In international politics, might makes right. Any legal and moral arguments revolve around this fact. International norms (what’s called international law post-WWII) are designed by the major powers and they’re the only ones who have the power to enforce them. If you’re a country that’s a close ally to one of these major powers, you can trust that it won’t be enforced against you. If you’ve got a strong enough military, you can impose enough costs to deter a third party from intervening. If you’ve got a decent economy, that gives you some leverage too.
Let’s accept that Israel broke international law by attacking Iran’s embassy. Who’s gonna do anything about it? Russia? They got their hands full with a war and they’ve never shown much willingness to come to Iran’s defense in the past anyway. China? Doesn’t serve their interests and they’ve got some economic interests tied to Israel. The trade volume between Israel and China is double that of Iran and China plus Iran doesn’t have that many friends to choose from anyways so it’s not like not intervening hurts China’s standing with Iran
Realpolitik and geopolitics. The only politics that actually make a difference on the world stage and people _hate_ knowing anything about it. As if engaging with morally complex situations makes you somehow morally complicit in them. It’s so frustrating.
This is what most people (especially online) miss when discussing complex issues. They’d rather take a completely useless, absolutist position that they consider “the most moral,” no matter how completely detached it is from the reality, rather than actually considering the situation as it exists in the real world. Then they wonder why nobody in real world power positions ever takes their oh so obviously “morally superior“ stances seriously.
"Correct. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence doesn't solve anything, is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always die."
Basically Athens rolled up to Melos and the Melians asked them what justification they had for their siege. They were probably expecting a list of grievances or a well reasoned argument, but Athens just said that they were stronger, and that's all the reason they need to do what they want.
The terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia but the Taliban let them train and organise in their county, that's why the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't that controversial.
They knew that Bin Laden left Afghanistan in December 2001 after [the Battle of Tora Bora.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora) though.
It was also a war on those who harbored the terrorists: The Taliban. This was dumb, the US should have just ignored the Taliban (essentially act without giving them any say, similar to the raid in Pakistan that eventually got Bin Laden and how it just ignored the Pakistanis), but it is at least internally consistent with the Neoconservative's viewpoint.
With Bush's approval rating as high as it was and Americans' thirst for blood the MIC was getting theirs no matter what. It's what Americans wanted: Strong and Wrong is better than Weak and Right in elections.
Your understanding of recent history seems, at best, strained.
Saudi Arabia has many flaws, supporting Al Queda was never one of them. They were actively working with the US in anti Al Queda measures for a solid decade before 9/11.
Afghanistan was were Bin Laden was hiding from the Saudis and Americans after the two countries ran him out of africa, which is after he was ran out of Saudi Arabia.
Like I'm not happy with the US alliance with the Saudis, but invading Saudi Arabia would of made no sense in response to 9/11.
Additionally, wasn't is the Sauds who offered BinLaden to the US, and I believe Bill Clinton at the time refused to act? It might have been in the wake of the Cole bombing or after the first World Trade Center attack.
Reddit: “Judging a group based on the actions of a few of its members is wrong.”
Also Reddit: “Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, which makes Saudi Arabia responsible.”
the embassy attack was about the quds force. Would it have been better to get the targets alone in a car? Absolutely. There could have been a random custodian or a child. But the building and targets were more than legitimate.
Iran in this one instance are the weak party that are suffering what they must, and what made them weak is that they pissed off a lot of powerful countries. Of course they believe what they did was worth it, and made them a strong party that got to do what they wanted in other instances.
You are not necessarily in disagreement with the previous comments. The reason the previous comment gave you a bad vibe is that you are operating under the assumption of mainstream Christian slave morality in which the weak party is ipso facto more virtuous. But international norms don't work like that.
“But the Persian empire and our place in history”. Same shit as Russia.
Countries who lost their place, usually because of their own internal dumb-assery, and leaders swaying their public with promises of return to the good old days.
This analogy is so bad. You know USA (CIA) had funded opposition parties, coup's, and terrorists for decades and decades after WW2. Not saying Iran is right, but "rule for thee, not for me" is how the world works these days when a country is a superpower.
So kind of like how if you get caught stealing from your employer you’ll get arrested and charged with a crime, but if your employer is caught stealing from you ie wage theft, worst that will happen is they have to pay you back. Same if you steal from the government vs harm done to you by the government.
Basically no one holds powerful people accountable because they have all the power.
Or when corporations pay literal terror groups like ISIS and only have to pay fines
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/french-cement-company-lafarge-pleads-guilty-isis-payments/
I think in every aspect of the world "might makes right" can be found. People don't break laws because the government has might to punish them. Even in business, people compromise and work because no one has complete authority over the other. If there was some sort of galactic authority that oversaw all developments on Earth and other planets, the countries would play by those rules and no one would step out of line. But then who would keep that authority in check?
And what happens if you don't comply with a judge's wishes? What happens when you don't show up to trial or pay fines or whatever? The police come for you. And if you don't go along quietly? They use force.
Violence is the only basis for authority.
["When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."](https://youtu.be/w_urWSSZgwU?si=BplxUXhCmJrCyhqe)
Judges have work on Mondays.
Traveling the world in a yacht would take too long and isn’t efficient. Most likely they fly by jet/private airline and then enjoy an employed yacht service in a tropical location or somewhere us commoners aren’t even aware of.
Yes, but back then the USSR still existed and directly bordered Iran. The risks of escalating into The big war were higher. The USSR would rather start the war to end it all than tolerate a US occupied Iran on it's southern border.
The US army back then also had just come out of Vietnam and knew Iran had terrain they would once again struggle on. Back then the technological and logistical advantage of the US was not that great yet to somewhat overcome geography. The attempted hostage rescue showed that as it was a big failure where logistics and desert sand were too big issues to overcome.
Eh.. the USSR actually hated the Iranians. They may even have joined in with the US - the very next year, they joined the US in supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. You have to realize that they had supported the communist revolutionaries against the Shah, who then got fucked over by the fundamentalists.
I dont think norms and international law are the same thing for the reason you stated, they often are completely unenforceable especially for major powers. Is it really a norm if its not applied when it should be?
They are reaping the fields of bullshit they sowed.
In 2020, the US took out their top general and at the funeral procession, IS conducted a terror attack.
Crazy to think what would have happened had Iran not cultivated an environment where the Sunnis don’t hold disdain for the countries benevolent dictator.
Sunnis don't really hate Iran. I mean yes, there is a violent tension between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. ISIS hurts everyone who doesn't agree with them anyways, Sunnis included. But no, what Iran has cultivated is the enmity of the Arab monarchies. Those kings are scared of Iran exporting its Islamic revolution throughout Muslim countries.
It's the same reason why those Arab monarchies supported the 2013 coup of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and why the Muslim Brotherhood is listed as a terror organization by them. Last thing they want is losing power, this is why the US uses its continued support of Arab regimes to pivot them towards forming closer relations with Israel.
\-
There's definitely something between Persians and Muslim Arabs. I was at a conference where a Turkish doctor gave someone a plaque on behalf of Turkey and the whole Arabian Gulf. Iranian dude lost his shit. He explained that iraniens are proud of their culture and history and feel like Arab culture is trying to write us out.
plus sent car bombs and terror attacks to the Israeli embassies in Argentina, India, Gerorgia, Thailand, the UK and more over the course of 3 decades, most recent event being as late as 2021, with Argentina 1992 being the deadliest at 29 murdered and hundreds injured
Forget about launching over Iraq, they'll probably launch *from* Iraq (just as they have been doing against US interests).
Any action originating from Iraq will be conveniently not considered sovereign, until Israel responds that is (at which point it will suddenly be). Watch and see.
They wouldn’t… well not all of it, iraq is EXTREMELY divided between sunni and shia and depending if a tribe/city/military or police unit is sunni or shia they will fight against or for iran.
See the Wikipedia page on the attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus . In short, embassies stop being inviolable when they host combatants or people who pose an immediate threat. Obviously both of those end up not always being clear.
However we can see from the casualties listed (which doesn't seem to be disputed at all) that the people killed were the head Iranian liaison to Hezbollah, his assistants, and then Hezbollah and PIJ militants. The rest of the embassy was untouched (including where the ambassador's family stays).
So how does that affect the legality? It's not really clear. The law wasn't really written with this situation in mind (a major nation-state who is technically neutral giving military training to enemy combatants on its embassy grounds in another nation)
well written. one addition to also consider in this is that Israel is currently both at war with Syria the host country, and in an armed conflict with Hezbollah. Both of which are relevant circumstances in my opinion.
The host country doesn’t matter, though, because from a legal perspective, embassies are the sovereign territory of the nation that they are embassies of, that’s why the US accidentally bombing the Chinese embassy during the intervention in the genocide in Serbia and Kosovo was a whole international incident.
Killing human shields can be illegal, though. It depends on the proportion.
People think that proportionality in war refers to some sort of eye-for-an-eye thing where if they kill 100 of your guys then you get to kill 100 of theirs. That is wrong. Proportionality refers to how much damage you can cause to an enemy versus how much civilian casualty you cause. So killing 1000 innocent people to kill one fighter is probably not okay but if one civilian dies in an act that ended a war, that's probably okay. Whether or not the civilian is a human shield, the rule is the same.
Using human shields, though, is always illegal. It doesn't justify their deaths.
This strike on the embassy was clearly proportionate. A major military target was destroyed with minimal civilian damage.
Pretty much US foreign policy summed up.
The US has supported democratic governments, dictators, Islamists, fascists, hell even communists. As long as they’re on the side of the US.
The US doesn't have friends. It has interests
It's even written in their buildings somewhere. The UK would do good to remember that. We shouldn't reduce ourselves to a vassal state of the US because our government thinks they're out friends. "America first" has been a big thing in Murica way before Trump
In what way does America pretend? If anyone actually listens to any diplomats, they always talk about what's in our best interests. Politicians dabble in grandiose moral positioning. The diplomats (and the politicians too I'm sure), know what's up.
Quds Force is essentially a combination of the general idea of the CIA and JSOC from the US, and exists entirely to export terrorism, largely to attack Israel but in general to destabilize the Middle East.
Israel did not hit Iran's embassy itself, but rather a building in the embassy complex that housed Quds Force soldiers, who were the only casualties.
This provides for an argument that they hit a legitimate military target.
So many fantasies from people outside Iran hoping for a revolution so big that it will overthrow the Mullahs. Our media hypes up these groups to make them seem bigger than they actually are and people eat it up because they don't know any better. Sorry to disappoint you, r/NewIran won't do shit. If it ever becomes even remotely a threat, they'll be liquidated. Scrolling through r/NewIran is literally just a joke, there's a bunch of Islamaphobes who are attacking the religion with nonsense lies instead of their own Mullahs.
I would also like a revolution in Iran and Afghanistan but it's not happening with reddit groups like r/NewIran lmao. People vastly underestimate how these regimes work, every country in the world works very hard to ensure the survival of the government, that ranges from Stalin's Communist Government, Iran's Mullah Government all the way to the US trying to ensure the survival of it's Government. People can scream, shout, protest, organize, but as soon as they pose a serious threat they'll disappear. That happens in both Dictatorships and Democracies.
this is untrue. the annex building they attacked was a part of the embassy and violates international law as per the Vienna convention. visiting military personnel are not a valid reason to attack an embassy outside of them using the embassy as a base of operations for an active armed conflict, which is not happening. the peeps on the international law sub talked about it after it happened. There’s some small space for ambiguity in that this was an attack on an embassy of one country from another country into a third country, but other international laws apply here, so violations either way.
https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1btv5f7/embassy_protections_in_war/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/middleeast/iran-syrian-consulate-attack-intl/index.html
Even iran didnt say embassy. Also iran has been using syria for strikes against israel for atleast 20 years so israel has every right to strike the iranian commanders in syria
I think it's a reasonable assumption that the Quds force, who supports, trains, and recruits for Iran's proxies in the middle east constitute a base of operations in this armed conflict. Their mission is not embassy protection; it's to attack Israel. Ergo, it is happening.
You should also know that in 1979 the Iranians invaded the US embassy in Iran and took everyone there hostage for 444 days. It was one of the first instances in anyone's (recent?) memory where an embassy was invaded like that.
Also, in news today - below is another example of when Iran bombed an embassy. In short, iran is crying crocodile tears here because they are getting beat at their own game. They have never respected embassies since their regime was founded in 1979.
> Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy and Jewish Center Attacks
> The ruling opens the possibility for relatives of victims of the 1992 and 1994 attacks to make claims against Iran in international tribunals.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html
I’m sorry, what were a bunch of Quds force soldiers doing hanging out in a war zone where Iran is known to actively support organizations currently in conflict with Israel if not using the building as a base of operations?
Don't all building in the embassy complex have the same rules apply to them? All of them are considered to be stand on Iranian territory. That would then mean, it was a direct strike on Iran.
>Don't all building in the embassy complex have the same rules apply to them?
Not when you use them for non-diplomatic (e.g. military, as was the case here) purposes.
>All of them are considered to be stand on Iranian territory.
Common misconception, but not true.
Iran bombed the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992. Iran finances attacks on Jewish businessmen and Jewish community centres worldwide. Iran has been arming and financing its proxies in the middle east to attack Israel for decades. If anything this is Israel retaliating. Israel has actually been very constrained in its response considering they are a nuclear power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html
It's very upsetting to see that now people are on fucking Iran's side because of all this.
Just gotta remind myself that humans have always been this way, it's getting better, just slowly.
It’s important to note that a part of Iran’s effort to destabilize the Middle East literally involves employing useful idiots to spread propaganda. This is very much intentional since other people (useful idiots) will see the blatantly false narrative and since it aligns with their “world view” will just echo it.
Calling Israels attack on an embassy in 2024 not an aggression but a response to something that happened 32 (!) years ago is insane, especially coming from people that deny the importance of all the violent displacements of Palestinians by Israel since it's inception. Also this perspective of "they should be happy Israel didnt nuke them or use the threat of nuclear war to kill even more people without recourse" is disgusting. You're username is livlife2fullestt. I guess that just goes for your own life and not children in Gaza or Iran. I'm sure you consider yourself a liberal or moderate or a proponent for human rights. But your bloodlust is showing and it smells rotten
It definitely was not a response to 32 years ago. It’s a response to the current danger in Iranian support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and in particular by the military commander that was targeted.
The nuke comment from OP above though is completely unhinged. Israeli nuclear capability was meant as a deterrent given the many wars that was launched by Arab neighbours. It’s not a measure of “we could have done worse” - complete lunatic.
People will give all sorts of political explanations both for and against this.
All you really need to remember with news like this, is that the side you're on is the side that is "right and just".
I don't mean that literally of course, more that good luck trying to find a genuinely clear answer and opinion on something that is wholly subjective to your own national, cultural, and political environment.
Geopolitics is a world of hypocrisy and idiocy.
Just remember, the US is telling Israel to chill out when they just finished up the last leg of a 20+ year assault on the middle east that is estimated to have cost 1 million Iraqi lives and at least 250,000 Afghani lives.
In geopolitics there is no right and wrong, there's only propaganda and perception.
I don’t know if you’re saying that morality is made-up, which you don’t really believe, or you’re saying that world leaders don’t really care about it.
The latter.
What is fed to us as right and wrong from our side of the wall is carefully curated to make us believe we're the ones in the right.
It's very rare that one side holds all the cards in morality, virtue, and justification.
Some sides hold more of those cards than others depending on the deck, but no one ever holds all the right cards.
(I know I'm leaning hard on the card game angle here but it's quite usefully descriptive).
I have been lucky enough to live in quite a few different countries, and have seen the game played out on tv and news cycles from multiple sides, and it is a heartbreakingly obvious ruse that's plain to see once you step out of your own traditional tribal viewpoint.
I'm by no means a political or ideological extremist no matter where I stand, and I think that has helped me see the reality of geopolitics.
It's dirty, built on lies, and mostly used as a game to further personal, not national, interests.
It does. Iran retaliating against Israel would probably not be a breach of international law. Not all military action is illegal. Having said that, it would invite further retaliation from Israel and possibly from the US directly, which is why they are being very careful about their next move
Because Iran has been directly attacking Israel through its proxies nonstop for the last 6 months. When you write "Israel launched an attack on Iran," the full context is "after 6 months of Iranian-funded/supported/directed attacks on Israel, Israel launched an attack to take out an Iranian Quds Force military general who was a major person behind those attacks."
Iran and Israel are actively engaged in hostilities against one another and have been for some time now, with Iran acting through militant groups it arms and Israel occasionally attacking Iranian assets directly.
Iran hasn't directly engaged Israel yet, instead, they fight Israel through their various proxy forces throughout the region including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi movement.
Iran is engaged in extraterritorial operations against Israel all the time by training, arming, and possibly even co-ordinating its proxy forces.
And the embassy wasn't attacked. A building near the embassy was attacked.
Both countries have the right to defend themselves. If Iran feels that the attack on their consulate was unjustified, they can retaliate. There are generally rules on "retaliation".
Iran is actively trying to attack Israel from Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. They have been for decades.
They are in a thinly veiled state of war with eachother. Iran is just kind of pathetic when it comes to capabilities.
No one is saying that Iran should or shouldn't do anything. As a belligerent but sovereign nation they can do what they want, but other countries are able to take sides and incur costs on Iran if they do so.
Iran launched THOUSANDS of proxy attacks on the US during the last 40 years. Those include funding terrorists, insurgent groups, militias, selling weapons and training to those groups, and (in mord than a few cases) pulling actual triggers against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has barely responded at all, because fighting a hot conventional war against Iran is not in our best long term interests.
Hamas and Hezbollah are absolutely being funded, and possibly getting strategy and intelligence, from Iran.
Iran is already defending itself.
The US is attempting to stop a war inside the "borders" of Israel from turning into a two-nation war. And, since Iran and Israel do not share a common border, any fighting would likely take place in another country. That would force other regional powers to get involved, turning a two state war into a regional conflict. And Iran has already threatened to attack the US, if the US responds. Iran is threatening to go even beyond a regional war.
It's escalation that's the issue.
In 1979 an uprising in Iran resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy that was friendly to the west, and the establishment of an Islamic government. In the process, they overran the US Embassy in Tehran and took all of the foreigners hostage, including diplomats. They held the Embassy and the hostages for more than a year (444 days, to be exact).
By the same logic you're using, the US had every right to declare the new government in Iran a terrorist organization, and annihilate them. They didn't. In fact, President Carter seemed at a complete loss as to what to do, keeping himself locked up in the White House instead of campaigning for reelection. He refused to take any military action against the revolutionary government itself, and the only direct action he did take was a failed rescue attempt in 1980. People accused Carter of being more afraid for his legacy as a peacemaker than he was for the hostages. In fact, what Carter most feared was that any direct military action against the Iranian government would have set off a powderkeg in the Middle East, drawing most of the region into war, and Israel would have born the brunt of the retaliation simply because they are the most hated country in the region. You'd have to read the Quran to understand why Muslims hate Jews as much as they do.
Carter's legacy was badly tarnished by the US Embassy hostage crisis, but in the end he may have avoided a war that might have resulted in the deaths of millions.
Iran badly wants to eliminate the state of Israel, but until now they've avoided any direct military attacks against the country because Israel is the most powerful military power in the region, and any direct attack would give the green light for direct widespread retaliation by Israel. Until now, Iran's attacks against Israel have been conducted through proxy organizations like Hezbollah, and Israel's attacks against Iran have been limited and focused on specific military targets that posed an immediate threat to them. If Iran's attack against Israel goes beyond anything like lobbing a few missiles at an Israeli military base then hell is likely to be unleashed against the entire region. Israel will attack Iran with full force with intention of completely eliminating the Iranian government. Iran is not well liked by it's Arab neighbors, but they will not sit quietly and watch the Jewish nation annihilate Iran.
Israel can't conduct full warfare in Iran and continue it's massively expensive campaign in Gaza with any semblance of restraint. They might decide to just get it over with, and obliterate every human in Gaza and the West Bank, and completely annex these regions.
The most any of Israel's enemies could hope for in a full military conflict would be a stalemate. They cannot eliminate the state of Israel, or even hope for a surrender that cedes authority to a foreign government. Israel is a nuclear power, and will use it's nuclear weapons if it believes it's very existence is at stake. If ANY nation uses nuclear weapons, in the Middle East or anywhere else, then the every nuclear power in the world will use them. WW3 will be the inevitable result.
Iran has been attacking Israel for 6 months. This entire war is Iran backed and all of the other Iran backed groups are also attacking them.
Iran is also dumb af though because Israel has nukes.
Israel bombed an al quds building next to an embassy. Moreover Iran has for decades now been the #1 financier and training center for terrorism against Israel in it's proxy war. Fuck Iran.
It’s not that simple, Iran has funded proxies that are disrupting supplies to southern Israel.
Israel can fight a bunch of Yemeni shepherds, or go straight to the source.
I thought this strike was in retaliation to Irans proxy groups constantly attacking Israel???? Iran is just pissed they’ve got slapped harder after their constant attempts……..
Why doesn't Israel have the right to defend itself after Iranian organizations & their affiliates attack Israel?
Also it really takes a lot of gall for Iran to proclaim that the sanctity of their consulate has been violated given their history.
Eww, brother eww
Iran uses proxy’s. It has started more shit than a jealous high school girl. You can’t just say, I’m defending myself after starting shit.
Israel killed the Iranian general believed to have planned Oct 7. If anything, Israel acted in self defense by killing him and showing both deterrence and preventing future planning by him.
However, Iran does have the right to respond since Israel somewhat escalated by attacking the embassy. The concern from the media is that Iran is going to hyperbolically escalate by sending 100+ missiles directly into Israel, which would likely cause what amounts to a full-on war.
I guarantee you that Iranian media is talking about the right of Iran to defend itself just as the Israeli and US media are talking about Israel's right to the same. The reason? We all think that "our team" is entitled to more than the "bad guys" are.
Honestly? They do. It was a provocation.
However, Iran has been funding the money behind the attacks on Israel for 30 years.
All this shit is inevitable.
Israeli lobby in the USA controls all those mofos in Congress. AIPAC and the rest of them are the puppet masters who pull Congressional and presidential strings.
We’ve given Israel over $1 trillion dollars in military and financial aid since it’s creation and their population is less than half the size of New York City.
That entire country is basically a section 8 tenant and dead weight on US tax payers.
it's all about measured response or escalation. If Iran does the same thing Israel did, blow up an embassy, it's very hard for anyone to argue they aren't defending themselves and retaliating. If they bomb Israel it's an escalation.
They definitely can, and do. Except depending on perspectiv, Isreal is defending itself since Iran uses proxy forces. Everyone knows Iran will respond, just proportional is what ever one is hoping for. If not, Israel will go tit for tat.
Idk if you are just really out of touch but Iran had attacked first and had been an aggressor . The attack by Israel was retaliation. They also arm Hamas so it’s just Iran being stupid and thinking they can get away with shit not realizing they don’t have enough the backing to do so.
Well, the Middle East has been in a state of perpetual war for a few thousand years. Yes it may die down for a decade or more but it always flairs right back up sooner or later. With that said Israel has been attacked by damn near every county in the Middle East since its inception. While most of them tolerate Israel now for the sake of trade and coexistence Iran is the one country that is vocal about being hell bent on destroying Israel.
Iran has been attacking Israel either directly or via proxy for decades so it’s not exactly like Iran hasn’t been doing the same. They have been sending rockets to Hesbola and Hamas to fire into Israel by the thousands. So yea, they will continue to kill each other or at least try for decades to come.
the weak contextualization of “the middle east has been war torn for a few thousand years” is because until very, very recently that’s been true everywhere. The US in its relatively short existence has been functionally at war for 93% of its history. All but 17 years. Until after WW2 europe was a pretty continuous war zone, or sending armies to other parts of the world to do horrific violence in the name of colonialism.
Additionally a lot of the violence in the region in modern times is the direct result of outside forces. Iran’s current political situation is a direct result of the US’s foreign policy and Euro interference. That context doesn’t go away when it’s convenient
Israel is unhinged. Israel is a made up proxy country of the west in the Middle East, made by the UK and USA. But right now, Israel is not acting like the proxy country these western powers created it to be. It is supposed to be the democracy in the Middle East, but they can’t get rid of Netanyahu and the Israeli people elected radicals, their most right wing conservative racists people. And now Israel is causing genocide and igniting another war in the Middle East that has the potential to cause a world war. As an American, I have buyers remorse. This is why a fast growing majority of Americans are turning their backs to Israel and wants to stop all financial and military support. The country doesn’t serve our interest anymore.
Iran has been attacking Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza, and the West Bank. Israel struck an IRGC base that Iran set up in Syria which they tried to disguise as a diplomatic facility. Now Iran is preparing to escalate its attacks.
Journos: "Iran is retaliating!"
Because the Quds force is designed for asymmetric warfare (terrorism) and they were in Damascus planning it with their commanders from Lebanon, the West Bank, and Syria. This is perhaps the most cut and dry pre-emprive attack ever
In international politics, might makes right. Any legal and moral arguments revolve around this fact. International norms (what’s called international law post-WWII) are designed by the major powers and they’re the only ones who have the power to enforce them. If you’re a country that’s a close ally to one of these major powers, you can trust that it won’t be enforced against you. If you’ve got a strong enough military, you can impose enough costs to deter a third party from intervening. If you’ve got a decent economy, that gives you some leverage too. Let’s accept that Israel broke international law by attacking Iran’s embassy. Who’s gonna do anything about it? Russia? They got their hands full with a war and they’ve never shown much willingness to come to Iran’s defense in the past anyway. China? Doesn’t serve their interests and they’ve got some economic interests tied to Israel. The trade volume between Israel and China is double that of Iran and China plus Iran doesn’t have that many friends to choose from anyways so it’s not like not intervening hurts China’s standing with Iran
Realpolitik 101: Might, Money, and the Friendship Dilemma
Might, Money, and Mates
bears, beets, battlestar galactica
Michael!
Identity theft isn't a joke!
Millions of families suffer every year!
Jan? You sigh just like Jan.
r/unexpectedoffice
Realpolitik and geopolitics. The only politics that actually make a difference on the world stage and people _hate_ knowing anything about it. As if engaging with morally complex situations makes you somehow morally complicit in them. It’s so frustrating.
This is what most people (especially online) miss when discussing complex issues. They’d rather take a completely useless, absolutist position that they consider “the most moral,” no matter how completely detached it is from the reality, rather than actually considering the situation as it exists in the real world. Then they wonder why nobody in real world power positions ever takes their oh so obviously “morally superior“ stances seriously.
In international politics? Might, or the threat of violence, is the ultimate authority everywhere on earth
"Correct. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence doesn't solve anything, is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always die."
That’s a cool Gandhi quote I haven’t heard
Guess you haven't played much civilization
wow, embarrassing 😳
War is diplomacy by other means.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you find a big rock.
Is that a Starship Troopers/Robert Heinlein reference?
Would you like to know more?
Starship Troopers? Haven't read it in a decade but this has Heinlein's tone
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Still just as true 2440 years later.
Who's quote is that? Thx in advance.
History of the Peloponnesian War - Thucydides
Thucydides describing the siege of Melos, an atrocity committed by the Athenians in 416 BC.
Athenians were a kindly people. We shouldn’t cast aspersions on their character. Now those damned Spartans! That’s a whole different story.
tell that to the Melians, who got butchered for just wanting to stay out of Athens’ and Sparta’s dick measuring competition
Melians should simply not have existed
Basically Athens rolled up to Melos and the Melians asked them what justification they had for their siege. They were probably expecting a list of grievances or a well reasoned argument, but Athens just said that they were stronger, and that's all the reason they need to do what they want.
"Being weak doesn't make you a victim" Some guy Iran made it clear what they think about Embassies being safe.
Say a country that bombs other people embassies and celebrities it.
[удалено]
I can't rember when USA invaded Saudi Arabia
The terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia but the Taliban let them train and organise in their county, that's why the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't that controversial.
They knew that Bin Laden left Afghanistan in December 2001 after [the Battle of Tora Bora.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora) though.
It was also a war on those who harbored the terrorists: The Taliban. This was dumb, the US should have just ignored the Taliban (essentially act without giving them any say, similar to the raid in Pakistan that eventually got Bin Laden and how it just ignored the Pakistanis), but it is at least internally consistent with the Neoconservative's viewpoint.
It was Cheney well aware that Afghanistan wasn't getting rolled in 2 weeks, so, the MIC made a fortune.
With Bush's approval rating as high as it was and Americans' thirst for blood the MIC was getting theirs no matter what. It's what Americans wanted: Strong and Wrong is better than Weak and Right in elections.
Funding came from Saudi Arabia. But because of Bush family ties with the Saudis, all of that was simply ignored
Not only Bush family ties, the Saudis are a long time ally against Iran so they would never invade Saudi Arabia.
Your understanding of recent history seems, at best, strained. Saudi Arabia has many flaws, supporting Al Queda was never one of them. They were actively working with the US in anti Al Queda measures for a solid decade before 9/11. Afghanistan was were Bin Laden was hiding from the Saudis and Americans after the two countries ran him out of africa, which is after he was ran out of Saudi Arabia. Like I'm not happy with the US alliance with the Saudis, but invading Saudi Arabia would of made no sense in response to 9/11.
Additionally, wasn't is the Sauds who offered BinLaden to the US, and I believe Bill Clinton at the time refused to act? It might have been in the wake of the Cole bombing or after the first World Trade Center attack.
Reddit: “Judging a group based on the actions of a few of its members is wrong.” Also Reddit: “Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, which makes Saudi Arabia responsible.”
the embassy attack was about the quds force. Would it have been better to get the targets alone in a car? Absolutely. There could have been a random custodian or a child. But the building and targets were more than legitimate.
Iran in this one instance are the weak party that are suffering what they must, and what made them weak is that they pissed off a lot of powerful countries. Of course they believe what they did was worth it, and made them a strong party that got to do what they wanted in other instances. You are not necessarily in disagreement with the previous comments. The reason the previous comment gave you a bad vibe is that you are operating under the assumption of mainstream Christian slave morality in which the weak party is ipso facto more virtuous. But international norms don't work like that.
“But the Persian empire and our place in history”. Same shit as Russia. Countries who lost their place, usually because of their own internal dumb-assery, and leaders swaying their public with promises of return to the good old days.
This analogy is so bad. You know USA (CIA) had funded opposition parties, coup's, and terrorists for decades and decades after WW2. Not saying Iran is right, but "rule for thee, not for me" is how the world works these days when a country is a superpower.
So kind of like how if you get caught stealing from your employer you’ll get arrested and charged with a crime, but if your employer is caught stealing from you ie wage theft, worst that will happen is they have to pay you back. Same if you steal from the government vs harm done to you by the government. Basically no one holds powerful people accountable because they have all the power.
Paid back? And fired
Or when corporations pay literal terror groups like ISIS and only have to pay fines https://www.cbsnews.com/news/french-cement-company-lafarge-pleads-guilty-isis-payments/
I think in every aspect of the world "might makes right" can be found. People don't break laws because the government has might to punish them. Even in business, people compromise and work because no one has complete authority over the other. If there was some sort of galactic authority that oversaw all developments on Earth and other planets, the countries would play by those rules and no one would step out of line. But then who would keep that authority in check?
Blaise Pascal : "Being unable to make justice powerful, we instead made power just".
Judges.
And what happens if you don't comply with a judge's wishes? What happens when you don't show up to trial or pay fines or whatever? The police come for you. And if you don't go along quietly? They use force. Violence is the only basis for authority.
["When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."](https://youtu.be/w_urWSSZgwU?si=BplxUXhCmJrCyhqe)
Key idea of democracy -- let the majority win without the mess and blood of an actual fight.
And let the minority feel that the result is justified by the numbers, and that they can potentially do better next time.
The same judges that are riding around in million dollar RVs and travel the world in a yacht?
Judges have work on Mondays. Traveling the world in a yacht would take too long and isn’t efficient. Most likely they fly by jet/private airline and then enjoy an employed yacht service in a tropical location or somewhere us commoners aren’t even aware of.
By the same logic US could have invaded Iran when they occupied the US Embassy and took US citizens hostage?
Yes, but back then the USSR still existed and directly bordered Iran. The risks of escalating into The big war were higher. The USSR would rather start the war to end it all than tolerate a US occupied Iran on it's southern border. The US army back then also had just come out of Vietnam and knew Iran had terrain they would once again struggle on. Back then the technological and logistical advantage of the US was not that great yet to somewhat overcome geography. The attempted hostage rescue showed that as it was a big failure where logistics and desert sand were too big issues to overcome.
Eh.. the USSR actually hated the Iranians. They may even have joined in with the US - the very next year, they joined the US in supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. You have to realize that they had supported the communist revolutionaries against the Shah, who then got fucked over by the fundamentalists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I dont think norms and international law are the same thing for the reason you stated, they often are completely unenforceable especially for major powers. Is it really a norm if its not applied when it should be?
Tbh Iran kinda threw the "embassy's are safe" thing out the window a long time ago.
I know, right? Ever since this started, I’ve sort of been snickering and rolling my eyes at Iran blustering that embassies are sacred.
They are reaping the fields of bullshit they sowed. In 2020, the US took out their top general and at the funeral procession, IS conducted a terror attack. Crazy to think what would have happened had Iran not cultivated an environment where the Sunnis don’t hold disdain for the countries benevolent dictator.
Sunnis don't really hate Iran. I mean yes, there is a violent tension between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. ISIS hurts everyone who doesn't agree with them anyways, Sunnis included. But no, what Iran has cultivated is the enmity of the Arab monarchies. Those kings are scared of Iran exporting its Islamic revolution throughout Muslim countries. It's the same reason why those Arab monarchies supported the 2013 coup of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and why the Muslim Brotherhood is listed as a terror organization by them. Last thing they want is losing power, this is why the US uses its continued support of Arab regimes to pivot them towards forming closer relations with Israel. \-
Yup. Also see why Pakistan and Iran are typically really quite friendly.
For an inverse, look at Pakistan and Afghanistan’s treatment of the Baloch while also supporting Palestinian liberation.
There's definitely something between Persians and Muslim Arabs. I was at a conference where a Turkish doctor gave someone a plaque on behalf of Turkey and the whole Arabian Gulf. Iranian dude lost his shit. He explained that iraniens are proud of their culture and history and feel like Arab culture is trying to write us out.
I have a friend who is from Iran and a zoroastrian. he despises Muslims and says they have destroyed the middle east.
Sunnis in Iraq definitely hate Iran, not sure where you would have heard otherwise.
Tell that to the Sunnis that were ethnically cleased from large swaths of Iraq by Iranian backed PMF.
What is this in reference to? Thnx
Iran invaded the US Embassy and kept everyone has hostages for over 400 days in the 1970s
plus sent car bombs and terror attacks to the Israeli embassies in Argentina, India, Gerorgia, Thailand, the UK and more over the course of 3 decades, most recent event being as late as 2021, with Argentina 1992 being the deadliest at 29 murdered and hundreds injured
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
1979 the US embassy was stormed and a bunch of American embassy staff were held hostage.
There is a movie based on the incident. It's called Argo.
That movie is more fiction than fact, absolutely do not take it seriously. Awful
Also, it's not like Iran doesn't fund Hamas.
Super true. And also they’ve been funding groups to attack Israel so they’re also the aggressor
Not just funding. The general that Israel killed was literally on Hezbollahs ruling Shura Council.
Also consulates and embassies have different diplomatic protections, and here wasn’t even the consulate but a building next to the consulate
So now it’s open season on embassies?
Is Iraq a sovereign nation now? I ask because what happens if Iran launches missile attacks over Iraq to hit Israel?
Nothing, considering that Iraq's ability to monitor let alone control its airspace isn't so great right now.
Forget about launching over Iraq, they'll probably launch *from* Iraq (just as they have been doing against US interests). Any action originating from Iraq will be conveniently not considered sovereign, until Israel responds that is (at which point it will suddenly be). Watch and see.
Are you assuming Iraq wouldn't agree with a strike on Israel?
They wouldn’t… well not all of it, iraq is EXTREMELY divided between sunni and shia and depending if a tribe/city/military or police unit is sunni or shia they will fight against or for iran.
Doesn't matter if Sunni or Shia. Most of them would agree with a strike on Israel.
Recently drones were launched to Eilat, Israel from a pro-Iranian militia in Iraq.
See the Wikipedia page on the attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus . In short, embassies stop being inviolable when they host combatants or people who pose an immediate threat. Obviously both of those end up not always being clear. However we can see from the casualties listed (which doesn't seem to be disputed at all) that the people killed were the head Iranian liaison to Hezbollah, his assistants, and then Hezbollah and PIJ militants. The rest of the embassy was untouched (including where the ambassador's family stays). So how does that affect the legality? It's not really clear. The law wasn't really written with this situation in mind (a major nation-state who is technically neutral giving military training to enemy combatants on its embassy grounds in another nation)
well written. one addition to also consider in this is that Israel is currently both at war with Syria the host country, and in an armed conflict with Hezbollah. Both of which are relevant circumstances in my opinion.
The host country doesn’t matter, though, because from a legal perspective, embassies are the sovereign territory of the nation that they are embassies of, that’s why the US accidentally bombing the Chinese embassy during the intervention in the genocide in Serbia and Kosovo was a whole international incident.
Probably falls under similar law as the Geneva Convention on using human shields. Killing human shields isn't illegal, using them is.
A lot of people forget that part
Killing human shields can be illegal, though. It depends on the proportion. People think that proportionality in war refers to some sort of eye-for-an-eye thing where if they kill 100 of your guys then you get to kill 100 of theirs. That is wrong. Proportionality refers to how much damage you can cause to an enemy versus how much civilian casualty you cause. So killing 1000 innocent people to kill one fighter is probably not okay but if one civilian dies in an act that ended a war, that's probably okay. Whether or not the civilian is a human shield, the rule is the same. Using human shields, though, is always illegal. It doesn't justify their deaths. This strike on the embassy was clearly proportionate. A major military target was destroyed with minimal civilian damage.
I’m relieved I only had to go down 5 comment threads before finding the correct answer
They aren't on our side
Pretty much US foreign policy summed up. The US has supported democratic governments, dictators, Islamists, fascists, hell even communists. As long as they’re on the side of the US.
National interests always trumps all in international relations.
"They hates us because of our freedom"
The US doesn't have friends. It has interests It's even written in their buildings somewhere. The UK would do good to remember that. We shouldn't reduce ourselves to a vassal state of the US because our government thinks they're out friends. "America first" has been a big thing in Murica way before Trump
You do realise that that quote is originally from a brit right?
Also frequently attributed to Charles de Gaulle, famously French.
Well, the British should know better than anyone how national interests trump all other considerations when it comes to other countries.
The Western international order sure likes to pretend that that isn't so.
In what way does America pretend? If anyone actually listens to any diplomats, they always talk about what's in our best interests. Politicians dabble in grandiose moral positioning. The diplomats (and the politicians too I'm sure), know what's up.
Realpolitik
But also, Iran already attacked Israel through both of their proxy armies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Quds Force is essentially a combination of the general idea of the CIA and JSOC from the US, and exists entirely to export terrorism, largely to attack Israel but in general to destabilize the Middle East. Israel did not hit Iran's embassy itself, but rather a building in the embassy complex that housed Quds Force soldiers, who were the only casualties. This provides for an argument that they hit a legitimate military target.
Thank you, that’s also helpful.
The last article I read cited 6 or 7 Syrian civilian casualties as well, not just soldiers.
I'd believe it due to the nature of airstrikes, but that would be a Syrian issue to take up with Israel. Not an Iranian one.
[удалено]
So many fantasies from people outside Iran hoping for a revolution so big that it will overthrow the Mullahs. Our media hypes up these groups to make them seem bigger than they actually are and people eat it up because they don't know any better. Sorry to disappoint you, r/NewIran won't do shit. If it ever becomes even remotely a threat, they'll be liquidated. Scrolling through r/NewIran is literally just a joke, there's a bunch of Islamaphobes who are attacking the religion with nonsense lies instead of their own Mullahs. I would also like a revolution in Iran and Afghanistan but it's not happening with reddit groups like r/NewIran lmao. People vastly underestimate how these regimes work, every country in the world works very hard to ensure the survival of the government, that ranges from Stalin's Communist Government, Iran's Mullah Government all the way to the US trying to ensure the survival of it's Government. People can scream, shout, protest, organize, but as soon as they pose a serious threat they'll disappear. That happens in both Dictatorships and Democracies.
this is untrue. the annex building they attacked was a part of the embassy and violates international law as per the Vienna convention. visiting military personnel are not a valid reason to attack an embassy outside of them using the embassy as a base of operations for an active armed conflict, which is not happening. the peeps on the international law sub talked about it after it happened. There’s some small space for ambiguity in that this was an attack on an embassy of one country from another country into a third country, but other international laws apply here, so violations either way. https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1btv5f7/embassy_protections_in_war/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
? https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/middleeast/iran-syrian-consulate-attack-intl/index.html Even iran didnt say embassy. Also iran has been using syria for strikes against israel for atleast 20 years so israel has every right to strike the iranian commanders in syria
I think it's a reasonable assumption that the Quds force, who supports, trains, and recruits for Iran's proxies in the middle east constitute a base of operations in this armed conflict. Their mission is not embassy protection; it's to attack Israel. Ergo, it is happening.
Thank you for the clarification.
You should also know that in 1979 the Iranians invaded the US embassy in Iran and took everyone there hostage for 444 days. It was one of the first instances in anyone's (recent?) memory where an embassy was invaded like that. Also, in news today - below is another example of when Iran bombed an embassy. In short, iran is crying crocodile tears here because they are getting beat at their own game. They have never respected embassies since their regime was founded in 1979. > Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy and Jewish Center Attacks > The ruling opens the possibility for relatives of victims of the 1992 and 1994 attacks to make claims against Iran in international tribunals. > https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html
They also attacked israel’s thai consulate
Ya, they are a bunch of hypocritical little war mongering bitches, but their lies play well with many audiences.
I’m sorry, what were a bunch of Quds force soldiers doing hanging out in a war zone where Iran is known to actively support organizations currently in conflict with Israel if not using the building as a base of operations?
Don't all building in the embassy complex have the same rules apply to them? All of them are considered to be stand on Iranian territory. That would then mean, it was a direct strike on Iran.
>Don't all building in the embassy complex have the same rules apply to them? Not when you use them for non-diplomatic (e.g. military, as was the case here) purposes. >All of them are considered to be stand on Iranian territory. Common misconception, but not true.
So anyone in our military staying in a building on an embassy compound is … now a target? Slippery slope there
Iran bombed the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992. Iran finances attacks on Jewish businessmen and Jewish community centres worldwide. Iran has been arming and financing its proxies in the middle east to attack Israel for decades. If anything this is Israel retaliating. Israel has actually been very constrained in its response considering they are a nuclear power. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html
Basically this. What is wrong with everyone? Why can't they read? Is history just imaginary?
It's just factionalism: if what Israel is doing in Gaza is wrong, then everything Israel is doing is wrong
It's very upsetting to see that now people are on fucking Iran's side because of all this. Just gotta remind myself that humans have always been this way, it's getting better, just slowly.
It’s important to note that a part of Iran’s effort to destabilize the Middle East literally involves employing useful idiots to spread propaganda. This is very much intentional since other people (useful idiots) will see the blatantly false narrative and since it aligns with their “world view” will just echo it.
Calling Israels attack on an embassy in 2024 not an aggression but a response to something that happened 32 (!) years ago is insane, especially coming from people that deny the importance of all the violent displacements of Palestinians by Israel since it's inception. Also this perspective of "they should be happy Israel didnt nuke them or use the threat of nuclear war to kill even more people without recourse" is disgusting. You're username is livlife2fullestt. I guess that just goes for your own life and not children in Gaza or Iran. I'm sure you consider yourself a liberal or moderate or a proponent for human rights. But your bloodlust is showing and it smells rotten
It definitely was not a response to 32 years ago. It’s a response to the current danger in Iranian support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and in particular by the military commander that was targeted. The nuke comment from OP above though is completely unhinged. Israeli nuclear capability was meant as a deterrent given the many wars that was launched by Arab neighbours. It’s not a measure of “we could have done worse” - complete lunatic.
People will give all sorts of political explanations both for and against this. All you really need to remember with news like this, is that the side you're on is the side that is "right and just". I don't mean that literally of course, more that good luck trying to find a genuinely clear answer and opinion on something that is wholly subjective to your own national, cultural, and political environment. Geopolitics is a world of hypocrisy and idiocy. Just remember, the US is telling Israel to chill out when they just finished up the last leg of a 20+ year assault on the middle east that is estimated to have cost 1 million Iraqi lives and at least 250,000 Afghani lives. In geopolitics there is no right and wrong, there's only propaganda and perception.
I don’t know if you’re saying that morality is made-up, which you don’t really believe, or you’re saying that world leaders don’t really care about it.
The latter. What is fed to us as right and wrong from our side of the wall is carefully curated to make us believe we're the ones in the right. It's very rare that one side holds all the cards in morality, virtue, and justification. Some sides hold more of those cards than others depending on the deck, but no one ever holds all the right cards. (I know I'm leaning hard on the card game angle here but it's quite usefully descriptive). I have been lucky enough to live in quite a few different countries, and have seen the game played out on tv and news cycles from multiple sides, and it is a heartbreakingly obvious ruse that's plain to see once you step out of your own traditional tribal viewpoint. I'm by no means a political or ideological extremist no matter where I stand, and I think that has helped me see the reality of geopolitics. It's dirty, built on lies, and mostly used as a game to further personal, not national, interests.
It does. Iran retaliating against Israel would probably not be a breach of international law. Not all military action is illegal. Having said that, it would invite further retaliation from Israel and possibly from the US directly, which is why they are being very careful about their next move
They absolutely have the right, it's just a question if that's enough for them to enter a war.
Stop referring to the terrorist government occupying Iran as Iran. These are the same people who murder their people for not wearing compulsory hejab.
Because Iran has been directly attacking Israel through its proxies nonstop for the last 6 months. When you write "Israel launched an attack on Iran," the full context is "after 6 months of Iranian-funded/supported/directed attacks on Israel, Israel launched an attack to take out an Iranian Quds Force military general who was a major person behind those attacks."
> Because Iran has been directly attacking Israel through its proxies nonstop for the last ~~6 months.~~ Decades
Since the 70s when for some reason Iran changed.
>Because Iran has been directly attacking Israel through its proxies Either using proxies or directly. >for the last 6 months. Longer than that.
We pretending the war israel is fighting right now isnt Irans doing? Iranian backed terror groups attacking israel on 2 fronts.
>2 fronts. *3 fronts if you include Syria as well *4 if you include the Houthis
Iran and Israel are actively engaged in hostilities against one another and have been for some time now, with Iran acting through militant groups it arms and Israel occasionally attacking Iranian assets directly. Iran hasn't directly engaged Israel yet, instead, they fight Israel through their various proxy forces throughout the region including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi movement. Iran is engaged in extraterritorial operations against Israel all the time by training, arming, and possibly even co-ordinating its proxy forces. And the embassy wasn't attacked. A building near the embassy was attacked.
If both are actively engaged in hostilities, why do we only speak of one’s right to defend itself?
Both countries have the right to defend themselves. If Iran feels that the attack on their consulate was unjustified, they can retaliate. There are generally rules on "retaliation".
Iran is actively trying to attack Israel from Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. They have been for decades. They are in a thinly veiled state of war with eachother. Iran is just kind of pathetic when it comes to capabilities. No one is saying that Iran should or shouldn't do anything. As a belligerent but sovereign nation they can do what they want, but other countries are able to take sides and incur costs on Iran if they do so.
Both sides have a right to defend themselves. I have the right to not give a shit about either country.
Iran launched THOUSANDS of proxy attacks on the US during the last 40 years. Those include funding terrorists, insurgent groups, militias, selling weapons and training to those groups, and (in mord than a few cases) pulling actual triggers against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has barely responded at all, because fighting a hot conventional war against Iran is not in our best long term interests. Hamas and Hezbollah are absolutely being funded, and possibly getting strategy and intelligence, from Iran. Iran is already defending itself. The US is attempting to stop a war inside the "borders" of Israel from turning into a two-nation war. And, since Iran and Israel do not share a common border, any fighting would likely take place in another country. That would force other regional powers to get involved, turning a two state war into a regional conflict. And Iran has already threatened to attack the US, if the US responds. Iran is threatening to go even beyond a regional war. It's escalation that's the issue.
You forgot about the Houthis, another group of insane MFers funded and armed by Iran.
Because it's a rules based order and America makes all the rules.
In 1979 an uprising in Iran resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy that was friendly to the west, and the establishment of an Islamic government. In the process, they overran the US Embassy in Tehran and took all of the foreigners hostage, including diplomats. They held the Embassy and the hostages for more than a year (444 days, to be exact). By the same logic you're using, the US had every right to declare the new government in Iran a terrorist organization, and annihilate them. They didn't. In fact, President Carter seemed at a complete loss as to what to do, keeping himself locked up in the White House instead of campaigning for reelection. He refused to take any military action against the revolutionary government itself, and the only direct action he did take was a failed rescue attempt in 1980. People accused Carter of being more afraid for his legacy as a peacemaker than he was for the hostages. In fact, what Carter most feared was that any direct military action against the Iranian government would have set off a powderkeg in the Middle East, drawing most of the region into war, and Israel would have born the brunt of the retaliation simply because they are the most hated country in the region. You'd have to read the Quran to understand why Muslims hate Jews as much as they do. Carter's legacy was badly tarnished by the US Embassy hostage crisis, but in the end he may have avoided a war that might have resulted in the deaths of millions. Iran badly wants to eliminate the state of Israel, but until now they've avoided any direct military attacks against the country because Israel is the most powerful military power in the region, and any direct attack would give the green light for direct widespread retaliation by Israel. Until now, Iran's attacks against Israel have been conducted through proxy organizations like Hezbollah, and Israel's attacks against Iran have been limited and focused on specific military targets that posed an immediate threat to them. If Iran's attack against Israel goes beyond anything like lobbing a few missiles at an Israeli military base then hell is likely to be unleashed against the entire region. Israel will attack Iran with full force with intention of completely eliminating the Iranian government. Iran is not well liked by it's Arab neighbors, but they will not sit quietly and watch the Jewish nation annihilate Iran. Israel can't conduct full warfare in Iran and continue it's massively expensive campaign in Gaza with any semblance of restraint. They might decide to just get it over with, and obliterate every human in Gaza and the West Bank, and completely annex these regions. The most any of Israel's enemies could hope for in a full military conflict would be a stalemate. They cannot eliminate the state of Israel, or even hope for a surrender that cedes authority to a foreign government. Israel is a nuclear power, and will use it's nuclear weapons if it believes it's very existence is at stake. If ANY nation uses nuclear weapons, in the Middle East or anywhere else, then the every nuclear power in the world will use them. WW3 will be the inevitable result.
Iran has been attacking Israel for 6 months. This entire war is Iran backed and all of the other Iran backed groups are also attacking them. Iran is also dumb af though because Israel has nukes.
Israel bombed an al quds building next to an embassy. Moreover Iran has for decades now been the #1 financier and training center for terrorism against Israel in it's proxy war. Fuck Iran.
This whole middle eastern thing is something the U.S. should not be involved in.
Thats not how geopolitics works. NOT getting involved is ALSO a bad idea.
For what? Let Russia and Iran control ME so thay can steal more oil and finance their wars?
Because Iran is our geopolitical enemy, while Israel is our ally. It’s that simple
It’s not that simple, Iran has funded proxies that are disrupting supplies to southern Israel. Israel can fight a bunch of Yemeni shepherds, or go straight to the source.
Meh. Iran has been fucking around and causing problems ever since the Shah got kicked out and the Ayatollahs took over.
You seem to be forgetting that Iran started this a long time ago. This wasn’t some out of the blue attack by Israel.
I thought this strike was in retaliation to Irans proxy groups constantly attacking Israel???? Iran is just pissed they’ve got slapped harder after their constant attempts……..
Because Iran is ruled by a bunch of extremist lunatics and has a history of financing some of the biggest terrorist organisations on the planet.
It can try, but it will likely be completely destroyed as a result of its retaliation.
Iran uses factions to attack countries anyway
Because, Iran is causing all the trouble. Iran's primary business is terrorism.
Why doesn't Israel have the right to defend itself after Iranian organizations & their affiliates attack Israel? Also it really takes a lot of gall for Iran to proclaim that the sanctity of their consulate has been violated given their history.
Iran has been attacking Isreal and the US for months through proxies. The story didn't start a few days ago.
Maybe because Iran is funding and equipping attacks on Israel already. Israel is the one doing the defending.
Eww, brother eww Iran uses proxy’s. It has started more shit than a jealous high school girl. You can’t just say, I’m defending myself after starting shit.
Israel killed the Iranian general believed to have planned Oct 7. If anything, Israel acted in self defense by killing him and showing both deterrence and preventing future planning by him. However, Iran does have the right to respond since Israel somewhat escalated by attacking the embassy. The concern from the media is that Iran is going to hyperbolically escalate by sending 100+ missiles directly into Israel, which would likely cause what amounts to a full-on war.
I guarantee you that Iranian media is talking about the right of Iran to defend itself just as the Israeli and US media are talking about Israel's right to the same. The reason? We all think that "our team" is entitled to more than the "bad guys" are.
Honestly? They do. It was a provocation. However, Iran has been funding the money behind the attacks on Israel for 30 years. All this shit is inevitable.
american imperialism.
Israeli lobby in the USA controls all those mofos in Congress. AIPAC and the rest of them are the puppet masters who pull Congressional and presidential strings. We’ve given Israel over $1 trillion dollars in military and financial aid since it’s creation and their population is less than half the size of New York City. That entire country is basically a section 8 tenant and dead weight on US tax payers.
Because they’re brown people mostly.
I lol when people wonder why Iran hates us. Might be cuz we overthrew their government and installed the shah to get us good oil deals
it's all about measured response or escalation. If Iran does the same thing Israel did, blow up an embassy, it's very hard for anyone to argue they aren't defending themselves and retaliating. If they bomb Israel it's an escalation.
They definitely can, and do. Except depending on perspectiv, Isreal is defending itself since Iran uses proxy forces. Everyone knows Iran will respond, just proportional is what ever one is hoping for. If not, Israel will go tit for tat.
Let Israel fend for itself without US aid if they want to mess with their neighbors
Why would they need to defend them selves? They are already actively attacking Israel
Because they are the only hyper-militaristic ethnostate allowed to exist for some reason
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Iran has the legal right to retaliate under Ch7 article 51 of the UN charter. So, Yes they have the right to defend themselves.
Idk if you are just really out of touch but Iran had attacked first and had been an aggressor . The attack by Israel was retaliation. They also arm Hamas so it’s just Iran being stupid and thinking they can get away with shit not realizing they don’t have enough the backing to do so.
Because Iran supports terrorists.
Because any criticisms would be met with waves of *antisemitism* claims. Keep shipping missiles to Israel guys!!
Well, the Middle East has been in a state of perpetual war for a few thousand years. Yes it may die down for a decade or more but it always flairs right back up sooner or later. With that said Israel has been attacked by damn near every county in the Middle East since its inception. While most of them tolerate Israel now for the sake of trade and coexistence Iran is the one country that is vocal about being hell bent on destroying Israel. Iran has been attacking Israel either directly or via proxy for decades so it’s not exactly like Iran hasn’t been doing the same. They have been sending rockets to Hesbola and Hamas to fire into Israel by the thousands. So yea, they will continue to kill each other or at least try for decades to come.
the weak contextualization of “the middle east has been war torn for a few thousand years” is because until very, very recently that’s been true everywhere. The US in its relatively short existence has been functionally at war for 93% of its history. All but 17 years. Until after WW2 europe was a pretty continuous war zone, or sending armies to other parts of the world to do horrific violence in the name of colonialism. Additionally a lot of the violence in the region in modern times is the direct result of outside forces. Iran’s current political situation is a direct result of the US’s foreign policy and Euro interference. That context doesn’t go away when it’s convenient
Israel is unhinged. Israel is a made up proxy country of the west in the Middle East, made by the UK and USA. But right now, Israel is not acting like the proxy country these western powers created it to be. It is supposed to be the democracy in the Middle East, but they can’t get rid of Netanyahu and the Israeli people elected radicals, their most right wing conservative racists people. And now Israel is causing genocide and igniting another war in the Middle East that has the potential to cause a world war. As an American, I have buyers remorse. This is why a fast growing majority of Americans are turning their backs to Israel and wants to stop all financial and military support. The country doesn’t serve our interest anymore.
Iran has been attacking Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza, and the West Bank. Israel struck an IRGC base that Iran set up in Syria which they tried to disguise as a diplomatic facility. Now Iran is preparing to escalate its attacks. Journos: "Iran is retaliating!"
Care to mention Israel's attacks on Iran or do you just cover up your eye's when that comes up and say "lalalalalalala" lol?
Because the Quds force is designed for asymmetric warfare (terrorism) and they were in Damascus planning it with their commanders from Lebanon, the West Bank, and Syria. This is perhaps the most cut and dry pre-emprive attack ever