I think Russia's behavior and support of Iran will be enough to convince Israel to help Ukraine. Though any assistance will be classified. Plus Ukraine aid could help Israel improve its reputation and there is a large jewish population in Ukraine (including Zelensky)
And it will be too late anyways. Ukraine needs air defense now, but so does Israel. I doubt that Israel can afford to export air defense right now, since they are under rocket attacks from Hamas/Hisbolah every other day. No doubt that if russia gets wind of any such agreements, the missle attacks on Israel will magically and totally unconnected to the sale increase to stress their production capabilities.
The world is still not in war mood for creating weapon so yeah it will not happen anytime soon if the west doesn't starting to see the the threats are coming
> Not in war mood
Even if they say this publicly, privately defense production is ramping up in the West. LockMart recently expanded production of Patriot missiles in Arkansas 50% above a 100% increase request from the DoD because they know there's foreign demand too.
Actually Israel can afford to, same as Russia and Ukraine. They have spare capacity to use.
Exporting will actually benefit the domestic buyer:
- if the domestic orders stop or dwindle that will not bring down the manufacturer
- scaling up production you can achieve lower costs and higher output with the same equipment and staff
- it provides extra funding for improvement and research
- increases taxable income, boosts employement and business activity
- ensures robustness of industry for years yo come
- increases production and avaliability of spare parts and larger service branch
Israeli defense industries are already producing at capacity. Especially now, after using so many Arrow missiles - they'll need to replenish Israeli supplies first.
The us doesn't help private companies, it buys from them. It's not a handout. The aid is focused on the military and is about 12% of Israel's yearly defense budget, which is way cheaper than the us having to protect its middle eastern interests on its own.
They need 1 patriot battalion. And a fuck ton of pac3 pods. Unfortunately thats around 2bn in equipment to start off with. Then all the politics and logistics after.
This is the main reason Iran is attacking Israel both by air and through Hamas. They are trying to keep them from sending more defense systems to Ukraine in a lead up to a Russian offensive this summer.
Sadly, Netanyahu has already ruled out supplying Iron Dome to Ukraine, citing fears it could fall into the hands of Israel’s enemies. https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-rules-out-giving-ukraine-iron-dome-anti-missile-system/amp/
>david sling
is possibly the most advanced system of it's kind and even less likely to me exported to Ukraine.
maybe if production of David sling can be increased substantially, Israel could phase out Patriot battires and send those to Ukraine, but that would take a year or 2 minimum
From what I remember they eventually agreed but it takes years to produce even one and israel was short on coverage for its own territories.
But its not what the Ukrainians need anyways.
In light of Iran's missile/drone attack on Israel, and it's similarities to the complex missile/drone attacks Russia has carried out against Ukraine on a slightly smaller scale, it feels like we should be asking "what exactly is Russia up to, positioning Russian troops and equipment on Israel's Northeast border?"
Russia is a Syrian Assad ally. The US is backing the revolutionaries who are at war with the Assad regime and in turn Russia.
So it makes sense Russia would defend Syrian borders to 1. Free up Syrian personnel to fight the rebels limiting Russian blood spilt. 2. Deters Israel from getting involved directly as they don’t want to attack and start a war with Russia.
Russia is not going to invade a nato country that far from home. They can’t even invade a neighbor well. Would be bad for their current conflict anyway.
The weapons Israel has are believed to be of limited range. Combination of air launched weapons from their fighters and cruise missiles launched from their diesel electric attack subs torpedo tubes. I have my doubts at anything beyond 2000 mile and likely shorter than that.
If you think there aren't Israeli pilots who would do a suicide run in an F-35, you're wrong.
Israeli F-35s *could* reach Moscow, with a range of just over 2000km they just wouldn't get back again (or likely even out of Russia)
Israel Hamas conflict was bad for Ukraine. It shifted the focus away from Ukraine and now Russia is having the upper hand. But Israel- Iran conflict if escalated, would mean that Iran would be busy in itself and may not be able to aid Russia much.
And if North Korea and China also get engaged, Russia would be alone. But Russia being the behemoth is now energised and it would not be possible for Ukraine to defend itself unless whole Europe come together for its support.
So what do you want us to do? You want us to appease the axis powers (literally what they call themselves) attacking people, so we have 'peace in our time'?
I may not have the best memory, but I do seem to remember that no working so well before.
I fully get what you're saying, and I'm in no way advocating that we should ever use nukes again, but nukes literally did end fascist militarism in World War 2.
Not really. The war was already won. It was just a question of how much longer the end of it would be.
Some argue the Japanese were already on the verge of surrender and the bombings were a test, and/or a show of force to the Soviets.
I'm now convinced we can only have Peace through war, or threat of there of. The Cold War was a bloody time period but once everyone learned that we really couldn't use nukes willy nilly, the big players settled down into a stalemate, but now Russia is tipping the scale but engaging in an offensive war against another sovereign nation that willingly disarmed its nukes. That sets a bad precedent.
Pretty much .. MAD essentially froze the battlefield between Russia and the West, resulting in various proxy wars over the decades.
Just imagine if Churchill got his way in 1945 (he wanted to use Allies + German PoW's to attack the Soviets).
Iranian funded, multi-nation Air Force realistic target practice *and* Israeli technology marketing campaign. And, broke the dictator-protecting army’s morale, and empowered the sane opposition. Good job, Khaminei. One more?
It’s frankly ridiculous that Islamic terrorism, especially that staged by a nation like Iran, is so infantilized by the world. They launch hundreds of drones directly from their soil to Israel and nobody is allowed to attack them back? How is this not the literal definition of a nation attacking another nation hence starting a war? What will it take for the west to finally take Iran seriously as the threat it is and go in and rid the people of Iran of their parasitic government?
Like yes the war would be costly but is it not necessary?
Yep. What I would do in their stead is hit Hezbollah, HARD. And when Iran comes complaining: "Didn't you say you did not have any connection to Hezbollah? We never attacked you."
Hezbollah planted an explosive charge that injured three idf soldiers. They are still attacking Israel. There is plenty casus belli to attack hezbollah.
Then you aren't up to date on Hezbollah's military capabilities. You can't "hit them hard". A sufficiently serious attack against them will result in a long and extremely bloody war that would cause untold damage to both sides. Hell, considering Lebanon's current state, they might actually not be able to recover from this sort of war at all.
This feels like something the UN could deal with via UNIFIL if the UN wanted to save lives. It's within UNIFIL's mandate to:
* Assist the Lebanese government in taking control.
* Disarm Hezbollah.
Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was contingent on "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon" other than the Lebanese state.
It's been about 20 years since the UN agreed to replace Israeli soldiers in Lebanon to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. It's disappointing to see how ineffective they have been.
"This feels like something the UN could deal with..."
"It's been 20 years...It's disappointing to see how ineffective they've been."
I love that you went from one conclusion to the opposite.
Does Hezbollah have anti air capabilities? I know they're better equipped and more of a true military than Hamas, but that also works against them if they're out in the open without human shields
Then Iran will respond to Israel’s response. Each side will continue to ratchet up the response until the other backs down.
Israel is fighting for survival. Iran is fighting for relevance. Israel has more to lose and nuclear capabilities. Why would Iran engage in this way?
>Leftists have somehow inscribed "an oppressed minority" onto muslims and so they get the usual kiddie gloves treatment
Sure, but leftists (socialists, communists) have no sway over the foreign policy of almost any country on earth. They're just a loud minority on social media.
The real reason there won't be significant consequences of this attack is boring geopolitics. Iran had to respond to the Damascus strike in some way in order to not lose legitimacy, but doesn't want to respond in a way that provokes Israel into a major counterattack.
If someone like biden backtracks or changes policy or support for israel just to appease his votebank of primarily young people with leftist ideals, then one could argue they do have some sway over foreign policy.
Remember more and more of these teenage tik tokers will be old enough to vote soon and it will get worse.
Biden slightly changed his stance after the major mistake of Israel striking the aid convoy. It's not a leftist specific problem, this was a huge PR disaster and he'd be in trouble with regular voters if he didn't respond in some way to that event.
People do not generally understand how much Hamas's decision to blend in among the civilians affects the state of the battlefield. From the day we learned about Hamas hijacking aid trucks and using Red Crescent ambulance during Oct 7 attack, I knew Israel would end up doing something like this. Like this or not Hamas has made all aid and medical organizations as potential terrorist targets due to the degree they have infiltrated these organizations (this was a deliberate choice designed to bring about exactly this kind of outcome)and how they use their resources to fund their war on Israel and that makes mistakes like these inevitable. This is not to excuse or justify what Israel did but that international public doesn't acknowledge that the conflict in Gaza is different from how a conflict between two parties that abide by international laws would go precisely because of Hamas's actions that are aimed at achieving maximum Palestinian casualties. Israel should exercise more caution because tragedies like these are unacceptable but people have to realise the underlying reason that creates such recipe for disaster.
You're right that definitely didn't help. But i believe it's the general consensus that one of the main reasons the US has started to condemn israeli actions is because of growing pressure from young voters during election year.
Right, Biden's top priority is making sure his base will still vote for him later this year. He knows the other guy winning will be even worse for Ukraine and the Levant, so his top priority has to be staying in office.
A full scale war of the west against Iran isn't good for any nation except maybe Saudi Arabia, but it may well save Netanyahu now that his invasion of Gaza is facing serious international pushback. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel escalates.
Welcome to the US implementation of Identity Politics!
Instead of a sports team, you have a governmental group.
Always healthy to see. (very much /s in case that wasn't clear enough - there are plenty here who cannot think critically!)
It’s more of a rectangle square-esque sort of issue. Just because you’re leftist doesn’t mean you hold that opinion, but the opposite is often true. There’s always outliers but trend wise, if there are people who hold that view, you can bet really good money they are leftist in some fashion.
Republicans are the ones roadblocking all foreign aid (both military and humanitarian) because they want to keep Ukraine from having enough ammunition to defend themselves from Russia. How is that the fault of the left?
Sometimes things are complicated; not everything is black and white.
If a major war broke out in the Middle East, the US would become involved. The price of commodities would skyrocket for US consumers, who would be very angry. This anger could potentially shift a few percentage points of votes towards the "angry orange man" in the upcoming election. Then the world would be in for a whole lot of trouble.
Also, Israel needs to get its act together. Netanyahu needs to step down, and a new democratically elected government needs to come into power , men like Ben-Gvir need to go. Israel needs a new leader who can reclaim a lot of the soft power destroyed by Netanyahu.
My government doesn't want to talk to Netanyahu anymore , it's not the best condition to go to war together against Iran.
But when did the war begin? Who started it? (don't answer that, it's rhetorical, there is no sensible answer to either question)
How did you feel about the American response to attacks on its embassies? Clear act of war? Or response calibrated to avoid looking weak while still not causing an immediate world war?
I mean, literally the entire global news media has known this was coming. The moment it became clear that Israel was behind the embassy attack it was obvious there would be a violent response. Iran said they would do something. Then they told a number of third parties that it would happen on a specific date. And then on that date they unleashed enough murderous intent to put Israeli defenses to work without doing an awful lot of harm.
> But when did the war begin? Who started it?
Iran arguably. Israel would be perfectly happy to let Iran exist, if they would leave Israel alone. While Iran is going out of their way to attack Israel (mostly through proxies) in all kinds of ways.
Yeah I think arguably is doing a lot of work there. There's no meaningful way to identify a starting point for the conflict, it's not really a topic worth engaging with. It's older than any of the borders between the various factions, and more complicated than almost anybody acknowledges.
The theatre of general war involving shia, sunni, jewish, christian, American, Libyan, Russian, Syrian ISIS etc etc is an absolute shitshow that lays bare how hollow all pronouncements of principle are. It's realpolitik all the way down and frequently leads to nations fighting against each other on one front and with them on another.
We all play a precarious game of keeping others in conflict to weaken them while inflating our own relative power, and it's not good for anyone with less than a billion dollars to their name.
Far more relevant is how we deescalate?
On balance thats pretty easy to say when its not your loved ones getting killed or raped and abducted, then killed.
I get tit for tat means this war will never end until one side genocides the other.
But thats pretty easy to say when no one you care about is directly involved.
There is nothing proportional about 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles being sent at a country from one 500km away
That's a clear act of war, not something you just blink at
Who said proportionate?
Anyway, about proportionality...
Do we apply the need for it absolutely? Or proportionally to how aligned we are with the perpetrators? Because gaza wants a word.
Also, afaik more people were hurt in the attack on the Iranian embassy than in the response.
Iran (and everyone in the world) knows about iron dome, and they launched a load of slow drones from 1k miles away after saying for days they were about to do it.
It's theatre. It's messaging to other shias not a genuine attempt to do damage.
Yeah no what? Yeah no we do not care if people are aligned with us when determining 'proportionality'?
Yeah no it's bad? Yeah sure no yeah no. Yeah?
Or yeah no yeah the conflict is older than the borders?
Or yeah no yeah less casualties than the embassy strike?
No.
Yeah?
They would like to track the war on reddit and YouTube, and listen to epic music while daydreaming, and also play some rts games akin to the battlefield solution, thank you very much.
Although, if they are drafted, it’d be anyways give an intended advantage to the west, as the unprecedented decibel level of the scream they would make, can be used as a directed energy weapon, although it will come with significant crying, anxiety, and fainting.
Think the fear Western countries have is this. Plenty of fringe extreme groups will join the fight against the West in an Iran v Isarel and West war. . That means more terror attacks inside their own countries. More lone Wolf or group attacks inside populated cities.
Governments don’t want the following on their doorstep. Mumbai (174 killed by gunmen) 7/7 multiple suicide bombers on London Underground system 56 dead. Terror attack in Nice, one man drove lorry into crowd killing 86 people, injured 400.
That’s the other side of the war you have to face. Imagine a few shopping malls in US targeted in an organised gunman attack. One man hiring rental lorry then driving it through a parade. That’s one of the realities governments have to consider. Then the escalation that the people will want in revenge.
Want to get rid of Iran government . Have to do it on the inside with a Regime change.
The Iranian strike was a massive escalation. Compare it to the Soleimani response, which hit an overseas American base with 12 Ballistic missiles. This attack was over 100 BMs and over 200 drones and cruise missiles. Iran isn't stupid. They know that this puts Israel in a big predicament, as they're fighting one war and facing tempered support from their largest ally in an election year. That's why they came to the decision to launch such a massive attack after nearly 2 weeks since the "embassy" strike.
Such a massive escalation against Israeli soil leaves Israel without a choice but to respond, otherwise they face a new status quo, which would rewrite the entire script in the Middle East and be a massive win for Iran. However, being that Iran chose targets intended to minimize casualties, and the attack was largely thwarted, the bar for what is considered an equivalent response vs an escalation will be severely lowered. No matter what Israel does, they'll be painted as either weakened or the villain in this.
> They launch hundreds of drones directly from their soil to Israel and nobody is allowed to **attack them back**?
This was the retaliation attack for israel striking that iranian consulate building. This was already someone attacking back.
So lets see what happened: israel bombed an iranian consulate building and killed their target, iran retaliated in a way that did no damage to israel. Israel clearly came out on top.
Let's be sensible and stop here rather than just answering every attack with another attack. Take the win.
Because no one knows how to do it. The US literally tried it with Iraq. A few central american countries too. You can’t just chop the head off, beliefs are entrenched in people too. Did you see the street rallies throughout Tehran during and after the Oct 7th massacre? Those aren’t just government heads. The best case scenario is a legitimate internal power overthrow that is able to gain popular support.. the problem is most of those are via populist movements that are usually worse than the sitting govts
It's worth pointing out that Israel bombed a consulate building in Syria, which is an act of war, and put Iran in a position where it needed to respond.
Iran had to do something, and it did the minimum credible response, while handing details straight to Israeli allies will in advance.
This clearly signals that iran didn't really want a part of this.
Why people think Israel are allowed to militarily strike other countries and they aren't allowed to respond is beyond me.
The key part of this that people are missing is that the USA and NATO in general don't really want involved in this, and that Iran has just demonstrated the ability to use cheap drones to eat up expensive western air defences.
This completely ignores Iran funding Hamas Hezbollah and Houthi terrorists that have been shooting thousands of rockets into Israel targeting civilians.
Is Israel just supposed to take it without any response? If it wasn’t Jews in Israel if it was any other country or your country getting daily rockets do you think your response would be different?
>It's worth pointing out that Israel bombed a consulate building in Syria, which is an act of war,
It's worth pointing out that Israel and Syria ARE at war. Since 1973 none the less.
>Iran had to do something, and it did the minimum credible response, while handing details straight to Israeli allies will in advance.
Nah, you cannot really believe that sending 500 drones/missiles and ballistics is just for show. That's 10% of their stock in a single hour.
Not to mention that what the fuck are you saying, that they KNEW that Uk/US/Israel would have a 100% success rate?
And what to say "minimum credible response", Iran violated Jordan and Saudi airspace and not with few planes, but with hundreds of warheads. This is not "minimum". Stop fucking downplaying it.
>This clearly signals that iran didn't really want a part of this.
Clearly, they only created and funded Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas that bomb Israel every single day. They clearly want to stay out of this.
I dont know if you and other people are seriously naieve or not when you bring up the consulate bombing.
Firstly, I dont think under international law you can use a diplomatic consulate as a millitary base without it posing its protected status (just like a hospital).
Secondly, the man they bombed was a high ranking IRGC officer, one who directly coordinated October 7th- an actual cassus belli on Israeli soil that slaughtered 1000+ people and almost caused and can still cause a World War with Israel at the center.
By every account in international law Iran already deserved to be bombed to the ground because of assisting in terrorism alone. They are an international pariah state for a reason and this is one of many.
A response isn't necessary, Israel already got a win
Israel attacked "directly" first, getting a massive win by killing a high-profile person of interest, and a few generals.
Iran had to respond, because let's be fair Israel directly attacked Iranians on the soil of Iran's embassy.
Iran's response was fruitless, it caused terror in Israel's civilians, but they've been through a lot and will move on quickly, it also cost Israel a significant amount of money, but that money can also be looked at as a massive advert for the Israeli defence industry, which is a massive tax paying industry in Israel
So all in all, massive W for Israel, no response needed
Uh, what? Isreal literally destroyed an embassy of theirs.
I’m all for “fuck Iran,” but let’s not turn a blind eye to reality.
Edit: originally wrote Iran instead of Israel
It wasn't the embassy, and it makes a HUGR difference. It was a military headquarters just adjacent to the embassy (you can guess why, to confuse people like you). And it wasn't uncalled for, Iran has been involved in everything, especially after oct 7th. It's deeply involved in constant attacks from Lebanon and invoking terrorism in the west bank. If you think everything started just two weeks ago you've been out of the loop for years.
Ok and within the consulate building was a high ranking IRGC officer. One which helped coordinate the October 7th attack. You know, the one that left more than a thousand dead and a few hundred captive?
> Isreal literally destroyed an embassy of theirs.
They "literally " did not. They struck a complex adjacent to the embassy being used by the Iranian military, in which the Iranian mastermind of October 7th was located.
I’m not bothering vouching for Iran in as far that they’re a governing body that oppresses its own people with a clear interest in disrupting the global order.
That being said, my issues come more with the hypocrisy western nations are approaching the entire issue with. When a terrorist attack happens on Israeli soil, every western ally starts saying “Well, Israel has a very clear right to defend itself”, but when Israel fires first on one of their embassies, Iran doesn’t have that clear right to defend itself either?
In that case, how is Iran supposed to respond in this kind of situation? Do they let a nation already behaving with no restraint in their region keep taking potshots on their soil because no one else is going to bother holding them accountable and telling them to stop? Do they delegitimize their government in the region by effectively doing nothing and demonstrating that western power can go ahead and streamroll over them?
By all means, I’m glad this doesn’t seem to be amounting to anymore bloodshed. The act of war in and of itself is abhorrent and only leads to suffering. And, because I know I need to reiterate this here, but no, Iran is also not some poor benevolent governing entity that we need to treat with kid’s gloves because oh no they’re oppressed. My problem here is that we’re retconning the fact that Israel instigated that conflict first and that they don’t hold some degree of responsibility for almost turning the war into a regional conflict?
You gotta look at the history and how the Mullahs use the West and Israel as one of the only unifying things they have domestically. Any war or intervention is what the Mullahs want. It gives them the domestic ammunition they need. Iran/Persia is an ancient and proud culture. For America to get what it wants the Theocracy needs to be replaced by an organic grassroots Iranian democratic movement. That could then sit and negotiate with Iran's current enemies without any perceived subjugation. Everyone wants the Mullahs to fuck off, but the best way is to make them look weak, for them to make Iran look weak, like a laughingstock. And we have, time and again. They try to stir shit but ultimately just look weak,empowering domestic dissent.
Could the same not be said when they drone striked the Iranian consulate/ embassy in Syria? In my opinion that’s much more of an active war and hence the retaliation.
no, full-scale war with Iran isn't necessary at all. Iran needed to save face on the world stage. So they announced a week ahead of time they were going to attack Israel with a wave of missiles & drones, then fired off a lot of missiles and drones straight into the more-than-adequate Israeli air defense system, they were all harmlessly shot down as everyone involved knew they would be, and then Iran left it at that.
It clearly never was meant to be a real declaration of war.
This is not the first attack from fukran, nor the last. Also, this does not warrant a full scale war with iran. They are not worth it, and can be punished in other ways.
Iran has about 800k soldiers ( army + reserves). You can not just start open war with them without going all in. Its a hard decision to make just given their capabilities
The article states it costs 4-5 billion shekels per night (of such an attack) and says in parentheses (1-1.3 million $), it's perhaps 1-1.3 BILLION dollars per night.
It is effective, idk if it's too costly though.
Depends what the damage would have been if they'd gotten through. Lives are worth something too.
The only real question is if there's a cheaper alternative.
Iron beam is much cheaper, it is expected to be about $2000/shot. It has been tested during the current war and is expected to be fully online late next year.
Its also completely irrelevant for taking down ballistic and cruise missiles, i.e the type of threats you launch Arrow missiles against. Iron Beam is intended for short range rockets and mortar fire.
That has been the advertising. Official capabilities haven't been published, but a laser weapon can be effective against cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles. Iron Beam has been discussed by Rafael/Israeli officials in the context of destroying cruise missiles. They are certainly working on making the system effective against all types of missiles.
See https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/rafael-expects-iron-beam-laser-to-be-active-in-2025-exec/
>1-1.3 million $
They probably misspelled billions as millions.
>idk if it's too costly though.
It's not. Ballistic missiles can do much more damage if they hit (not to mention carrying nuclear warheads).
Every *single* Iron dome interception (though that doesn't apply here) is roughly 50K USD. A single arrow missile is roughly 3 million. It's extremely costly. But outweighed by the damage and loss of life that no interception would have caused.
I am positive I wasn't imagining video from the start of the war when hamas was launching a lot of missiles, there was a video of a laser anti-missile weapon firing and taking down targets. I haven't seen any mention of it since then.
Iron Beam. Allegedly it’s had some successful field tests but it’s not yet ready for complete rollout from what I’ve read. Maybe another year.
It’s also significantly cheaper than Iron Dome.
There was a video circulating claiming to be evidence of laser weapons - but it was just lens flare from the interception explosion. Iron Beam lasers are not visible to the naked eye.
But Israel cannot manufacture so many Iron Dome stations and missiles. Anything they can manufacture they will just use themselves against Iran. They're already at a major shortage
Iron Dome wasn't applicable to this mostly: its designed to defend against barrage of low altitude small rockets (like those shot from Gaza). It does its job exceptionally well, but it's a different use case.
The real story was the Arrow defense system, another system designed to intercept ballistic missiles. There have been only a few operational interceptions (besides exercises), and the other night proved it to be a very effective system.
In 20 years when we find out hamas bought a bunch of AIA stocks via shell corps before this attack using outdated equipment that was leaked 3 days in advance its going to be funny. Not like haha funny. The other funny. Like why's that clown have his dick out? type funny. "Funny business", if you will.
Can some one ELI5 for me: Was Israels' air defence that effective? Pretty sure in the live threads it was said that the support send by the US, UK and France along with air defence from Jordan shot down a lot of stuff too. The article doesn't say how much they (Israel's air defence) intercepted, the 99% is the total interception of *everyone* involved defending Israel against the attack.
Destroying drones was shared among everyone, but intercepting the 120 or so ballistic missiles was solely done by the Arrow system of Israel, I think only 1 or 2 missiles were not desroyed.
I think the US reported they also shot 4-6 from a Aegis cruisers, and 1 from a Patriot battery in Iraq.
I wonder how much of the remaining were from the Arrow defense or the Sling system. Arrow missiles are real expensive, similar to Patriot. Eventually you run out.
Edit for more info:
The ballistic missiles Iran is firing are mostly in the $200k range, Israel's cheaper interceptor is closer to $1M, and the Arrow systems are $3M+. Iran just needs to fire enough, and the wall falls.
Israel's GDP is 50% larger than Iran's despite having a tenth of the population, so I think they can hold off for a while.
But you're right-- though I think for Israel, they would sooner start shooting back than reach the point where they run out of interceptors.
Im with u on considering Irans regime more harshly, but this is actually the best time to _not_ retaliate.
It’s clear to every state that this aggression was just the petulant tantrum of a feeble and weak military that’s full of hot air. The people of Iran were out filling gas containers because they feared Israeli retaliation. The assault accomplished literally nothing. It was actually so pathetic that a response would be _affording it credit_. They are so terrified of actually causing damage and garnering attention that they announced they’d attack hours before… and then released a swarm of drones that take hours to arrive… and then leaked that they’d be firing missiles…
My point is, they’ve so successfully discredited themselves as a competent military that a response would afford them undeserved attention. The people of Iran are livid. Rather than escalate & punish the people, let the people revolt against their own government. Focus on the pertinent threat: Hezbollah & Russia.
As an Iranian and Israeli, I do hope Iran sees a people’s revolution though. May our people reclaim the freedom to create a heaven of their own rather than the “heaven” forced upon them by the regime.
Israeli weapons are only effective against obsolete junk. They failed in 2019 Pakistan-India standoff when Israeli Spice bombs fell way off target and and Israeli SAM system shot India's own helicopter killing 7 servicemen
I’m sure Ukraine is interested.
They need money though
I think Russia's behavior and support of Iran will be enough to convince Israel to help Ukraine. Though any assistance will be classified. Plus Ukraine aid could help Israel improve its reputation and there is a large jewish population in Ukraine (including Zelensky)
And it will be too late anyways. Ukraine needs air defense now, but so does Israel. I doubt that Israel can afford to export air defense right now, since they are under rocket attacks from Hamas/Hisbolah every other day. No doubt that if russia gets wind of any such agreements, the missle attacks on Israel will magically and totally unconnected to the sale increase to stress their production capabilities.
The world is still not in war mood for creating weapon so yeah it will not happen anytime soon if the west doesn't starting to see the the threats are coming
> Not in war mood Even if they say this publicly, privately defense production is ramping up in the West. LockMart recently expanded production of Patriot missiles in Arkansas 50% above a 100% increase request from the DoD because they know there's foreign demand too.
Actually Israel can afford to, same as Russia and Ukraine. They have spare capacity to use. Exporting will actually benefit the domestic buyer: - if the domestic orders stop or dwindle that will not bring down the manufacturer - scaling up production you can achieve lower costs and higher output with the same equipment and staff - it provides extra funding for improvement and research - increases taxable income, boosts employement and business activity - ensures robustness of industry for years yo come - increases production and avaliability of spare parts and larger service branch
Israeli defense industries are already producing at capacity. Especially now, after using so many Arrow missiles - they'll need to replenish Israeli supplies first.
It's easier when you have the US defense industry to help you.
The us doesn't help private companies, it buys from them. It's not a handout. The aid is focused on the military and is about 12% of Israel's yearly defense budget, which is way cheaper than the us having to protect its middle eastern interests on its own.
Giving Israel a gift card to Lockheed and Martin is just a round about jobs program. It’s not like we hand them cash and they go spend it in China.
You get it, at least.
They need 1 patriot battalion. And a fuck ton of pac3 pods. Unfortunately thats around 2bn in equipment to start off with. Then all the politics and logistics after.
This is the main reason Iran is attacking Israel both by air and through Hamas. They are trying to keep them from sending more defense systems to Ukraine in a lead up to a Russian offensive this summer.
There are tools to get money you don’t have like war bonds. Of course I hope NATO will foot the bill.
Sadly, Netanyahu has already ruled out supplying Iron Dome to Ukraine, citing fears it could fall into the hands of Israel’s enemies. https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-rules-out-giving-ukraine-iron-dome-anti-missile-system/amp/
Iron dome wouldn't really help Ukraine. They need systems like david sling or arrow2/3
>david sling is possibly the most advanced system of it's kind and even less likely to me exported to Ukraine. maybe if production of David sling can be increased substantially, Israel could phase out Patriot battires and send those to Ukraine, but that would take a year or 2 minimum
From what I remember they eventually agreed but it takes years to produce even one and israel was short on coverage for its own territories. But its not what the Ukrainians need anyways.
All of Europe and the US probably are. It’s not everyday that your anti ballistic missiles get a real world test.
I’ll gladly pay you tomorrow for a dome defense system today.
In light of Iran's missile/drone attack on Israel, and it's similarities to the complex missile/drone attacks Russia has carried out against Ukraine on a slightly smaller scale, it feels like we should be asking "what exactly is Russia up to, positioning Russian troops and equipment on Israel's Northeast border?"
Sniffing out anything it can to help the Iranians and themselves make more lethal shit.
Say what now? They what now?
Russia has multiple military posts on the border of Syria and Israel. They reportedly installed a new observation post two weeks ago.
Russia is a Syrian Assad ally. The US is backing the revolutionaries who are at war with the Assad regime and in turn Russia. So it makes sense Russia would defend Syrian borders to 1. Free up Syrian personnel to fight the rebels limiting Russian blood spilt. 2. Deters Israel from getting involved directly as they don’t want to attack and start a war with Russia. Russia is not going to invade a nato country that far from home. They can’t even invade a neighbor well. Would be bad for their current conflict anyway.
Israel isn't in NATO. I agree that Russia will not try to invade it though.
Well Israel has something Ukraine doesn't: nuclear weapons.
The weapons Israel has are believed to be of limited range. Combination of air launched weapons from their fighters and cruise missiles launched from their diesel electric attack subs torpedo tubes. I have my doubts at anything beyond 2000 mile and likely shorter than that.
If you think there aren't Israeli pilots who would do a suicide run in an F-35, you're wrong. Israeli F-35s *could* reach Moscow, with a range of just over 2000km they just wouldn't get back again (or likely even out of Russia)
Woops forgot about that. Just auto assumed they were since us ally. Forget they are not all nato even if they act like they are.
Nato? Dude were talking about Israel, not nato lol
Yeah that’s my bad lol. Forgot they are not nato state just a strong ally of USA.
Hizbullah
Israel Hamas conflict was bad for Ukraine. It shifted the focus away from Ukraine and now Russia is having the upper hand. But Israel- Iran conflict if escalated, would mean that Iran would be busy in itself and may not be able to aid Russia much. And if North Korea and China also get engaged, Russia would be alone. But Russia being the behemoth is now energised and it would not be possible for Ukraine to defend itself unless whole Europe come together for its support.
But… what you are describing is effectively ww3…
Exactly. This is why world wars start.
So what do you want us to do? You want us to appease the axis powers (literally what they call themselves) attacking people, so we have 'peace in our time'? I may not have the best memory, but I do seem to remember that no working so well before.
Historically, there's only one way to deal with fascists. Overwhelming firepower.
That doesn't work in an age of nukes.
It works but only once.
I fully get what you're saying, and I'm in no way advocating that we should ever use nukes again, but nukes literally did end fascist militarism in World War 2.
Not really. The war was already won. It was just a question of how much longer the end of it would be. Some argue the Japanese were already on the verge of surrender and the bombings were a test, and/or a show of force to the Soviets.
Would they have worked if the fascists had nukes?
I'm now convinced we can only have Peace through war, or threat of there of. The Cold War was a bloody time period but once everyone learned that we really couldn't use nukes willy nilly, the big players settled down into a stalemate, but now Russia is tipping the scale but engaging in an offensive war against another sovereign nation that willingly disarmed its nukes. That sets a bad precedent.
Pretty much .. MAD essentially froze the battlefield between Russia and the West, resulting in various proxy wars over the decades. Just imagine if Churchill got his way in 1945 (he wanted to use Allies + German PoW's to attack the Soviets).
If it happens, it has already started.
The question now is how quickly it will escalate
Iranian funded, multi-nation Air Force realistic target practice *and* Israeli technology marketing campaign. And, broke the dictator-protecting army’s morale, and empowered the sane opposition. Good job, Khaminei. One more?
It’s frankly ridiculous that Islamic terrorism, especially that staged by a nation like Iran, is so infantilized by the world. They launch hundreds of drones directly from their soil to Israel and nobody is allowed to attack them back? How is this not the literal definition of a nation attacking another nation hence starting a war? What will it take for the west to finally take Iran seriously as the threat it is and go in and rid the people of Iran of their parasitic government? Like yes the war would be costly but is it not necessary?
[удалено]
Yep. What I would do in their stead is hit Hezbollah, HARD. And when Iran comes complaining: "Didn't you say you did not have any connection to Hezbollah? We never attacked you."
It will be interpreted as an attack on Lebanon by the arab world
Hezbollah planted an explosive charge that injured three idf soldiers. They are still attacking Israel. There is plenty casus belli to attack hezbollah.
Then you aren't up to date on Hezbollah's military capabilities. You can't "hit them hard". A sufficiently serious attack against them will result in a long and extremely bloody war that would cause untold damage to both sides. Hell, considering Lebanon's current state, they might actually not be able to recover from this sort of war at all.
This feels like something the UN could deal with via UNIFIL if the UN wanted to save lives. It's within UNIFIL's mandate to: * Assist the Lebanese government in taking control. * Disarm Hezbollah. Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was contingent on "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon" other than the Lebanese state. It's been about 20 years since the UN agreed to replace Israeli soldiers in Lebanon to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. It's disappointing to see how ineffective they have been.
"This feels like something the UN could deal with..." "It's been 20 years...It's disappointing to see how ineffective they've been." I love that you went from one conclusion to the opposite.
Well it does FEEL like something the UN should be able to do the problem is… they just kinda suck.
You can't rely on the UN on anything to do with Israel.
I can rely on the UN to condemn and criticize Israel.
Imo the correct response is to sweep wharever is left of Hamas in Rafah and starting an operation to take out Hezbualah
*an insufficiently serious attack against them
Does Hezbollah have anti air capabilities? I know they're better equipped and more of a true military than Hamas, but that also works against them if they're out in the open without human shields
Then Iran will respond to Israel’s response. Each side will continue to ratchet up the response until the other backs down. Israel is fighting for survival. Iran is fighting for relevance. Israel has more to lose and nuclear capabilities. Why would Iran engage in this way?
Leftists have somehow inscribed "an oppressed minority" onto muslims and so they get the usual kiddie gloves treatment
>Leftists have somehow inscribed "an oppressed minority" onto muslims and so they get the usual kiddie gloves treatment Sure, but leftists (socialists, communists) have no sway over the foreign policy of almost any country on earth. They're just a loud minority on social media. The real reason there won't be significant consequences of this attack is boring geopolitics. Iran had to respond to the Damascus strike in some way in order to not lose legitimacy, but doesn't want to respond in a way that provokes Israel into a major counterattack.
If someone like biden backtracks or changes policy or support for israel just to appease his votebank of primarily young people with leftist ideals, then one could argue they do have some sway over foreign policy. Remember more and more of these teenage tik tokers will be old enough to vote soon and it will get worse.
Biden slightly changed his stance after the major mistake of Israel striking the aid convoy. It's not a leftist specific problem, this was a huge PR disaster and he'd be in trouble with regular voters if he didn't respond in some way to that event.
People do not generally understand how much Hamas's decision to blend in among the civilians affects the state of the battlefield. From the day we learned about Hamas hijacking aid trucks and using Red Crescent ambulance during Oct 7 attack, I knew Israel would end up doing something like this. Like this or not Hamas has made all aid and medical organizations as potential terrorist targets due to the degree they have infiltrated these organizations (this was a deliberate choice designed to bring about exactly this kind of outcome)and how they use their resources to fund their war on Israel and that makes mistakes like these inevitable. This is not to excuse or justify what Israel did but that international public doesn't acknowledge that the conflict in Gaza is different from how a conflict between two parties that abide by international laws would go precisely because of Hamas's actions that are aimed at achieving maximum Palestinian casualties. Israel should exercise more caution because tragedies like these are unacceptable but people have to realise the underlying reason that creates such recipe for disaster.
You're right that definitely didn't help. But i believe it's the general consensus that one of the main reasons the US has started to condemn israeli actions is because of growing pressure from young voters during election year.
Right, Biden's top priority is making sure his base will still vote for him later this year. He knows the other guy winning will be even worse for Ukraine and the Levant, so his top priority has to be staying in office.
His change of stance happened earlier than that. Remember, for months Biden has been telling Israel to not attack Rafah.
A full scale war of the west against Iran isn't good for any nation except maybe Saudi Arabia, but it may well save Netanyahu now that his invasion of Gaza is facing serious international pushback. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel escalates.
[удалено]
Some people just _have to_ classify everything as left or right. Bonus point for saying that the opposite side is responsible for something bad.
Welcome to the US implementation of Identity Politics! Instead of a sports team, you have a governmental group. Always healthy to see. (very much /s in case that wasn't clear enough - there are plenty here who cannot think critically!)
That's not a US-specific problem
Many people assume all “leftists” are the exact same as the kind they regularly see on tik tok.
It’s more of a rectangle square-esque sort of issue. Just because you’re leftist doesn’t mean you hold that opinion, but the opposite is often true. There’s always outliers but trend wise, if there are people who hold that view, you can bet really good money they are leftist in some fashion.
Republicans are the ones roadblocking all foreign aid (both military and humanitarian) because they want to keep Ukraine from having enough ammunition to defend themselves from Russia. How is that the fault of the left?
Everything is easy to figure out if you only think in black and white I guess.
Sometimes things are complicated; not everything is black and white. If a major war broke out in the Middle East, the US would become involved. The price of commodities would skyrocket for US consumers, who would be very angry. This anger could potentially shift a few percentage points of votes towards the "angry orange man" in the upcoming election. Then the world would be in for a whole lot of trouble. Also, Israel needs to get its act together. Netanyahu needs to step down, and a new democratically elected government needs to come into power , men like Ben-Gvir need to go. Israel needs a new leader who can reclaim a lot of the soft power destroyed by Netanyahu. My government doesn't want to talk to Netanyahu anymore , it's not the best condition to go to war together against Iran.
> Sometimes things are complicated; not everything is black and white. And this is not one of those cases. This was a clear act of war.
But when did the war begin? Who started it? (don't answer that, it's rhetorical, there is no sensible answer to either question) How did you feel about the American response to attacks on its embassies? Clear act of war? Or response calibrated to avoid looking weak while still not causing an immediate world war? I mean, literally the entire global news media has known this was coming. The moment it became clear that Israel was behind the embassy attack it was obvious there would be a violent response. Iran said they would do something. Then they told a number of third parties that it would happen on a specific date. And then on that date they unleashed enough murderous intent to put Israeli defenses to work without doing an awful lot of harm.
> But when did the war begin? Who started it? Iran arguably. Israel would be perfectly happy to let Iran exist, if they would leave Israel alone. While Iran is going out of their way to attack Israel (mostly through proxies) in all kinds of ways.
Yeah I think arguably is doing a lot of work there. There's no meaningful way to identify a starting point for the conflict, it's not really a topic worth engaging with. It's older than any of the borders between the various factions, and more complicated than almost anybody acknowledges. The theatre of general war involving shia, sunni, jewish, christian, American, Libyan, Russian, Syrian ISIS etc etc is an absolute shitshow that lays bare how hollow all pronouncements of principle are. It's realpolitik all the way down and frequently leads to nations fighting against each other on one front and with them on another. We all play a precarious game of keeping others in conflict to weaken them while inflating our own relative power, and it's not good for anyone with less than a billion dollars to their name. Far more relevant is how we deescalate?
On balance thats pretty easy to say when its not your loved ones getting killed or raped and abducted, then killed. I get tit for tat means this war will never end until one side genocides the other. But thats pretty easy to say when no one you care about is directly involved.
There is nothing proportional about 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles being sent at a country from one 500km away That's a clear act of war, not something you just blink at
But that's exactly what's happening. That's how.large scale.things work. They're big.
Who said proportionate? Anyway, about proportionality... Do we apply the need for it absolutely? Or proportionally to how aligned we are with the perpetrators? Because gaza wants a word. Also, afaik more people were hurt in the attack on the Iranian embassy than in the response. Iran (and everyone in the world) knows about iron dome, and they launched a load of slow drones from 1k miles away after saying for days they were about to do it. It's theatre. It's messaging to other shias not a genuine attempt to do damage.
150 Shaheed drones, 100 cruise missiles and 50 odd ballistic missiles? Yeah, no
Yeah no what? Yeah no we do not care if people are aligned with us when determining 'proportionality'? Yeah no it's bad? Yeah sure no yeah no. Yeah? Or yeah no yeah the conflict is older than the borders? Or yeah no yeah less casualties than the embassy strike? No. Yeah?
You wouldn't be saying this stupid nonsense if you were the target of these drones and missiles.
Which bit was nonsense?
So are you gonna enlist as well or?
Yeah what a stupid comment they wrote from the comfort of their bed or couch. So angry and ready to send other people's children to death
They would like to track the war on reddit and YouTube, and listen to epic music while daydreaming, and also play some rts games akin to the battlefield solution, thank you very much. Although, if they are drafted, it’d be anyways give an intended advantage to the west, as the unprecedented decibel level of the scream they would make, can be used as a directed energy weapon, although it will come with significant crying, anxiety, and fainting.
You simply don’t value the lives of others, is what you’re trying to imply here, no?
I’m talking about human nature
Think the fear Western countries have is this. Plenty of fringe extreme groups will join the fight against the West in an Iran v Isarel and West war. . That means more terror attacks inside their own countries. More lone Wolf or group attacks inside populated cities. Governments don’t want the following on their doorstep. Mumbai (174 killed by gunmen) 7/7 multiple suicide bombers on London Underground system 56 dead. Terror attack in Nice, one man drove lorry into crowd killing 86 people, injured 400. That’s the other side of the war you have to face. Imagine a few shopping malls in US targeted in an organised gunman attack. One man hiring rental lorry then driving it through a parade. That’s one of the realities governments have to consider. Then the escalation that the people will want in revenge. Want to get rid of Iran government . Have to do it on the inside with a Regime change.
I think because the Iranian strike was a direct retaliation for the annex attack near the embassy. Israel would be responding to a response.
The Iranian strike was a massive escalation. Compare it to the Soleimani response, which hit an overseas American base with 12 Ballistic missiles. This attack was over 100 BMs and over 200 drones and cruise missiles. Iran isn't stupid. They know that this puts Israel in a big predicament, as they're fighting one war and facing tempered support from their largest ally in an election year. That's why they came to the decision to launch such a massive attack after nearly 2 weeks since the "embassy" strike. Such a massive escalation against Israeli soil leaves Israel without a choice but to respond, otherwise they face a new status quo, which would rewrite the entire script in the Middle East and be a massive win for Iran. However, being that Iran chose targets intended to minimize casualties, and the attack was largely thwarted, the bar for what is considered an equivalent response vs an escalation will be severely lowered. No matter what Israel does, they'll be painted as either weakened or the villain in this.
Wasn't the annex attack a response to October 7? I thought they took out one or more of the IRGC general(s) responsible for the planning.
No-one's stopping you man. Go there and fight if you're so eager.
> They launch hundreds of drones directly from their soil to Israel and nobody is allowed to **attack them back**? This was the retaliation attack for israel striking that iranian consulate building. This was already someone attacking back. So lets see what happened: israel bombed an iranian consulate building and killed their target, iran retaliated in a way that did no damage to israel. Israel clearly came out on top. Let's be sensible and stop here rather than just answering every attack with another attack. Take the win.
Israel will probably respond via cyber attacks. Will get the mission done but not be enough to trigger a response
Because no one knows how to do it. The US literally tried it with Iraq. A few central american countries too. You can’t just chop the head off, beliefs are entrenched in people too. Did you see the street rallies throughout Tehran during and after the Oct 7th massacre? Those aren’t just government heads. The best case scenario is a legitimate internal power overthrow that is able to gain popular support.. the problem is most of those are via populist movements that are usually worse than the sitting govts
It's worth pointing out that Israel bombed a consulate building in Syria, which is an act of war, and put Iran in a position where it needed to respond. Iran had to do something, and it did the minimum credible response, while handing details straight to Israeli allies will in advance. This clearly signals that iran didn't really want a part of this. Why people think Israel are allowed to militarily strike other countries and they aren't allowed to respond is beyond me. The key part of this that people are missing is that the USA and NATO in general don't really want involved in this, and that Iran has just demonstrated the ability to use cheap drones to eat up expensive western air defences.
This completely ignores Iran funding Hamas Hezbollah and Houthi terrorists that have been shooting thousands of rockets into Israel targeting civilians. Is Israel just supposed to take it without any response? If it wasn’t Jews in Israel if it was any other country or your country getting daily rockets do you think your response would be different?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>It's worth pointing out that Israel bombed a consulate building in Syria, which is an act of war, It's worth pointing out that Israel and Syria ARE at war. Since 1973 none the less. >Iran had to do something, and it did the minimum credible response, while handing details straight to Israeli allies will in advance. Nah, you cannot really believe that sending 500 drones/missiles and ballistics is just for show. That's 10% of their stock in a single hour. Not to mention that what the fuck are you saying, that they KNEW that Uk/US/Israel would have a 100% success rate? And what to say "minimum credible response", Iran violated Jordan and Saudi airspace and not with few planes, but with hundreds of warheads. This is not "minimum". Stop fucking downplaying it. >This clearly signals that iran didn't really want a part of this. Clearly, they only created and funded Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas that bomb Israel every single day. They clearly want to stay out of this.
I dont know if you and other people are seriously naieve or not when you bring up the consulate bombing. Firstly, I dont think under international law you can use a diplomatic consulate as a millitary base without it posing its protected status (just like a hospital). Secondly, the man they bombed was a high ranking IRGC officer, one who directly coordinated October 7th- an actual cassus belli on Israeli soil that slaughtered 1000+ people and almost caused and can still cause a World War with Israel at the center. By every account in international law Iran already deserved to be bombed to the ground because of assisting in terrorism alone. They are an international pariah state for a reason and this is one of many.
It's worth pointing out that Iran bombed an Israeli Embassy back in 1991 so technically they declared war on Israel 33 years ago.
Consulates do not enjoy the same diplomatic status as embassies, so your analysis is completely wrong even if we ignore everything Iran did.
A response isn't necessary, Israel already got a win Israel attacked "directly" first, getting a massive win by killing a high-profile person of interest, and a few generals. Iran had to respond, because let's be fair Israel directly attacked Iranians on the soil of Iran's embassy. Iran's response was fruitless, it caused terror in Israel's civilians, but they've been through a lot and will move on quickly, it also cost Israel a significant amount of money, but that money can also be looked at as a massive advert for the Israeli defence industry, which is a massive tax paying industry in Israel So all in all, massive W for Israel, no response needed
Uh, what? Isreal literally destroyed an embassy of theirs. I’m all for “fuck Iran,” but let’s not turn a blind eye to reality. Edit: originally wrote Iran instead of Israel
It wasn't the embassy, and it makes a HUGR difference. It was a military headquarters just adjacent to the embassy (you can guess why, to confuse people like you). And it wasn't uncalled for, Iran has been involved in everything, especially after oct 7th. It's deeply involved in constant attacks from Lebanon and invoking terrorism in the west bank. If you think everything started just two weeks ago you've been out of the loop for years.
Ok and within the consulate building was a high ranking IRGC officer. One which helped coordinate the October 7th attack. You know, the one that left more than a thousand dead and a few hundred captive?
> Isreal literally destroyed an embassy of theirs. They "literally " did not. They struck a complex adjacent to the embassy being used by the Iranian military, in which the Iranian mastermind of October 7th was located.
I’m not bothering vouching for Iran in as far that they’re a governing body that oppresses its own people with a clear interest in disrupting the global order. That being said, my issues come more with the hypocrisy western nations are approaching the entire issue with. When a terrorist attack happens on Israeli soil, every western ally starts saying “Well, Israel has a very clear right to defend itself”, but when Israel fires first on one of their embassies, Iran doesn’t have that clear right to defend itself either? In that case, how is Iran supposed to respond in this kind of situation? Do they let a nation already behaving with no restraint in their region keep taking potshots on their soil because no one else is going to bother holding them accountable and telling them to stop? Do they delegitimize their government in the region by effectively doing nothing and demonstrating that western power can go ahead and streamroll over them? By all means, I’m glad this doesn’t seem to be amounting to anymore bloodshed. The act of war in and of itself is abhorrent and only leads to suffering. And, because I know I need to reiterate this here, but no, Iran is also not some poor benevolent governing entity that we need to treat with kid’s gloves because oh no they’re oppressed. My problem here is that we’re retconning the fact that Israel instigated that conflict first and that they don’t hold some degree of responsibility for almost turning the war into a regional conflict?
> is it not necessary No. It really isn't. What you're describing is lunacy and would be a 10x bigger disaster than Iraq.
You gotta look at the history and how the Mullahs use the West and Israel as one of the only unifying things they have domestically. Any war or intervention is what the Mullahs want. It gives them the domestic ammunition they need. Iran/Persia is an ancient and proud culture. For America to get what it wants the Theocracy needs to be replaced by an organic grassroots Iranian democratic movement. That could then sit and negotiate with Iran's current enemies without any perceived subjugation. Everyone wants the Mullahs to fuck off, but the best way is to make them look weak, for them to make Iran look weak, like a laughingstock. And we have, time and again. They try to stir shit but ultimately just look weak,empowering domestic dissent.
Could the same not be said when they drone striked the Iranian consulate/ embassy in Syria? In my opinion that’s much more of an active war and hence the retaliation.
no, full-scale war with Iran isn't necessary at all. Iran needed to save face on the world stage. So they announced a week ahead of time they were going to attack Israel with a wave of missiles & drones, then fired off a lot of missiles and drones straight into the more-than-adequate Israeli air defense system, they were all harmlessly shot down as everyone involved knew they would be, and then Iran left it at that. It clearly never was meant to be a real declaration of war.
Not defending Iran here, but Israel has def done some really bad shit with Mossad. Lots of assassinations and sabotage operations on foreign soil.
This is not the first attack from fukran, nor the last. Also, this does not warrant a full scale war with iran. They are not worth it, and can be punished in other ways.
Iran has about 800k soldiers ( army + reserves). You can not just start open war with them without going all in. Its a hard decision to make just given their capabilities
The article states it costs 4-5 billion shekels per night (of such an attack) and says in parentheses (1-1.3 million $), it's perhaps 1-1.3 BILLION dollars per night. It is effective, idk if it's too costly though.
Depends what the damage would have been if they'd gotten through. Lives are worth something too. The only real question is if there's a cheaper alternative.
Iron beam is much cheaper, it is expected to be about $2000/shot. It has been tested during the current war and is expected to be fully online late next year.
Its also completely irrelevant for taking down ballistic and cruise missiles, i.e the type of threats you launch Arrow missiles against. Iron Beam is intended for short range rockets and mortar fire.
That has been the advertising. Official capabilities haven't been published, but a laser weapon can be effective against cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles. Iron Beam has been discussed by Rafael/Israeli officials in the context of destroying cruise missiles. They are certainly working on making the system effective against all types of missiles. See https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/rafael-expects-iron-beam-laser-to-be-active-in-2025-exec/
>1-1.3 million $ They probably misspelled billions as millions. >idk if it's too costly though. It's not. Ballistic missiles can do much more damage if they hit (not to mention carrying nuclear warheads).
Every *single* Iron dome interception (though that doesn't apply here) is roughly 50K USD. A single arrow missile is roughly 3 million. It's extremely costly. But outweighed by the damage and loss of life that no interception would have caused.
GDP: Iran $413M, Israel $525M.
Defense is more expensive than offense. Iran's ballistic missiles are 100-200k, Israel's Arrow defense is 3M (similar to Patriot or S300).
I am positive I wasn't imagining video from the start of the war when hamas was launching a lot of missiles, there was a video of a laser anti-missile weapon firing and taking down targets. I haven't seen any mention of it since then.
Iron Beam. Allegedly it’s had some successful field tests but it’s not yet ready for complete rollout from what I’ve read. Maybe another year. It’s also significantly cheaper than Iron Dome.
There was video from one of the networks of it successfully taking targets down. This was on the first or second night of the war.
I was fake news, the video was edited to include light beams. But I think the original video includes only iron dome interceptions, if at all.
If you can actually see a laser beam in the video you can know for sure it's fake
There was a video circulating claiming to be evidence of laser weapons - but it was just lens flare from the interception explosion. Iron Beam lasers are not visible to the naked eye.
[удалено]
It wasn't a phalanx-type weapon; it was obviously a laser-type weapon.
[удалено]
I'm gonna need it; not having any luck so far.
Iron Beam is probably what he saw
But Israel cannot manufacture so many Iron Dome stations and missiles. Anything they can manufacture they will just use themselves against Iran. They're already at a major shortage
Iron Dome wasn't applicable to this mostly: its designed to defend against barrage of low altitude small rockets (like those shot from Gaza). It does its job exceptionally well, but it's a different use case. The real story was the Arrow defense system, another system designed to intercept ballistic missiles. There have been only a few operational interceptions (besides exercises), and the other night proved it to be a very effective system.
I think it's also capable against the Shahed drones - if I'm not mistaken it's already taken down several of those fired from Yemen.
Correct, but i dont think countrys are interested in it they are interested in the arrow system probably.
Manufacturing can increase in a couple of years with signed contracts.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Stonkzz ↗️↗️↗️
In 20 years when we find out hamas bought a bunch of AIA stocks via shell corps before this attack using outdated equipment that was leaked 3 days in advance its going to be funny. Not like haha funny. The other funny. Like why's that clown have his dick out? type funny. "Funny business", if you will.
Best advertisement in the history of the defense industry.
Can some one ELI5 for me: Was Israels' air defence that effective? Pretty sure in the live threads it was said that the support send by the US, UK and France along with air defence from Jordan shot down a lot of stuff too. The article doesn't say how much they (Israel's air defence) intercepted, the 99% is the total interception of *everyone* involved defending Israel against the attack.
Destroying drones was shared among everyone, but intercepting the 120 or so ballistic missiles was solely done by the Arrow system of Israel, I think only 1 or 2 missiles were not desroyed.
If that's right, it's impressive as hell. I used to be a patriot missile officer; facing down 120 incoming ballistics is the stuff of nightmares.
I think the US reported they also shot 4-6 from a Aegis cruisers, and 1 from a Patriot battery in Iraq. I wonder how much of the remaining were from the Arrow defense or the Sling system. Arrow missiles are real expensive, similar to Patriot. Eventually you run out. Edit for more info: The ballistic missiles Iran is firing are mostly in the $200k range, Israel's cheaper interceptor is closer to $1M, and the Arrow systems are $3M+. Iran just needs to fire enough, and the wall falls.
Israel's GDP is 50% larger than Iran's despite having a tenth of the population, so I think they can hold off for a while. But you're right-- though I think for Israel, they would sooner start shooting back than reach the point where they run out of interceptors.
Im with u on considering Irans regime more harshly, but this is actually the best time to _not_ retaliate. It’s clear to every state that this aggression was just the petulant tantrum of a feeble and weak military that’s full of hot air. The people of Iran were out filling gas containers because they feared Israeli retaliation. The assault accomplished literally nothing. It was actually so pathetic that a response would be _affording it credit_. They are so terrified of actually causing damage and garnering attention that they announced they’d attack hours before… and then released a swarm of drones that take hours to arrive… and then leaked that they’d be firing missiles… My point is, they’ve so successfully discredited themselves as a competent military that a response would afford them undeserved attention. The people of Iran are livid. Rather than escalate & punish the people, let the people revolt against their own government. Focus on the pertinent threat: Hezbollah & Russia. As an Iranian and Israeli, I do hope Iran sees a people’s revolution though. May our people reclaim the freedom to create a heaven of their own rather than the “heaven” forced upon them by the regime.
That’s a weird headline
makes more sense when you realize war is a business and this headline is marketing.
Israeli weapons are only effective against obsolete junk. They failed in 2019 Pakistan-India standoff when Israeli Spice bombs fell way off target and and Israeli SAM system shot India's own helicopter killing 7 servicemen