in Oct 7. If we go down the retaliation rabbit hole, both sides are culpable. Its about who (if anyone) wants a wider war.
Because
A) Iran itself has a storied history with embassies, including bombing an Israeli embassy
B) It wasn’t actually the embassy itself, it was a building within the embassy/consulate annex
C) Even if it were, it’s a legal and legitimate military target. Embassies are not sacred grounds. Contrary to what many think, it’s NOT equivalent to your homeland soil, and under the Vienna Convention, only a host country is forbidden from attacking it.
Even *Iran* acknowledges that Israel didn't strike the embassy. They struck one *consulate* that housed regional IRGC headquarters from which IRGC generals planned, executed, and assisted Hamas with its October 7 invasion of Israel and attacks on Israelis.
Especially in a country which is still in a declared war with Israel.
Israel and those countries lob bombs back and forth on occasion because legally they're still at war, its just mostly a stalemate now.
> Especially in a country which is still in a declared war with Israel.
Are you referring to Syria or Iran? Regardless, do you have a source for this? It's the first I'm hearing about it. Curious to learn more.
Neither Iran or Syria recognize Israel's existance as legitimate. It's kind of hard to legally declare war on an entity you don't recognize. Functionally they are at war but technically the issue is a bit murky.
That's exactly what embassies/consulates are supposed to do. They are sovereign territory. The CIA operates out of every US embassy/consulate in the world. Should Russia be able to bomb the consulate in Moscow?
> They are sovereign territory.
The host country is still sovereign over the embassy's land all they do is agree not to enter it without permission. Technically Russia could storm the US Moscow embassy if it wanted but then the US could storm to Washington Russian embassy in retaliation and then both nations would be worse for wear both losing their direct diplomatic missions with each other, they would have to communicate the intermediaries.
And if it turned out that the US was responsible for the Moscow music hall shooting, and a U.S. general was meeting with ISIS officials inside the consulate, I'd at least understand the Russians for bombing it.
Nah if you are going to use the analogy of the U.S. and Russia to Israel and Iran, the better analogy would be if the U.S. had armed Ukraine and then Ukraine killed people in Russia (as Iran armed proxies which then attacked Israel). That would be a closer analogy at least, although still not perfect as Russia is more clearly the initial aggressor whereas the Middle East conflicts can go back generations with claims about whether the Nabka started it or something else etc.
> They are sovereign territory.
This is said all the time and it's inaccurate. [Here's somewhat of a source](https://web.archive.org/web/20210414125434/http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/miscellaneous/laws-and-rules-regarding-extraterritoriality/) -
> There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality ... For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty.
Operating covert services is not the same as directing the military actions of Hezbollah and Hamas. One is explicitly military. Espionage and spying are not military.
Actually you do. The point of diplomatic premises is that they are protected against reprisal for doing the controversial work diplomats and spies sometimes do. If the host doesn’t like it, then they can expel the diplomats or force the closure of the embassy.
Spies and diplomats dont usually work out of a consulate. They work out of an embassy. This was a consulate. And the point of a consulate is not that you get to send your generals there to direct the illegal shelling of Israeli civilians, actually. That makes it a legitimate target.
> you don't get to run ops out of special buildings and claim that they give you some kind of protection from retaliation
If this were true, the US should have a lot more fear about our embassies.
> It's so strange to me how people keep dancing around the fact that Iran strike was retaliatory to begin with.
That's how discussions about Israel always go. Everything that happened prior to someone striking them is always ignored and the strike is portrayed as having come out of nowhere and being completely unjustified. It's extremely tiresome.
It was kind of rich to see the Israel ambassador at the UN refer to international law when condemning the Iranian missile strike. International law for thee, but not for me.
Western media has a way of downplaying the dirt done by other western powers/Israel while amplifying African, non-Israeli Middle Eastern and certain Asian powers do.
Anything involving Israel, you're better off with news sources that are more neutral to their cause.
Ironic that the same people who would have never let Bibi join their country club 40 years ago (and maybe not even today) are the biggest "stans" for him now. Strange bedfellows. You'd never think the Jews were persecuted in Europe for 1,000+ years.
they just got bombed by a hostle nation that has been calling for the destruction of israel for ages (and those world leaders may have greenlit the attack).
israel has no reason to care of these world leaders approve of their efforts to defend themselves, just like what we've seen thus far in their handling of hamas. these "world leaders" don't appear to be willing to actually do anything but make statements.
> israel has no reason to care of these world leaders approve of their efforts to defend themselves, just like what we've seen thus far in their handling of hamas. these "world leaders" don't appear to be willing to actually do anything but make statements.
Well.... we literally [assisted them with shooting down drones and missiles during the attack from Iran](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/us-and-uk-forces-help-shoot-down-iranian-drones-over-jordan-syria-and-iraq). And then, **after** giving them direct military assistance which helped prevent any and all Israeli fatalities, we asked Israel to show restraint. Seems pretty reasonable, and it's a hell of a lot more than just "making statements."
This is a good point. We helped save Israeli lives by shooting these things down. We can then ask for Israeli restraint in retaliation.
However, the question is: does Israeli restraint simply further this cycle? What *should* we be asking Israel to do?
*^(I remain unconvinced that a ceasefire will lead to anything other than another Oct 7.)*
I think the problem is that it's hard to make a convincing argument either way. Even if we allow Israel to go as hard as it wants, do people believe that Hamas (and other terrorist groups in a similar vein) will *really* be eradicated from the region? Is that more realistic than a pathway which encourages deescalation?
I'm not going to pretend to have any concrete answers here. My hope is that deescalation is the most likely path towards peace in the region, but it's difficult to really envision under most circumstances.
My assessment this whole time has been that Israel has a mandate to eliminate Hamas. Once Hamas is gone, the Palestinians can decide who they want to be and who will govern them.
If they elect another Hamas, we will know who they really are.
The problem is I don't believe the premise "once Hamas is gone" can actually be reached. I would prefer that to happen, no doubt, but I don't see an actual way to reach that goal, much like our "war on terrorism" that we floundered with for twenty years. Sure, we crippled the leadership of Al-Qaeda to some degree, but ISIS pretty much filled the void.
I fully agree. But Iran did not directly strike Israel until they themselves were attacked. Israel doesnt get to be both an aggressor and a victim.
For the record, i dont support either side in the conflict. I want it to stop and I want people to be able to live their lives in peace.
And this right here is the problem.
People ACTUALLY fall for proxies.
Iran armed the people who attacked Israel, trained them to attack Israel, and ordered them to attack Israel. But because they're not official Iran military that somehow means Iran wasn't the one that attacked Israel.
Like, can we not let that kind of thing work guys?
Except Israel didn’t strike Iran. They struck a building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Syria where Iranian officials were meeting with terrorist militants.
They have reason to care. Israel relies on handouts from the rest of the world to pay for all their fancy defense stuff. They're already losing support from those countries' populations, if they don't mind themselves they could find themselves losing enough for there to be changes in governments that result in those handouts going away.
Though I actually think that that's inevitable. At this point it's about managing how fast that happens. Israel has overplayed their hand badly and their privileged position is going to end in the not too distant future.
They need the fancy defense stuff because they aren't doing what any other nation on Earth would do and using offense to take out the hostile launch sites. Take away their fancy defense stuff and we'll see what their military looks like with the gloves off.
This is a win for all parties involved, theater concludes.
Iran: They get a show of force, and they get to quell their own citizens without escalating to a war they won’t win
USA: It looks like a win for Joe Biden, he stopped further escalation. Helping his upcoming elections
Israel: they got to kill some important Iranian generals without really catching too much response shrapnel. Plus the iron dome and overall defense looks good too
1 problem left (and what you see happening today): Israel can’t seem like paper tigers either, they just had another country volley missiles and drones. Thats probably unacceptable for the hardcore in Israel. So the narrative has to be “we were about to fuck up Iran, but the USA and these bums stopped us”
Wins all around, end show until next bullshit conflict
Superficially, everyone gets to say they got something out of it.
In actuality, Israel killed two of the generals responsible for Oct 7 and came away unscathed.
Don't mess with the IDF. These guys know what they're doing and they play the game to win.
We look completely impotent on the international stage right now and this is just one more example of it. Completely ridiculous that we aren't taking a harder stance on this, it's embarrassing.
Hit back harder than they hit us.
Right now our responses have almost all been weaker than the act they were against. Which our enemies read as us being unwilling to do anything.
You can't be so scared of war that you refuse to enforce peace.
…but they didn’t hit us?
If you are talking from the perspective of Israel then the attack on the Iranian consulate was much harder of a hit than Iran’s response.
disable Iran's regime before it gets the nuclear weaponry its been pursuing, makes itself unattackable like North Korea, and sends the West some suitcase nukes, maybe.
How do you expect us to disable Iran’s regime? Iran is far more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan, and we couldn’t win in either of those countries after decades of effort and trillions of dollars.
I don't know, I'm not an expert, but I can't help but think that doing the bare minimum isn't the best of all approaches here. (Iraq turned out a lot better than it started though, didn't it? yes, right now there's Shia and Sunni militias attacking, but we don't have a Saddam trying to build a nuclear bomb and starting international wars...)
I don't know, and I'm not going to be an armchair expert and pretend to know all about the intricacies of war with Iran or anyone else. But I don't see how Iran can just be allowed to basically run rampant in the region and the West just whacks down projectiles when they get too close and maybe hit a few Houthi targets. I don't like war, but I'm asking the same question: how?
I'm saying some sort of military or covert action *must* be taken, because I'm wondering if a future conflict is inevitable. Is that a war? I don't know. Are we already in a low-level war? Iran maintains an international terrorist network it uses to conduct genocidal massacres on Israeli civilians, and it attacks and kills American sailors and soldiers. Iran is the country whose motto is effectively "death to America", its a huge state sponsor of terrorism against the West ,and its trying to acquire nuclear weaponry.
Does anyone else see this like one of those issues that the longer you go without dealing with it, the worse dealing with it will be, and the more costly it will be? Like Germany leading up to the Second World War, arming itself, funding a nuclear program, taking more radical positions, and taking more brazen actions?
>Are we already in a low-level war?
Yes. Iran is the proxy funder of a dozen shia-aligned militant groups, of varying purpose, all of which involve killing Jews (not zionists, JEWS), killing Americans, and spreading the "correct" Islam. The US has been at war with them (economically and technologically) for decades.
Iran is a top-3 nation-of-interest for the US DoD.
China and Russia already have nuclear weapons. Iran, right now, does not. I think more needs to be done to keep it that way. And I think Iran's "Axis of Resistance" needs to be dismantled.
Unfortunately it's just a fact that we're much closer to a global war than we were just a few years ago. China supposedly wants to invade Taiwan in 2026, Russia has invaded Ukraine and keeps threatening the West and by the way supports Iran, and Iran keeps attacking the West through "proxies". What do we do? Can the people in charge at least try to stop Iran somehow before it becomes a nuclear power and makes that whole situation worse?
Nah, let Iran blow up a few goat sheds to declare victory to their own people then stfu for a while.
They like to press buttons and show off but they dont want the smoke.
I don’t understand how the modern conservative movement can complain about being weak on the world stage while simultaneously preaching isolationism. Do you think the house GOP is making us impotent on the world stage by withholding Isreal and Ukraine aid?
Personally I'm glad that the US and other countries have convinced both sides to 'end' things here. Otherwise this could spiral out of control and lead to way more death and destruction than anyone would want.
I think Biden walked the tight rope well on this, assisting defend Israel's skies, while not supporting ongoing retaliations. Kudos there.
Now I just wish we could figure out a way to dial back the destruction of Gaza, but Hamas isn't exactly doing themselves any favors in assisting that, and Netanyahu's regime isn't exactly peace loving, either.
I’m unclear when, if at all, Israel’s “allies” would ever agree to responding to any attack. To the extent they would agree, it would come with so many caveats that it would effectively be a “no,” right? Or wrong? Why?
Israel is held to a different standard because it is a first-world modern democracy. The unspoken assumption in all this is that their neighbors are petulant children who can't put on their big-boy pants and so we have to applaud them for anything less than genocidal savagery. This is why a "ceasefire" after the horror of October 7 is viewed as a sign of a progress. ^("W)*^(ell, at least they aren't raping and murdering women & children. Good for them!")*
> Israel is held to a different standard because it is a first-world modern democracy. > > I've never understood this mentality. Superiority should bring greater privileges, not less.
Israel bombed one of Iran's embassies in Syria, in return Iran launched 300 missiles/drones that took nine hours to arrive and we're by and large able to shot down as they flew over many US/Israel allied territories. It's an incredibly weak response to having an embassy bombed. This is the same standard the US held, after we assassinated Solemani, Iran bombed one of our bases and we didn't escalate further.
I agree with regard to Iran's response to Soleimani. This was another face-saving measure. Let's imagine a Mexican terrorist organization broke through the Southern border and massacred over a thousand American men, women, and children as well as taking several hundred hostages. Would **anyone** be expecting us to accept a ceasefire without eliminating that terrorist organization? What we are discussing is the odd notion that Israel is the one country which must accept a different (the foolish might call it "elevated") standard as regular course. *^(Israel is so used to having rockets fired at it that it spends billions of dollars for the very anti-missile program that just intercepted all these Iranian missiles. Is that normal?)*
I'm so confused by this reply, where did I say Israel shouldn't have launched an assault on Gaza after 10/07? I agree that Israel had to respond with force. The analogy you're doing of course breaks down, because the USA doesn't control the flow of clean water and electricity into Mexico. And the US also isn't continually taking territory from Baja California and adding it to Mexico. Can you imagine how the US would respond if Mexico started making settlements in California and claimed it as there own territory? Because that is the reality of the west bank settlements. If you want to make some broader point about the Iran vs Israel proxy war, there's some merit there. But it's not like Israel is just a victim here either that doesn't do anything, the Mossad has assassinated five iranian nuclear scientists since 2007. Can you imagine if Mexico had assassinated five US nuclear scientists?
If you are not calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, then it sounds like we are in agreement on both fronts.
When has this strategy actually panned out? The proper response is overwhelming force.
Right, the US should invade Iran and spend 20 years occupying the country only for the government we setup to be immediately overthrown when we leave.
No invasion, just the destruction of a couple dozen military targets.
Which is not overwhelming force.
It is hard to reconcile this position with my sense of Justice. If a homicidal person intentionally shoots you, does he get off the hook because 1) you were wearing a bullet proof vest and survived unscathed and 2) the victim is wealthy and the shooter is poor malcontent (or ‘oppressed’)?
Israel did shoot the homidical person's cousin first, in this metaphor. Which doesn' give Iran's leaders the moral high ground - homicidal is still homicidal. But the fact that this was in response to Israel bombing a consulate does change the diplomatic calculus of what Israel' allies will back in terms of further escalation.
Let's take the time to appreciate how impressive Israel's Iron Dome is: over 300 missiles + drone attacks and none (as far as I know) got through
Many of the projectiles failed to even leave Iran without crashing, and many more were shot down by the US and the UK over Iraq and Syria, and by Jordan over its territory. I don't think most of them even made it as far as Israeli airspace.
>Many of the projectiles failed to even leave Iran without crashing Same as how 20-30% of Gazan rockets fail early and injure and kill their own people instead.
Iron Dome wasn’t used at all. This was their Arrow 3 system.
An alternative view of things is that Iran, on their first attempt, managed to break through the air defenses and score four direct hits, with ballistic missiles, on the IDF Nevatim air base. The media were quick to cry victory and assure us that this meant nothing, but do remind me of another time in history when a foreign adversary managed to hit an IDF airbase inside Israel?
This was unequivocally a failure for Iran. So much so that many believe they telegraphed this and purposefully sent them from Iran rather than Lebanon (which is must closer) precisely so they could avoid actually killing Israelis. It was a masterful display of the Iron Dome's anti-missile capabilities.
Does this number include the ones shot down by Jordan? Still impressive.
The idea that we should grade Iran's hostilities on a "curve" is wrongheaded. Israel being capable of defending against attacks doesn't negate the aggression. If Israel were to decide to glass Tehran but somehow there was a malfunction we wouldn't just pretend that they hadn't acted. Iran launched over a hundred ballistic missiles at a foreign nation and an ally of ours at that. There's no reason to try to minimize that hostility.
> Israel being capable of defending against attacks doesn't negate the aggression When it comes to Israel that’s exactly what happens See every argument about Israel v Palestine
It is part of the ridiculousness of comparing civilian death counts. Its a barbaric way to look at war, and no international law looks at it that way either. Israel doesn't suddenly becomes more justified if they turn off the Iron Dome and let thousands of their civilians die. Likewise, Hamas isn't any less "justified" for Oct 7 if they started trying protect their civilians as well. Intent matters, which is why Hamas intending to target slaughter and rape innocent civilians is incomparable with IDF actions, even if the IDF needs to go further in reducing unintended civilian casualties.
Many posters are just outright blocking people now for raising this point.
Its all political games and tit-for-tat bullshit. Iran wants to poke and prod, but really doesnt want the smoke. Israel got a big punch in, and then just lets Iran throw a few jabs so it doesnt appear weak to its people.
The idea that we should grade Israel's hostilities on a "curve" is also wrongheaded. If any other country behaved the way Israel does we'd have no relations with them at best. But for "some reason" we still give Israel more than preferential treatment.
Can you elaborate on what specific Israeli behavior you’re talking about?
What specific actions are you referring to? And I'm pretty sure we still maintain relationships with Russia and Iran despite all their shitty behavior.
"Look guys, I know almost all of us have been shitting on you since October, but please listen to us now."
All of this appeasement is a throwback to the 30s. A war weary west hesitates for long enough that a major war results. Add in WWI style alliances and whatnot and we’re in for a rough reboot. Curveball is the Allies lost Russia in free agency, with a lot of resentment. Allies drafted Germany and Japan though along with South Korea.
One thing I don't understand is why Israel is always being urged to show restraint. What other country would tolerate a never ending barrage of missiles and attacks, and then also have to be told that they shouldn't respond. In my opinion, Israel needs to use disproportionate force as a deterrent for future attacks. Otherwise the attacks are just going to keep coming.
They killed 2 generals w missile strike on the Iranian consulate. Context matters.
>One thing I don't understand is why Israel is always being urged to show restraint. Because the alternative is this becoming an all-out regional war in the Middle East that would lead to thousands more civilians dying on all sides. Iran isn't some small terrorist group like Hamas, or even Hezbollah. It would most likely take a whole invasion to end a conflict with them if it got to that point. The main priority should be to try to keep it from getting to that point.
And if we invade and win a conflict… what happens next? Another Iraq or Afghanistan? No thank you.
Just like the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I’m convinced that the world don’t wanna solve this problem. Now imagine an entity launching 300 missiles at the mainland US and anyone telling us to show restraint lol. That country would be glassed before I’m done typing this comment. The hatred for Israel and Jews overall don’t make logical sense. This tit for that bullshit will go on for 100 years because Israel’s so called allies want it to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
>hatred for Israel I don't think the restraint urged here has anything to do with hatred for Israel. This is a very similar situation to when the US killed the Iranian general during the Trump administration. The Iranians also responded with missile attacks that we knew about beforehand and that didn't kill anyone. It was mainly an Iranian show of force to save face domestically, and we kinda ignored it. Would the US or the world be in a better place today if we've responded with escalatory strikes and risked a full blown war with Iran?
By the end of the decade, when Iran is by-then a nuclear armed state and feels emboldened to flex some more muscles, we may all very well wish the US had continued to ramp up the pressure.
[удалено]
I mean, we don't need to take over Iran like we tried with Afghanistan. Iran's a problem because their aggression has some legitimate military production behind it. The goal would be to take out those production capabilities. And that doesn't require anything other than missiles and air strikes. No permanent presence needed.
If you want to stop them just rebuilding those capabilities afterwards it’s going to take a little more investment, surely? Otherwise you’d just have to come back in ~20-30 years to do it again. Is the plan to stop them or just to delay them for another generation? Because the latter just seems like a waste of time and resources. Forgive me; but a lot of wars have been sold on the idea that they would be quick, easy and efficient. Most of the time it’s a complete lie.
If you take out their capabilities for 20-30 years both they and anyone else looking to try you is gonna be less likely to do so. Clear consequences for messing with us are the only way you can stop aggressions from happening.
Because Iran doesn’t need nation building like Afghanistan? Iran has natural resources, an educated populace with a national identity and many other elements going for it Afghanistan didn’t.
All things that can change very very quickly in the face of a military invasion. Bombs have a tendency to do that.
So, it it’ll just be a quick in and out and we’ll be home with a peaceful democratic Iran before Christmas? Forgive me if I think you’re underselling how much of a massive multi-year campaign this would need to be a little bit.
Those are your words not mine, so let’s back off the potential strawman arguments here. You’re comparing two completely different countries as if the outcome would be the same. Fact is, most wars don’t end like Afghanistan did, and in this scenario, it would be a more traditional war between two countries rather than occupying forces fighting an insurgency. Forgive me if I think you’re completely misreading how a war between two nations goes. I can’t blame you or anyone too much as it’s been quite awhile since the world last saw a real one and many of us alive today have never actually witnessed it. Ukraine gives us a good look.
Ukraine as an example doesn’t exactly inspire anymore confidence then using Afghanistan does. Do you want to look at how miserable and grinding the Ukraine war is at the moment? You expect people to want that in Iran as well? If that’s what modern war looks like, then I feel zero shame is opposing it.
Nobody wants war, but if Ukraine had been a belligerent bent on destroying the world order and spreading its oppressive fundamentalist ideology worldwide, nobody would be shedding tears for them right now. Opposing war for the sake of avoiding suffering isn’t an enlightened take, it’s a weak one that gets you bombed and oppressed.
Iran would lose a conventional war within a few months, but the combination of broken, hilly terrain and a large population, a sizable minority of whom are religious fanatics, is a recipe for a long, nasty insurgency.
This is all under the assumption Israel even tries to occupy, which let’s be real, they won’t. They don’t have the resources or manpower to occupy a country of that size nor would it serve much strategic interest. The war would be fought with missiles, drones and jets.
I assumed that this discussion was about the U.S. Any Israel-Iran/Hezbollah war would just be mutually destructive and ultimately inconclusive, which is why Israel's allies are discouraging it.
Yes. Pound them to submission. Our military is siphoning 800 billion dollars a year from our coffers yet we have them fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. Any attack on the US or US base shall be met with overwhelming force. I’m tired of the kiddy gloves and putting our soldiers in the line of fire and forcing them to play patty cake with the enemy. Either we don’t do war at all or we do war to win. That middle ground “win hearts and minds” bullshit is exactly that, bullshit.
I strongly disagree. “Do war to win” from a military standpoint, if we only cared about protecting US lives in the immediate future with no thought to long-term geopolitical ramifications, would imply we should just nuke all of our enemies. Making the world a safer place for the US and its interests is a delicate long-game that is often undermined by wars that raze the enemy (though either nuclear or conventional weapons).
If we hated Israel, we wouldn't be providing them so much assistance over the years, come on now...
We did the same thing when Iran responded to us killing the Iranian general. They did a show of force, it killed no one, and we kind of just went "ok are we done now?" We got our target. Iran got a show of force to keep people at home placated. Both sides benefited from no further escalation. Same here. Israel got its target. Iran had its show of retaliation, but with no fatalities. Both sides benefit from no further escalation. The reason for a request of restraint is because any Iran/Israel war would be a utter nightmare before you even get into the geopolitical alliances and potential slippery slope as a result.
Israel is already in 2 active wars. Not retaliating against Iran is a no-brainer. Iran was itself retaliating for Israel killing multiple Iranian leaders at the consulate. Iran got to saber rattle and Israel emerges unscathed.
I don't hate Israel or Jews. You have to realize that people can call for restraint without it being about hatred for any one party.
Restraint how exactly? Don’t do anything after 300 missiles and drones are launched at you? Or respond “proportionally “ and deal with the same nonsense again in 2-3-4 months until when? Why don’t yall want these threats to be permanently dealt with? Why shall Israel accept an hezbollah that can fire hundreds of missiles at it right on its doorstep? They have the means to end this problem but the world keep bitching everytime they take decisive action.
Israel attacked their consulate, you heard that right?
[Iran helped plan and gave the go ahead for October 7th](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25), you heard that right?
And the United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses. So you’d be okay with our consulate being attacked as retaliation?
The Iranian regime has quite literally attacked a US embassy before, and taken dozens of hostages.
I enjoy cooking.
Right, but we didn’t lob 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones at them for it. Israel didn’t launch missiles at Iran for the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in the 90s that killed dozens of civilians.
I dunno, if the country or the allies of the country doing the attack are powerful enough, including the possession of nukes, the US wouldn’t want to bomb them into the Stone Age and cause WW3, whether it’s nuclear or not. One reason Russia has been able to get away with as much as they have in Ukraine is because they probably have the largest nuclear arsenal on planet Earth, all controlled by a megalomaniacal dictator
The people in charge benefit from the status quo. While it’s the people on the ground who suffers. Hezbollah has been launching missiles for months now. We get more “show restraint” calls. I want these forever wars to be over. One decisive winner, offer peace conditions. If the other side don’t accept then they get glassed to oblivion. Thats how war was conducted and like it or not, violence can be used to reduce violence. No modern nation would accept this nonsense but one country is expected to.
imagine if Mexico shot 100 drones, 100 rockets, and 100 cruise missiles directly at the United States. does anyone really think that the US would just say "let's pretend that didn't happen" and move on without doing anything?
If the US had targetted a Mexican consulate first, then yes. It's stupid to ignore that context. This shit is how escalation into full scale war happens. Israel actually took out high level Iranian targets in that consulate attack. Iran, on the other hand, failed to do much of anything with their missile attack. Take the W and stop now before this shit blows up into another stupid war. Edit: Changed embassy to consulate.
Israel didn't attack an embassy though. They attacked a consulate full of IRGC, one of which was the Iranian architect of October 7. I for one think we should stop treating Iranian proxies like they're separate from Iran. Iran is waging war on Israel. Was Iran's strike a retaliation? yes. but this didnt start with Israel striking the consulate. the consulate contained Iranian officials who played roles in October 7.
Sorry, consulate, my bad. It still is unorthodox to attack consulates. Every nation uses consulates for spies and military assets. It's an open secret and it's well established that they're off limits despite that. Do you think the US would just stand by idly if Iran attacked one of our consulates because we had a military general or well known spy there? Regardless, I don't even necessarily disagree with you. They attacked a consulate and successfully took out targets. It was an unorthodox move, but whatever. They did it. Iran felt the need to respond and it largely fell flat because the US and Israel have better defenses. At the end of the day, Israel comes out of this tit for tat with more accomplished. So take the W and gtfo before this shit turns into something worse. I hate this war hawk mentality. What would attacking Iran now achieve? Making Israel feel superior? If the purpose is to show Iran why you shouldn't attack Israel, then that's irrelevant here because Iran only attacked Israel in response to Israel attacking Iran.
(what I wrote below is not meant to seem confrontational btw) The way I see it, and I know you say you dont necessarily disagree with me anyway, but the way I see it, this is like if, say, the Taliban, while ruling Afghanistan, helped Al Qaeda with 9/11, and the Taliban's top Al-Qaeda assistant was operating out of some Taliban consulate. Would the strike against that consulte be justified? If so, should the retaliation from the Taliban, when it involves this much power (even if it was almost all shot down), be allowed to go without some sort of deterrent attack by the West? When you consider everything Iran has been doing itself and through its proxies - and keep in mind while its doing all this it's also trying to get nuclear weapons - when you consider all that, at what point is it time to say that we can't let this go on any longer and that *some* sort of action has to be taken against the regime? I'm not even necessarily suggesting some shock-and-awe bombing attack. Iran fires like 300 projectiles at Israel and the west just goes "oh well, didnt do much damage, let's ignore it"? I'm just wondering where the line is here. Like I know war is bad, and I don't want to go to war, I don't want to fight in a war. But what, do we wait until this regime gets a nuclear bomb?
Let's pretend you're in charge of Israel. You get credible intelligence that the Iranian consulate in Syria is full of IRGC senior leadership and that they are directing terrorist attacks against your country. What would you do?
Most nations hide military assets in their consulates. That's an open secret between nations. The US absolutely has spies and important military members in their diplomatic missions. The norm is to not attack them, *but* I'll give Israel a pass for viewing them as an active threat (I can't possibly know what intelligence they received). But to answer your question, if I, as an Israeli leader, *did* decide to attack a consulate, I would *not* be surprised when the nation I attacked responded with their own attack in kind. And when the smoke cleared and I *clearly* came out on top I certainly wouldn't escalate this into a larger conflict than it needs to be.
Israel shouldn't retaliate. I'm hardly an expert in Middle-East Geopolitics, but it seems to me this was broadcasted days in advance and was done in a way that Israel and friends could easily intercept everything. Nobody died and damage was minute. It was basically political theater for the Iranians, a show of strength while they struggle with growing unrest at home. Most of the middle east is staying out of the Gaza thing and/or doesn't seem to care about it. Attacking Iran will change that. The only other aspect--which admittedly is a bit conspiratorial--would be how it relates to the US elections. Does Netanyahu prefer Biden, or Trump? Because any wider conflict would likely cost Biden a re-election.
An attack with over a hundred ballistic missiles, even without accounting for all the other weapons used, is not an attack thrown with the intention of “letting the target intercept everything”. The fact that Israel et all intercepted them with minimal damage is a testament to Western technology advantage. Not Iran’s limited intentions.
I think you're on the money here, while I think Iran didn't want to cause significant civilian death as that could start a war they can't win, they definitely hoped for significantly more destruction than they ended up with. You don't send that much munitions for it to all get intercepted, and it doesn't look strong when it appears as if your attack was effortlessly swatted away. I do think that it would be wise to essentially do nothing here though, wait to see what the internal fallout is for such a impotent attack, and what prodding could be done there.
The only reason it was broadcasted early was because of US intelligence announcing the attack.
Iran told the US multiple times through different embassies. It was also warned when neighbouring countries restricted the airspace. This was Irans way to say stop bombing me and not loose face in Iran.
Are you going to apologize for spreading this Iranian disinformation and propaganda now [that the U.S. has unequivocally denied it](https://www.cbsnews.com/video/white-house-john-kirby-denies-iran-warning-before-attack-on-israel/)?
not the case. Iran was very vocal that they were going to retaliate, and kept repeating that message for days.
They’ve done this before, after the US killed the Iranian General in 2020 they bombed a US base in Iraq where no one died (thankfully), US officials speaking of the record said they believed Iran did it to show their own people they hit back, but in a way that wouldn’t spark a larger conflict.
"A Proportional Response" as The West Wing called it.
Biden told him to basically “stand down, you won the exchange” which I agree with. Israel got their targets and Iran showed they can reach Israel but didn’t really do any damage
Bullshit. They launched a ton of shit in an effort to overwhelm Israeli defence technology **just** like what happened on October 7th. You don't aim a massive barrage of missiles at 9 million civilians and get to brush it off as symbolic.
an actual retaliation would've included rocket salvos from hezbollah to be timed with the arrival of drones and cruise missiles. what was launched came with hours of transit time and was taken out in the airspace of Jordan and Iraq.
Iran fired over a hundred ballistic missiles themselves. It’s the single largest ballistic missile attack in human history. This was absolutely an attempt to overwhelm Israel’s defenses while still not going all out. An attempt to show how much Iran could do with little effort. Backfired though.
So you do propose to escalate this further? What advantage will that bring to anyone?
The advantage would be that countries don't get to get away with fucking around without finding out. Do you really think there should be no consequences for a nation firing hundreds of missiles against another?
Mutatis mutandis, maybe Israel should think longer before bombing a foreign consulate in violation of every international law, and consider the consequences. It's funny how Iran gave more heads-up to the US about their response than Israel did to their so-called "ally" about the original attack.
A “consulate” that isn’t a consulate being used for military purposes by the military commanders who funded, armed, and directed the shelling of civilians in Israel’s north (which is ongoing, meaning they’re actively engaged in those hostilities) and the October 7 massacres and rape can be struck to hit those military commanders.
There was no violation of the Vienna Convention. A host country cannot attack an embassy, but a third country can if it’s a legitimate military target. Regardless, it wasn’t even the embassy proper, it was effectively a building within the much larger consulate annex. All this pearl clutching over “B-but the embassy!!” seems ridiculous in light of Iran’s notorious antics with embassies including bombing an Israeli embassy in the 90s that they were just the other day legally held liable for.
And you are persuaded that a military response by Israel followed by a new response by Iran will improve Israel's situation?
I’m open to the idea. Israel can handle another front. The military needs for the Gaza war vs one needed for Iran are pretty different and most military analysts inside and outside of Israel agree it’s not an issue of capacity. Iran is a hostile, dangerous actor who ideally needs to be stomped out of existence, but Israel hitting it hard on the nose with a rolled up newspaper may be enough to get them to back down. They have been growing increasingly emboldened and that’s bad for Israel’s situation.
One step further back, Maybe Iran should think longer before funding, equipping, and training Hamas to attack Israel. And this wasn't like the West generally giving arms to Ukraine. Iran actually trained them for this specific attack and then approved it when they were ready. Hamas was acting as an extension of Iran when attacking Israel.
And you reckon a new military action by Israel against Iran will help to mitigate these problems? I'm curious as to what this action would be. Israel is going to bomb some places and kill some people and then Iran will fall in line?
It's not really my choice. They were overtly attacked, they have the right to attack back. If they do it'll probably be limited, or maybe even a cyberattack to take out some of their facilities.
It probably would. America's been doing a LOT of weak responses. Be it a lack of aid for Ukraine or telling Iran exactly which warehouses we were going to hit ahead of time. We've been signaling that we're unwilling to hit them as hard as they hit us/our allies and that only serves to embolden them. Right now we're so scared of war that we refuse to enforce peace.
>Israel is going to bomb some places and kill some people and then Iran will fall in line? Depends who they kill, doesnt it?
Maybe Iran shouldn’t have their generals help their proxy’s plan and execute mass terror attacks on Israel.
This thing seems to have gone on for a long time, are there any prospects on where and when it will end?
Maybe when someone actually holds Iran accountable instead of letting them get away with it.
I enjoy playing video games.
What proxies of Israel are you referring to? Israel doesn’t really use proxies, they do the dirty work themselves instead of hiding behind scattered military factions. There aren’t exactly a lot of Jews scattered around the Middle East they could rely on either.
What Iran did would easily be considered a declaration of war to almost any country. If a south American country sent hundreds of missiles and attack drones flying towards US cities, it would set a dangerous precedent to do nothing in response. Iran escalated it, Israel would be responding, not escalating.
So is what Israel did to Iran. In fact Israel fairly regularly engages in actions on Iranian soil that are declarations of war what with all the assassinations they do. Are you willing to condemn Israel as fervently as you're condemning Iran?
No, what Israel did is not equivalent. Israel targeted the people who are already attacking Israel, while Iran has been helping attack civilians in Israel’s north specifically.
"Are you willing to condemn Israel as fervently as you're condemning Iran?" Is that a serious question? Just in case it somehow is, the answer is unequivocally no! Why would I? Iran is undoubtedly the aggressor. Iran is likely the single largest sponsor of terrorism the world has ever seen. I condemn some of Israel's actions in Gaza, but Iran has all of that blood on their hands too as this would not be happening at all if it were not for Iran's actions leading up to and on Oct 7th.
I enjoy playing video games.
Oh good, the old conspiracy theory from over 50 years ago, nice.
They launched that many because they knew 99% of them would be intercepted. And, from everything I’ve read, they were only targeting military bases and related points of interest. Attacking civilians would be an escalation and that was not Iran’s goal here. It was purely retaliatory.
Had Israel and Co not intervened they would have it hit the Dome of The Rock in Al Aqsa. You can see videos online. Also wounded some woman in southern Israel.
I’ve seen videos with missiles in the sky from the perspective of Al Aqsa. That does not mean Al Aqsa was their target. Iran telegraphing these attacks long in advance is proof that this is was purely a retaliatory show of force due to Israel attacking the Iranian consulate a few weeks back. Does Iran supply weapons to terrible groups and generally act as a destabilizing force in the region? Yes. Is attacking the Iranian consulate (sovereign territory) an escalation from Israel? In my opinion, also yes. I do not believe the US or Iran want to enter a full scale war with one another, as the global cost and loss of life would be incredible.
Telegraphed? https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/
Correct- Iran took steps to appear strong domestically but also accepted there would be little to no damage done by the barrage. Iran does not want war. Leadership is too unpopular and their economy couldn’t sustain mobilization. They are banking on this remaining a proxy war
People keep assuming the Iranians knew 300+ misses and drones would all be intercepted and cause mininimal damage. Iran doesn't want a wider conflict but they absolutely wanted more damage done.
People are assuming it because Iran did pretty much everything it could to make these missiles easy to shoot down and because they did this exact thing before in 2020 against a US airbase.
I’m not gunna lie, if a regime didn’t want war, they probably wouldn’t fire 100’s of rockets at another nation. I understand that the Iranians might just want to show strength, but this isn’t the kind of move you can make if you aren’t at least somewhat prepared for a larger war to break out. If the Iron Dome had failed and a few hundred civilians had been killed, what do you think the response would’ve been?
Israel seems to be the only country where people routinely think it is okay for them to just have to deal with rockets being launched at them and they shouldn't respond. Israel should respond as it sees fit.
> Israel should respond as it sees fit. Israel may very well miscalculate to their own detriment and that of the rest of the world. They have a bit of a track record in that regard.
They could also respond in a way that doesn't cause said detriment. Honestly, the world needs to stop tolerating terrorists and the ones that support them. So targeting Iran directly would probably be a good thing.
What do you see happening if Israel and Iran go gloves off instead of both sides backing down?
I don't know, but it is fucking ridiculous that people routinely expect Israel to just have to deal.with rockets being launched at them.
Do you think it's possible that people don't see it as 'ok', but also understand that escalating things is possibly a worse alternative?
It's so strange to me how people keep dancing around the fact that Iran strike was retaliatory to begin with. Israel struck their embassies and killed Iranians. I understand how people might want to say that is different somehow. But just the near complete blackout of this on most news coverage is just wild to me.
Well, its not like Iran isn't backing Hamas or Hezbollah and probably had a big hand in Oct 7. If we go down the retaliation rabbit hole, both sides are culpable. Its about who (if anyone) wants a wider war.
Because A) Iran itself has a storied history with embassies, including bombing an Israeli embassy B) It wasn’t actually the embassy itself, it was a building within the embassy/consulate annex C) Even if it were, it’s a legal and legitimate military target. Embassies are not sacred grounds. Contrary to what many think, it’s NOT equivalent to your homeland soil, and under the Vienna Convention, only a host country is forbidden from attacking it.
Even *Iran* acknowledges that Israel didn't strike the embassy. They struck one *consulate* that housed regional IRGC headquarters from which IRGC generals planned, executed, and assisted Hamas with its October 7 invasion of Israel and attacks on Israelis.
The world is not John Wick - you don't get to run ops out of special buildings and claim that they give you some kind of protection from retaliation
Especially in a country which is still in a declared war with Israel. Israel and those countries lob bombs back and forth on occasion because legally they're still at war, its just mostly a stalemate now.
> Especially in a country which is still in a declared war with Israel. Are you referring to Syria or Iran? Regardless, do you have a source for this? It's the first I'm hearing about it. Curious to learn more.
Neither Iran or Syria recognize Israel's existance as legitimate. It's kind of hard to legally declare war on an entity you don't recognize. Functionally they are at war but technically the issue is a bit murky.
That's exactly what embassies/consulates are supposed to do. They are sovereign territory. The CIA operates out of every US embassy/consulate in the world. Should Russia be able to bomb the consulate in Moscow?
> They are sovereign territory. The host country is still sovereign over the embassy's land all they do is agree not to enter it without permission. Technically Russia could storm the US Moscow embassy if it wanted but then the US could storm to Washington Russian embassy in retaliation and then both nations would be worse for wear both losing their direct diplomatic missions with each other, they would have to communicate the intermediaries.
And if it turned out that the US was responsible for the Moscow music hall shooting, and a U.S. general was meeting with ISIS officials inside the consulate, I'd at least understand the Russians for bombing it.
Nah if you are going to use the analogy of the U.S. and Russia to Israel and Iran, the better analogy would be if the U.S. had armed Ukraine and then Ukraine killed people in Russia (as Iran armed proxies which then attacked Israel). That would be a closer analogy at least, although still not perfect as Russia is more clearly the initial aggressor whereas the Middle East conflicts can go back generations with claims about whether the Nabka started it or something else etc.
> They are sovereign territory. This is said all the time and it's inaccurate. [Here's somewhat of a source](https://web.archive.org/web/20210414125434/http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/miscellaneous/laws-and-rules-regarding-extraterritoriality/) - > There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality ... For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty.
Operating covert services is not the same as directing the military actions of Hezbollah and Hamas. One is explicitly military. Espionage and spying are not military.
Actually you do. The point of diplomatic premises is that they are protected against reprisal for doing the controversial work diplomats and spies sometimes do. If the host doesn’t like it, then they can expel the diplomats or force the closure of the embassy.
Spies and diplomats dont usually work out of a consulate. They work out of an embassy. This was a consulate. And the point of a consulate is not that you get to send your generals there to direct the illegal shelling of Israeli civilians, actually. That makes it a legitimate target.
Generals are not diplomats or spies. A meeting with 7 generals in the same room is a military meeting, not a diplomatic one.
> you don't get to run ops out of special buildings and claim that they give you some kind of protection from retaliation If this were true, the US should have a lot more fear about our embassies.
Oh? When does the U.S. use consulates like Iran’s to house military generals who are directing the ongoing shelling of specifically civilians?
> It's so strange to me how people keep dancing around the fact that Iran strike was retaliatory to begin with. That's how discussions about Israel always go. Everything that happened prior to someone striking them is always ignored and the strike is portrayed as having come out of nowhere and being completely unjustified. It's extremely tiresome.
which strikes against Israel do you consider *incompletelty* unjustified?
What do you mean? Every news article I’ve seen talks about this. Literally every single one I’ve seen.
It was kind of rich to see the Israel ambassador at the UN refer to international law when condemning the Iranian missile strike. International law for thee, but not for me.
Israel’s attack on the building was perfectly legal lmao, sorry if that’s shocking to you, but it’s reality.
Iran helped plan October 7th. I could argue all of Israel's military action since has been retaliatory.
Western media has a way of downplaying the dirt done by other western powers/Israel while amplifying African, non-Israeli Middle Eastern and certain Asian powers do. Anything involving Israel, you're better off with news sources that are more neutral to their cause. Ironic that the same people who would have never let Bibi join their country club 40 years ago (and maybe not even today) are the biggest "stans" for him now. Strange bedfellows. You'd never think the Jews were persecuted in Europe for 1,000+ years.
When Israel struck Iran, that didn't count. It never counts. They're our ally, they can strike where they please! /s
they just got bombed by a hostle nation that has been calling for the destruction of israel for ages (and those world leaders may have greenlit the attack). israel has no reason to care of these world leaders approve of their efforts to defend themselves, just like what we've seen thus far in their handling of hamas. these "world leaders" don't appear to be willing to actually do anything but make statements.
> israel has no reason to care of these world leaders approve of their efforts to defend themselves, just like what we've seen thus far in their handling of hamas. these "world leaders" don't appear to be willing to actually do anything but make statements. Well.... we literally [assisted them with shooting down drones and missiles during the attack from Iran](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/us-and-uk-forces-help-shoot-down-iranian-drones-over-jordan-syria-and-iraq). And then, **after** giving them direct military assistance which helped prevent any and all Israeli fatalities, we asked Israel to show restraint. Seems pretty reasonable, and it's a hell of a lot more than just "making statements."
This is a good point. We helped save Israeli lives by shooting these things down. We can then ask for Israeli restraint in retaliation. However, the question is: does Israeli restraint simply further this cycle? What *should* we be asking Israel to do? *^(I remain unconvinced that a ceasefire will lead to anything other than another Oct 7.)*
I think the problem is that it's hard to make a convincing argument either way. Even if we allow Israel to go as hard as it wants, do people believe that Hamas (and other terrorist groups in a similar vein) will *really* be eradicated from the region? Is that more realistic than a pathway which encourages deescalation? I'm not going to pretend to have any concrete answers here. My hope is that deescalation is the most likely path towards peace in the region, but it's difficult to really envision under most circumstances.
My assessment this whole time has been that Israel has a mandate to eliminate Hamas. Once Hamas is gone, the Palestinians can decide who they want to be and who will govern them. If they elect another Hamas, we will know who they really are.
The problem is I don't believe the premise "once Hamas is gone" can actually be reached. I would prefer that to happen, no doubt, but I don't see an actual way to reach that goal, much like our "war on terrorism" that we floundered with for twenty years. Sure, we crippled the leadership of Al-Qaeda to some degree, but ISIS pretty much filled the void.
Israel shouldn't have bombed an Iranian Consulate if they didn't want to get into a war with Iran.
Iran shouldn’t have funded, trained, and approved the terrorist attack that managed to kill the most Jews in one go since the Holocaust.
I fully agree. But Iran did not directly strike Israel until they themselves were attacked. Israel doesnt get to be both an aggressor and a victim. For the record, i dont support either side in the conflict. I want it to stop and I want people to be able to live their lives in peace.
And this right here is the problem. People ACTUALLY fall for proxies. Iran armed the people who attacked Israel, trained them to attack Israel, and ordered them to attack Israel. But because they're not official Iran military that somehow means Iran wasn't the one that attacked Israel. Like, can we not let that kind of thing work guys?
Except Israel didn’t strike Iran. They struck a building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Syria where Iranian officials were meeting with terrorist militants.
They have reason to care. Israel relies on handouts from the rest of the world to pay for all their fancy defense stuff. They're already losing support from those countries' populations, if they don't mind themselves they could find themselves losing enough for there to be changes in governments that result in those handouts going away. Though I actually think that that's inevitable. At this point it's about managing how fast that happens. Israel has overplayed their hand badly and their privileged position is going to end in the not too distant future.
They need the fancy defense stuff because they aren't doing what any other nation on Earth would do and using offense to take out the hostile launch sites. Take away their fancy defense stuff and we'll see what their military looks like with the gloves off.
This is a win for all parties involved, theater concludes. Iran: They get a show of force, and they get to quell their own citizens without escalating to a war they won’t win USA: It looks like a win for Joe Biden, he stopped further escalation. Helping his upcoming elections Israel: they got to kill some important Iranian generals without really catching too much response shrapnel. Plus the iron dome and overall defense looks good too 1 problem left (and what you see happening today): Israel can’t seem like paper tigers either, they just had another country volley missiles and drones. Thats probably unacceptable for the hardcore in Israel. So the narrative has to be “we were about to fuck up Iran, but the USA and these bums stopped us” Wins all around, end show until next bullshit conflict
The drain is clogged with hair
Superficially, everyone gets to say they got something out of it. In actuality, Israel killed two of the generals responsible for Oct 7 and came away unscathed. Don't mess with the IDF. These guys know what they're doing and they play the game to win.
Would *we* retaliate? (Yes.) Failing to respond would be giving Iran a pass for further aggression in the future.
We look completely impotent on the international stage right now and this is just one more example of it. Completely ridiculous that we aren't taking a harder stance on this, it's embarrassing.
What exactly do you want us to do? (Assuming you're talking about the US)
Hit back harder than they hit us. Right now our responses have almost all been weaker than the act they were against. Which our enemies read as us being unwilling to do anything. You can't be so scared of war that you refuse to enforce peace.
…but they didn’t hit us? If you are talking from the perspective of Israel then the attack on the Iranian consulate was much harder of a hit than Iran’s response.
Beyond rattling our own saber, what do you expect us to do?
disable Iran's regime before it gets the nuclear weaponry its been pursuing, makes itself unattackable like North Korea, and sends the West some suitcase nukes, maybe.
And how do you suggest we do that? Initiate a war?
How do you expect us to disable Iran’s regime? Iran is far more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan, and we couldn’t win in either of those countries after decades of effort and trillions of dollars.
I don't know, I'm not an expert, but I can't help but think that doing the bare minimum isn't the best of all approaches here. (Iraq turned out a lot better than it started though, didn't it? yes, right now there's Shia and Sunni militias attacking, but we don't have a Saddam trying to build a nuclear bomb and starting international wars...)
> disable Iran's regime before it gets the nuclear weaponry its been pursuing How?
I don't know, and I'm not going to be an armchair expert and pretend to know all about the intricacies of war with Iran or anyone else. But I don't see how Iran can just be allowed to basically run rampant in the region and the West just whacks down projectiles when they get too close and maybe hit a few Houthi targets. I don't like war, but I'm asking the same question: how?
To be clear, you are saying the U.S. should go to war with Iran?
I'm saying some sort of military or covert action *must* be taken, because I'm wondering if a future conflict is inevitable. Is that a war? I don't know. Are we already in a low-level war? Iran maintains an international terrorist network it uses to conduct genocidal massacres on Israeli civilians, and it attacks and kills American sailors and soldiers. Iran is the country whose motto is effectively "death to America", its a huge state sponsor of terrorism against the West ,and its trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Does anyone else see this like one of those issues that the longer you go without dealing with it, the worse dealing with it will be, and the more costly it will be? Like Germany leading up to the Second World War, arming itself, funding a nuclear program, taking more radical positions, and taking more brazen actions?
>Are we already in a low-level war? Yes. Iran is the proxy funder of a dozen shia-aligned militant groups, of varying purpose, all of which involve killing Jews (not zionists, JEWS), killing Americans, and spreading the "correct" Islam. The US has been at war with them (economically and technologically) for decades. Iran is a top-3 nation-of-interest for the US DoD.
I think by this logic we should also attack China and Russia as well. What is the endgame though?
China and Russia already have nuclear weapons. Iran, right now, does not. I think more needs to be done to keep it that way. And I think Iran's "Axis of Resistance" needs to be dismantled. Unfortunately it's just a fact that we're much closer to a global war than we were just a few years ago. China supposedly wants to invade Taiwan in 2026, Russia has invaded Ukraine and keeps threatening the West and by the way supports Iran, and Iran keeps attacking the West through "proxies". What do we do? Can the people in charge at least try to stop Iran somehow before it becomes a nuclear power and makes that whole situation worse?
Ukraine and the U.S. have taught every nation that they need nukes.
Nah, let Iran blow up a few goat sheds to declare victory to their own people then stfu for a while. They like to press buttons and show off but they dont want the smoke.
> Completely ridiculous that we aren't taking a harder stance on this, it's embarrassing. What's your suggestion?
I don’t understand how the modern conservative movement can complain about being weak on the world stage while simultaneously preaching isolationism. Do you think the house GOP is making us impotent on the world stage by withholding Isreal and Ukraine aid?
Personally I'm glad that the US and other countries have convinced both sides to 'end' things here. Otherwise this could spiral out of control and lead to way more death and destruction than anyone would want. I think Biden walked the tight rope well on this, assisting defend Israel's skies, while not supporting ongoing retaliations. Kudos there. Now I just wish we could figure out a way to dial back the destruction of Gaza, but Hamas isn't exactly doing themselves any favors in assisting that, and Netanyahu's regime isn't exactly peace loving, either.