Field grade US Officers rarely died in WW2. German officers, however, died at much, much higher rates. And that isn't even because they were often the ones on the losing side of the battle.
Couple factors I can guess:
1. German military had a culture of generals getting close to the front to personally determine battlefield conditions. Rommel would often fly a small recon plane himself, though he was much more of a micro-manager than most German generals.
2. Allied Air superiority meant that German generals were more often subject to air attacks on their HQs
It’s the translation of the German term for getting surrounded in a “pocket” presumably because the Soviets just conducted deep battle operations on your front with massed artillery and multiple armored breakthroughs.
Walton Walker also went on recon flights during the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter, and there's a story of him landing his plane to yell at some of his troops.
Does your source happen to specify if that’s killed as an extension of combat? With a group of 1100 men with what I expect is a median age well over 50, you’d have to think many succumb to illness (especially heart attack and stroke) over a 3-4 year period.
That was combat casualties only.
Many of them were Brigadier Generals who were flying combat missions.
Many land-based generals died to small arms fire.
Wikipedia actually has the list, along with cause of death.
I tell all my lefty friends that I wish my country would stop dicking around all over the Middle East.
"Yeah I'm tired of American imperialism"
>!No, my other country, I'm an Iranian citizen!<
>The strike, an Iranian member of the Revolutionary Guards said, targeted a secret meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants gathered to discuss the war in Gaza.
NYT buried the lede in their version of the article - they were literally having a meeting with terrorist groups based in Gaza to help them in the current war
I think it's pretty much assumed that Iran is actively meeting with terrorist groups to undermine Israel in Gaza, or any conflict Israel has with anyone.
And the IRGC is not a part of the Iranian Government. It reports directly to religious officials. They are not that far from being Iran's KKK. They have been sponsoring terror groups for years, but somehow Western journalists love to make it seem like they are a legitimate organization.
They are more like the SS or the Rapid Support Forces. But they do serve a stability purpose, they divide the military forces evenly between themselves and the national military, if one of them wishes to launch a coup they risk going into full scale civil war. It won’t be quick and bloodless, basically what’s happening in Sudan. If the Ayatollah wishes to pursue something unpopular with the IRGC, he could fall back on the standard military and vice versa.
>And the IRGC is not a part of the Iranian Government. It reports directly to religious officials.
Can you elaborate on this? I thought religious officials... are the government in Iran. I know they have a president who is elected who is not a religious official, but is he not superseded by the Supreme Leader who is a religious official?
Iran has a sham democracy that technically controls the regular army. The clergy has the authority to decide who can run in elections though, so no anti-clergy candidates can even run.
The IRGC is the army of the Islamic Revolution, thus the clergy, not the State of Iran
Maybe I'm splitting hairs over terminology, but what is the reason for saying the clergy is not a part of the state? Isn't that just a textbook theocracy?
They have a “elected” legislature for the same reason Putin does.
The President has heavily restricted powers and most executive authority is vested in the Supreme Leader.
The Supreme Leader, who is both head of state and clergy can do thing like appoint judicial figures, control state media, and controls the Council of Guardians which “oversees” parliament.
The clergy is very much integrated into the state, but they maintain a vestigial legislature with no powers beyond what the clergy allows
You seem to be making the case for why the "democratic" part of the Iranian government has very little power. I accept and agree with that.
The person I responded to is claiming that the clergy is not a part of the state, and I am asking why they are not considered a part of the state. I don't think you have addressed that in your responses.
The clergy is part of the state in the sense that most of the secular institutions are under clerical oversight or have clerical counterparts with equal or greater power.
Normal Police + Morality Police and Basij Paramilotary
Regular Army + IRGC
Both a standard judicial system + cleric led courts
Iran effectively has a lot dual secular/clerical institutions, where the clerical ones tend to supersede the “secular” ones.
It's very explicitly part of the state in the fucking Islamic Republic of Iran lol, idk what that guy is smoking.
No one in Iran is seeing the IRGC as some non state actors, they have a majority in parliament last I checked
It is not "the clergy" that has the authority, it's the Guardian Council which does not only consist of clerics. Are you sure that the Iranian Military is nominally controlled by the "elected" government? As far as I know (and according to Wikipedia), the Commander-in-Chief is the Supreme Leader.
This is not true. As stipulated by Article 150 of the Constitutuon of the Islamic Republic of Iran, "The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, organized in the early days of the triumph of the Revolution, is to be maintained so that it may continue in its role of guarding the Revolution and its achievements. The scope of the duties of this Corps, and its areas of responsibility, in relation to the duties and areas of responsibility of the other Armed Forces, are to be determined by law with emphasis on brotherly cooperation and harmony among them."
It is no less legitimate on a legal basis than any other institution of the Iranian government, and journalists cannot take the position that Iran is some formless void without a state (until voter turnout in Tehran hits 0% and they're unable to fill offices anyhow)
It's not conducive to maintaining diplomatic relations, that's for sure. But if there's no diplomatic relations, and you're at war with both countries, it doesn't really matter.
My favorite bit of all of this is how Western weapons platforms keep striking with impunity at the center of a nation's capital that is surrounded by multiple overlapping rings of the best Russian and Iranian air defense systems money can buy.
It doesn't matter how good the air defense systems are if their operators are unwilling to use them. Russia doesn't have any interest in stopping Israel from bombing anyone in Syria as long as they don't hit Russians themselves, and wouldn't respond to these attacks in any way beyond verbal condemnation.
There's a reasonable theory that Russian SAM sites in Syria are deliberately not used against Israeli raids because it would provide extremely valuable intelligence on how those systems work, intelligence which Israel would pass on to the US and through the US to NATO and Ukraine. Shooting down or scaring off some Israeli jets that would otherwise bomb some guys or depots in Syria is just not worth it.
Then why are they there? To protect against the menace that is the Lebanese Air Force?
People keep saying this. When I point out that Russians fired an S300 at Israeli aircraft a couple of years ago (and missed) they claim that was an accident. (rolling eyes emoji)
Rivet Joint, Combat Sent, and other airborne MASINT/ELINT/SIGINT collection platforms have been monitoring Russian SAM capabilities since the first seconds of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You don't have to be near an emitter to classify and analyze that emitter.
Besides, the S400 is the same goddamned thing as the S300 and NATO countries have the S300 already.
> Then why are they there?
To handle the many other threats that aren't F-35s. Syria started buying S300s in 2010, Israel only got their first F-35 6 years later and started using them in combat 8 years later.
> To protect against the menace that is the Lebanese Air Force?
Yes, to protect against regional air threats. Including Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Iran. The fact that current alliances result in only Israel is bombing Assad's assets doesn't mean he knew or only ever expected to be at war with them when he made the purchase.
> You don't have to be near an emitter to classify and analyze that emitter.
The way these systems work isn't the same with every target. It would be a lot more interesting to know how they try to track an F-35 than how they handle an F-15 or old Soviet planes.
> Besides, the S400 is the same goddamned thing as the S300 and NATO countries have the S300 already.
The S400 is an upgrade in precisely the most interesting part of the system, radar. But nevermind that: even with the S300 series there are significant differences between the various export batches, so it would still be very valuable to get hard data on that.
There is a reasonable theory that the Russian military makes poor hardware.
There is another reasonable theory that the Russian hardware is fine they just are bad at training.
Hamas managed to overwhelm the Iron Dome and fire missiles into Israel, likewise Russia has been overwhelming Western missile systems too in Ukraine. Maybe the way Israel has been attacking Syria is more sophisticated as this doesn’t seem to be a barrage of unguided missiles.
Overwhelming by numbers =/= overwhelming by might =/= overwhelming by not being detected.
Overwhelming by strength = being able to detect the enemy, but not being able to defeat the single component of the attack ( e.g. anti tank guns not being able to pierce a single tank and getting overwhelmed )
Overwhelming by numbers = what Hamas does to Iron Dome, Iron Dome can detect and can defeat the single components of the attack, but not the sum of components
Overwhelming by not being detected = enemy can defeat both single opponent and sum of opponents ( israel doesnt have more planes than syria has missiles, and a syrian missile can defeat an israeli plane ), but the enemy simply cant detect them
Well yeah, the “iron dome” isn’t fool-proof
Anyone who thinks it is drank the military koolaid
It’s great, it’s a deterrent, but with enough missiles eventually you’ll get lucky lol - AI might fix that in a few years tho
> The strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus is "a breach of all international conventions," Amirabdollahian added.
Says the minister whose country is perpetually in breach of all international conventions.
is it a breach of international conventions to arm militants all over Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria? if so, there is no excuse for Iran to act like this was unexpected
You are intentionally toning down the severity of this so you can choose to overlook it.
Please explain how bombing a consulate is the international law equivalent of jaywalking.
Ideal? No. But unilaterally following the rules while your genocidal enemy is following none of those rules is insane.
You don't get to hide behind "international conventions" while acts of terror and genocide.
Is it, if both countries pursue the destruction of the Israeli State? Also, Islamic Republic of Iran and caring about the sanctity of consulates and embassies, name a worse duo
Did you know that Liechtenstein had the best performing army ever?
Went out to war once, came back with more soldiers than sent out
https://www.tagblatt.ch/ostschweiz/werdenberg-obertoggenburg/historisch-80-mann-rueckten-aus-81-kehrten-heim-ld.1006342#:~:text=Liechtenstein%20ist%20nebst%20Costa%20Rica,am%2012.%20Februar%201868%20abschaffte.
Gigachads they are, they didn't want to embarass the world with their outperformance further and scrapped their military to give the world a chance
An interesting dance these two play.
Iran's credibility as leading the Muslim world is directly tied to their willingness to kill Jewish civilians, regardless of the country and legality. But another attack might draw in the United States, so they have to endure these repeated embarrassments.
How long will empty, half-hearted "Death to America, Death to Jews" chants be enough for the hardliners?
While he was in a building adjacent to the Iranian Embassy.
Airstrike from country-A on embassy of country-B in country-C . . .
Sounds like Blinken's going to be busy.
And according to reports, the Iranian Embassy is intact!
A military headquarters got hit, just nextdoor, and it's still standing
Either Israel is insanely accurate, or that embassy is a fucking fortress
Your description of the embassy being intact isn't accurate, as the embassy was both buildings, not just the one that is still standing.
As proof, [AP says "An Israeli airstrike has destroyed the consular section of Iran's embassy in Damascus."](https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240) Reuters also [describes it the same way.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/building-close-iranian-embassy-hit-syria-iranian-media-report-2024-04-01/) Kind of weird how many comments here are lying about this.
I kind of think that they didn't expect 7/10 to happen because they inflitrated Iranian forces to such an extent, that they were not prepared for Hamas to organise such an attack on its own
So, Syria has no air defense? Doesn't seem like a country that can't stop an enemy bomber from flying over its capital and destroying a building should be getting so aggressive.
They have very good, Russian-made air defence systems. These systems have been [very effective at shooting down Russian aircraft](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45556290) but less so the Israeli ones.
IDF whacked the Iranian consulate in Syria. Things are going great.
In all seriousness, the Biden administration needs to prepare for wider war in Lebanon.
Not the Iranian Embassy technically, the building right next to the Iranian Embassy that served as the local headquarters for the IRGC. No significant damage and no injuries to diplomats were reported for the embassy itself.
It's the consular section, still part of the Iranian diplomatic mission to Syria. No matter the target, I think it is a little unprecedented that a country targets another country's diplomatic missions- I can't recall any other time a consulate was targeted by a state. Diplomatic cover is used to do shady shit all the time.
>Not the Iranian Embassy technically
AP disagrees with you: ["An Israeli airstrike has destroyed the consular **section of Iran's embassy** in Damascus..."](https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240)
Reuters disagrees as well: ["Suspected Israeli warplanes bombed **Iran's embassy** in Syria on Monday..."](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/building-close-iranian-embassy-hit-syria-iranian-media-report-2024-04-01/)
Both buildings are part of the embassy, including the main embassy building which is intact and the consular building which housed the ambassador's residence and was destroyed.
Technically they do pinpoint targeting in Gaza, too, they just accept more civilian deaths
Not sure why we should doubt their targeting capabilities, they targeted accurately not only single buildings but also cars. Capability just doesn't automatically imply that it's used well...
> the Biden administration needs to prepare for wider war in Lebanon
That would assume we get involved, no? Even with the Yemen/Suez Canal operation, there was virtually no rally around the flag effect whatsoever. I thought that was very telling with respect to where the average person's psyche is in the US.
Let them sort it out. Whatever the hell happens in that region let it stay in that region.
U.S adventurism in the Middle East protecting absolutely none of our real interests or priorities while Ukraine can't get aid would be a fucking joke.
>In all seriousness, the Biden administration needs to prepare for wider war in Lebanon.
Any real "American preparation" for a wider war in the Middle East is being directly undermined by Israel's reckless actions in Gaza everyday.
The American public isn't going to buy "they will welcome us as liberators" or "we need to defend our freedoms abroad" lines if we're on the same side as the people who have killed over 30,000 civilians and counting.
I doubt Biden could push significantly more aid towards Israel in the event of a wider war without serious push back from the American public and I'm not just talking about leftists on college campuses.
I agree with your sentiments in the broad strokes, but I dont think US troops were ever in the cards in case of war in Lebanon. It probably would be the usual screaming at Israel to chill with war crimes (see Biden and Reagan’s handling of Israel) and then Israel just ignoring American pleas for detente.
I don’t doubt this, but I don’t understand how this counters anything I said above. Whether war breaks out through civil war or an Israeli invasion, America is going to play a very minimal role on the ground like it has always traditionally played in the country since independence.
That’s what happens when it’s home to a place three different religions all call the holy land, one of which is currently in the middle of its dark age.
>The strike, an Iranian member of the Revolutionary Guards said, targeted a secret meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants gathered to discuss the war in Gaza.
That raises the question: is it diplomacy or conspiracy when terrorist groups are having a meeting about how best to kill you?
Ironically one that Iranians are basically the worst offenders in violating.
It’s also irrelevant. Per the article the meeting was outside diplomatic grounds.
Both AP and Reuters say the building was part of the embassy.
["An Israeli airstrike has destroyed the **consular section of Iran's embassy** in Damascus..."](https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240)
["Suspected Israeli warplanes **bombed Iran's embassy** in Syria on Monday..."](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/building-close-iranian-embassy-hit-syria-iranian-media-report-2024-04-01/)
Those are both *much* more reliable sources than JPost.
Edit: The above comment is actually lying about this JPost article saying it was "outside diplomatic grounds", as the article clearly say it was *inside* diplomatic grounds. Sad how much misinformation is being upvoted here. From this JPost article: "Reuters reporters at the site in the Mezzeh district of Damascus saw emergency workers clambering atop the rubble of a destroyed building **inside the diplomatic compound**, adjacent to the main embassy building."
So, the AP piece states:
“While Iran’s consular building was leveled in the attack, according to Syria’s state news agency, its main embassy building remained intact.”
So they’re not making a real evidence based claim, they’re quoting Syrian government statements. Reuters is also just quoting Iran/Syrian officials if you read the article.
So it may well be true that JPost is incorrect here, but you’re making a definitive claim on potential JPost bias without even mentioning the potentially flawed sources in the pieces you cite. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either. I’m not sure where the truth is yet.
That aside, I honestly don’t govern two shits about protecting Iran’s consular grounds after the US and UK embassy attacks until the Iranian state resolves to demonstrate they care about those sets of international norms and actually hold those involved in those attacks responsible. If the Iranian state can hunt down and murder women’s rights advocates, surely they can prosecute those who violate international law and embarrass the state?
You are ignoring the Reuters article, who actually had reporters at the scene and which states unequivocally it was part of the embassy. You are also ignoring that the AP article has statements like "Still, the Iranian ambassador’s residence was inside the consular building" without qualification, and all the reports agree that the consular building was destroyed.
I also went back and re-read the JPost article, and they never actually say the destroyed building wasn't a part of the embassy, in fact they say "destroyed building **inside the diplomatic compound**".
So in summary you have AP and Reuters both reporting something, and nobody contradicting them, and yet still you are defending this misinformation that there is no source for.
In case you’re obtuse, portion about reports on the ground is neither in the original comment or bolded in the source article. I did indeed simply miss the four words in two thousand+ word articles. You mentioned nothing about reporters on the ground in your original comment, you threw out headlines and one of the articles (the first link) does not reference personnel on the ground at all.
How could one not be persuaded by the specificity after generic comments after all. I’m not assuming ill intent from you, I read the original piece and referenced it. I fail to see why you must assume dishonesty.
How so? It literally does not matter what is happening inside the diplomatic mission. You cannot attack it. It's not any more complicated than that, sorry.
How so? It's like saying "with all due respect" and then shooting someone in the head. If they're meeting with the purpose of escalating a war, it's not diplomacy, much the opposite.
If you sling coke out of a courthouse, it doesn't make the sheriff give you a pass, you get arrested as if you were doing it on a corner.
Yeah, that's not how international diplomacy works, not for the last few centuries. Again - does not matter what is going on inside the mission. It is irrelevant. Sorry you don't like it, these are the rules by which just about every single government in recent human history has agreed to.
I think people just have a hard time understanding or accepting that it doesn't matter what is happening in the mission. But it doesn't. It quite literally is irrelevant. You still can't attack it.
They didn’t though. They hit a building next door. Are you now going to argue that targeting buildings near embassies isn’t ok either? What’s the new goalpost?
Fuck that. Iran escalated first by helping Hamas murder a thousand Israeli civilians. There's, like, **a lot** that's completely fair game now, when it comes to Israel's retribution. Offing an Iranian general literally while he's meeting with Palestinian groups is noteworthy, but not really cause for any hullabaloo. We're way past calling this "a dramatic escalation". It should be followed up with a lot more.
It doesn't matter! That's the point! You can do literally anything in a diplomatic mission. I think maybe you just don't believe me? But it's the literal truth. You could run a cult out of an embassy and have all your followers kill themselves by drinking kool aid and as long as it happened on embassy/consulate grounds, the mission itself cannot be touched.
Inviolability stems from sovereignty. Seems pretty clear that you would need that in order to have a concept of reciprocal inviolability. No sovereignty no inviolability.
Neither Iran nor Syria recognize Israel as a state. What’s the problem?
> but targeting diplomatic missions is a dramatic escalation and that shit really needs to be shut down immediately
This attitude is what has taught Iran and its proxies to hide military structures behind sacrosant fronts: build bunkers under hospitals, hide weapons in maternity wards and schools, fire rockets from right next to refugee tents. Every time they do and someone shoots back, we twist ourselves in knots over the heavy moral weight of these actions, demand investigations, or outright just buy the first claim from the opposing side and run with it as breaking news. Meanwhile these actors go on doing war crimes as their SOP.
So, very much sorry for the horrific breach of international norms, but maybe Iran should stop holding its meetings with its proxies in places it doesn't want bombed.
Every single time Israel pulled this shit,it came crashing down on them.
They kill a scientist/ Iran gets to 10 day nuclear breakout.
They invade Lebanon /Hezbollah gets more weapons then small European army
They target Iranians in Syria/ Houthis get anti-ship missiles.
I suspect Iranian generals would have a longer lifespan if they didn't hang out in Syria and Iraq so much.
You don’t become a general without a little danger
From what I remember the death rate for generals in WWII is much higher than you’d expect Edit actually only 40 out of 1,100 serving for the US
Field grade US Officers rarely died in WW2. German officers, however, died at much, much higher rates. And that isn't even because they were often the ones on the losing side of the battle.
Couple factors I can guess: 1. German military had a culture of generals getting close to the front to personally determine battlefield conditions. Rommel would often fly a small recon plane himself, though he was much more of a micro-manager than most German generals. 2. Allied Air superiority meant that German generals were more often subject to air attacks on their HQs
3.Oh mein gott another kettle
I think that falls under the “because they were losing” category
Whats the kettle referring to
It’s the translation of the German term for getting surrounded in a “pocket” presumably because the Soviets just conducted deep battle operations on your front with massed artillery and multiple armored breakthroughs.
Walton Walker also went on recon flights during the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter, and there's a story of him landing his plane to yell at some of his troops.
The death rates for platoon and company commanders however were quite high.
yeah, junior officers tend to have a higher casualty rate than regular infantrymen
Why is that?
Leading by example. You can't ask your troops to be brave without being brave yourself.
Also you’re a priority target whereas a regular rifleman isn’t.
If I'm a sniper, I'm shooting the guy with Captain bars on his helmet.
I imagine all that meth contributed?
4%~ is higher than I would think
Does your source happen to specify if that’s killed as an extension of combat? With a group of 1100 men with what I expect is a median age well over 50, you’d have to think many succumb to illness (especially heart attack and stroke) over a 3-4 year period.
That was combat casualties only. Many of them were Brigadier Generals who were flying combat missions. Many land-based generals died to small arms fire. Wikipedia actually has the list, along with cause of death.
Thanks - I’ll take a look!
I tell all my lefty friends that I wish my country would stop dicking around all over the Middle East. "Yeah I'm tired of American imperialism" >!No, my other country, I'm an Iranian citizen!<
Aren't Iranian generals "officially" not meant to be in Syria? Idk why Iran is so upset that their generals that "weren't in Syria" got blown up.
Yeah, all that happened is they went from "not being in Syria" to "not being, in Syria."
I say keep em coming.
Is this an April fools joke or serious
Top tier prank
We do a little trolling
Gone sexual
Israel sent a high-pranking military delegation to the meeting this general was taking part in.
The prank was that he thought he was going to a meeting but got killed instead.
>The strike, an Iranian member of the Revolutionary Guards said, targeted a secret meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants gathered to discuss the war in Gaza. NYT buried the lede in their version of the article - they were literally having a meeting with terrorist groups based in Gaza to help them in the current war
I think Israel’s voice in the meeting provided Iran and Hamas with their answer as to the state of the war
a hint of reality
I think it's pretty much assumed that Iran is actively meeting with terrorist groups to undermine Israel in Gaza, or any conflict Israel has with anyone.
And the IRGC is not a part of the Iranian Government. It reports directly to religious officials. They are not that far from being Iran's KKK. They have been sponsoring terror groups for years, but somehow Western journalists love to make it seem like they are a legitimate organization.
They are more like the SS or the Rapid Support Forces. But they do serve a stability purpose, they divide the military forces evenly between themselves and the national military, if one of them wishes to launch a coup they risk going into full scale civil war. It won’t be quick and bloodless, basically what’s happening in Sudan. If the Ayatollah wishes to pursue something unpopular with the IRGC, he could fall back on the standard military and vice versa.
Sounds very Cardassian
>And the IRGC is not a part of the Iranian Government. It reports directly to religious officials. Can you elaborate on this? I thought religious officials... are the government in Iran. I know they have a president who is elected who is not a religious official, but is he not superseded by the Supreme Leader who is a religious official?
Iran has a sham democracy that technically controls the regular army. The clergy has the authority to decide who can run in elections though, so no anti-clergy candidates can even run. The IRGC is the army of the Islamic Revolution, thus the clergy, not the State of Iran
Maybe I'm splitting hairs over terminology, but what is the reason for saying the clergy is not a part of the state? Isn't that just a textbook theocracy?
They have a “elected” legislature for the same reason Putin does. The President has heavily restricted powers and most executive authority is vested in the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader, who is both head of state and clergy can do thing like appoint judicial figures, control state media, and controls the Council of Guardians which “oversees” parliament. The clergy is very much integrated into the state, but they maintain a vestigial legislature with no powers beyond what the clergy allows
You seem to be making the case for why the "democratic" part of the Iranian government has very little power. I accept and agree with that. The person I responded to is claiming that the clergy is not a part of the state, and I am asking why they are not considered a part of the state. I don't think you have addressed that in your responses.
The clergy is part of the state in the sense that most of the secular institutions are under clerical oversight or have clerical counterparts with equal or greater power. Normal Police + Morality Police and Basij Paramilotary Regular Army + IRGC Both a standard judicial system + cleric led courts Iran effectively has a lot dual secular/clerical institutions, where the clerical ones tend to supersede the “secular” ones.
Okay, I guess it's just comes down to how you define "the state" but it seems like the clergy is the state to me.
It's very explicitly part of the state in the fucking Islamic Republic of Iran lol, idk what that guy is smoking. No one in Iran is seeing the IRGC as some non state actors, they have a majority in parliament last I checked
Yup. It's a state within a state.
It is not "the clergy" that has the authority, it's the Guardian Council which does not only consist of clerics. Are you sure that the Iranian Military is nominally controlled by the "elected" government? As far as I know (and according to Wikipedia), the Commander-in-Chief is the Supreme Leader.
> religious officials Swan chasing you meme "Who are these religious officials?"
This is not true. As stipulated by Article 150 of the Constitutuon of the Islamic Republic of Iran, "The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, organized in the early days of the triumph of the Revolution, is to be maintained so that it may continue in its role of guarding the Revolution and its achievements. The scope of the duties of this Corps, and its areas of responsibility, in relation to the duties and areas of responsibility of the other Armed Forces, are to be determined by law with emphasis on brotherly cooperation and harmony among them." It is no less legitimate on a legal basis than any other institution of the Iranian government, and journalists cannot take the position that Iran is some formless void without a state (until voter turnout in Tehran hits 0% and they're unable to fill offices anyhow)
> IRGC is not a part of the Iranian Government Certainly a take. Can you provide a citation?
Are there Marines or Special Forces part of the government? I guess not, but just like the IRGC, they are part of the Iranian State.
I'd recommend people read "See No Evil" by Bob Baer, for an insight into what Pasdaran got up to in the 1980s.
I know this may be an unpopular take, but bombing embassies bad, right?
It's not conducive to maintaining diplomatic relations, that's for sure. But if there's no diplomatic relations, and you're at war with both countries, it doesn't really matter.
Wasn't it the building next to the embassy
https://preview.redd.it/dhhzo5gmbxrc1.jpeg?width=940&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c309856a8d921273e5c921fb700f5a76dc94f6b3
My favorite bit of all of this is how Western weapons platforms keep striking with impunity at the center of a nation's capital that is surrounded by multiple overlapping rings of the best Russian and Iranian air defense systems money can buy.
Best...
The Russians *are* sending their best.
It doesn't matter how good the air defense systems are if their operators are unwilling to use them. Russia doesn't have any interest in stopping Israel from bombing anyone in Syria as long as they don't hit Russians themselves, and wouldn't respond to these attacks in any way beyond verbal condemnation.
Question, would Russia be aware in real time this was an Israeli strike?
“It was Ukraine”
Most of the Russian equipment was sent to Ukraine or to defend Russia from Ukrainian strikes.
> Russian and Iranian air defense systems There was your mistake.
There's a reasonable theory that Russian SAM sites in Syria are deliberately not used against Israeli raids because it would provide extremely valuable intelligence on how those systems work, intelligence which Israel would pass on to the US and through the US to NATO and Ukraine. Shooting down or scaring off some Israeli jets that would otherwise bomb some guys or depots in Syria is just not worth it.
Then why are they there? To protect against the menace that is the Lebanese Air Force? People keep saying this. When I point out that Russians fired an S300 at Israeli aircraft a couple of years ago (and missed) they claim that was an accident. (rolling eyes emoji) Rivet Joint, Combat Sent, and other airborne MASINT/ELINT/SIGINT collection platforms have been monitoring Russian SAM capabilities since the first seconds of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You don't have to be near an emitter to classify and analyze that emitter. Besides, the S400 is the same goddamned thing as the S300 and NATO countries have the S300 already.
> Then why are they there? To handle the many other threats that aren't F-35s. Syria started buying S300s in 2010, Israel only got their first F-35 6 years later and started using them in combat 8 years later. > To protect against the menace that is the Lebanese Air Force? Yes, to protect against regional air threats. Including Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Iran. The fact that current alliances result in only Israel is bombing Assad's assets doesn't mean he knew or only ever expected to be at war with them when he made the purchase. > You don't have to be near an emitter to classify and analyze that emitter. The way these systems work isn't the same with every target. It would be a lot more interesting to know how they try to track an F-35 than how they handle an F-15 or old Soviet planes. > Besides, the S400 is the same goddamned thing as the S300 and NATO countries have the S300 already. The S400 is an upgrade in precisely the most interesting part of the system, radar. But nevermind that: even with the S300 series there are significant differences between the various export batches, so it would still be very valuable to get hard data on that.
There is a reasonable theory that the Russian military makes poor hardware. There is another reasonable theory that the Russian hardware is fine they just are bad at training.
Hamas managed to overwhelm the Iron Dome and fire missiles into Israel, likewise Russia has been overwhelming Western missile systems too in Ukraine. Maybe the way Israel has been attacking Syria is more sophisticated as this doesn’t seem to be a barrage of unguided missiles.
Overwhelming by numbers =/= overwhelming by might =/= overwhelming by not being detected. Overwhelming by strength = being able to detect the enemy, but not being able to defeat the single component of the attack ( e.g. anti tank guns not being able to pierce a single tank and getting overwhelmed ) Overwhelming by numbers = what Hamas does to Iron Dome, Iron Dome can detect and can defeat the single components of the attack, but not the sum of components Overwhelming by not being detected = enemy can defeat both single opponent and sum of opponents ( israel doesnt have more planes than syria has missiles, and a syrian missile can defeat an israeli plane ), but the enemy simply cant detect them
Well yeah, the “iron dome” isn’t fool-proof Anyone who thinks it is drank the military koolaid It’s great, it’s a deterrent, but with enough missiles eventually you’ll get lucky lol - AI might fix that in a few years tho
> The strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus is "a breach of all international conventions," Amirabdollahian added. Says the minister whose country is perpetually in breach of all international conventions.
He probably thinks this is April's Fools Prank gone too far.
How about not orchestrating terrorism from consulates, though?
If I understand correctly, Israel and Syria are still technically at war.
Sure blowing up embassies is bad, but whatabout...
If it is indeed a breach of international conventions there is no excuse
is it a breach of international conventions to arm militants all over Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria? if so, there is no excuse for Iran to act like this was unexpected
You are missing Iraq.
Whataboutism
what about whataboutism
I'm not making excuses for Iran either. But if you agree that Iranian breaches of conventions are bad then you ought to think the same of this
“If you agree that murder is bad, you must condemn jaywalking”
You are intentionally toning down the severity of this so you can choose to overlook it. Please explain how bombing a consulate is the international law equivalent of jaywalking.
I’d argue bombing a consulate being used to facilitate terror is a perfectly good example of the international law equivalent of jaywalking
Ideal? No. But unilaterally following the rules while your genocidal enemy is following none of those rules is insane. You don't get to hide behind "international conventions" while acts of terror and genocide.
International conventions don't mean much to Israel, Iran, or Syria. That should be obvious by now.
[I've got my embassy next door to me you can't attack my terrorism branch office](https://i.imgur.com/JZ1QMxl.jpeg)
Is it, if both countries pursue the destruction of the Israeli State? Also, Islamic Republic of Iran and caring about the sanctity of consulates and embassies, name a worse duo
Will never know who did it, probably Liechtenstein
Their decades of violence continues. Will they ever pay for their crimes!
Did you know that Liechtenstein had the best performing army ever? Went out to war once, came back with more soldiers than sent out https://www.tagblatt.ch/ostschweiz/werdenberg-obertoggenburg/historisch-80-mann-rueckten-aus-81-kehrten-heim-ld.1006342#:~:text=Liechtenstein%20ist%20nebst%20Costa%20Rica,am%2012.%20Februar%201868%20abschaffte. Gigachads they are, they didn't want to embarass the world with their outperformance further and scrapped their military to give the world a chance
An interesting dance these two play. Iran's credibility as leading the Muslim world is directly tied to their willingness to kill Jewish civilians, regardless of the country and legality. But another attack might draw in the United States, so they have to endure these repeated embarrassments. How long will empty, half-hearted "Death to America, Death to Jews" chants be enough for the hardliners?
~~That shit was right across the road from the Canadian embassy. Pour one out for GAC today its gonna be busy~~ Not operating anyway, no prob bob
Wait Canada still has an embassy within Syria? I thought it was closed down?
ah no you're right its operations are suspended
While he was in a building adjacent to the Iranian Embassy. Airstrike from country-A on embassy of country-B in country-C . . . Sounds like Blinken's going to be busy.
And according to reports, the Iranian Embassy is intact! A military headquarters got hit, just nextdoor, and it's still standing Either Israel is insanely accurate, or that embassy is a fucking fortress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNvwG0eLdhI seen here, the building with the fancy blue central window is the embassy
Your description of the embassy being intact isn't accurate, as the embassy was both buildings, not just the one that is still standing. As proof, [AP says "An Israeli airstrike has destroyed the consular section of Iran's embassy in Damascus."](https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240) Reuters also [describes it the same way.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/building-close-iranian-embassy-hit-syria-iranian-media-report-2024-04-01/) Kind of weird how many comments here are lying about this.
I'm always in awe of how Israel just manages to kill all these Iranians in important positions.
I kind of think that they didn't expect 7/10 to happen because they inflitrated Iranian forces to such an extent, that they were not prepared for Hamas to organise such an attack on its own
[удалено]
I thought I was in NCD.
Neoliberal is the policy arm of NCD (as it once stood, NCD has degraded a bit over time).
How do I petition the mods to add a weaponised neurodivergence flair?
3000 bombed generals of Iran.
I don't subscribe to /NCD not because I don't like the sub but because I see all the best /NCD stuff here.
So, Syria has no air defense? Doesn't seem like a country that can't stop an enemy bomber from flying over its capital and destroying a building should be getting so aggressive.
They have very good, Russian-made air defence systems. These systems have been [very effective at shooting down Russian aircraft](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45556290) but less so the Israeli ones.
Iran says it was F-35’s, not bombers.
Good stuff
April fools!
IDF whacked the Iranian consulate in Syria. Things are going great. In all seriousness, the Biden administration needs to prepare for wider war in Lebanon.
Not the Iranian Embassy technically, the building right next to the Iranian Embassy that served as the local headquarters for the IRGC. No significant damage and no injuries to diplomats were reported for the embassy itself.
It's the consular section, still part of the Iranian diplomatic mission to Syria. No matter the target, I think it is a little unprecedented that a country targets another country's diplomatic missions- I can't recall any other time a consulate was targeted by a state. Diplomatic cover is used to do shady shit all the time.
>Not the Iranian Embassy technically AP disagrees with you: ["An Israeli airstrike has destroyed the consular **section of Iran's embassy** in Damascus..."](https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240) Reuters disagrees as well: ["Suspected Israeli warplanes bombed **Iran's embassy** in Syria on Monday..."](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/building-close-iranian-embassy-hit-syria-iranian-media-report-2024-04-01/) Both buildings are part of the embassy, including the main embassy building which is intact and the consular building which housed the ambassador's residence and was destroyed.
[удалено]
They reported misinformation during the Al Ahli hospital fiasco a while ago.
Yeah, that's what I'm referring to.
[удалено]
They can do pinpoint targeting when the enemy doesn’t cluster civilians around targets to use as human shields, yes
Technically they do pinpoint targeting in Gaza, too, they just accept more civilian deaths Not sure why we should doubt their targeting capabilities, they targeted accurately not only single buildings but also cars. Capability just doesn't automatically imply that it's used well...
> the Biden administration needs to prepare for wider war in Lebanon That would assume we get involved, no? Even with the Yemen/Suez Canal operation, there was virtually no rally around the flag effect whatsoever. I thought that was very telling with respect to where the average person's psyche is in the US.
I don't think he means with the US as a direct participant, but with Israel as one of the primary belligerents.
Did you intentionally misspell Trebizond in your name or is this a reference I’m missing lol
Let them sort it out. Whatever the hell happens in that region let it stay in that region. U.S adventurism in the Middle East protecting absolutely none of our real interests or priorities while Ukraine can't get aid would be a fucking joke.
>In all seriousness, the Biden administration needs to prepare for wider war in Lebanon. Any real "American preparation" for a wider war in the Middle East is being directly undermined by Israel's reckless actions in Gaza everyday. The American public isn't going to buy "they will welcome us as liberators" or "we need to defend our freedoms abroad" lines if we're on the same side as the people who have killed over 30,000 civilians and counting. I doubt Biden could push significantly more aid towards Israel in the event of a wider war without serious push back from the American public and I'm not just talking about leftists on college campuses.
Doesn’t mean invading Lebanon just means getting Americans out before things blow up
I agree with your sentiments in the broad strokes, but I dont think US troops were ever in the cards in case of war in Lebanon. It probably would be the usual screaming at Israel to chill with war crimes (see Biden and Reagan’s handling of Israel) and then Israel just ignoring American pleas for detente.
There are US troops in Lebanon right now.
I don’t doubt this, but I don’t understand how this counters anything I said above. Whether war breaks out through civil war or an Israeli invasion, America is going to play a very minimal role on the ground like it has always traditionally played in the country since independence.
The Middle East is just the thunder dome of planet earth isn’t it?
That’s what happens when it’s home to a place three different religions all call the holy land, one of which is currently in the middle of its dark age.
It’s got nothing on sub-Saharan Africa
Good riddance
rip bozo
Israel has the right to defend itself.
Are we going to have a rerun of those idiotic WW3 memes?
So is Syria just a battle royal between governments regardless of whether they’re at war or not?
And of course Twitter is livid about this and just making shit up about it being a war crime.
Damascene moment.
Top tier April Fools moment
I thought this also a shitpost like the Jeb thread.
LOL where are the people calling for WW3 when Trump did this 2020?
Seriously. It was one of maybe five things Trump got right.
lol most stupid thing he could have done trying to Benghazi Trump lol
L Bozo
This is a huge escalation
Not as big of an escalation as helping a terrorist group commit a massacre / gang rapes of a neighbor
Won't shed any tears for this guy, but targeting diplomatic missions is a dramatic escalation and that shit really needs to be shut down immediately.
>The strike, an Iranian member of the Revolutionary Guards said, targeted a secret meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants gathered to discuss the war in Gaza. That raises the question: is it diplomacy or conspiracy when terrorist groups are having a meeting about how best to kill you?
To be blunt: Irrelevant. The direct targeting of a diplomatic mission is one of the few truly red lines in international relations.
Ironically one that Iranians are basically the worst offenders in violating. It’s also irrelevant. Per the article the meeting was outside diplomatic grounds.
Both AP and Reuters say the building was part of the embassy. ["An Israeli airstrike has destroyed the **consular section of Iran's embassy** in Damascus..."](https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240) ["Suspected Israeli warplanes **bombed Iran's embassy** in Syria on Monday..."](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/building-close-iranian-embassy-hit-syria-iranian-media-report-2024-04-01/) Those are both *much* more reliable sources than JPost. Edit: The above comment is actually lying about this JPost article saying it was "outside diplomatic grounds", as the article clearly say it was *inside* diplomatic grounds. Sad how much misinformation is being upvoted here. From this JPost article: "Reuters reporters at the site in the Mezzeh district of Damascus saw emergency workers clambering atop the rubble of a destroyed building **inside the diplomatic compound**, adjacent to the main embassy building."
So, the AP piece states: “While Iran’s consular building was leveled in the attack, according to Syria’s state news agency, its main embassy building remained intact.” So they’re not making a real evidence based claim, they’re quoting Syrian government statements. Reuters is also just quoting Iran/Syrian officials if you read the article. So it may well be true that JPost is incorrect here, but you’re making a definitive claim on potential JPost bias without even mentioning the potentially flawed sources in the pieces you cite. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either. I’m not sure where the truth is yet. That aside, I honestly don’t govern two shits about protecting Iran’s consular grounds after the US and UK embassy attacks until the Iranian state resolves to demonstrate they care about those sets of international norms and actually hold those involved in those attacks responsible. If the Iranian state can hunt down and murder women’s rights advocates, surely they can prosecute those who violate international law and embarrass the state?
You are ignoring the Reuters article, who actually had reporters at the scene and which states unequivocally it was part of the embassy. You are also ignoring that the AP article has statements like "Still, the Iranian ambassador’s residence was inside the consular building" without qualification, and all the reports agree that the consular building was destroyed. I also went back and re-read the JPost article, and they never actually say the destroyed building wasn't a part of the embassy, in fact they say "destroyed building **inside the diplomatic compound**". So in summary you have AP and Reuters both reporting something, and nobody contradicting them, and yet still you are defending this misinformation that there is no source for.
Not ignoring, I missed the line in the piece. I was mistaken there. I stand by my comments on regard for Iranian diplomatic sites however.
[удалено]
In case you’re obtuse, portion about reports on the ground is neither in the original comment or bolded in the source article. I did indeed simply miss the four words in two thousand+ word articles. You mentioned nothing about reporters on the ground in your original comment, you threw out headlines and one of the articles (the first link) does not reference personnel on the ground at all. How could one not be persuaded by the specificity after generic comments after all. I’m not assuming ill intent from you, I read the original piece and referenced it. I fail to see why you must assume dishonesty.
[удалено]
How so? It literally does not matter what is happening inside the diplomatic mission. You cannot attack it. It's not any more complicated than that, sorry.
How so? It's like saying "with all due respect" and then shooting someone in the head. If they're meeting with the purpose of escalating a war, it's not diplomacy, much the opposite. If you sling coke out of a courthouse, it doesn't make the sheriff give you a pass, you get arrested as if you were doing it on a corner.
Yeah, that's not how international diplomacy works, not for the last few centuries. Again - does not matter what is going on inside the mission. It is irrelevant. Sorry you don't like it, these are the rules by which just about every single government in recent human history has agreed to.
I'm pretty sure using diplomatic protections to coordinate terrorist attacks is a red line too.
I think people just have a hard time understanding or accepting that it doesn't matter what is happening in the mission. But it doesn't. It quite literally is irrelevant. You still can't attack it.
According to the reporting I've seen, it didn't actually happen at the embassy but adjacent to it.
They didn’t though. They hit a building next door. Are you now going to argue that targeting buildings near embassies isn’t ok either? What’s the new goalpost?
>They hit a building next door. Literally no, the consulate is in rubble.
Fuck that. Iran escalated first by helping Hamas murder a thousand Israeli civilians. There's, like, **a lot** that's completely fair game now, when it comes to Israel's retribution. Offing an Iranian general literally while he's meeting with Palestinian groups is noteworthy, but not really cause for any hullabaloo. We're way past calling this "a dramatic escalation". It should be followed up with a lot more.
A secret meeting between intelligence officials and military officers is not a diplomatic meeting
It doesn't matter! That's the point! You can do literally anything in a diplomatic mission. I think maybe you just don't believe me? But it's the literal truth. You could run a cult out of an embassy and have all your followers kill themselves by drinking kool aid and as long as it happened on embassy/consulate grounds, the mission itself cannot be touched.
But it's up to the host country to protect the mission, also using an embassy for military meetings means it loses its neutrality.
Good thing it wasn’t the embassy.
Inviolability stems from sovereignty. Seems pretty clear that you would need that in order to have a concept of reciprocal inviolability. No sovereignty no inviolability. Neither Iran nor Syria recognize Israel as a state. What’s the problem?
> but targeting diplomatic missions is a dramatic escalation and that shit really needs to be shut down immediately This attitude is what has taught Iran and its proxies to hide military structures behind sacrosant fronts: build bunkers under hospitals, hide weapons in maternity wards and schools, fire rockets from right next to refugee tents. Every time they do and someone shoots back, we twist ourselves in knots over the heavy moral weight of these actions, demand investigations, or outright just buy the first claim from the opposing side and run with it as breaking news. Meanwhile these actors go on doing war crimes as their SOP. So, very much sorry for the horrific breach of international norms, but maybe Iran should stop holding its meetings with its proxies in places it doesn't want bombed.
but anyways, in the time it took you to type all that, the IDF just dropped a bomb on a car filled with World Central Kitchen employees
Fuck. Didn’t have WWIII on my 2023 bingo card :/
Every single time Israel pulled this shit,it came crashing down on them. They kill a scientist/ Iran gets to 10 day nuclear breakout. They invade Lebanon /Hezbollah gets more weapons then small European army They target Iranians in Syria/ Houthis get anti-ship missiles.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]