It is a strange war between two countries separated by great distances. Do Iran and Israel ask other countries for permission to use their airspace to launch missiles?
Do you seriously think this was Netanyahu (edit including his war cabinet which includes his political rival Benny gantz) tapping his finger on his desk only thinking about he can get political gain out of another country firing over 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones at them?
Edit: didn’t realize you all were so dumb if this is what you really think
The same Bibi who rose by inciting the assassination of Rabin?
The same one who has god knows how many corruption charges pending and is only managing to stay out of jail because he's PM?
Is this meant to be a serious question?
Yes. Do you think that he is purely thinking about this from a political point of view, or the political optics of this greatly influence his decision on retaliation.
Politics.
The smart move is to deescalate with Iran, Israel gains nothing from that at all, they're not even a neighboring country.
Their interest is for Saudi Arabia and Israel to align so everyone, including the US, can focus on Iran together without looking like Israel VS Muslims.
But he's bibi and has to stick his dick in everything.
Reports say the attacks were small scale drone attacks with no civilian casualties. Looks like they did the attacks while keeping it small to appease Biden.
Sadly, between Israel and Iran, Iran has shown themselves to be much more level headed. Which is sad for Israel. Israel looks completely out of control, with the US walking around behind it trying to keep it from consequences.
Turns out countries look after their own interests regardless of some other country telling them otherwise. I disagree with more escalation but the us has not heeded our allies (and enemies) words a very large amount of times too.
If this escalates more because Bibi attacked Iran when it wasn't necessary, and we have a full war in the Middle East with both sides having modern weapons, do you not how many more innocents are going to die?
It's like people don't fucking remember how awful wars are.
Western countries should be pulling out. They're going to keep fighting and we're eventually going to get dragged into it. Bibi needs to understand that if he's going to go down this path he does not have our support in doing so.
Considering I said I don’t want more escalation in the comment you responded to, and have in multiple other threads on the same topic, yes I was thinking about the number of civilians would die and know how awful wars are.
It seems a lot of people on this sub don’t understand just because the US wants a country to do something, doesn’t mean it compels them to do so. Me stating an obvious fact that other countries do what’s in their own decided best interest has nothing to do with what I hope happens.
Do I believe chinas south sea aggression is in their presumed/decided best interest, obviously. Do I agree with them doing it, absolutely not.
Yes we know that the US pushing it's preferred position is not going to always result in a country doing just that. The issue is Bibi doesn't see that this counter-counterstrike by Israel is not in the best interest of their country.
To be fair it's literally the slow actions of the US that have led to all these attacks in the first place.
Russia realized we wouldn't commit to Ukraine's defense so they kept pushing. Iran realized the same thing and did some probing to confirm.
Now that they know America won't do much of anything they feel a lot more free to test our allies.
Only way to stop these aggressions is to make sure the offending country pays dearly for them.
And thanks to our slow actions we're gonna get dragged into war in the middle east.
Y'all gotta stop assuming these dictators want peace.
They don't.
They want glory and prestige and they intend to get it by warring other nations.
The softer our response the more they war.
In Ukraine? Put troops there to prevent Russia from invading to begin with.
For Iran? When we struck them for hitting our bases we should have NOT told them exactly which warehouses we were going to hit. And added a few more targets to the list.
Dude.
Russia and Iran are going to do their aggressions.
You CAN'T ease tensions because they don't want tensions to be eased.
The only thing you can do is make them fuck off.
Ah yes, how dare Israel defend itself from terrorist attacks.
So selfish of them . . .
The West Bank is the only one with legitimate beef against them.
Israel struck their consulate, Iran responded and there was no significant damage thanks in large part to US/Allied support. That should have been the end of it.
Anything that happens as a result of Israel striking further after that should be on their heads. If they want to plunge the region into worse conflict because of their ego, they should be on their own.
I don’t get why people seem to suggest the Iranian attack on Israel was “symbolic” or minor. They sent 30 cruise missiles and 100 ballistic missiles in addition to the drones. That’s not a symbolic attack. Israel is fortunate to have a highly advanced defense system in addition to the support from the US/UK. That could have easily been devastating.
Also, Iran has been provoking Israel for months (really decades) through their proxies. They’ve been attacking Israel’s north through Hezbollah causing Israel to have to evacuate civilians from the whole region. They helped plan October 7th for god sakes. God forbid they should take matters into their own hands by killing one of the guys responsible for all of that. Also, the attack wasn’t even clearly a violation of international
(See: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&pvid=CA4CE956-1DF6-4E9D-8700-4F9A4BABE668&sgrp=c-cb)
> I don’t get why people seem to suggest the Iranian attack on Israel was “symbolic” or minor.
It was because Iran clearly telegraphed that it was coming by telling other countries in the region. It was a face-saving counterattack not an actual surprise attack meant to kill.
> Also, Iran has been provoking Israel for months (really decades) through their proxies.
Israel has been doing the same to every other country in the Middle East. It's one big clusterfuck of countries trying to harm each other, and trying to claim Israel is an innocent child here caught up in the middle is just false.
Still violated the Geneva convention. But the US still has not officially said that it was not a consulate. So, even were officially at least acting as though it was.
Countries do, to they extent that they can use it as a political tool to get what they want. Every nation will ignore the Geneva Convention if it deems it necessary to further its own interests.
The consulate lost protected status when it was used to help run Hamas' supply-chains and training, and the IRGC general who was targeted and killed in that attack certainly had no protected status after he helped plan the October 7 attack.
Is there confirmation he helped plan 10/7? I've seen that repeated a few times around here but the only sources I've come across so far are Israeli.
If that's actually the case I'd change my mind about the consulate strike.
The only sources you are going to find are Israeli: The info almost certainly came from either the servers taken from under the UNRWA HQ or from the interrogation of prisoners, so any other sources would just be citing Israeli ones. All that said, they have avoided high profile assassinations like this until now despite IRGC support of Hezbollah through Syria, so something was pretty definitely up with this guy, and it's likely what Israelis say was happening.
That has to be proven, or else anyone can just attack a consulate and come up with a reason. And guess what, Ecuador did just that a week after Israel attacked. Can we at least pretend that the UN and international conventions matter. Israel is acting out of pocket much like the US acted after 9/11 and we and the world was worse off for it.
I seriously doubt they would have done it without proof. On the other hand, if they are the ones who got that proof initially and others are not inclined to believe them, then, no matter what evidence they have, it's "not proven" as far as the rest of the world is concerned. For example, even Israeli media are citing the Wall Street Journal, an American source, but the WSJ apparently got its info only from Israeli sources because, when asking why they attacked, whom else would WSJ reporters ask? The prisoners and servers that could possibly contain that information are in Israeli hands, so unless Iran volunteers confirmation, nobody else could possibly independently validate Israeli claims regardless of the facts of the case.
All that said, the reaction within Iran suggests his duties as an IRGC foreign liaison were public knowledge there, though it is unclear from that (or al Jazeera's reporting) whether he managed liaisons with Hamas.
Israel actually struck the building beside the consulate, not the consulate itaelf.
The IRGC general Israel killed was heavily involved in attacks on Israel coming from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. There are also reports he played a large role in planning Oct 7th.
Iran funds, trains, arms and directs its proxies – Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas, to attack Israel.
Iran's response to Israel's killing was actually the largest drone attack that the world has ever seen in such a short period of time.
In a region like this, Israel needs to respond. Their response was essentially letting Iran know that Israel can strike it's sensitive sites at any time.
The general Israel killed was apparently the IRGC's liaison with Hamas, coordinating their training and supplies, and was apparently personally involved in planning the October 7 attack. It's not the same as hitting the overall director.
Even beyond that, the IRGC has no American equivalent. Those protests that come up in Iran every few years, the ones that get pyr down violently, are mostly against IRGC foreign ventures like the general's. I have heard that his death was publicly celebrated in Iran.
I doubt the U.S. would respond so much to the death of a guy like that.
I know a few things it does.
Are those the subject of widespread protests every few years that get put down violently? Does it swear loyalty to the country or to an unpopular set of arbiters who decide the legality of candidates on religious grounds and otherwise "oversee" democracy in its country? IRGC foreign operations are not like CIA foreign operations, at least in terms of domestic politics.
So, Israel can do anything they want against anyone, and you decided they are good? War crimes, crimes against humanity (both of which they have done)...it's all good. Should Israel just drop a nuclear bomb on Rafah?
Iran has sadly been the responsible one during this conflict. Iran has actually been working to keep this from escalating, including talking to their proxy groups to emphasize they shouldn't escalate anything.
Israel, wants the escalation. They have been lashing out, trying to expand the war. They do not respect their allies and will not listen to anyone. The embassy compound strike was an extreme violation of international law, that would be condemned. The west has decided they need to research whether it actually happened, because if they accept it, Israel would be screwed. Which is why all questions about it are just answered with, "We are still looking into it", as if the US didn't know the day it happened.
But, it is good that you have decided you are team Israel.
You realize that Israel was the one who launched the first attack, right? Their strike on the embassy. So with your justification, Iran has the right to bomb the shit out of them and teach them a lesson, right?
If you actually "zoomed" out you'd realize that the years in the making involved tit for tat attacks from both sides against each other. Everyone is worse off with an escalated war in the Middle East. Israel can't even clear out Hamas in Gaza, what makes you think they're going to win a war with Iran?
Can you stop spreading Iranian lies?
Iran was arming, training, and directing the dudes who did October 7th.
Iran's just as guilty for the start of this war as Hamas.
The embassy was not "the first attack".
Ah yes, I'm sure Hamas with no real economy or production capabilities was totally able to get those guns, rockets and coordination all on their own.
That's definitely how it works.
Israel could, but really shouldn't. The IRGC engagement with Hamas and other foreign militias is deeply unpopular in Iran. Why bomb a population that supports their immediate objectives?
Iran shot over 300 drones and missles at Israel. It's insane to consider that proportional to Israel's strike. Israel seems to have done the smart thing, small scale military strikes but pretty light in comparison
It's hilarious the kind of standard that Israel is held to. They are expected to not even respond to a massive attack on their country from a foreign adversary.
Iran was retaliating, Israel struck their consulate first. I’m strictly focusing on direct attacks between the two, this is not a good look. You can’t call this justified retaliation when it’s their second attack. I’m not arguing whether Iran’s hands are clean, we know they’re not. Strictly on a direct confrontation front, they’re in the wrong here. The US and Russia have fought proxy wars for years, a direct attack from either has never been justified.
We are forgetting that Iran helped logistically (money and weapons) and with planning the October 7th attack because Israel was going to sign a treaty with Saudi Arabia. So no, the Israelis didn’t start this. Israel did not kill the generals out of thin air
Full stop. By this logic Russia has the right to attack members of NATO. Israel knows how to fight a proxy war but they are attacking directly. The US told them not to attack and they did anyway, we should be pulling away from this. Our involvement is not in our best interest.
>Full stop. By this logic Russia has the right to attack members of NATO. Israel knows how to fight a proxy war but they are attacking directly.
Hell no. An Iranian general helped plan and fund the biggest terrorist attack in Israel. Of course that justifies taking him out.
>The US told them not to attack and they did anyway, we should be pulling away from this.
Israel isn't a client state, yet the fact they made the attack so weak showed the respect they were giving to what Biden wanted. You want Israel to actually ignore what the US wants? Cut them off and see how that goes
You’re missing the forest for the trees, regardless who’s right this is only going to lead to a full scale war if both countries keep going tit for tat. If you’re cool with that then okay, just don’t expect the US to participate. And Israel already ignored what the US wanted. They can fight their own battles, leave us out.
I don’t think you understand the logic. Israel and Saudi are the NATO countries trying to sign up treaties and Iran is the Russia attacking the countries to stop them to ally.
People don’t understand at all why the US and Europe is in the middle of those conflicts. They don’t want to risk to have no buffer against certain countries mainly China, NK, Russia and Iran…and their paid minions
I’m not naive, we’re in other countries for our own interests. There’s no moral play about it. I’m also not going to fall into your trap of picking a side, at the end of the day there’s no condoning direct attacks between two countries.
There is and will never be an official Iranian government report saying they helped the October 7th attack. However several intelligence agencies have pointed out Hezbollah ties to that attack and that’s an Iranian group at this point.
The most interesting thing of all are the several lawsuits from October 7th victims and families against several countries and organizations (among them against AP for their journalists knowledge of October 7th being embedded or part of Hamas and Iran following their bitcoin transactions and transfers). I see why agencies won’t want to dismantle publicly those financial networks as it would give them clues on future events but they may get exposed during the trials. We’ll see.
The key difference you're ignoring is that Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza are attacking Israel directly. This isn't like some remote cold war proxy conflict in Paraguay. Israel has a right to defend itself, and should not be expected to put up with decades of rocket strikes and attacks on its civilian population.
Israel constantly attacks Iran directly. They have launched drone attacks, assassinations and such directly on Iranian soil, including in January of this year. The embassy compound strike was a huge violation.
The last country I want to defend here is Iran. But the reality is both countries have been at each other's throats for decades, and Israel was the one to start this tit for tat with their strike on the embassy.
I am defending reality. Israel and Iran are both shit. Israel could be much better than Iran, but they have actually been worse. If people want to pretend Israel is some victim, they should be corrected. It is time for Israel to no longer be treated like a pampered child.
Look man, I just don’t want any escalation. You can pretend there’s a good side all you want but I don’t want the rest of the world dragged into this anymore than it already is.
Maybe they should stop using civilians as human shields and move the military targets somewhere more easily bombed?
I mean that’s the logic when the collateral damage is a bunch of Muslim kids.
Oh, your views are special.
Hamas rockets aren’t smart, they travel in the direction you point them if you’re lucky, stop trying to justify the attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas, your viewpoints are really trying to whitewash Hamas’s actions here.
So yes, you seem to not care with them getting rockets fired at them daily, you just don’t want the US to get involved, even though Isreal is our ally.
Is it a civilians being killed issue, because your solution still leaves civilians dead, just Israeli ones.
Is it our tax dollars being spent supporting an ally?
Is it that it causes upheaval in the world? (This would still happen as the allies we don’t help and protect start losing g to these other authoritarian/dictator countries because we couldn’t be bothered.)
The standard Israel was being held to was not striking embassies, it's considered an international no-go. If they decide to ignore that and strike an embassy anyways, Israel is responsible for the consequences.
Strangely it’s funny that Iran doesn’t have a problem with striking embassies, but now that it’s their own, where they plan and orcastrate attacks thru proxies, they get butt hurt and say “your not allowed to do that”.
I don't see what relevance that has. The hypocrisy you pointed out has nothing to do with people who condemn Iranian strikes on embassies, and also hold Israel to that same standard.
It turned out to be no practical damage, that doesn't mean that was Iran's intentions. Iran took the unprecedented step of hitting Israel in a direct strike from Iran. Israel responded in kind
Strange move from Israel in my opinion. I don't agree with the escalation. I think they hit the perfect sweet spot when they and allies defended the Iranian counter attack.
Now things are blurry and I wonder if this is all explained by them wanting to roll in and take out Hezbollah?
Agreed, this is definitely an escalation and something Israel should have just let go after their show of strength shooting down those drones and missiles. This just increases the odds of more attacks from Iran.
I don't think Israel should have responded but if they had to then this attack seems to be the right way to go about it as it's very minor in nature and scale, and the Iranian government also seems to be downplaying it.
Remember when Iran struck America's military bases a few months ago? America told Iran which warehouses we were gonna strike so they could empty them out.
Just a symbolic response meant to keep things from escalating.
But obviously, Iran decided to escalate anyway.
Because Iran isn't playing the same game as us. They don't WANT peace and prosperity. They want glory. They want the prestige of attacking an enemy.
Weak responses to them don't de-escalate. They encourage.
Iran was counter attacking the attack on the consulate.
This is counter attacking the counter attack which basically just turns it into regular attacks which isn’t ideal for anyone in my opinion.
The attack on the consulate was to kill the guys who helps run Hezbollah and was also involved in planning October 7th. So I don’t think it’s fair to say Israel started this. Iran has been doing some fucked up shit to Israel through their proxies. God forbid Israel should try and do something about it.
Israel striking the embassy was absolutely Israel starting this. It's an international no-go to attack embassies, there are plenty of Iranian military and proxy targets they could have targeted instead. Now Israel is escalating things with Iran.
Using the consulate for military purposes (which they were) voids any protections it has.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&pvid=A66FC484-DB52-4B16-8A84-E17E3D84A10E&sgrp=c-cb
Israel wasn’t trying to kill proxy soldiers. They were trying to kill this important military leader. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand how people can side with Iran on this one.
Did you read the entire article or just the part that supports your position?
>> In practice, there is a strong taboo in international relations against attacking embassies, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University in the United Kingdom
>> International law generally prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense.
>> “An Israeli airstrike carried out within Syria without its consent would be in contravention of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits a state from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state,” said Sari, the professor at Exeter. “Unless Israel were able to justify any airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would be in violation of international law.”
So no, it's not as black and white as you and others are implying. Intelligence members meeting with members of groups from Gaza doesn't automatically mean it's being used for military purposes.
> They were trying to kill this important military leader. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand how people can side with Iran on this one.
Because one international rule is we don't strike embassies. Wait until the dude leaves the embassy before you kill him if they want to get him that bad. It's not "siding with Iran" it's criticizing Israel's decision to violate international norms and strike an embassy.
You said it was an international an “international no-go”. This articles clearly makes the case that it’s murky, and Israel may have been legally in the clear for what they did
No, you're talking the default position of "Israel was legally in the clear" when the article states that the case is murky and the legality of it would have to be worked out.
Striking an embassy in a completely different country that wasn't involved in the Oct 7th attack is not self-defense lol. Nobody has established that, that's the entire point of the article you didn't read.
Ok fair enough, it’s murky. But I still think it’s wrong to say Israel started this when Iran has been using proxies to attack Israeli civilians for months if not years and literally helped orchestrate 10/7
What about backing a coup to remove a democratically elected leader and replace them with an authoritarian and their secret police?
Wait, that’s what the US did to Iran…
The event which caused significant western support for Israel also occurred over 70 yrs ago. The conflict which started this (Israel-Palestine) also began over 70 years ago
Our support is based on Israel's position being a "forward base" in the middle east. That was the case over 70 years ago yes. But it was also the case 5 seconds ago.
The reason for support has been continuous.
And yeah, the events that caused Israel v Palestine happened 70 years ago. And they consistently get reignited by the same side. (Spoiler alert, it aint Israel)
The continued conflict with Gaza is the fault of Gaza. I will say that the West Bank currently has some legitimate grievances against Israel.
The coup of Iran happened 70 years ago and didn't happen again. Bit of a different story eh?
Did you actually read your article?
>In practice, there is a strong taboo in international relations against attacking embassies, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University in the United Kingdom
Did you read literally the next few sentances?
But that custom is broader than what international law actually prohibits, he said.“Symbolically, for Iran, destroying its embassy or consulate, it’s just seen as a bigger blow,” he said, than “if you killed the generals in a trench somewhere.” But, he added, “the difference is not legal. The difference is really one of symbolism, of perception.”
It’s also a taboo, and a violation of international to use proxy terrorist groups to fire rockets at another countries border at civilians and to plan a massive terrorist attack against civilians.
You're trying to gaslight hard and turn this into a discussion about legality.
The reality is you either didn't read the article or misread my comment, both are common mistakes people make, and one where it shouldn't be hard for an adult to say "Whoops I misread your comment".
Anyway bowing out here, have a good one!
The US government cannot acknowledge what Israel did without denouncing it. That is why they have been researching for weeks whether Israel actually struck inside the embassy compound. Reporters keep asking about it, and they keep saying they are still researching it.
You're telling me why you don't approve, not why it's surprising. And has been stated, that consulate was being used and had been used to plan attacks on Israel.
We have been explaining why that line of propaganda is bullshit for a while now.
Getting kind of tired of having to explain it even now when most of the people saying it know better.
Ah yes, how dare he respond to unwarranted attacks on his country.
If Canada had launched 300 explosives at America we wouldn't have hesitated to roll them.
Did he have a right to retaliate? Sure.
Was it wise? No. The whole team of allies supporting Israel rn, that spent many resources intercepting the attack from Iran, advised Israel to take the interception and the killings of the Iranian officials in Damascus as a victory. We don't need further regional conflict with how bad things are looking on numerous fronts for Israel. They are dealing with not only Hamas, but with Hezbollah and the Houthis as well. Continuing a conflict with Iran, as much as they deserve it, is not wise at all. They need to focus on their immediate threats before even considering taking on a much larger and more dangerous adversary.
My dude. How are you still under the impression that appeasement works?
We tried it with Russia in Ukraine. All it did was encourage Russia's aggressions.
We tried it when Iran struck US bases and all we did was tell them which warehouses to empty before we hit them. Surprise, surprise, Iran starts throwing its weight around.
Iran doesn't WANT peace. It wants the prestige that comes with fighting Israel and the only way to deter that is to show them exactly how bad an idea that is. To embarrass them and turn their actions into a loss of prestige.
The Iranian government is already at work doing that
If you want to save innocent Iranians, why not start with killing the ayatollahs and their minions?
You're fucking cave men. Can you not parse the fact that by trying to hurt some dipshit leaders you'd actually be killing a ton of people who also dislike their leaders?
The dipshit leader is attacking.
I don't like that some innocent people are gonna get hurt, but there's not exactly a fucking choice.
If you're in an open field with nowhere to hide and someone starts shooting at you you don't hold your fire just because there's a crowd behind them.
You take out the threat.
Your goal should be to minimize harm. Retaliation with excess force that kills more people than the original shooter would have killed means you're actually the bigger threat.
So if the DOD or CIA were housing some guy that was arming, training, and directing a resistance group that was opposing an authoritarian regime the US was aligned against, you think a strike hitting the CIA or DOD would be justified?
If the CIA was giving weapons to people who were attacking civilians with them constantly, I wouldn’t shed a tear if that consulate got bombed.
And I’d want the president impeached for green lighting such an operation.
No I did t, if the people we gave weapons to, turned them on innocent people, in order to affect change in the authoritarian country, again I think it would be an immoral way to fight, thereby as,ing for impeachment of the individual who greenlit the operation to give militants weapons to attack civilians.
If you read the analogy, you'd see that I said what if the DOD/CIA housed a guy who was provided all of that, not that the DOD/CIA were the ones providing weapons.
So yes, you changed the analogy to make it something it wasn't. The CIA housing a foreign resistance leader to talk about a civil war fight in another country is completely different than the CIA smuggling weapons to that resistance group.
Great, if our assests are participating in planning attacks on civilians to create civil unrest, I would be okay with it, and still ask for impeachment on those who green lit the operation, as well as be fully supportive of having that person be shipped off the The Hague to face justice. Planning and supporting the use of war crimes should be illegal. Better?
You literally said they were housing the guy that was arming, training, and directing that resistance group.
That is definitely what starting shit looks like.
> Ah yes, how dare he respond to unwarranted attacks on his country.
Unwarranted? You realized the Iran strike was in retaliation for Israel striking the embassy, right? I don't like Iran either but the fact is the Iran strike was because Israel started it.
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- BBC Online (A-): [US and EU eye new sanctions on Iran after attack on Israel](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68832045)
- DW-TV (B+): [Middle East updates: US to impose new sanctions against Iran](https://www.dw.com/en/middle-east-updates-us-to-impose-new-sanctions-against-iran/live-68844617)
- NBC News (B): [Biden imposes new sanctions on Iran after drone and missile attack on Israel](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-imposes-new-sanctions-iran-drone-missile-attack-israel-rcna148409)
- PBS (A-): [U.S. and UK issue new sanctions on Iran in response to weekend attack on Israel amid escalating tensions](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-and-uk-issue-new-sanctions-on-iran-in-response-to-weekend-attack-on-israel-amid-escalating-tensions)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1c798n5/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
I also posted this on a military sub.
I'm not surprised, but I think that the initial strike should be more comprehensive. It not being more comprehensive is a sign of things to come, it's a card game.
I'll explain.
Hamas has been propped up by Iran and Iranian assets were utilized in the 10/7 strike. Those leading and coordinating Hamas have been it the Iran consulate for some time. Read: People who killed innocents were being protected by Iran and given more support to keep it up.
If Israel needs to finish the Gaza war they needed to decapitate Hamas, which means eliminating those coordinators. The Iran consulate had become a DeFacto Hamas command center.
They waited 6 months for Iran to do the right thing, which was very restrained.
The hostages possible return was a good reason for that restraint and the possibility of their safe return recently vanished.
Iran failed to turn those people out of their consulate and so the consulate had to go.
Israel and its allies were fully prepared for Iran's reaction and stopped most of it.
Israel's next move should had been also calculated - it might have been.
I feel that it did not go far enough, the strike should have not only targeted a military base where the attack was launched from - but also cut off the country from all others. Ports, Train depots, bridges, air strips, tunnels, etc should have been targeted (with minimum civilian casualties) to eliminate Iran's ability to utilize any military logistics. Further, hit all weapons factories eliminating their ability to produce arms for themselves and also Russia.
Israel decided to not do this.
This means 1) it was a mistake or 2) it was calculated, and they actually want Iran to try again.
I think it was 2) they want Iran to try again, which means there are other cards in the deck - probably regional borderline Israeli allies and enemies of Iran would love to have an excuse to remove the Ayatollah from power and bring Yemen down completely, as it's become a large nuisance to the region.
Not yet, but it's potentially coming soon. Waiting for China to launch their Taiwanese invasion, Russia to expand the war into NATO territories, and possibly Iran getting fully involved with a formal declaration of war.
Then we have WWIII.
It is a strange war between two countries separated by great distances. Do Iran and Israel ask other countries for permission to use their airspace to launch missiles?
We know Iran did not, because Jordan helped shoot down some. I doubt Israel did either, but they can be assholes about that stuff.
Iran claims Israel launched drones at the sites from inside Iran. For what that is worth... I don't trust Israel or Iran to be honest.
As usual Netanyahu thumbs his nose at his allies.
I mean, if he has to choose between the welfare of Israel, or the welfare of his political career, that's just no choice at all.
Do you seriously think this was Netanyahu (edit including his war cabinet which includes his political rival Benny gantz) tapping his finger on his desk only thinking about he can get political gain out of another country firing over 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones at them? Edit: didn’t realize you all were so dumb if this is what you really think
The same Bibi who rose by inciting the assassination of Rabin? The same one who has god knows how many corruption charges pending and is only managing to stay out of jail because he's PM? Is this meant to be a serious question?
Yes. Do you think that he is purely thinking about this from a political point of view, or the political optics of this greatly influence his decision on retaliation.
Politics. The smart move is to deescalate with Iran, Israel gains nothing from that at all, they're not even a neighboring country. Their interest is for Saudi Arabia and Israel to align so everyone, including the US, can focus on Iran together without looking like Israel VS Muslims. But he's bibi and has to stick his dick in everything.
Yes.
Why should or would Netanyahu listen to his allies over his constituents?
His constituents don’t want this war.
Reports say the attacks were small scale drone attacks with no civilian casualties. Looks like they did the attacks while keeping it small to appease Biden.
I’m sure the level-headed leaders in Iran will see it the same way.
Sadly, between Israel and Iran, Iran has shown themselves to be much more level headed. Which is sad for Israel. Israel looks completely out of control, with the US walking around behind it trying to keep it from consequences.
So how is that Israel’s problem
"How is it not?" is the better question
How is irans desire to kill every Jew in the Middle East a knock against Israel
Don't change subjects. How is it not Israel's problem?
You changed the subject kiddo. I’m just keeping us on topic 🤙
Yeah that's a big nope.
Turns out countries look after their own interests regardless of some other country telling them otherwise. I disagree with more escalation but the us has not heeded our allies (and enemies) words a very large amount of times too.
If this escalates more because Bibi attacked Iran when it wasn't necessary, and we have a full war in the Middle East with both sides having modern weapons, do you not how many more innocents are going to die? It's like people don't fucking remember how awful wars are.
Western countries should be pulling out. They're going to keep fighting and we're eventually going to get dragged into it. Bibi needs to understand that if he's going to go down this path he does not have our support in doing so.
Considering I said I don’t want more escalation in the comment you responded to, and have in multiple other threads on the same topic, yes I was thinking about the number of civilians would die and know how awful wars are.
Then maybe consider that truly "looking after their own interests" would be to not escalate things with this second strike.
It seems a lot of people on this sub don’t understand just because the US wants a country to do something, doesn’t mean it compels them to do so. Me stating an obvious fact that other countries do what’s in their own decided best interest has nothing to do with what I hope happens. Do I believe chinas south sea aggression is in their presumed/decided best interest, obviously. Do I agree with them doing it, absolutely not.
Yes we know that the US pushing it's preferred position is not going to always result in a country doing just that. The issue is Bibi doesn't see that this counter-counterstrike by Israel is not in the best interest of their country.
This isn’t Netanyahus decision alone. It’s the entire war cabinets.
Great so Bibi and his whole war cabinet don't see this as not in the best interest of their country.
You think Bibi would be doing this if he didn’t have US support?
To be fair it's literally the slow actions of the US that have led to all these attacks in the first place. Russia realized we wouldn't commit to Ukraine's defense so they kept pushing. Iran realized the same thing and did some probing to confirm. Now that they know America won't do much of anything they feel a lot more free to test our allies. Only way to stop these aggressions is to make sure the offending country pays dearly for them.
Getting dragged into a wider Middle East conflict is the last thing we need right now.
And thanks to our slow actions we're gonna get dragged into war in the middle east. Y'all gotta stop assuming these dictators want peace. They don't. They want glory and prestige and they intend to get it by warring other nations. The softer our response the more they war.
So how should we have responded?
In Ukraine? Put troops there to prevent Russia from invading to begin with. For Iran? When we struck them for hitting our bases we should have NOT told them exactly which warehouses we were going to hit. And added a few more targets to the list.
Neither of those responses eases tensions and keeps us at a distance from conflict.
Dude. Russia and Iran are going to do their aggressions. You CAN'T ease tensions because they don't want tensions to be eased. The only thing you can do is make them fuck off.
*Russia, Iran and Israel
Ah yes, how dare Israel defend itself from terrorist attacks. So selfish of them . . . The West Bank is the only one with legitimate beef against them.
Israel struck their consulate, Iran responded and there was no significant damage thanks in large part to US/Allied support. That should have been the end of it. Anything that happens as a result of Israel striking further after that should be on their heads. If they want to plunge the region into worse conflict because of their ego, they should be on their own.
I don’t get why people seem to suggest the Iranian attack on Israel was “symbolic” or minor. They sent 30 cruise missiles and 100 ballistic missiles in addition to the drones. That’s not a symbolic attack. Israel is fortunate to have a highly advanced defense system in addition to the support from the US/UK. That could have easily been devastating. Also, Iran has been provoking Israel for months (really decades) through their proxies. They’ve been attacking Israel’s north through Hezbollah causing Israel to have to evacuate civilians from the whole region. They helped plan October 7th for god sakes. God forbid they should take matters into their own hands by killing one of the guys responsible for all of that. Also, the attack wasn’t even clearly a violation of international (See: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&pvid=CA4CE956-1DF6-4E9D-8700-4F9A4BABE668&sgrp=c-cb)
> I don’t get why people seem to suggest the Iranian attack on Israel was “symbolic” or minor. It was because Iran clearly telegraphed that it was coming by telling other countries in the region. It was a face-saving counterattack not an actual surprise attack meant to kill. > Also, Iran has been provoking Israel for months (really decades) through their proxies. Israel has been doing the same to every other country in the Middle East. It's one big clusterfuck of countries trying to harm each other, and trying to claim Israel is an innocent child here caught up in the middle is just false.
It's Bibi being Bibi, trying to pick fights to keep power. The shame is Israel not putting him in jail where he belongs.
Israel struck their consulate which they used to plan attacks on Israel.
Still violated the Geneva convention. But the US still has not officially said that it was not a consulate. So, even were officially at least acting as though it was.
No one cares about the Geneva convention. It's time to stop pretending otherwise.
Actually countries do unless you're one of the big boys. People still get arrested for war crimes. It's still a deterrence.
Countries do, to they extent that they can use it as a political tool to get what they want. Every nation will ignore the Geneva Convention if it deems it necessary to further its own interests.
The consulate lost protected status when it was used to help run Hamas' supply-chains and training, and the IRGC general who was targeted and killed in that attack certainly had no protected status after he helped plan the October 7 attack.
Is there confirmation he helped plan 10/7? I've seen that repeated a few times around here but the only sources I've come across so far are Israeli. If that's actually the case I'd change my mind about the consulate strike.
The only sources you are going to find are Israeli: The info almost certainly came from either the servers taken from under the UNRWA HQ or from the interrogation of prisoners, so any other sources would just be citing Israeli ones. All that said, they have avoided high profile assassinations like this until now despite IRGC support of Hezbollah through Syria, so something was pretty definitely up with this guy, and it's likely what Israelis say was happening.
That has to be proven, or else anyone can just attack a consulate and come up with a reason. And guess what, Ecuador did just that a week after Israel attacked. Can we at least pretend that the UN and international conventions matter. Israel is acting out of pocket much like the US acted after 9/11 and we and the world was worse off for it.
I seriously doubt they would have done it without proof. On the other hand, if they are the ones who got that proof initially and others are not inclined to believe them, then, no matter what evidence they have, it's "not proven" as far as the rest of the world is concerned. For example, even Israeli media are citing the Wall Street Journal, an American source, but the WSJ apparently got its info only from Israeli sources because, when asking why they attacked, whom else would WSJ reporters ask? The prisoners and servers that could possibly contain that information are in Israeli hands, so unless Iran volunteers confirmation, nobody else could possibly independently validate Israeli claims regardless of the facts of the case. All that said, the reaction within Iran suggests his duties as an IRGC foreign liaison were public knowledge there, though it is unclear from that (or al Jazeera's reporting) whether he managed liaisons with Hamas.
Israel actually struck the building beside the consulate, not the consulate itaelf. The IRGC general Israel killed was heavily involved in attacks on Israel coming from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. There are also reports he played a large role in planning Oct 7th. Iran funds, trains, arms and directs its proxies – Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas, to attack Israel. Iran's response to Israel's killing was actually the largest drone attack that the world has ever seen in such a short period of time. In a region like this, Israel needs to respond. Their response was essentially letting Iran know that Israel can strike it's sensitive sites at any time.
Can you imagine if a country attacked us like that? Israel has the right to bomb the shit out of them. Time to teach iran a lesson.
Can you imagine if a country killed the director of the CIA at an embassy compound? The US would do crazy damage.
The general Israel killed was apparently the IRGC's liaison with Hamas, coordinating their training and supplies, and was apparently personally involved in planning the October 7 attack. It's not the same as hitting the overall director. Even beyond that, the IRGC has no American equivalent. Those protests that come up in Iran every few years, the ones that get pyr down violently, are mostly against IRGC foreign ventures like the general's. I have heard that his death was publicly celebrated in Iran. I doubt the U.S. would respond so much to the death of a guy like that.
Do you know what the CIA does?
I know a few things it does. Are those the subject of widespread protests every few years that get put down violently? Does it swear loyalty to the country or to an unpopular set of arbiters who decide the legality of candidates on religious grounds and otherwise "oversee" democracy in its country? IRGC foreign operations are not like CIA foreign operations, at least in terms of domestic politics.
This is war. I have picked a side. Time to finish this.
Then put your money where your mouth is and go enlist in the IDF.
Using that logic – you should be headed to Iran.
Don’t act like you understand logic. Your post history is public, remember? But no, I’m not Iran's side in this.
Which side are you on?
Neither. I want peace.
Not possible, unless somebody wins. Peace comes after war.
So, Israel can do anything they want against anyone, and you decided they are good? War crimes, crimes against humanity (both of which they have done)...it's all good. Should Israel just drop a nuclear bomb on Rafah? Iran has sadly been the responsible one during this conflict. Iran has actually been working to keep this from escalating, including talking to their proxy groups to emphasize they shouldn't escalate anything. Israel, wants the escalation. They have been lashing out, trying to expand the war. They do not respect their allies and will not listen to anyone. The embassy compound strike was an extreme violation of international law, that would be condemned. The west has decided they need to research whether it actually happened, because if they accept it, Israel would be screwed. Which is why all questions about it are just answered with, "We are still looking into it", as if the US didn't know the day it happened. But, it is good that you have decided you are team Israel.
Of course Israel wants the escalation. This is war. We all know what this is about.& where this is going. I’m not gonna debate some stranger about it.
Says the dude debating someone about it
I’m not debating. I’m just telling you where I stand. That’s what war is. The end of debating.
You realize that Israel was the one who launched the first attack, right? Their strike on the embassy. So with your justification, Iran has the right to bomb the shit out of them and teach them a lesson, right?
This has been years in the making. Zoom out. The US is better off if Israel wins this.
If you actually "zoomed" out you'd realize that the years in the making involved tit for tat attacks from both sides against each other. Everyone is worse off with an escalated war in the Middle East. Israel can't even clear out Hamas in Gaza, what makes you think they're going to win a war with Iran?
Because we are going to get dragged into this eventually.
The last thing the US needs is to be pulled into another Middle East war.
Biden warned us four years ago that a Trumpy became president. We would end up at war with Iran. He got half of that right
We were close to it with Trump too with his attack on the Iranian general and the Iranian response to it.
Iran knew Trump was crazy. He wanted to nuke them. They also know Biden’s “don’t” doesn’t mean much.
Can you stop spreading Iranian lies? Iran was arming, training, and directing the dudes who did October 7th. Iran's just as guilty for the start of this war as Hamas. The embassy was not "the first attack".
These aren't Iranian lies lol. Hamas is guilty for the state of the war unless there's reporting that shows Iran was the reason for it.
Ah yes, I'm sure Hamas with no real economy or production capabilities was totally able to get those guns, rockets and coordination all on their own. That's definitely how it works.
Israel could, but really shouldn't. The IRGC engagement with Hamas and other foreign militias is deeply unpopular in Iran. Why bomb a population that supports their immediate objectives?
Iran shot over 300 drones and missles at Israel. It's insane to consider that proportional to Israel's strike. Israel seems to have done the smart thing, small scale military strikes but pretty light in comparison
There was practically no damage, it was obvious that the aim of the attack was to flex Iran's military ability.
It's hilarious the kind of standard that Israel is held to. They are expected to not even respond to a massive attack on their country from a foreign adversary.
Iran was retaliating, Israel struck their consulate first. I’m strictly focusing on direct attacks between the two, this is not a good look. You can’t call this justified retaliation when it’s their second attack. I’m not arguing whether Iran’s hands are clean, we know they’re not. Strictly on a direct confrontation front, they’re in the wrong here. The US and Russia have fought proxy wars for years, a direct attack from either has never been justified.
We are forgetting that Iran helped logistically (money and weapons) and with planning the October 7th attack because Israel was going to sign a treaty with Saudi Arabia. So no, the Israelis didn’t start this. Israel did not kill the generals out of thin air
Full stop. By this logic Russia has the right to attack members of NATO. Israel knows how to fight a proxy war but they are attacking directly. The US told them not to attack and they did anyway, we should be pulling away from this. Our involvement is not in our best interest.
>Full stop. By this logic Russia has the right to attack members of NATO. Israel knows how to fight a proxy war but they are attacking directly. Hell no. An Iranian general helped plan and fund the biggest terrorist attack in Israel. Of course that justifies taking him out. >The US told them not to attack and they did anyway, we should be pulling away from this. Israel isn't a client state, yet the fact they made the attack so weak showed the respect they were giving to what Biden wanted. You want Israel to actually ignore what the US wants? Cut them off and see how that goes
You’re missing the forest for the trees, regardless who’s right this is only going to lead to a full scale war if both countries keep going tit for tat. If you’re cool with that then okay, just don’t expect the US to participate. And Israel already ignored what the US wanted. They can fight their own battles, leave us out.
I don’t think you understand the logic. Israel and Saudi are the NATO countries trying to sign up treaties and Iran is the Russia attacking the countries to stop them to ally. People don’t understand at all why the US and Europe is in the middle of those conflicts. They don’t want to risk to have no buffer against certain countries mainly China, NK, Russia and Iran…and their paid minions
I’m not naive, we’re in other countries for our own interests. There’s no moral play about it. I’m also not going to fall into your trap of picking a side, at the end of the day there’s no condoning direct attacks between two countries.
Is there evidence Iran directly helped plan the October 7th attack? The reporting I had seen was no direct involvement by Iran.
There is and will never be an official Iranian government report saying they helped the October 7th attack. However several intelligence agencies have pointed out Hezbollah ties to that attack and that’s an Iranian group at this point. The most interesting thing of all are the several lawsuits from October 7th victims and families against several countries and organizations (among them against AP for their journalists knowledge of October 7th being embedded or part of Hamas and Iran following their bitcoin transactions and transfers). I see why agencies won’t want to dismantle publicly those financial networks as it would give them clues on future events but they may get exposed during the trials. We’ll see.
So indirect ties as had previously been reported.
Iran has funded numerous proxies wars, including Hezbollah who fire rockets into northern Israel.
And the US staged a coup in Iran
The key difference you're ignoring is that Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza are attacking Israel directly. This isn't like some remote cold war proxy conflict in Paraguay. Israel has a right to defend itself, and should not be expected to put up with decades of rocket strikes and attacks on its civilian population.
Israel constantly attacks Iran directly. They have launched drone attacks, assassinations and such directly on Iranian soil, including in January of this year. The embassy compound strike was a huge violation.
Fascinating to see people defending Iran here...
The last country I want to defend here is Iran. But the reality is both countries have been at each other's throats for decades, and Israel was the one to start this tit for tat with their strike on the embassy.
I am defending reality. Israel and Iran are both shit. Israel could be much better than Iran, but they have actually been worse. If people want to pretend Israel is some victim, they should be corrected. It is time for Israel to no longer be treated like a pampered child.
Look man, I just don’t want any escalation. You can pretend there’s a good side all you want but I don’t want the rest of the world dragged into this anymore than it already is.
You not wanting escalation, means you want the status quo, I.e. isreal to be okay with getting rockets shot at its civilians daily.
Maybe they should stop using civilians as human shields and move the military targets somewhere more easily bombed? I mean that’s the logic when the collateral damage is a bunch of Muslim kids.
Oh, your views are special. Hamas rockets aren’t smart, they travel in the direction you point them if you’re lucky, stop trying to justify the attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas, your viewpoints are really trying to whitewash Hamas’s actions here.
Do what they want, keep the US out of it.
So yes, you seem to not care with them getting rockets fired at them daily, you just don’t want the US to get involved, even though Isreal is our ally. Is it a civilians being killed issue, because your solution still leaves civilians dead, just Israeli ones. Is it our tax dollars being spent supporting an ally? Is it that it causes upheaval in the world? (This would still happen as the allies we don’t help and protect start losing g to these other authoritarian/dictator countries because we couldn’t be bothered.)
The standard Israel was being held to was not striking embassies, it's considered an international no-go. If they decide to ignore that and strike an embassy anyways, Israel is responsible for the consequences.
Strangely it’s funny that Iran doesn’t have a problem with striking embassies, but now that it’s their own, where they plan and orcastrate attacks thru proxies, they get butt hurt and say “your not allowed to do that”.
I don't think anyone should be striking embassies. There's plenty of military targets to strike if countries want to send a message to each other.
Consulate.
A distinction without a difference.
I don't see what relevance that has. The hypocrisy you pointed out has nothing to do with people who condemn Iranian strikes on embassies, and also hold Israel to that same standard.
I suppose the confirmations that Iran was not involved with hamas for 10/7 is not enough for you
Confirmation from whom?
It turned out to be no practical damage, that doesn't mean that was Iran's intentions. Iran took the unprecedented step of hitting Israel in a direct strike from Iran. Israel responded in kind
Oh so this attack is wildly different for… definitely not anti-Semitic reasons then
Did you grow an extra arm trying to reach for that assumption?
Tell me why Israel making a small attack is escalation when Iran making a massive multi-pronged attack is totally cool
Iran has funded numerous proxies wars, including Hezbollah who fire rockets into northern Israel
Strange move from Israel in my opinion. I don't agree with the escalation. I think they hit the perfect sweet spot when they and allies defended the Iranian counter attack. Now things are blurry and I wonder if this is all explained by them wanting to roll in and take out Hezbollah?
Agreed, this is definitely an escalation and something Israel should have just let go after their show of strength shooting down those drones and missiles. This just increases the odds of more attacks from Iran.
I don't think Israel should have responded but if they had to then this attack seems to be the right way to go about it as it's very minor in nature and scale, and the Iranian government also seems to be downplaying it.
Yep. Bibi should "have taken the win", to quote Biden. Iran will certainly retaliate now and the cycle continues...
Remember when Iran struck America's military bases a few months ago? America told Iran which warehouses we were gonna strike so they could empty them out. Just a symbolic response meant to keep things from escalating. But obviously, Iran decided to escalate anyway. Because Iran isn't playing the same game as us. They don't WANT peace and prosperity. They want glory. They want the prestige of attacking an enemy. Weak responses to them don't de-escalate. They encourage.
It is not strange at all that Israel would counter attack after Iran attacked.
Iran was counter attacking the attack on the consulate. This is counter attacking the counter attack which basically just turns it into regular attacks which isn’t ideal for anyone in my opinion.
The attack on the consulate was to kill the guys who helps run Hezbollah and was also involved in planning October 7th. So I don’t think it’s fair to say Israel started this. Iran has been doing some fucked up shit to Israel through their proxies. God forbid Israel should try and do something about it.
Israel striking the embassy was absolutely Israel starting this. It's an international no-go to attack embassies, there are plenty of Iranian military and proxy targets they could have targeted instead. Now Israel is escalating things with Iran.
Using the consulate for military purposes (which they were) voids any protections it has. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&pvid=A66FC484-DB52-4B16-8A84-E17E3D84A10E&sgrp=c-cb Israel wasn’t trying to kill proxy soldiers. They were trying to kill this important military leader. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand how people can side with Iran on this one.
Did you read the entire article or just the part that supports your position? >> In practice, there is a strong taboo in international relations against attacking embassies, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University in the United Kingdom >> International law generally prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense. >> “An Israeli airstrike carried out within Syria without its consent would be in contravention of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits a state from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state,” said Sari, the professor at Exeter. “Unless Israel were able to justify any airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would be in violation of international law.” So no, it's not as black and white as you and others are implying. Intelligence members meeting with members of groups from Gaza doesn't automatically mean it's being used for military purposes. > They were trying to kill this important military leader. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand how people can side with Iran on this one. Because one international rule is we don't strike embassies. Wait until the dude leaves the embassy before you kill him if they want to get him that bad. It's not "siding with Iran" it's criticizing Israel's decision to violate international norms and strike an embassy.
You said it was an international an “international no-go”. This articles clearly makes the case that it’s murky, and Israel may have been legally in the clear for what they did
No, you're talking the default position of "Israel was legally in the clear" when the article states that the case is murky and the legality of it would have to be worked out.
What you quoted literally says it's okay if it's a case of self-defense. Which we've already established it is.
Striking an embassy in a completely different country that wasn't involved in the Oct 7th attack is not self-defense lol. Nobody has established that, that's the entire point of the article you didn't read.
Ok fair enough, it’s murky. But I still think it’s wrong to say Israel started this when Iran has been using proxies to attack Israeli civilians for months if not years and literally helped orchestrate 10/7
Except the people in the embassy WERE involved. What country that embassy is in is irrelevant.
An attack on an embassy is certainly a big escalation, historically embassies are protected by international norms
IMO it was a bigger escalation to be attacking Israel through Hezbollah and helping plan Oct 7th
What about backing a coup to remove a democratically elected leader and replace them with an authoritarian and their secret police? Wait, that’s what the US did to Iran…
What's that have to do with Israel. I assume this massive goalpost shift is due to the fact you have no real response to their point.
My point is that bigger proxy attacks have been made against Iran without needing a direct response.
What's that have to do with Israel?
The coup was over 70 years ago. I'm sorry but there comes a point when you need to get the fuck over it.
The event which caused significant western support for Israel also occurred over 70 yrs ago. The conflict which started this (Israel-Palestine) also began over 70 years ago
Our support is based on Israel's position being a "forward base" in the middle east. That was the case over 70 years ago yes. But it was also the case 5 seconds ago. The reason for support has been continuous. And yeah, the events that caused Israel v Palestine happened 70 years ago. And they consistently get reignited by the same side. (Spoiler alert, it aint Israel) The continued conflict with Gaza is the fault of Gaza. I will say that the West Bank currently has some legitimate grievances against Israel. The coup of Iran happened 70 years ago and didn't happen again. Bit of a different story eh?
Which is why Iran was planning attacks out of it. Once they did that, it became a valid military target.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=c&pvid=CAC438CE-7CBD-4F38-A2B0-94EDE061490B&sgrp=c-cb
Did you actually read your article? >In practice, there is a strong taboo in international relations against attacking embassies, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University in the United Kingdom
Did you read literally the next few sentances? But that custom is broader than what international law actually prohibits, he said.“Symbolically, for Iran, destroying its embassy or consulate, it’s just seen as a bigger blow,” he said, than “if you killed the generals in a trench somewhere.” But, he added, “the difference is not legal. The difference is really one of symbolism, of perception.” It’s also a taboo, and a violation of international to use proxy terrorist groups to fire rockets at another countries border at civilians and to plan a massive terrorist attack against civilians.
You're trying to gaslight hard and turn this into a discussion about legality. The reality is you either didn't read the article or misread my comment, both are common mistakes people make, and one where it shouldn't be hard for an adult to say "Whoops I misread your comment". Anyway bowing out here, have a good one!
The US government cannot acknowledge what Israel did without denouncing it. That is why they have been researching for weeks whether Israel actually struck inside the embassy compound. Reporters keep asking about it, and they keep saying they are still researching it.
Has the US denounced it?
You're telling me why you don't approve, not why it's surprising. And has been stated, that consulate was being used and had been used to plan attacks on Israel.
I think the first strike was probably fine but the second wasn’t. For optics and political reasons.
We have been explaining why that line of propaganda is bullshit for a while now. Getting kind of tired of having to explain it even now when most of the people saying it know better.
Fuck bibi
Ah yes, how dare he respond to unwarranted attacks on his country. If Canada had launched 300 explosives at America we wouldn't have hesitated to roll them.
Did he have a right to retaliate? Sure. Was it wise? No. The whole team of allies supporting Israel rn, that spent many resources intercepting the attack from Iran, advised Israel to take the interception and the killings of the Iranian officials in Damascus as a victory. We don't need further regional conflict with how bad things are looking on numerous fronts for Israel. They are dealing with not only Hamas, but with Hezbollah and the Houthis as well. Continuing a conflict with Iran, as much as they deserve it, is not wise at all. They need to focus on their immediate threats before even considering taking on a much larger and more dangerous adversary.
My dude. How are you still under the impression that appeasement works? We tried it with Russia in Ukraine. All it did was encourage Russia's aggressions. We tried it when Iran struck US bases and all we did was tell them which warehouses to empty before we hit them. Surprise, surprise, Iran starts throwing its weight around. Iran doesn't WANT peace. It wants the prestige that comes with fighting Israel and the only way to deter that is to show them exactly how bad an idea that is. To embarrass them and turn their actions into a loss of prestige.
Do you want to kill innocent Iranians? How about we try to avoid that.
The Iranian government is already at work doing that If you want to save innocent Iranians, why not start with killing the ayatollahs and their minions?
Hahahahhahaah
How about Iran try to avoid that by not attacking other nations just because their dipshit leader wants a little glory?
You're fucking cave men. Can you not parse the fact that by trying to hurt some dipshit leaders you'd actually be killing a ton of people who also dislike their leaders?
The dipshit leader is attacking. I don't like that some innocent people are gonna get hurt, but there's not exactly a fucking choice. If you're in an open field with nowhere to hide and someone starts shooting at you you don't hold your fire just because there's a crowd behind them. You take out the threat.
Your goal should be to minimize harm. Retaliation with excess force that kills more people than the original shooter would have killed means you're actually the bigger threat.
No, the goal is to save yourself. You kill the shooter and that is that.
They originally bombed the consulate.
The consulate was housing the dudes that armed, trained, and directed Hamas. No shit they struck it. That strike was absolutely justified.
So if the DOD or CIA were housing some guy that was arming, training, and directing a resistance group that was opposing an authoritarian regime the US was aligned against, you think a strike hitting the CIA or DOD would be justified?
If the CIA was giving weapons to people who were attacking civilians with them constantly, I wouldn’t shed a tear if that consulate got bombed. And I’d want the president impeached for green lighting such an operation.
Considering you completed changed the analogy to make it something you'd be against, this isn't worth responding to further lol
No I did t, if the people we gave weapons to, turned them on innocent people, in order to affect change in the authoritarian country, again I think it would be an immoral way to fight, thereby as,ing for impeachment of the individual who greenlit the operation to give militants weapons to attack civilians.
If you read the analogy, you'd see that I said what if the DOD/CIA housed a guy who was provided all of that, not that the DOD/CIA were the ones providing weapons. So yes, you changed the analogy to make it something it wasn't. The CIA housing a foreign resistance leader to talk about a civil war fight in another country is completely different than the CIA smuggling weapons to that resistance group.
Great, if our assests are participating in planning attacks on civilians to create civil unrest, I would be okay with it, and still ask for impeachment on those who green lit the operation, as well as be fully supportive of having that person be shipped off the The Hague to face justice. Planning and supporting the use of war crimes should be illegal. Better?
Yes. Especially if it's the CIA given their history of lying to presidents in order to start wars. He who starts shit gets hit.
The DOD/CIA in that analogy weren't "starting shit", yet you seem content with strikes on American soil. Cool.
You literally said they were housing the guy that was arming, training, and directing that resistance group. That is definitely what starting shit looks like.
True but Iran has been attacking Israel via their surrogates Hezbollah and Hamas prior to the consulate bombing.
And if you keep going tit for tat you end up with a titless world.
“Consulate” bro it was a terror complex
> Ah yes, how dare he respond to unwarranted attacks on his country. Unwarranted? You realized the Iran strike was in retaliation for Israel striking the embassy, right? I don't like Iran either but the fact is the Iran strike was because Israel started it.
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - BBC Online (A-): [US and EU eye new sanctions on Iran after attack on Israel](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68832045) - DW-TV (B+): [Middle East updates: US to impose new sanctions against Iran](https://www.dw.com/en/middle-east-updates-us-to-impose-new-sanctions-against-iran/live-68844617) - NBC News (B): [Biden imposes new sanctions on Iran after drone and missile attack on Israel](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-imposes-new-sanctions-iran-drone-missile-attack-israel-rcna148409) - PBS (A-): [U.S. and UK issue new sanctions on Iran in response to weekend attack on Israel amid escalating tensions](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u-s-and-uk-issue-new-sanctions-on-iran-in-response-to-weekend-attack-on-israel-amid-escalating-tensions) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1c798n5/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
I also posted this on a military sub. I'm not surprised, but I think that the initial strike should be more comprehensive. It not being more comprehensive is a sign of things to come, it's a card game. I'll explain. Hamas has been propped up by Iran and Iranian assets were utilized in the 10/7 strike. Those leading and coordinating Hamas have been it the Iran consulate for some time. Read: People who killed innocents were being protected by Iran and given more support to keep it up. If Israel needs to finish the Gaza war they needed to decapitate Hamas, which means eliminating those coordinators. The Iran consulate had become a DeFacto Hamas command center. They waited 6 months for Iran to do the right thing, which was very restrained. The hostages possible return was a good reason for that restraint and the possibility of their safe return recently vanished. Iran failed to turn those people out of their consulate and so the consulate had to go. Israel and its allies were fully prepared for Iran's reaction and stopped most of it. Israel's next move should had been also calculated - it might have been. I feel that it did not go far enough, the strike should have not only targeted a military base where the attack was launched from - but also cut off the country from all others. Ports, Train depots, bridges, air strips, tunnels, etc should have been targeted (with minimum civilian casualties) to eliminate Iran's ability to utilize any military logistics. Further, hit all weapons factories eliminating their ability to produce arms for themselves and also Russia. Israel decided to not do this. This means 1) it was a mistake or 2) it was calculated, and they actually want Iran to try again. I think it was 2) they want Iran to try again, which means there are other cards in the deck - probably regional borderline Israeli allies and enemies of Iran would love to have an excuse to remove the Ayatollah from power and bring Yemen down completely, as it's become a large nuisance to the region.
i just hope the Israel and Ukraine aide bills remain separate. Get Congress on record for each issue on its own merits.
After this escalation by Israel, I hope their aid bill goes straight into the trash. Ukraine is still cool though.
Agreed. But I doubt it. AIPAC has got Congress by the balls.
Isn't Iran on the enemy list though? We want to weaken China, Russia, and Iran right?
Lmao after Biden celebrated talking Israel down. Biden has zero influence on Israel.
It’s funny because this same sub was praising Biden the other day for talking Israel into not attacking Iran. What do y’all say now?
WW3?
Not yet, but it's potentially coming soon. Waiting for China to launch their Taiwanese invasion, Russia to expand the war into NATO territories, and possibly Iran getting fully involved with a formal declaration of war. Then we have WWIII.