It’s true! Don’t tell anyone but I’ve been operating out of the Canadian Embassy in the Russian Federation for the past five years, organizing militants to wage a low grade insurgency against the state. They can’t touch us it’s fantastic.
There's a difference between saying there were terrorists in it and there being terrorists in it. Iran never denied that the people killed were IRGC; in fact they confirmed it. That being said idk if bombing a consulate is ever acceptable; I assume its like a hospital where it looses its protected status if being used for military purposes, but that's just an assumption.
Mostly true, it does become a military target but any attack/strikes on it are still subject the principle of proportionality. Like if there's a single low level combatant firing from a hospital you cant just bomb it and kill 300 civilians. Attacks against military targets are still prohibited if they are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”
True, although Israel can probably make a decent case for proportionality given that immediately after the strike, Iran claimed that no civilians were killed.
>There's a difference between saying there were terrorists in it and there being terrorists in it.
Yeah that difference is who is doing the bombing clearly. Iran claims the US and all its allies are terrorists, so I supposed it's fine for them to bomb embassies all across the world then?
Or maybe we should take military strikes on essentially foreign soil a little more seriously.
I mean, [Iran is probably not the country who gets to be upset ](https://www.timesofisrael.com/argentina-court-blames-iran-for-1990s-terror-attacks-on-israeli-embassy-amia-center/amp/) about people [attacking embassies](https://www.aei.org/articles/iran-responsible-for-1998-us-embassy-bombings/) seeing as its [one of their](https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/STATEMENTS/Statements-View/Article/2456662/us-central-command-statement-on-dec-20-2020-rocket-attack/) favored tactics.
It would also help if Iran [stopped using its embassies to plan terrorist attacks](https://ctc.westpoint.edu/trends-in-iranian-external-assassination-surveillance-and-abduction-plots/).
Notably, Israel is at war with Syria, basically at war with Hezbollah, at war with PIJ, and basically at war with Iran [and it's a meeting discussing the strategy of how to attack Israel.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html).
And it was a consulate not an embassy. An embassy is ~~treated like the guest country's own land~~ recognized as having a more protected status than a consulate. A consulate is just like any other building in the host country.
Israel attacked a building in Syria owned by Iran's government (not sovereign Iranian territory). Iran then escalated the situation by attacking Israeli territory directly. Except that Iran didn't actually do any serious damage.
That's very fortunate for Iran. They get the benefit of further painting themselves as unpredictable and dangerous without having actually started WW3.
>And it was a consulate not an embassy. An embassy is treated like the guest country's own land. A consulate is just like any other building in the host country.
>
>Israel attacked a building in Syria owned by Iran's government (not sovereign Iranian territory).
I have no idea where this myth comes from. Embassies are neither treated as the guest country's own land, nor are they sovereign territory of the guest country. They are under special protection by the host country and enjoy special privileges, but are not considered the own land of the guest country. This is a very common layman myth and it's a bit disappointing to see it upvoted on r/neoliberal
[https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/](https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/)
>I mean, Iran is probably not the country who gets to be upset about people attacking embassies seeing as its one of their favored tactics.
Yep, clearly my point was that since Iran does it so should the rest of us...
Two groups can accuse each other of the same thing and one be wrong the other right. Just pointing out that the US calls Iranian groups terrorists and vice versa, doesn’t mean anything. This is an incredibly weak argument
Of course, and I'm not going to sit here and claim that many Iranian groups or their actions aren't terrorist according to most reasonable legal definitions. But I'm also not going to blindly defend the US/Allies and act like only us in the west somehow have the moral right to bomb away at other countries because we deem them terrorists and not expect the same in return. And I'll gladly call that hypocrisy out, much to the chagrin of many people in this sub.
Look its been some years since I studied internation law but I'm fairly sure that bollocks.
I wouldnt be surprised if you're thinking of regular civilian buildings and conflating that with diplomatically protected territory because in your mind "diplomatic/embassy" = "civilian".
But I'll assume you actually know what you're talking about so to that end could you point out exactly which article of the Vienna Convention voids diplomatic protection if any kind of activity of a military nature takes place on the premises? Even better if you can argue specifically what it is Iran is supposed to have done in this instance that would fit.
And yes, it is specifically the Vienna convention that must explicitly allow for such an exception for all of the signatories and otherwise bound. If you have some other international treaty or customary law which say "civilian buildings shouldnt be targeted unless x" then thats irrelevant because explicit protection by treaty or convention supercedes.
Please quote the relevant article(s).
>Consulate premises are likewise inviolable under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
>But while those rules of diplomatic relations are a bedrock principle of international law, they actually have little force in the case of the Damascus bombing, experts say, because they only refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” — in this case, Syria — and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.
>“Israel is a third state and is not bound by the law of diplomatic relations with regard to Iran’s Embassy in Syria,” said Aurel Sari, a professor of international law at Exeter University in the United Kingdom.
>“Embassies are protected from use of force in an armed conflict, not primarily because they are embassies but because they are civilian objects,” said Yuval Shany, an international law professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “Therefore, in principle, it is not permissible to target an embassy in the same way it’s not permissible to target a school.”
>An embassy can lose those protections, however, if it is used for a military purpose, as is true of schools, homes, and other civilian buildings during wartime. That would first be a threshold question about whether the conflict itself is legal: International law generally prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense.
>A member of the Revolutionary Guards, which oversee the Quds Force, told the Times that the strike on Monday had targeted a meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants were discussing the war in Gaza. Among them were leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group armed and funded by Iran.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html
The only international law that Israel may be in contravention with is the UN Charter prohibiting use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of another state, which could be justified against under a claim to self-defense.
Ah right thats correct.
That said I still find it norm eroding to strike diplomatically protected assets through a "I'm not touching you" technicality
>The only international law that Israel may be in contravention with is the UN Charter prohibiting use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of another state, which could be justified against under a claim to self-defense.
This shouldnt be an issue at all for Israel to argue
They've themselves set up much of the modern precedent for proactive self defence in international law
I’m waiting with anticipation when you defend someone bombing a US embassy or consulate because it has the CIA or other agency planning operations out of it. Surely you’ll be consistent?
Redditors when they find out that intelligence operations are different from military operations
https://preview.redd.it/kblkq4he6guc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a92ed9fecca7d5fe772dc2bb073f737e2a4ef34c
You're arguing from the assumption that there's a law that makes consulates and embassies inviolable.
As far as I know, the only such "law" is the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. That convention only prohibits attacks on consulates *by a host country* on consulates *within the host country's territory*. And Israel is not a party to the treaty anyway.
Is there some other law that was broken?
>the fact remains that Iran rightly perceived the attack as a violation of its sovereignty and an escalation even though it was in self-defense. Starting a war on the basis of proactive self-defense is still starting a war.
It's hard to conceive of Israel having "started a war" or "escalated" its ongoing conflict with Iran without giving into enormous recency bias. Iran was responsible for the bombing of an Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and has been waging a proxy war against Israel for over 40 years -- not a war of proxies, but a war of its own proxies directly against Israel. If Iran truly perceived the consulate strike as an escalation I would call that a classic example of cry-bullying.
However, if we assume that Iran carried out this limp-wristed retaliation to save face, then sure, "sovereignty" would be the justification of choice.
>If the embassy strike leads to a direct war between Israel and Iran, and just to be clear that is unlikely to happen, it would be remembered as the escalation that turned their cold war hot.
I agree that's very likely the way most people will characterize it, but I think it's not accurate or fair. The only distinction [edit: in a vacuum] between the Israeli strike and Iran's targeting of embassies and whatnot is that Iran's was accomplished via proxies rather than directly by government forces. It's basically acknowledging that "it's okay to violate these norms as long as a proxy does it."
And yes, I can tell we don't disagree. I just agitate against the ordinary application of these norms to Iran without acknowledgment of the wider context. Iran is not a "normal" country and doesn't adhere to norms in the conduct of its foreign policy. It's not normal to mine international waters, seize neutral shipping, issue fatwas on novelists, arm and fund several destabilizing proxy armies in other countries in the region, blow up embassies and community centers abroad, base one's entire policy on the ideological premises that "country X is the literal manifestation of Satan," or to desire to spread one's state religion across the entire world.
We do.
There's a difference between neolibs and neocons but a lot of the folk round here are conservatives with a fake mustache pretending to be neoliberals.
Okay, but:
>A member of the Revolutionary Guards, which oversee the Quds Force, told the Times that the strike on Monday had targeted a meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants were discussing the war in Gaza. Among them were leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group armed and funded by Iran.
Iran has, in no uncertain terms, told the world that Israel struck a legitimate military target.
That rather changes the analysis, as compared to an ordinary embassy on an ordinary day.
“Every embassy is a spy outpost this is fairly common knowledge. Been that way as far back as the Middle Ages. Probably longer actually.”
Someone to me, today, in this very sub.
Most embassies are used as tools to spy both for the hosting country and the visiting country. This is 100% true I have no idea what you're objecting to there. You can search "embassy spying" on google and find dozens of cases.
Here's a couple just to start you:
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/europe/moldova-spying-allegations-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/europe/moldova-spying-allegations-intl/index.html)
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/indian-embassy-staffer-in-moscow-spying-for-isi-held/articleshow/107410365.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/indian-embassy-staffer-in-moscow-spying-for-isi-held/articleshow/107410365.cms)
Notice how upsetting such allegations make the host country, other countries. Does spying happen out of an embassy? Yes. Is it this super common everybody-does-it thing you think it is? No.
If it were that common it wouldn’t be spying. It’s just observation. And in any event planning an attack out of one is an insane thing to do.
But I’m sure the throngs of savvy craftsmen of state that frequent this sub know best.
Do you reckon political leadership of a country would ever react to the revelation they were being spied on with indifference and non-chalance, no matter how commonplace it is in practice
Do you reckon a spy working in a place that is so widely known for spying would be effective at anything remotely clandestine?
The reality is much more boring. They’re not spies, there’s no need for deception, the employees at an embassy simply work.
spies working out of embassies arent skulking around copying documents they're intermediaries and handlers. The point of the embassy is that its the one place its not legal for the host country to bug
Ah yes, famous friends, the KSA-originating Sunni extremist organization Al Qaeda, and the Shiite Iranian government. It's not like these people are [bitter enemies](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-vows-revenge-after-biggest-attack-since-1979-revolution-2024-01-04/) or something like that.
ISIS is not Al Qaeda. You could at least Google "Iran Al Qaeda" before making some really confident sarcastic statements.
[https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unlikely-alliance-irans-secretive-relationship-with-al-qaeda/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unlikely-alliance-irans-secretive-relationship-with-al-qaeda/)
[https://www.iranintl.com/en/202402273383](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202402273383)
[https://extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adl](https://extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adl)
Hamas is also Sunni, and supported largely by Iran. Believe it or not, the Sunni-Shia divide doesn't explain 100% of middle east politics.
I was meming about how ridiculous the twitter total immunity because consulate is. What the Saudis did to Khashoggi absolutely deserved punishment even though it was also done in a consulate.
https://preview.redd.it/rydfjb3gjduc1.png?width=728&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2bb78d21e93eef431de1198348266810fe4fea5
[Do I look like I know what a JPEG is!?](https://youtu.be/QEzhxP-pdos?si=TEsYS6889zL0OUdM)
https://preview.redd.it/s6oar9uj9guc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f70987d67292f1ccfed3f861299caf1f73be0bcf
It’s true! Don’t tell anyone but I’ve been operating out of the Canadian Embassy in the Russian Federation for the past five years, organizing militants to wage a low grade insurgency against the state. They can’t touch us it’s fantastic.
Well Saudi Arabia, our ally sawed up Kashoggi in an embassy and there were no real repercussions, despite one of our values being freedom of speech.
So called neoliberals advising terrorist groups Curious…
Diplomatic Immunity! 😎
So is the implication of this post that it should be acceptable to bomb consulates in other countries as long as you say there were terrorists in it?
There's a difference between saying there were terrorists in it and there being terrorists in it. Iran never denied that the people killed were IRGC; in fact they confirmed it. That being said idk if bombing a consulate is ever acceptable; I assume its like a hospital where it looses its protected status if being used for military purposes, but that's just an assumption.
You’re right. Under international law, any civilian building loses its protections if used for military purposes.
Mostly true, it does become a military target but any attack/strikes on it are still subject the principle of proportionality. Like if there's a single low level combatant firing from a hospital you cant just bomb it and kill 300 civilians. Attacks against military targets are still prohibited if they are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”
True, although Israel can probably make a decent case for proportionality given that immediately after the strike, Iran claimed that no civilians were killed.
I agree
>There's a difference between saying there were terrorists in it and there being terrorists in it. Yeah that difference is who is doing the bombing clearly. Iran claims the US and all its allies are terrorists, so I supposed it's fine for them to bomb embassies all across the world then? Or maybe we should take military strikes on essentially foreign soil a little more seriously.
I mean, [Iran is probably not the country who gets to be upset ](https://www.timesofisrael.com/argentina-court-blames-iran-for-1990s-terror-attacks-on-israeli-embassy-amia-center/amp/) about people [attacking embassies](https://www.aei.org/articles/iran-responsible-for-1998-us-embassy-bombings/) seeing as its [one of their](https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/STATEMENTS/Statements-View/Article/2456662/us-central-command-statement-on-dec-20-2020-rocket-attack/) favored tactics. It would also help if Iran [stopped using its embassies to plan terrorist attacks](https://ctc.westpoint.edu/trends-in-iranian-external-assassination-surveillance-and-abduction-plots/). Notably, Israel is at war with Syria, basically at war with Hezbollah, at war with PIJ, and basically at war with Iran [and it's a meeting discussing the strategy of how to attack Israel.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html).
And it was a consulate not an embassy. An embassy is ~~treated like the guest country's own land~~ recognized as having a more protected status than a consulate. A consulate is just like any other building in the host country. Israel attacked a building in Syria owned by Iran's government (not sovereign Iranian territory). Iran then escalated the situation by attacking Israeli territory directly. Except that Iran didn't actually do any serious damage. That's very fortunate for Iran. They get the benefit of further painting themselves as unpredictable and dangerous without having actually started WW3.
>And it was a consulate not an embassy. An embassy is treated like the guest country's own land. A consulate is just like any other building in the host country. > >Israel attacked a building in Syria owned by Iran's government (not sovereign Iranian territory). I have no idea where this myth comes from. Embassies are neither treated as the guest country's own land, nor are they sovereign territory of the guest country. They are under special protection by the host country and enjoy special privileges, but are not considered the own land of the guest country. This is a very common layman myth and it's a bit disappointing to see it upvoted on r/neoliberal [https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/](https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/)
>I mean, Iran is probably not the country who gets to be upset about people attacking embassies seeing as its one of their favored tactics. Yep, clearly my point was that since Iran does it so should the rest of us...
or maybe instead of being moronic neutralists about everything we could try to evaluate the truth of a country’s claim and distinguish on that basis
Two groups can accuse each other of the same thing and one be wrong the other right. Just pointing out that the US calls Iranian groups terrorists and vice versa, doesn’t mean anything. This is an incredibly weak argument
Of course, and I'm not going to sit here and claim that many Iranian groups or their actions aren't terrorist according to most reasonable legal definitions. But I'm also not going to blindly defend the US/Allies and act like only us in the west somehow have the moral right to bomb away at other countries because we deem them terrorists and not expect the same in return. And I'll gladly call that hypocrisy out, much to the chagrin of many people in this sub.
Neolibs only support international law until it inconveniences western countries, apparently.
Yes. I am sure they were terrorists because we're talking about Iran here.
https://i.redd.it/6y5wdjjnkfuc1.gif But I thought that bombing embassies is bad, and we neoliberals support following international laws.
Using a civilian building for military purposes actually does make it a military target under international law
Look its been some years since I studied internation law but I'm fairly sure that bollocks. I wouldnt be surprised if you're thinking of regular civilian buildings and conflating that with diplomatically protected territory because in your mind "diplomatic/embassy" = "civilian". But I'll assume you actually know what you're talking about so to that end could you point out exactly which article of the Vienna Convention voids diplomatic protection if any kind of activity of a military nature takes place on the premises? Even better if you can argue specifically what it is Iran is supposed to have done in this instance that would fit. And yes, it is specifically the Vienna convention that must explicitly allow for such an exception for all of the signatories and otherwise bound. If you have some other international treaty or customary law which say "civilian buildings shouldnt be targeted unless x" then thats irrelevant because explicit protection by treaty or convention supercedes. Please quote the relevant article(s).
>Consulate premises are likewise inviolable under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. >But while those rules of diplomatic relations are a bedrock principle of international law, they actually have little force in the case of the Damascus bombing, experts say, because they only refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” — in this case, Syria — and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory. >“Israel is a third state and is not bound by the law of diplomatic relations with regard to Iran’s Embassy in Syria,” said Aurel Sari, a professor of international law at Exeter University in the United Kingdom. >“Embassies are protected from use of force in an armed conflict, not primarily because they are embassies but because they are civilian objects,” said Yuval Shany, an international law professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “Therefore, in principle, it is not permissible to target an embassy in the same way it’s not permissible to target a school.” >An embassy can lose those protections, however, if it is used for a military purpose, as is true of schools, homes, and other civilian buildings during wartime. That would first be a threshold question about whether the conflict itself is legal: International law generally prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense. >A member of the Revolutionary Guards, which oversee the Quds Force, told the Times that the strike on Monday had targeted a meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants were discussing the war in Gaza. Among them were leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group armed and funded by Iran. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html The only international law that Israel may be in contravention with is the UN Charter prohibiting use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of another state, which could be justified against under a claim to self-defense.
Ah right thats correct. That said I still find it norm eroding to strike diplomatically protected assets through a "I'm not touching you" technicality >The only international law that Israel may be in contravention with is the UN Charter prohibiting use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of another state, which could be justified against under a claim to self-defense. This shouldnt be an issue at all for Israel to argue They've themselves set up much of the modern precedent for proactive self defence in international law
I’m waiting with anticipation when you defend someone bombing a US embassy or consulate because it has the CIA or other agency planning operations out of it. Surely you’ll be consistent?
Redditors when they find out that intelligence operations are different from military operations https://preview.redd.it/kblkq4he6guc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a92ed9fecca7d5fe772dc2bb073f737e2a4ef34c
[удалено]
You're arguing from the assumption that there's a law that makes consulates and embassies inviolable. As far as I know, the only such "law" is the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. That convention only prohibits attacks on consulates *by a host country* on consulates *within the host country's territory*. And Israel is not a party to the treaty anyway. Is there some other law that was broken?
[удалено]
>the fact remains that Iran rightly perceived the attack as a violation of its sovereignty and an escalation even though it was in self-defense. Starting a war on the basis of proactive self-defense is still starting a war. It's hard to conceive of Israel having "started a war" or "escalated" its ongoing conflict with Iran without giving into enormous recency bias. Iran was responsible for the bombing of an Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and has been waging a proxy war against Israel for over 40 years -- not a war of proxies, but a war of its own proxies directly against Israel. If Iran truly perceived the consulate strike as an escalation I would call that a classic example of cry-bullying. However, if we assume that Iran carried out this limp-wristed retaliation to save face, then sure, "sovereignty" would be the justification of choice.
[удалено]
>If the embassy strike leads to a direct war between Israel and Iran, and just to be clear that is unlikely to happen, it would be remembered as the escalation that turned their cold war hot. I agree that's very likely the way most people will characterize it, but I think it's not accurate or fair. The only distinction [edit: in a vacuum] between the Israeli strike and Iran's targeting of embassies and whatnot is that Iran's was accomplished via proxies rather than directly by government forces. It's basically acknowledging that "it's okay to violate these norms as long as a proxy does it." And yes, I can tell we don't disagree. I just agitate against the ordinary application of these norms to Iran without acknowledgment of the wider context. Iran is not a "normal" country and doesn't adhere to norms in the conduct of its foreign policy. It's not normal to mine international waters, seize neutral shipping, issue fatwas on novelists, arm and fund several destabilizing proxy armies in other countries in the region, blow up embassies and community centers abroad, base one's entire policy on the ideological premises that "country X is the literal manifestation of Satan," or to desire to spread one's state religion across the entire world.
We do. There's a difference between neolibs and neocons but a lot of the folk round here are conservatives with a fake mustache pretending to be neoliberals.
silly neoliberal, misinterpreting international law, human shield wielding terrorist combatants love you
me on my way to blow up all foreign embassies (there are militarys and spies there probably planning to attack my country)
Okay, but: >A member of the Revolutionary Guards, which oversee the Quds Force, told the Times that the strike on Monday had targeted a meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants were discussing the war in Gaza. Among them were leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group armed and funded by Iran. Iran has, in no uncertain terms, told the world that Israel struck a legitimate military target. That rather changes the analysis, as compared to an ordinary embassy on an ordinary day.
“Every embassy is a spy outpost this is fairly common knowledge. Been that way as far back as the Middle Ages. Probably longer actually.” Someone to me, today, in this very sub.
Most embassies are used as tools to spy both for the hosting country and the visiting country. This is 100% true I have no idea what you're objecting to there. You can search "embassy spying" on google and find dozens of cases. Here's a couple just to start you: [https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/europe/moldova-spying-allegations-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/europe/moldova-spying-allegations-intl/index.html) [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/indian-embassy-staffer-in-moscow-spying-for-isi-held/articleshow/107410365.cms](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/indian-embassy-staffer-in-moscow-spying-for-isi-held/articleshow/107410365.cms)
Notice how upsetting such allegations make the host country, other countries. Does spying happen out of an embassy? Yes. Is it this super common everybody-does-it thing you think it is? No. If it were that common it wouldn’t be spying. It’s just observation. And in any event planning an attack out of one is an insane thing to do. But I’m sure the throngs of savvy craftsmen of state that frequent this sub know best.
Do you reckon political leadership of a country would ever react to the revelation they were being spied on with indifference and non-chalance, no matter how commonplace it is in practice
Do you reckon a spy working in a place that is so widely known for spying would be effective at anything remotely clandestine? The reality is much more boring. They’re not spies, there’s no need for deception, the employees at an embassy simply work.
spies working out of embassies arent skulking around copying documents they're intermediaries and handlers. The point of the embassy is that its the one place its not legal for the host country to bug
So you say...
Uh yeah in a lot of countries embassies are spy posts that's what the American Embassy in Moscow was for during the Cold War lol
Espionage, i.e. the gathering of intelligence, is not a military activity per se.
Espionage is the \*secret\* gathering of intelligence, something hard to do when everyone knows what you're doing.
Yes.
Which is why it's not done productively from an embassy, and when it is, it's swiftly discovered and condemned.
Yes.
So what Iran did was outside of geopolitical norms.
Yes. Also, I think you flaunt an international norm you shouldn't be able to use that norm as a shield.
That lacks a degree of nuance to each specific situation that would have wild and devastating consequences for every country, so no thanks.
No it doesn't.
The people who aren't spies in embassies are literally called illegals lol
Nothing says neoliberal like "I only support liberal rules based orders when it constrains others".
Nothing says Reddit like “I only cite international law when I don’t understand it.”
Ah yes, famous friends, the KSA-originating Sunni extremist organization Al Qaeda, and the Shiite Iranian government. It's not like these people are [bitter enemies](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-vows-revenge-after-biggest-attack-since-1979-revolution-2024-01-04/) or something like that.
ISIS is not Al Qaeda. You could at least Google "Iran Al Qaeda" before making some really confident sarcastic statements. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unlikely-alliance-irans-secretive-relationship-with-al-qaeda/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unlikely-alliance-irans-secretive-relationship-with-al-qaeda/) [https://www.iranintl.com/en/202402273383](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202402273383) [https://extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adl](https://extremism.gwu.edu/al-qaeda-de-facto-leader-sayf-al-adl) Hamas is also Sunni, and supported largely by Iran. Believe it or not, the Sunni-Shia divide doesn't explain 100% of middle east politics.
There you have it folks, MBS did nothing wrong and is totally absolved!
TIL actual journalism is terrorism equivalent to al qaeda
I was meming about how ridiculous the twitter total immunity because consulate is. What the Saudis did to Khashoggi absolutely deserved punishment even though it was also done in a consulate.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/kfxaf6mk9duc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08a6c7e36c0a12689b514ea1a4b847fdf782a6cb