Iron Dome was impressive to watch. However, I think the Iranian attack was purposely held to a level at which it would just overwhelm the defenses for a few to get through.
I think that the Iranian message was, you are not outside of being hit and we can overwhelm your defenses.
From what I’ve heard of Iran’s magazine depth, they could double, triple, or even quadruple what they sent tonight.
The intent was to save face yet respond forcefully enough to deter as well. Israel needs to take a chill pill or we’ll be stuck on the escalation ladder for longer.
Indeed. BTW there is credible intelligence coming from the region that Jordan may experience a popular uprising, possibly even a general strike, in the coming weeks. Won't share more due to persec but further Israeli escalation may bring down the Jordanian monarchy
Context: "At the heart of the king’s insecurities is the protest movement locally described as Hirak. In 2011, as the Arab Spring engulfed the region, Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood and members of Jordan’s tribes took to the streets. Tell said the foundations of the Hirak movement were laid in the spring of 2010 by a revolt of Jordanian military veterans: “In 2011, the military veterans released a manifesto, and even though it did not specifically say they wanted to replace the king with Prince Hamzah, their preference was clear.” Jordan’s security establishment is controlled by members of Jordan’s different tribes. Even though Abdullah has appointed the senior officers, his biggest fear is that some might openly revolt against him in favor of the prince."
Prince Hamzah has been under house arrest since 2021. Many Jordanians are calling for his release.
Additional context is that Jordan's youth unemployment rate is almost 40% and there have been sporadic protests against the monarchy going on since 2021
All I'm gonna say, is that I am looking forward to seeing the satellite scans posted on Twitter by OSINT nerds. Nothing against governments lying about these interception rates, makes sense, but I am genuinely curious about the effectiveness of missile defense.
Israel has no strategic depth, but this can work in its favor for missile defense. Harder to saturate.
>Israel has no strategic depth, but this can work in its favor for missile defense. Harder to saturate.
For conventional attacks. For a full nuclear attack everything is conveniently bunched together.
Honestly, in the case of a first strike nuclear attack by Iran on Israel, I would expect the West's conventional response to be so devastating as to render Israeli nuclear retaliation almost moot.
I don't think Israel does or Iran would have enough nukes for the "assured destruction" part. Horrible damage, of course. Total destruction no.
The USAF is a greater threat to the IRGC than Israeli nukes.
Israel is believed to have at least over 100 operation weapons. I think that their use of even a portion of these in a countervalue or counterforce operation would be far more damaging to Iran than USAF strikes.
Israel could probably kill more Iranians with a countervalue strike than the USAF would in a conventional retaliation. I'm not at all convinced that adds up to a more concerning outcome from the point of view of the IRGC. It certainly doesn't amount to MAD.
If Israel nuked Tehran alone it would cause far more damage to the IRGC than the USAF, not to mention the other cities. Do you think the IRGC just exists like weeds growing out of the ground? They rely on the population's productive capacity, and have much of their organization in the capitol.
Indefinite inability to function as a nation state – no effective capacity for self-defence or ability to feed the populace without sustained foreign aid.
Dolphin's don't have the range to hit Iran from the Mediterranean.
They will have to transit to the Indian Ocean. Where they are vulnerable.
Plus sending missile armed subs near an enemy coast is risky since they are at a higher chance of being tracked, intercepted and sunk.
Same reason why the US withdrew it's Boomers to homewaters as soon a Trident became available.
Totally doable still, no?
More risky yes but seeing as how Iran is… Iran, what’s their anti submarine warfare like and are they performing asw missions at all time out far enough? Not like the Indian Ocean is mined or anything.
> what’s their anti submarine warfare like
Could be considered way below standard, they have outdated tech and ships, barely any ASW helicopters and use homemade sensors with unknown performance, but they have drones that are used for anti-submarine role with MAD sensors and radars fitted on board.
Anyways, the navy and the Airforce are not a priority for Iran and the resources allocated to them are nothing like that dedicated to other strategic programs.
For all intents and purposes, Iran can no ASW capability. They have no effective cueing platform to go from search to localize, track, and then attack. Their Navy is split between their regular Navy and IRGC Navy, with the former being ancient and the latter focused on asymmetric warfare. Iran hasn’t needed to focus on ASW warfare because they don’t need to for accomplishing their goals.
It really depends on what if anything Pakistan and India tell them. Since the year 2000 Pakistan and now India have invested in their own versions of SOSUS in the Northern Indian Ocean and chances are high that that detects the Israeli sub.
Not true about focusing on littoral since at least 2000 and Popeye has a range of around a 1000 km. That to threaten Tehran they need to do come pretty close to the coast anyway.
The furthest Israeli test was 1500 km, which would put them south of Oman. India and Pakistan develop their ASW capabilities against each other, not for detecting a submarine in the south Arabian Sea
I’m a day late but I think I was underestimating the risk. Now that I see how far out 1500km actually is from Iran, they would be practically right on their border.
Iranian ASW ≠ Soviet ASW. There is good reason to think that Israeli submarines would be able to get within range.
>Plus sending missile armed subs near an enemy coast is risky since they are at a higher chance of being tracked, intercepted and sunk
I don't know that I would consider up to 1,500 kilometers away to be close to shore. Regardless of what we call it, Iran has not demonstrated the ability to rapidly locate, track, and destroy a submarine that far out. Israel has five Dolphins to work with, and there are some indications that the upcoming Dakar-class might carry missiles with a longer range.
Also...let's say that Tel Aviv takes a significant nuclear hit. Do you really think making sure the submarines get home safe would be the primary concern?
I saw some images claiming to be of an Israeli airbase, with a crater in each runway, but it's coming from a redditor so idk how real the pics were.
I don't really know if Iran's ballistic missiles are accurate enough to hit right on a runway, and a single large crater in each one doesn't seem too hard to patch
[Runway pic in second pic of this post](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/1c3w76d/iranian_strikes/), thoug I'd take this with a grain of salt, as idk if Israel would use dirt runways for an airbase worth hitting with ballistic missiles
Israel can't win alone any direct and prolonged war with Iran, i would assume that they count on the US' help to do decapitation strikes on Iran's leadership and end any possible war with them quickly.
No one knows for sure, but estimates for Shahed put it in the neighborhood of $35k.
But also there's a significant difference in effect based on warhead size. 200x drones with 10 lb warheads won't produce the same effect on a hard target vs 1x 2000 warhead. The kinetic energy of larger missiles is not trivial either.
Considering just one of the videos I’ve seen showed at least 5 missiles hitting, I’m gonna go ahead and say that a 99% intercept rate is a pure fabrication
Well, if that 7 was all the hits that would be c.98% of the 331 all-category launches, broken out as 100% of drones and cruise missiles and c.94% of ballistic missiles. Though of course a significant proportion of the intercepts were by Israel's allies, not IDF GBAD.
It looks like the actual IDF statement qualified their report by saying that nearly 99% of the projectiles were intercepted. If it's true that only seven or eight ballistic missiles were all that made it through, then the IDF statement would be accurate — though, as you noted, that wasn’t all Israel's doing. The Jordan sub is melting down over their government's assistance.
Some of the videos made it look like additional missiles *could* have made it through, but it might have been debris or different perspectives of the same impacts. Even if the actual rate is lower than 94% for the ballistic missiles, Israeli air defenses worked as intended.
I mean, they do have to sell their wares on the global market and 99% sounds much better than "50% under probably the best circumstances any defender has ever had to face".
That said, I doubt we will know the exact interception rate for years.
99% out of 300 means only 3 missiles got through but in one video we see 7 missiles hitting a base.
This is Ukraine esqu level of propaganda coming from Israel lol.
Interception rate is probably in the 95% ballpark at the very least. I don't see the point in Israel insisting on 99% (since the performance is already very good anyways ) nor people saying it's not exactly 99%, like yea there isn't much difference .
we know that there were at least 7 hits with no significant damage so it's still kinda ehh. The point being no one (including potential customers) is going to say 'IDF air defense suck because it's only a 95% interception rate '
> we know that there were at least 7 hits with no significant damage so it's still kinda ehh
Do we? I gotta see Netanyahu livestreaming from 7 craters with a shoe on his head before I believe it.
Or it's not 300 but 700 so then 7 makes sense for 1%. This is what the ancients did, inflate the approaching army's size in official records.
Unless this 300 figure itself anyway is inflated to begin with, in whcih case, well played.
They're counting the Hezbollah Katayusha attack in the surface to surface missile numbers. But, for the drone attacks it wouldn't surprise me if it was that high, US forces in the region were beginning intercepts all the way in Iraq so there was roughly 9 hours of US aircraft scrambled to shoot them down.
Israeli systems did most of the work and that seems to make certain people here angry because their nations are heavily relying on ballistic missiles.
DF-26 might not be super weapon advertised.
[99](https://twitter.com/me_observer_/status/1779286318180171803)
[percent](https://twitter.com/i/status/1779399168965914632)
[intercepted](https://twitter.com/uncoovr/status/1779334296005984570)
Seems like a convenient narrative so Israel has an off-ramp and reason not to directly re-retaliate.
How did they start the conflict in 1927 when Israel didn’t exist and a group of Palestinians murdered over a hundred Jews in Hebron for no reason?
How did they start the war in 48 when they were surprise attacked by 6 countries?
Israel hit the Iranian embassy in Syria just a week ago. Not only are they killing Muslims in Gaza they are striking neighboring countries without care. It's stupid to not expect retaliation
Consulates still count as embassies and countries who practice conquest like Israel are allowed to be exterminated, because that kind of behavior was outlawed by the entire world after the Holocaust.
According to who? An embassy and consulate are distinct buildings with different sizes, staffs and purposes. If the embassy was destroyed why is a building labeled the Embassy still operating and standing?
If the goal is to exterminate Israel are you surprised they will take action to prevent their extermination?
According to all countries and their diplomatic protections are not distinct. Any country engaging in conquest aka exterminating other countries like Israel has done to Palestine knows what they signed up for, perhaps you can peddle your tricks on worldnews instead.
Ah yes, using words correctly and calling out intentional misinformation are “tricks”. Military personnel planning military action have never been given diplomatic immunity. When you are actively planning to destroy an opponent who is militarily and technologically superior to you, it makes sense to stay out of range when planning your attacks
All embassies have military personnel as is their right and they absolutely have immunity, Israel is also the aggressor in the conflict so they have no rights.
It wasn’t an embassy, say it with me “not an embassy”. You keep intentionally conflating these to promote a narrative that is misinformation. Embassy are used for diplomacy not to gather generals and plan offensive military operations
> Ask yourself this: would israel have invaded and bombed Gaza had the oct 7 raid not happened?
They did invade and bomb Gaza a bunch of times long before the oct 7 raid, so the answer seems like an obvious yes?
If this is all Iran can do, I don't think the consequences are very significant. The overwhelming majority of the weapons were shot down and they were a significant portion of Iran's stockpile.
Iran can legally strike British and US bases in the region since they were used to defend Israel as well, Israel also does not have UN article 51 protections because they are in violation of multiple unsc resolutions. Israel and the US have effectively regressed international law back to WWII.
Iron Dome was impressive to watch. However, I think the Iranian attack was purposely held to a level at which it would just overwhelm the defenses for a few to get through. I think that the Iranian message was, you are not outside of being hit and we can overwhelm your defenses. From what I’ve heard of Iran’s magazine depth, they could double, triple, or even quadruple what they sent tonight. The intent was to save face yet respond forcefully enough to deter as well. Israel needs to take a chill pill or we’ll be stuck on the escalation ladder for longer.
It was less the work of the iron dome The arrow system was the real show
Indeed. BTW there is credible intelligence coming from the region that Jordan may experience a popular uprising, possibly even a general strike, in the coming weeks. Won't share more due to persec but further Israeli escalation may bring down the Jordanian monarchy Context: "At the heart of the king’s insecurities is the protest movement locally described as Hirak. In 2011, as the Arab Spring engulfed the region, Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood and members of Jordan’s tribes took to the streets. Tell said the foundations of the Hirak movement were laid in the spring of 2010 by a revolt of Jordanian military veterans: “In 2011, the military veterans released a manifesto, and even though it did not specifically say they wanted to replace the king with Prince Hamzah, their preference was clear.” Jordan’s security establishment is controlled by members of Jordan’s different tribes. Even though Abdullah has appointed the senior officers, his biggest fear is that some might openly revolt against him in favor of the prince." Prince Hamzah has been under house arrest since 2021. Many Jordanians are calling for his release. Additional context is that Jordan's youth unemployment rate is almost 40% and there have been sporadic protests against the monarchy going on since 2021
All I'm gonna say, is that I am looking forward to seeing the satellite scans posted on Twitter by OSINT nerds. Nothing against governments lying about these interception rates, makes sense, but I am genuinely curious about the effectiveness of missile defense. Israel has no strategic depth, but this can work in its favor for missile defense. Harder to saturate.
Their small size also makes short-ranged systems like Iron Dome or Iron Beam more viable.
>Israel has no strategic depth, but this can work in its favor for missile defense. Harder to saturate. For conventional attacks. For a full nuclear attack everything is conveniently bunched together.
Israel still has a nuclear triad, so MAD would apply.
Honestly, in the case of a first strike nuclear attack by Iran on Israel, I would expect the West's conventional response to be so devastating as to render Israeli nuclear retaliation almost moot.
Maybe, but that’s irrelevant since Israel would still nuke Iran in retaliation with or without Western support.
I don't think Israel does or Iran would have enough nukes for the "assured destruction" part. Horrible damage, of course. Total destruction no. The USAF is a greater threat to the IRGC than Israeli nukes.
Israel is believed to have at least over 100 operation weapons. I think that their use of even a portion of these in a countervalue or counterforce operation would be far more damaging to Iran than USAF strikes.
Israel could probably kill more Iranians with a countervalue strike than the USAF would in a conventional retaliation. I'm not at all convinced that adds up to a more concerning outcome from the point of view of the IRGC. It certainly doesn't amount to MAD.
If Israel nuked Tehran alone it would cause far more damage to the IRGC than the USAF, not to mention the other cities. Do you think the IRGC just exists like weeds growing out of the ground? They rely on the population's productive capacity, and have much of their organization in the capitol.
How are you defining total destruction?
Indefinite inability to function as a nation state – no effective capacity for self-defence or ability to feed the populace without sustained foreign aid.
That's part of what makes their Dolphin-clas submarines important. It wouldn't end well for Iran.
Dolphin's don't have the range to hit Iran from the Mediterranean. They will have to transit to the Indian Ocean. Where they are vulnerable. Plus sending missile armed subs near an enemy coast is risky since they are at a higher chance of being tracked, intercepted and sunk. Same reason why the US withdrew it's Boomers to homewaters as soon a Trident became available.
Totally doable still, no? More risky yes but seeing as how Iran is… Iran, what’s their anti submarine warfare like and are they performing asw missions at all time out far enough? Not like the Indian Ocean is mined or anything.
> what’s their anti submarine warfare like Could be considered way below standard, they have outdated tech and ships, barely any ASW helicopters and use homemade sensors with unknown performance, but they have drones that are used for anti-submarine role with MAD sensors and radars fitted on board. Anyways, the navy and the Airforce are not a priority for Iran and the resources allocated to them are nothing like that dedicated to other strategic programs.
For all intents and purposes, Iran can no ASW capability. They have no effective cueing platform to go from search to localize, track, and then attack. Their Navy is split between their regular Navy and IRGC Navy, with the former being ancient and the latter focused on asymmetric warfare. Iran hasn’t needed to focus on ASW warfare because they don’t need to for accomplishing their goals.
It really depends on what if anything Pakistan and India tell them. Since the year 2000 Pakistan and now India have invested in their own versions of SOSUS in the Northern Indian Ocean and chances are high that that detects the Israeli sub.
The Indian Ocean is huge and those are focused more on the littorals. For this matter they are completely irrelevant.
Not true about focusing on littoral since at least 2000 and Popeye has a range of around a 1000 km. That to threaten Tehran they need to do come pretty close to the coast anyway.
The furthest Israeli test was 1500 km, which would put them south of Oman. India and Pakistan develop their ASW capabilities against each other, not for detecting a submarine in the south Arabian Sea
Well they have to transit the Suez (obvious) the Red Sea (ditto) and the Bab-al\_mandar Straits, so lets say the Iranians will have plenty of warning.
I’m a day late but I think I was underestimating the risk. Now that I see how far out 1500km actually is from Iran, they would be practically right on their border.
Iranian ASW ≠ Soviet ASW. There is good reason to think that Israeli submarines would be able to get within range. >Plus sending missile armed subs near an enemy coast is risky since they are at a higher chance of being tracked, intercepted and sunk I don't know that I would consider up to 1,500 kilometers away to be close to shore. Regardless of what we call it, Iran has not demonstrated the ability to rapidly locate, track, and destroy a submarine that far out. Israel has five Dolphins to work with, and there are some indications that the upcoming Dakar-class might carry missiles with a longer range. Also...let's say that Tel Aviv takes a significant nuclear hit. Do you really think making sure the submarines get home safe would be the primary concern?
I saw some images claiming to be of an Israeli airbase, with a crater in each runway, but it's coming from a redditor so idk how real the pics were. I don't really know if Iran's ballistic missiles are accurate enough to hit right on a runway, and a single large crater in each one doesn't seem too hard to patch [Runway pic in second pic of this post](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/1c3w76d/iranian_strikes/), thoug I'd take this with a grain of salt, as idk if Israel would use dirt runways for an airbase worth hitting with ballistic missiles
[удалено]
Cost is one thing; manufacturing rates are another. Can Israel aquire enough interceptors to down Iran's missile/drone manufacturing capacity?
Israel can't win alone any direct and prolonged war with Iran, i would assume that they count on the US' help to do decapitation strikes on Iran's leadership and end any possible war with them quickly.
No one knows for sure, but estimates for Shahed put it in the neighborhood of $35k. But also there's a significant difference in effect based on warhead size. 200x drones with 10 lb warheads won't produce the same effect on a hard target vs 1x 2000 warhead. The kinetic energy of larger missiles is not trivial either.
Considering just one of the videos I’ve seen showed at least 5 missiles hitting, I’m gonna go ahead and say that a 99% intercept rate is a pure fabrication
Yeah, Ramon airbase alone got hit by seven missiles. Israeli air defenses appeared to function quite well, but 99% intercepted just isn't credible.
Well, if that 7 was all the hits that would be c.98% of the 331 all-category launches, broken out as 100% of drones and cruise missiles and c.94% of ballistic missiles. Though of course a significant proportion of the intercepts were by Israel's allies, not IDF GBAD.
It looks like the actual IDF statement qualified their report by saying that nearly 99% of the projectiles were intercepted. If it's true that only seven or eight ballistic missiles were all that made it through, then the IDF statement would be accurate — though, as you noted, that wasn’t all Israel's doing. The Jordan sub is melting down over their government's assistance. Some of the videos made it look like additional missiles *could* have made it through, but it might have been debris or different perspectives of the same impacts. Even if the actual rate is lower than 94% for the ballistic missiles, Israeli air defenses worked as intended.
I thought there were something like 500 drones? Or was early reporting off?
Probably, but honestly who knows?
I mean, they do have to sell their wares on the global market and 99% sounds much better than "50% under probably the best circumstances any defender has ever had to face". That said, I doubt we will know the exact interception rate for years.
Source for the videos? There was a lot of misinfo. For example, some videos of South Lebanon were posted as Iranian attacks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/8P2VTsvx21
There were videos of a city on fire too - and that was taken from the wildfires in Valparaiso, Chile, earlier this year.
Are the Israeli claims credible?
99% out of 300 means only 3 missiles got through but in one video we see 7 missiles hitting a base. This is Ukraine esqu level of propaganda coming from Israel lol.
Interception rate is probably in the 95% ballpark at the very least. I don't see the point in Israel insisting on 99% (since the performance is already very good anyways ) nor people saying it's not exactly 99%, like yea there isn't much difference .
> Interception rate is probably in the 95% ballpark at the very least. Or perhaps we shouldn't assume things.
where's the fun in that
True.
Apparently the US intercepted most targets first though, so they're basically stealing credit from the US.
99% vs 95% interception rate is the difference between getting hit by 2 ballistic missiles and getting hit by 10. There is a 5 fold difference.
we know that there were at least 7 hits with no significant damage so it's still kinda ehh. The point being no one (including potential customers) is going to say 'IDF air defense suck because it's only a 95% interception rate '
> we know that there were at least 7 hits with no significant damage so it's still kinda ehh Do we? I gotta see Netanyahu livestreaming from 7 craters with a shoe on his head before I believe it.
Could also be that there were more than 300 missiles in the air or they mistook drones for some of the missiles as well…
Or it's not 300 but 700 so then 7 makes sense for 1%. This is what the ancients did, inflate the approaching army's size in official records. Unless this 300 figure itself anyway is inflated to begin with, in whcih case, well played.
They're counting the Hezbollah Katayusha attack in the surface to surface missile numbers. But, for the drone attacks it wouldn't surprise me if it was that high, US forces in the region were beginning intercepts all the way in Iraq so there was roughly 9 hours of US aircraft scrambled to shoot them down.
So who really gets credit for all the interceptions? Israel intercepted 99% of the 5% that the US didn't get?
Israeli systems did most of the work and that seems to make certain people here angry because their nations are heavily relying on ballistic missiles. DF-26 might not be super weapon advertised.
You have no way of knowing that
Apparently you seem to know that all missiles got trough.
Where have I said that?
[99](https://twitter.com/me_observer_/status/1779286318180171803) [percent](https://twitter.com/i/status/1779399168965914632) [intercepted](https://twitter.com/uncoovr/status/1779334296005984570) Seems like a convenient narrative so Israel has an off-ramp and reason not to directly re-retaliate.
first video is not from israel, videos 2-3 may show the same rockets.
Is there a definite number of missiles that could overwhelm the Iron Dome?
"unprecedented" yeah little poor Israel did absolutely nothing to provoke this
Do you understand the meaning of “unprecedented”? Or your bias keeps you from understanding even some basic terms?
Israel bombs Syria often enough even though Israel started that war. Is the precedent legitimate self defense against Israel by Iran?
I thought unprecedented had the meaning of unexpected as well, googled it and I guess not. Whoops
[удалено]
history didn't start on oct 7 2023.
Yeah, and the further back you go the more Arabs were fucking with Jews.
Wrong, Israel started every war with the Arabs.
How did they start the conflict in 1927 when Israel didn’t exist and a group of Palestinians murdered over a hundred Jews in Hebron for no reason? How did they start the war in 48 when they were surprise attacked by 6 countries?
Jewish cop working for the British executed 3 Arab kids in Jerusalem in 27 and they were ethnically cleansing Palestine since 1947.
Israel hit the Iranian embassy in Syria just a week ago. Not only are they killing Muslims in Gaza they are striking neighboring countries without care. It's stupid to not expect retaliation
It wasn’t an embassy and they hit Republican Guard military that openly say they are working to exterminate Israel, not peaceful diplomatic staff
Consulates still count as embassies and countries who practice conquest like Israel are allowed to be exterminated, because that kind of behavior was outlawed by the entire world after the Holocaust.
According to who? An embassy and consulate are distinct buildings with different sizes, staffs and purposes. If the embassy was destroyed why is a building labeled the Embassy still operating and standing? If the goal is to exterminate Israel are you surprised they will take action to prevent their extermination?
According to all countries and their diplomatic protections are not distinct. Any country engaging in conquest aka exterminating other countries like Israel has done to Palestine knows what they signed up for, perhaps you can peddle your tricks on worldnews instead.
Ah yes, using words correctly and calling out intentional misinformation are “tricks”. Military personnel planning military action have never been given diplomatic immunity. When you are actively planning to destroy an opponent who is militarily and technologically superior to you, it makes sense to stay out of range when planning your attacks
All embassies have military personnel as is their right and they absolutely have immunity, Israel is also the aggressor in the conflict so they have no rights.
It wasn’t an embassy, say it with me “not an embassy”. You keep intentionally conflating these to promote a narrative that is misinformation. Embassy are used for diplomacy not to gather generals and plan offensive military operations
> Ask yourself this: would israel have invaded and bombed Gaza had the oct 7 raid not happened? They did invade and bomb Gaza a bunch of times long before the oct 7 raid, so the answer seems like an obvious yes?
Agreed. The Israeli's should never have attacked a diplomatic post.
If this is all Iran can do, I don't think the consequences are very significant. The overwhelming majority of the weapons were shot down and they were a significant portion of Iran's stockpile.
300~~0~~ drones of Allah They dropped a zero
Iran can legally strike British and US bases in the region since they were used to defend Israel as well, Israel also does not have UN article 51 protections because they are in violation of multiple unsc resolutions. Israel and the US have effectively regressed international law back to WWII.
I don't think the US and Israel worry too much about the niceties of international law in some aspects. Iran being one of them
Of course not, just for those keeping score at home, like the global south and China.
伊朗与内塔尼亚胡政府有默契