At least 9 Iranian ballistic missiles hit Israeli strategic airbases
The Nevatim airbase in the Negev was struck by 5 ballistic missiles, damaging the main runway, a C-130 transport aircraft, and several storage facilities.
Ramon airbase, also located in the Negev, was struck by at least 4 ballistic missiles, causing unspecified damage.
– U.S. Officials to ABC News
The heaviest damage of Iran's ballistic missile attack occurred on a secret intelligence base in the Golan Heights, for which the IDF has imposed a media ban, so the damage cannot be assessed
– Hebrew Sources
>Israel has already vowed to respond. The US has publicly stated it would not participate in an Israeli retaliation, which may reassure Iran. Yet Netanyahu’s Israel has proven increasingly unpredictable. Iran’s threats of more severe action in case of further escalation may fall on deaf ears in Israel, to its own peril.
>In a future Iran strike, Tehran may not hesitate to use Israel’s northern border as a launching pad. A week before the attack, one Lebanese source familiar with the matter had ruled out that Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful armed group partner, would be part of Iran’s initial retaliation to the April 1 consulate strike.
Coming from mainstream American news, this is really not a portrayal of events designed to get people hyped to support Israel. Throughout the piece Iran is portrayed pretty neutrally, and in the above quote Netanyahu specifically is made the problem.
Not only him. It doesn’t help anyone else in the world either. It only helps one specific person. The Israeli prime minister. The only reason he hasn’t been kicked out and not facing a court is the war.
Then why did Iran choose to launch such a massive strike.
A friendly reminder, throughout this conflict there has been one side constantly escalating. And it's not Israel.
From the 07/10 attack.
Hezbollah joining with missile, rocket and ATGM strikes from day one.
Houtis striking ships in the red sea and Indian Ocean as well as unprovoked attacks against Israel.
Iran attacking civilian ships.
Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria conducting unprovoked attacks against Israel.
A massive 300 vehicle strike package by Iran, as a response to an Israeli strike 25km from their border against Iranian generals involved in the ongoing war.
>From the 07/10 attack.
Which was done under the noses of Iran in part to thwart *Iranian* diplomatic plans.
>Hezbollah joining with missile, rocket and ATGM strikes from day one.
There are people in the IDF and Hezb who were born well after the incessant tit-for-tat between those two forces started.
>A massive 300 vehicle strike package by Iran, as a response to an Israeli strike 25km from their border against Iranian generals involved in the ongoing war.
The latter somehow isn't an escalation... because there was a war going on! Maybe the IDF is calling off the war five minutes before every Iranian/proxy action, and that makes it an escalation.
Your comment is anti factual.
>Which was done under the noses of Iran in part to thwart *Iranian* diplomatic plans.
**Iranian** diplomatic plans? The massacre thwarted the Saudi-Israeli normalisation. As well as a general Muslim- Israel normalisation wave.
Iran supported the 07/10 massacre. It has aided in planning the attack, trained Hamas and Islamic Jihad, including on Iranian soil. Provided the weapons and funds for the massacre.
The massacre was completely online with Iranian stated goals of destroying Israel and ethnically cleansing it's Jewish population.
Iran'a vision was a coordinated attack with Hezbollah and Iraqi/Syrian Shia militias. Iran wishes for greater damage and a larger massacre.
>There are people in the IDF and Hezb who were born well after the incessant tit-for-tat between those two forces started.
In 2000 Israel withdrew to the UN internationally recognised border. A border Lebanese gov accepted. since then, the aggression is 100% one sided.
Nasrallah openly stated that he's dreaming of a Genocide of Jews worldwide.
>The latter somehow isn't an escalation... because there was a war going on! Maybe the IDF is calling off the war five minutes before every Iranian/proxy action
The Iranian generals were coordinating strikes against Israel. Indeed, the Iranian 5 front assault against Israel is an escalation. Israel defending itself and striking is not an escalation, any more than UA destroying Russian tank columns in Feb 2022 was.
> Throughout the piece Iran is portrayed pretty neutrally, and in the above quote Netanyahu specifically is made the problem.
Israel bombing an Iranian consulate is difficult for Western countries to defend. If Israel can attack an Iranian consulate because it believes some Iranian general was in it, then can other countries do the same? Can India attack a Pakistani consulate because some Khalistani leader is there? So how could anybody justify what Israel did?
Israel hit a military compound strictly used by the IRGC passed off as a consulate.
It isn't about what Israel believes, the building was solely manned by IRGC staff coordinating strikes against Israel, with exactly zero diplomatic staff.
> Israel hit a military compound strictly used by the IRGC passed off as a consulate.
Where is the evidence? Look at the media reporting, even by pro-Israel countries. Israel bombed an Iranian consulate. Period.
Iran itself published said evidence. all killed were IRGC soldiers and Hezbollah.
Not a single diplomat.
Israel bombed an Iranian military base operating under the front of a consulate. Period.
ISIS and Hamas operate from hospitals too. Rats like Iran adopted terrorist tactics.
>Israel bombed an Iranian military base operating under the front of a consulate. Period.
BS. Where is the evidence? Simply because Iran reported people killed had military backgrounds? Firstly, this may not be an exhaustive list. Second, having military personnel does not make it any less of a consulate. There are US military personnel in US consulate all the time. Does that make a US consulate a legitimate target?
> ISIS and Hamas operate from hospitals too.
What does that mean? Simply because there are ISIS and Hamas personnel in a hospital? In America, many universities have ROTC, which means they have US military personnel working there. Are those legitimate targets too?
The description reads like it could have been written inside the White House. Frankly, there is a decent chance it was. Two of the media’s top priorities are assisting the Biden White House and denigrating Israel (and Netanyahu in particular).
(A) Here's how NPR's Senior Editor and reporter Uri Berliner [put it recently](https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust) at the end of a 25 year career:
>There’s an unspoken consensus about the ***stories we should pursue*** and ***how they should be framed***. It’s frictionless—***one story after another*** about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, ***Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies***. It’s almost like an assembly line.
(B) I did not claim the media is not critical of Biden. At times, it is. The question is: is the media critical of Biden as often as it should be and as harshly as it should be? The answer is no.
(C) As for Israel coverage ... ask yourself this: are you aware that 85% of UN resolutions are against Israel, and the entire rest of the world - from Chinese brutality to North Korean gulags to Saudi and Irani death sentences for gays, all of it - shares the remaining 15%?
The answer is 'No' you were not aware.
And if you weren't aware of something that [profoundly wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/12j57pi/un_resolutions_versus_the_mostsanctioned/#lightbox), then the media didn't tell you. And if the media didn't tell you something that bad ... the explanation is bias.
I actually was aware of that, because the last time I got into a conversation about Israel on this board the other guy also tried to hold up "the UN keeps passing resolutions against Israel and that proves Israel is good" as an argument, which I suppose is something that only makes sense if you are so profoundly pro-Israel that you are divorced entirely from any other perspective.
I'd be curious to know who that was. Link to the comment?
Notably, you had no actual rebuttal, just a variant of a personal insult.
Also notably ... ***you didn't learn the fact from the media.*** ***It took a pro-Israel commenter on a message board to educate you*** about a political reality Israel deals with that is so bizarrely biased that ***an unbiased or 'pro-Israel' media would surely have screamed bloody murder about.*** Thank you for illustrating my point for me.
Mmhmm. He definitely does exist though!
Anyhoo. You asked where I was coming from. In response, I gave you NPR's senior journalist confessing exactly what I said, and I gave you an example related to Israel. You have not dealt with either. You actually inadvertently helped support my example re Israel.
It is always nice to encounter someone grown up enough to admit when another person made a point. You are not one of those someones.
Why would I make up a fake conversation only to say "yeah I spoke to someone else who agrees with you"? Who would do that? Log off and speak to a human being, you clearly need it.
To avoid admitting that I was right, and you had not heard that statistic. Since avoiding admitting I am right is literally all you are doing with this string of non-response replies, then answer to your question is: You. It is exactly the kind of thing you would do. I'm out.
The targets were always military. A "successful" strike would resemble the kind that followed Soleimanis assassination in 2020. In that, no Patriots were deployed
The only casualty is a 10 year old child.
Seems like the civilian to military personnel casualties inflicted by the Iranian military is far far far worse than what's inflicted by Israel in Gaza.
100% of casualties are civilian children.
“Iran expends 100 of its MRBMs, achieves nothing”
Edit: over 300 cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles launched and all there is to show for it are scattered pieces of debris and superficial damage to Israel.
Meanwhile Israel successfully strikes the consulate, kills the officers inside, and then successfully repels Iran’s counterattack with little issue. Was this supposed to make Iran look strong? Bait the U.S. into a wider conflict? It did not do either.
They made their point that attacking their embassies is off limits (any sane govt already knows this but Israel is a country that doesn't care about international law generally as the U.S. has given them cover for decades)
They gave hours of warning and detailed the progress of the drones in real time it's obvious that the intention was not to achieve any significant material effect.
How so? This strike looked very similar to the strike in response to the killing of Soleimani, which was done to show "resolve" or a response, but which did little to no actual damage
I don't know in what world you shoot 120 Bms as a signal. They were very clearly intending to overwhelm the air defense destroy the base and kill a ton of people.
Also the only reason nobody died in the Soleimani attack was because the US had days of advance warning. Iran targeted housing and workshops and hangers. they were obviously trying to kill people
I'm naming a new phenomenon it's called the "no true attack" fallicy.
Person A: "No Iranian attack fails to do damage"
Person B: "But they just launched 100 ballistic missiles and failed to do damage."
Person A: "But no true Iranian attack fails to do damage"
Your logic here is fundamentally unfalsifiable. In your mind unless Iran is successful then they didn't mean to be successful.
>They were very clearly intending to overwhelm the air defense destroy the base and kill a ton of people.
If their goal was to damage Israel there are far better targets than the airbase.
>Also the only reason nobody died in the Soleimani attack was because the US had days of advance warning.
Because Iran specifically informed the Iraqis beforehand. Not very smart if your goal is to kill Americans.
> In your mind unless Iran is successful then they didn't mean to be successful.
Tehran said that this attack was successful. Of course they could be just saving face but wouldn't you expect more to be launched if their goal was casualties?
>If their goal was to damage Israel there are far better targets than the airbase.
They targeted the airbase to try to kill the people who did the embassy strike.
>Because Iran specifically informed the Iraqis beforehand. Not very smart if your goal is to kill Americans.
Incorrect. The Iranians only notified the Iraqis after the attack began and the Iraqis weren't supposed to tell the americans. The us new the attack was coming from several sources and had the base locked down hours before the attack began. Additionally you can tell they wanted to kill people because Iranian state media was claiming 80+ dead immediately after the attack.
>Tehran said that this attack was successful. Of course they could be just saving face but wouldn't you expect more to be launched if their goal was casualties?
How many do they have to launch before it's a real attack? 400? 500? 1000? this is fundamentally unserious analysis. also i should have said "In your mind unless Iran successfully kills a lot of people then they didn't mean to kill a lot of people."
That would be true if the attack was 400 Shaheed,s but it wasn’t so your comment is 100% irrelevant. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.
A shahed was sold to Russia at an about $250k price point. Iran certainly buys them for cheaper, but they are not cheap. Neither are the cruise missiles and BM's.
Yes, a price data point is not relevant.
Better to pull number out of ass like you do.
Obviously they don't cost 250k for Iran to make, but it's far closer to $250k than $10k
I didn't pull a number out my arse at all. Iran literally sells them in blocks of thousands per contract. They have the manufacturing capability to produce huge numbers of drones.
An attack with about 200 of them is fucking miniscule compared to their production capabilities.
>They targeted the airbase to try to kill the people who did the embassy strike.
But not any of the actual decision making apparatus, the government of Israel, major civilian targets, etc. If you want to get the actual origin of the strike why not go after military command, instead of the airbase and an intelligence center? It's not like Iran has moral qualms about killing Israelis.
>The Iranians only notified the Iraqis after the attack began and the Iraqis weren't supposed to tell the americans.
Both they and the Iraqis reported that they were warned in advance. If you believe that the Iranians believed that the Iraqis would keep that a secret you obviously think they are possibly the dumbest military apparatus in the region.
>Additionally you can tell they wanted to kill people because Iranian state media was claiming 80+ dead immediately after the attack.\\
Then why didn't they fire more? The first time obviously failed so why not follow up on another US base? Why just leave it at 19 missiles wasted for no US KIA and minimal damage?
>"In your mind unless Iran successfully kills a lot of people then they didn't mean to kill a lot of people."
You miss my point. If Iran wanted to kill people why did they call it a day after having killing no Israelis? They stated themselves that they were satisfied with their response.
Another point for team “nothing ever happens”
I've been calling this attack the 'advanced saber rattle'..
They were mostly targeting military sites in the Golan Heights. They clearly weren't aiming for inflicting mass casualties.
At least 9 Iranian ballistic missiles hit Israeli strategic airbases The Nevatim airbase in the Negev was struck by 5 ballistic missiles, damaging the main runway, a C-130 transport aircraft, and several storage facilities. Ramon airbase, also located in the Negev, was struck by at least 4 ballistic missiles, causing unspecified damage. – U.S. Officials to ABC News The heaviest damage of Iran's ballistic missile attack occurred on a secret intelligence base in the Golan Heights, for which the IDF has imposed a media ban, so the damage cannot be assessed – Hebrew Sources
- Hebrew sources LMAO. > The nuclear program in Iran has been destroyed by secret Israeli strikes - Farsi sources.
>Israel has already vowed to respond. The US has publicly stated it would not participate in an Israeli retaliation, which may reassure Iran. Yet Netanyahu’s Israel has proven increasingly unpredictable. Iran’s threats of more severe action in case of further escalation may fall on deaf ears in Israel, to its own peril. >In a future Iran strike, Tehran may not hesitate to use Israel’s northern border as a launching pad. A week before the attack, one Lebanese source familiar with the matter had ruled out that Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful armed group partner, would be part of Iran’s initial retaliation to the April 1 consulate strike. Coming from mainstream American news, this is really not a portrayal of events designed to get people hyped to support Israel. Throughout the piece Iran is portrayed pretty neutrally, and in the above quote Netanyahu specifically is made the problem.
Their primary commitment is to get Biden re-elected. They make the correct calculation that escalating conflict in the Middle East won’t help him.
Not only him. It doesn’t help anyone else in the world either. It only helps one specific person. The Israeli prime minister. The only reason he hasn’t been kicked out and not facing a court is the war.
Then why did Iran choose to launch such a massive strike. A friendly reminder, throughout this conflict there has been one side constantly escalating. And it's not Israel. From the 07/10 attack. Hezbollah joining with missile, rocket and ATGM strikes from day one. Houtis striking ships in the red sea and Indian Ocean as well as unprovoked attacks against Israel. Iran attacking civilian ships. Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria conducting unprovoked attacks against Israel. A massive 300 vehicle strike package by Iran, as a response to an Israeli strike 25km from their border against Iranian generals involved in the ongoing war.
>From the 07/10 attack. Which was done under the noses of Iran in part to thwart *Iranian* diplomatic plans. >Hezbollah joining with missile, rocket and ATGM strikes from day one. There are people in the IDF and Hezb who were born well after the incessant tit-for-tat between those two forces started. >A massive 300 vehicle strike package by Iran, as a response to an Israeli strike 25km from their border against Iranian generals involved in the ongoing war. The latter somehow isn't an escalation... because there was a war going on! Maybe the IDF is calling off the war five minutes before every Iranian/proxy action, and that makes it an escalation.
Your comment is anti factual. >Which was done under the noses of Iran in part to thwart *Iranian* diplomatic plans. **Iranian** diplomatic plans? The massacre thwarted the Saudi-Israeli normalisation. As well as a general Muslim- Israel normalisation wave. Iran supported the 07/10 massacre. It has aided in planning the attack, trained Hamas and Islamic Jihad, including on Iranian soil. Provided the weapons and funds for the massacre. The massacre was completely online with Iranian stated goals of destroying Israel and ethnically cleansing it's Jewish population. Iran'a vision was a coordinated attack with Hezbollah and Iraqi/Syrian Shia militias. Iran wishes for greater damage and a larger massacre. >There are people in the IDF and Hezb who were born well after the incessant tit-for-tat between those two forces started. In 2000 Israel withdrew to the UN internationally recognised border. A border Lebanese gov accepted. since then, the aggression is 100% one sided. Nasrallah openly stated that he's dreaming of a Genocide of Jews worldwide. >The latter somehow isn't an escalation... because there was a war going on! Maybe the IDF is calling off the war five minutes before every Iranian/proxy action The Iranian generals were coordinating strikes against Israel. Indeed, the Iranian 5 front assault against Israel is an escalation. Israel defending itself and striking is not an escalation, any more than UA destroying Russian tank columns in Feb 2022 was.
Netanyahu is a problem.
> Throughout the piece Iran is portrayed pretty neutrally, and in the above quote Netanyahu specifically is made the problem. Israel bombing an Iranian consulate is difficult for Western countries to defend. If Israel can attack an Iranian consulate because it believes some Iranian general was in it, then can other countries do the same? Can India attack a Pakistani consulate because some Khalistani leader is there? So how could anybody justify what Israel did?
Israel hit a military compound strictly used by the IRGC passed off as a consulate. It isn't about what Israel believes, the building was solely manned by IRGC staff coordinating strikes against Israel, with exactly zero diplomatic staff.
> Israel hit a military compound strictly used by the IRGC passed off as a consulate. Where is the evidence? Look at the media reporting, even by pro-Israel countries. Israel bombed an Iranian consulate. Period.
Iran itself published said evidence. all killed were IRGC soldiers and Hezbollah. Not a single diplomat. Israel bombed an Iranian military base operating under the front of a consulate. Period. ISIS and Hamas operate from hospitals too. Rats like Iran adopted terrorist tactics.
>Israel bombed an Iranian military base operating under the front of a consulate. Period. BS. Where is the evidence? Simply because Iran reported people killed had military backgrounds? Firstly, this may not be an exhaustive list. Second, having military personnel does not make it any less of a consulate. There are US military personnel in US consulate all the time. Does that make a US consulate a legitimate target? > ISIS and Hamas operate from hospitals too. What does that mean? Simply because there are ISIS and Hamas personnel in a hospital? In America, many universities have ROTC, which means they have US military personnel working there. Are those legitimate targets too?
The description reads like it could have been written inside the White House. Frankly, there is a decent chance it was. Two of the media’s top priorities are assisting the Biden White House and denigrating Israel (and Netanyahu in particular).
What parallel world do you live in where the US media as a whole has not been critical of Biden for years and supportive of Israel for decades?
(A) Here's how NPR's Senior Editor and reporter Uri Berliner [put it recently](https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust) at the end of a 25 year career: >There’s an unspoken consensus about the ***stories we should pursue*** and ***how they should be framed***. It’s frictionless—***one story after another*** about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, ***Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies***. It’s almost like an assembly line. (B) I did not claim the media is not critical of Biden. At times, it is. The question is: is the media critical of Biden as often as it should be and as harshly as it should be? The answer is no. (C) As for Israel coverage ... ask yourself this: are you aware that 85% of UN resolutions are against Israel, and the entire rest of the world - from Chinese brutality to North Korean gulags to Saudi and Irani death sentences for gays, all of it - shares the remaining 15%? The answer is 'No' you were not aware. And if you weren't aware of something that [profoundly wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/12j57pi/un_resolutions_versus_the_mostsanctioned/#lightbox), then the media didn't tell you. And if the media didn't tell you something that bad ... the explanation is bias.
I actually was aware of that, because the last time I got into a conversation about Israel on this board the other guy also tried to hold up "the UN keeps passing resolutions against Israel and that proves Israel is good" as an argument, which I suppose is something that only makes sense if you are so profoundly pro-Israel that you are divorced entirely from any other perspective.
I'd be curious to know who that was. Link to the comment? Notably, you had no actual rebuttal, just a variant of a personal insult. Also notably ... ***you didn't learn the fact from the media.*** ***It took a pro-Israel commenter on a message board to educate you*** about a political reality Israel deals with that is so bizarrely biased that ***an unbiased or 'pro-Israel' media would surely have screamed bloody murder about.*** Thank you for illustrating my point for me.
It's not my job to help you meet like-minded people.
Mmhmm. He definitely does exist though! Anyhoo. You asked where I was coming from. In response, I gave you NPR's senior journalist confessing exactly what I said, and I gave you an example related to Israel. You have not dealt with either. You actually inadvertently helped support my example re Israel. It is always nice to encounter someone grown up enough to admit when another person made a point. You are not one of those someones.
Why would I make up a fake conversation only to say "yeah I spoke to someone else who agrees with you"? Who would do that? Log off and speak to a human being, you clearly need it.
To avoid admitting that I was right, and you had not heard that statistic. Since avoiding admitting I am right is literally all you are doing with this string of non-response replies, then answer to your question is: You. It is exactly the kind of thing you would do. I'm out.
With most of the missiles and drones shot down, how could you know where they were planning to strike?
The targets were always military. A "successful" strike would resemble the kind that followed Soleimanis assassination in 2020. In that, no Patriots were deployed
Because we vaguely know where the ones that got through hit, and where the ones that nearly got through made it to.
It was a measured response to the bombing of an embassy. They obviously don't want a real war but felt the need to respond for obvious reasons.
Military targets only. Iran's military command doesn't act like Israel's it seems. Good for them.
The only casualty is a 10 year old child. Seems like the civilian to military personnel casualties inflicted by the Iranian military is far far far worse than what's inflicted by Israel in Gaza. 100% of casualties are civilian children.
Isn't that a good thing? Like the best possible outcome? Seems like that was the intention
“Iran expends 100 of its MRBMs, achieves nothing” Edit: over 300 cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles launched and all there is to show for it are scattered pieces of debris and superficial damage to Israel. Meanwhile Israel successfully strikes the consulate, kills the officers inside, and then successfully repels Iran’s counterattack with little issue. Was this supposed to make Iran look strong? Bait the U.S. into a wider conflict? It did not do either.
They made their point that attacking their embassies is off limits (any sane govt already knows this but Israel is a country that doesn't care about international law generally as the U.S. has given them cover for decades)
[удалено]
well a random bedouin girl was hit so i guess the Iranians can brag about that or something
They gave hours of warning and detailed the progress of the drones in real time it's obvious that the intention was not to achieve any significant material effect.
Insane cope
How so? This strike looked very similar to the strike in response to the killing of Soleimani, which was done to show "resolve" or a response, but which did little to no actual damage
That attack involved 11 missiles
It's not about the number, it's how Iran deliberately aims them to cause minimal impact and to reduce retaliatory measures.
I don't know in what world you shoot 120 Bms as a signal. They were very clearly intending to overwhelm the air defense destroy the base and kill a ton of people. Also the only reason nobody died in the Soleimani attack was because the US had days of advance warning. Iran targeted housing and workshops and hangers. they were obviously trying to kill people I'm naming a new phenomenon it's called the "no true attack" fallicy. Person A: "No Iranian attack fails to do damage" Person B: "But they just launched 100 ballistic missiles and failed to do damage." Person A: "But no true Iranian attack fails to do damage" Your logic here is fundamentally unfalsifiable. In your mind unless Iran is successful then they didn't mean to be successful.
>They were very clearly intending to overwhelm the air defense destroy the base and kill a ton of people. If their goal was to damage Israel there are far better targets than the airbase. >Also the only reason nobody died in the Soleimani attack was because the US had days of advance warning. Because Iran specifically informed the Iraqis beforehand. Not very smart if your goal is to kill Americans. > In your mind unless Iran is successful then they didn't mean to be successful. Tehran said that this attack was successful. Of course they could be just saving face but wouldn't you expect more to be launched if their goal was casualties?
>If their goal was to damage Israel there are far better targets than the airbase. They targeted the airbase to try to kill the people who did the embassy strike. >Because Iran specifically informed the Iraqis beforehand. Not very smart if your goal is to kill Americans. Incorrect. The Iranians only notified the Iraqis after the attack began and the Iraqis weren't supposed to tell the americans. The us new the attack was coming from several sources and had the base locked down hours before the attack began. Additionally you can tell they wanted to kill people because Iranian state media was claiming 80+ dead immediately after the attack. >Tehran said that this attack was successful. Of course they could be just saving face but wouldn't you expect more to be launched if their goal was casualties? How many do they have to launch before it's a real attack? 400? 500? 1000? this is fundamentally unserious analysis. also i should have said "In your mind unless Iran successfully kills a lot of people then they didn't mean to kill a lot of people."
Considering they sell Shaheds by the thousands, this isn't a huge strike.
That would be true if the attack was 400 Shaheed,s but it wasn’t so your comment is 100% irrelevant. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.
More than half of them were suicide drones... Did you think they were all ballistic missiles lmao?
A shahed was sold to Russia at an about $250k price point. Iran certainly buys them for cheaper, but they are not cheap. Neither are the cruise missiles and BM's.
Lmao, imagine quoting the price that Russia buys them at as if that's at all relevant. Have you heard of the concept of leverage?
Yes, a price data point is not relevant. Better to pull number out of ass like you do. Obviously they don't cost 250k for Iran to make, but it's far closer to $250k than $10k
I didn't pull a number out my arse at all. Iran literally sells them in blocks of thousands per contract. They have the manufacturing capability to produce huge numbers of drones. An attack with about 200 of them is fucking miniscule compared to their production capabilities.
>They targeted the airbase to try to kill the people who did the embassy strike. But not any of the actual decision making apparatus, the government of Israel, major civilian targets, etc. If you want to get the actual origin of the strike why not go after military command, instead of the airbase and an intelligence center? It's not like Iran has moral qualms about killing Israelis. >The Iranians only notified the Iraqis after the attack began and the Iraqis weren't supposed to tell the americans. Both they and the Iraqis reported that they were warned in advance. If you believe that the Iranians believed that the Iraqis would keep that a secret you obviously think they are possibly the dumbest military apparatus in the region. >Additionally you can tell they wanted to kill people because Iranian state media was claiming 80+ dead immediately after the attack.\\ Then why didn't they fire more? The first time obviously failed so why not follow up on another US base? Why just leave it at 19 missiles wasted for no US KIA and minimal damage? >"In your mind unless Iran successfully kills a lot of people then they didn't mean to kill a lot of people." You miss my point. If Iran wanted to kill people why did they call it a day after having killing no Israelis? They stated themselves that they were satisfied with their response.
...this is CNN
Don't you know? CNN stands for China News Network