Why do I keep reading Mideast hawks decrying the Iranian attack on Israel as "unprecedented" and demanding retaliation? They understand why it happened, right?
IT WAS BECAUSE ISRAEL ATTACKED IRAN AND KILLED 16 PEOPLE, INCLUDING TWO OF THEIR GENERALS AND TWO CIVILIANS.
The Israeli airstrike on April 1 was aimed at Iran's embassy in Damascus. That's legally Iranian territory.
Does Israel seriously think they can do this and should expect to suffer no consequences—not even the light tap they got in return? That's insane.
Agree. Yet I struggle to find any person or entity in a position of power who acknowledges that Israel provoked the attack by Iran. Consider this press release by Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Minority Leader of the House:
LEADER JEFFRIES STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE IRANIAN ATTACK AGAINST ISRAEL
Brooklyn, NY – Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released the following statement regarding Iran’s attacks on Israel:
"Iran, a sworn enemy of the United States, has launched an unprecedented attack against our Democratic ally, the State of Israel. America’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad and unbreakable. Iran will not succeed. We stand with the people of Israel during this moment of significant challenge."
All I can think to say is that the Israeli lobby is damn strong, expects self-censorship, and everyone in any position of political or media power fears it.
The average American has been fed a steady diet of "Iran is evil" for over 40 years, and it's not just because of the Israel lobby in the US. Most people pay little attention to news, especially foreign news, and have no clue that Israel hit the consulate. Nor would they care much if they did know, given their priors about Iran.
So politicians will make their anti-Iran statements for public consumption (technically it was "unprecedented," since Iran hasn't launched this kind of retaliation before). And Biden will tell Netanyahu privately that this should be the end of it.
Just to be clear, the Iranian Government IS evil. Their internal human rights record is appalling. They support some truly appalling groups. And they are a dedicated enemy of the US which undermines our interests where ever they can and actively sought to kill Americans.
Agreed though that there is a lot of performative statements coming out right now and that it is best for if Netanyahu takes Biden's advice...
"Just to be clear, the Iranian Government IS evil. Their internal human rights record is appalling. They support some truly appalling groups."
Swap Israeli for Iranian in those sentences, and they remain equally accurate.
Israel is a nation governed by an evil regime that wants war, the eradication of the Palestinian people from lands they want to steal, and who are intentionally trying to instigate a war with Iran by bombing the Iranian embassy. This probably because they've seen that most of the world has finally turned against their ethnic cleansing attempts and are looking for another boogeyman to regain some support.
This is a conflict where the best the US can do is tell Israel that if they get into a direct war with Iran they'll be on their own, and that if they continue their actions in Gaza, they'll be facing sanctions and cutting off of all US funding.
The thing is, Iran is not uniquely evil. Many other evil regimes have existed over the last 40 years, but most are ignored (Africa has had plenty of them, and we're really good at ignoring those).
It's hard to come up with anything that Iran is doing on a human rights or foreign policy level that doesn't have an equivalent in Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia, but we certainly don't treat those regimes the same way. Sanctions mean American businesses can't make money off of them, so their evils can't be "balanced." I don't like Iranian policy on Israel, but in terms of actual human death and misery, Russia and Saudi Arabia have much higher body counts this millennium. You can't even claim that they're the nuttiest militaristic regime, since North Korea definitely wins that award.
True, I do not dispute in any way that Iran is one of (too) many evil governments out there. The Middle East is particularly awful in that regard. And there are so many ways to be evil and it depends on the criteria you want to emphasize. Starvation? Oppression? Body counts? Body Counts per capita?
But I agree that North Korea is probably at the top of my list for worst regimes. A surprising dark horse candidate for that dubious distinction is Eritrea, with how it indefinitely conscripts its young people and puts them on labor project that have a bit of state-run slave camps to it.
Of course we understand that Iran gets specially harsh treatment because in addition to being evil, it has been our sworn enemy for over 4 decades, and is not in a position where our sanctions on them cost that much.
Wowee. "Sworn enemy for decades" without any discussion whatso-effin-ever as to why that might be. I suggest that everyone as (perhaps deliberately) ignorant/obtuse as tango Google "operation Ajax" to see why an Iranian might still be pissed off at the U.S.
I know damn well Iran's gripes. I also know that Mossadeq is over 70 years ago, was overrated. And that our buddy the Shah is looking a lot less bad for the Iranian people than the current government is. And how the clerical regime deliberately ramped up the anti-Americanism at the time of the revolution as a way to seize power from the non-clerical elements of the revolution. I also recall how Iran more than got revenge during the hostage crisis and that current anti-American hostility is cultivated by the clerical regime as a way to maintain power.
So holding about 50 hostages for 444 days "more than" makes up for the U.S. destroying the Iranian democracy in 1953 and Iranians having to live under the Shah's SAVAK for 22 years? 70 years ago still counts as living memory.
Noted, no one said that.
But it certainly was a bad thing, one among many.
Digging hard to exonerate the mullahs.
Well, I'm not carrying water for the rabbis if that's what you mean.
After almost 50 years of the Islamic Republic, most Iranians seem to feel that Savak was not all that bad.
Pfft. If Eisenhower hadn't authorized Operation Ajax then Iran would have had a secular democracy for the last 70 years.
How about the invasion of Iran that the US participated in, and which led to a famine that killed 2 million Iranians? Or the fact that the US took over for the British, who spent better than 50 years stealing Iran's oil wealth? Or the fact that the US egged on Saddam Hussein in an unprovoked invasion that killed hundreds of thousands more?
The mullahs are evil, but the United States lacks standing on calling them out.
And I wonder how that Iranian Government came to power & why it hates America?
The name Mosaddegh ring a bell?
Or the name William Knox D'Arcy.
tango — true about the Iranian government, which is increasingly unrepresentative of the Iranian people, who would prefer economic development to foreign adventurism.
Netanyahu would be doing what is best for Israel if he takes Biden’s advice, both in regard to Iran, and also to Rafah. Can he be convinced to do that, instead of what is ‘best for Bibi and to hell with anyone else’?
Half the commenters here, including me, think that Bibi is trying to provoke a war with Iran that the US would be forced to enter. I think Bibi is making a grave miscalculation, because Iran will do whatever it can to avoid open conflict with the US.
Iran is a ‘dedicated enemy’ of the U.S., with whom, however, it agrees on one crucial point: a war between the U.S. and Iran is an outcome to be strenuously avoided.
Actually, the truth is that the US is a dedicated enemy of the Iranian people. We started it.
People, or specific governments?
Well, as with so many things, it was the British that started it, both individuals and governments. In 1901, William Knox D'Arcy bribed Iranian government officials to obtain a permanent concession to all of Iran's oil reserves. The British government ending up taking it over, and creating the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now known as British Petroleum) to exploit it.
In the fall of 1941, The British and Soviets invaded Iran in order to create a route to ship Lend-Lease to the USSR. The US joined in the occupation once we were in the war. The occupying forces commandeered the entire Iranian transportation system. This led to a famine in which 2 million Iranians starved to death.
The reason the US overthrew Mossadegh was that he ran on a platform of nationalizing the oil fields, thus ending the corrupt concession to the British. Once installed, the Shah allowed the British to continue control of the pumping.
I love how they substituted the word unprecedented for the normally used unprovoked knowing that the average reader will think unprovoked even though that isn't the word used. Yu can have your cake (tell the truth) and eat it to (deceive the reader.)
Shrug... Iran funded and instigated the October 7 attack and has funded and instigated Hezbollah and Houthi attacks on Israel since. Does Iran seriously think they can do this and should expect to suffer no consequences?
A seven year old Bedouin girl - an Israeli citizen - is clinging to life in a hospital bed due to this attack. https://archive.is/qpYiN
All Israeli lives matter, not just Jewish ones. Payback is necessary. Iran must learn that it can have peace or war but it cannot stand back and attack Israel with proxies and not pay the consequences.
MF'er, I suspect that you are a well-compensated member of the Israeli lobby that I referred to in my comment above.
You do your job well. Through the efforts of your fellow lobbyists, consider the fruits of your efforts. John Fetterman issued the following statement, as published in the Guardian:
"The Democratic senator John Fetterman, no friend of pro-Palestinian protesters, told CNN’s State of the Union: “It really demonstrates how it’s astonishing that we are not standing firmly with Israel and there should never be any kinds of conditions on all of that. When a nation can launch hundreds of drones towards Israel, I’m not going to be talking about conditions, ever.”
Ah, yes of course. Because the only reason anyone supports Israel is that Jewish money, right?
BTW, let's all remember - the anti-war movement is not pro-peace. They are just pro the other side.
https://www.thefp.com/p/american-anti-war-activists-cheer
No one said that except you.
Which leads one to believe you're the disingenuous one here.
I quote from Zaphod: "MF'er, I suspect that you are a well-compensated member of the Israeli lobby "
Perhaps you should read the comment thread before making a fool out of yourself?
I did notice you don't actually make a non-disingenuous argument about it.
‘They’ in this case referring to 0.0001% of the U.S. population.
Nice if true, but if so why is the left wing of the Democratic Party so reluctant to condemn these idiots?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAbtpKzFeoA&ab_channel=FoxNews
So you using a racist source supports your position how?
What racist source?
This is live video of Rashida Talib refusing to condemn people chanting "Death to America!"
Why is the Republican Party in thrall to a man who, at best has very congenial relations with stone cold antisemites.
Zaphod,
You said
"MF'er, I suspect that you are a well-compensated member of the Israeli lobby that I referred to in my comment above."
From a practical standpoint, you have absolutely zero evidence to make that claim.
Please don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like this.
This is not a personal attack, nor is it commenting on your politics, or any external factors. It is just referencing your claims and the total lack of any supporting evidence. It is an attempt to make this discussion fact-based instead of flame-based.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Your reputation precedes you.[1] If you want anyone to take you seriously you will not engage in any verbal shenanigans. This isn't a personal attack, just a friendly caution.
1 You have an entry in my rolodex.
If any sane non-antiSemites are still planning to vote for a Democrat in November, please read he exchange above.
You're very literly-minded person, aren't you, Misfire? I took the post you're objecting to as snark to the effect that you're so far in the tank for Israel that you might as well be a (paid) member of some pro-Israel lobby group.
But that's okay by me and you can keep tellings us what bedtime story your folks read to you last night. One thing though; I'd appreciate it if you picked a different book this time.
Grin. People like you are the best campaign ads Donald Trump has.
Again, showing that you are in fact only disingenuous.
Weren’t you previously pretending to be anti-Trump? Not that anyone believed you then ….
Shrug. I'm reasonably anti-Trump. I'm a lot more anti-Biden.
Unfortunately, Cruz, Haley, and Rubio are not potential candidates any more.
This is the type of comment that scares everything out of me. The conflict in the middle east is not black and white. Zionism and the Palestinian causes are not evil in themselves. It is completely understandable for people to have different opinions and not be paid for them. What the OP states are firmly held believes for some of us. Does Iran not fund Hezbollah and Hamas? Are Hezbollah and Hamas not involved in war/skirmishes with Israel at the moment? Should I stop believing that Iran has to do anything with Hamas/Hezbollah despite the general consensus? (I am no expert)
...You could swap the word 'Iran' for 'Israel' in that paragraph and it would be equally true.
Which is the problem with your comment.
You are claiming that Israel funds Hezbollah and Hamas?
Israel practically created Hamas. They intentionally helped facilitate their creation to serve as an alternative to Fatah, who was the main Israeli opposition back then. Over the decades they also made sure they received as many resources and money as possible in order to keep the Palestinians divided.
Much like what happened to the US with Hussein, Noriega, the Taliban, Komeni, etc., governments who help prop up fanatics and dictators to power for their own self interest, end up becoming victims of the monsters they helped create.
Exactly
Israel is largely responsible for the creation of Hezbollah, too. It wasn't created to attack Israel. It was created as a defense against Israel during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and the subsequent occupation of parts of Lebanon that lasted until 2000.
Whenever Israel scrambles to deal with perceived threats, some real and some not, they inevitably create more enemies than they defeat. They seem incapable of thinking through the consequences of their actions, or performing any sort of cost/benefit analysis. They roll from one crisis to another without ever developing a coherent strategy for how to solve this crisis and prevent the next crisis.
And so it is here. The biggest issue isn't whether or not it was illegal to drop a missile on the Iranian consulate, or even whether or not the world is a better place without Mohammad Reza Zahedi. It's that Israel escalated its conflict with Iran without accomplishing anything.
Humans in general vastly overestimate the value of assassinations, especially of military officers. Even when you kill as skilled a commander as Isoroku Yamamoto, it doesn't make a big difference in the conduct of the war you're fighting.
No one uses assassination as frequently as the Israelis. But it doesn't get them anything beyond the satisfaction of killing someone. Even the killing of five senior scientists in Iran's nuclear program wasn't much of an obstacle in the path towards an Iranian bomb. The American hit on Qasem Soleimani hasn't made any difference in the inclination or ability of the Iraqi militias he coordinated. As always, they simply promoted a new guy and went right on doing what they'd been doing.
The other motivation that the Israelis claim is that assassination are a deterrent. The argument is that, by killing Iranian generals, it creates an incentive for other Iranian generals not to attack Israel. This is an example of the "We're tough; our enemies are weak" fallacy. The IDF wouldn't be deterred if Israel's enemies managed to kill a couple of its high ranking generals. But they are absolutely convinced that the Iranians will fold when faced with the same thing.
In the end, it's just an exercise in using tactical methods to avoid having to make strategic choices. It won't ever get them anywhere useful.
All Israeli lives matter, not just Jewish ones.
Then, maybe, the government of Israel should recognize the Bedouin villages, including the one Amina al-Hasoni lives in, so that they can receive proper infrastructure, including bomb shelters. It's not just random chance that the only serious casualty of this strike was Bedouin.
Or, more likely, you and they don't really care about the Bedouin except when you can use their plight to further some other goal.
Well said, sir.
According to the Wikipedia article this is a problem that makes slow progress. It is not something that is just ignored. There have been attempts at compromise, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrecognized_Bedouin_villages_in_Israel
FU!!!
How many kids has Israel killed in Gaza this week?
You could say the same thing and replace the word 'Iran' and 'Israel' and still be true.
So Israel can f*** around, but how dare they discover actions have consequences, is that it?
I mean, any nation that suffered Israels insult to Iran would, nay, must respond to such; for example, Israel itself is aggressively conducting its own punitive expedition against Hamas right now over similar actions back in October.
Israel aught to be glad basically every other nation on the planet isnt gearing up to slap it down over the insult Israel offered the entire planet when it dropped its little presents on the Iranian compound.
Similar actions? Seriously? You compare killing 7 people in a military installation with an orgy of rape, torture, murder, and hostage taking aimed primarily at civilians?
You are sick.
...why are you?
While ignoring the thousands more who have been taken prisoner and tens of thousands killed, as well as the orgy of pictures of death and dragging naked corpses on TV?
Like, what do victims of war have to do with Israel blowing up foreign consulates and then whining that owner of said consulate might send some missiles back at them?
Israel attacked Iranian citizens, Hamas attacked Israeli Citizens. you can whine about the depths of depravity hamas committed, and in moderation, be correct, but at the heart of both is that both Nations were both harmed by the actions of another nation.
You quite literally cannot honestly defend Israel while condemning Iran... ok, you can, but it makes you a hypocritical fool at best. Are you seriously goung to tell me your sole purpose here is to be a hypocritical fool ignorant of the most basic of playground politics?
"Iran funded and instigated the October 7 attack" The 2nd part is a bald face lie. "t cannot stand back and attack Israel with proxies " How does someone become as stupid as you. Hamas does solely what Hamas thinks is in its best interests. Similar to Hezbollah.
I am sure MF believes all Arabs are a monolith of irrational anitsemiticism centrally controlled from Tehran.
But frankly, it is hard to believe that he is sincere in regards to some of the ridiculous assertions he makes here. They fly so completely in the face or reality and logic.
Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, all the other groups within 2,000 miles of Tehran of which Washington disapproves - none of them has any independent interests or agency. The US media makes that clear when they never refer to "Iraqi militias", but always to "Iranian-backed militias", which just happen to consist of Iraqis living in Iraq or Syrians living in Syria.
Puppets of the ayatollahs, apparently, every one of them.
Israel's supporters aren't very good at ascribing agency to anything inconvenient.
Once again, we are in Upton Sinclair territory: it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary (or in this case self image) depends on him not understanding it.
To understand it, they would have to not be hawks, so they will never understand.
Why did Iran attack Israel? Why did Israel attack Iran? Why did Iran attack Israel? Why did Israel attack Iran? Why did Iran attack Israel? Why did Israel attack Iran?
Ad infinitum.
Or, as President Biden said, “Take the win.”
I have perhaps a little hope that Netanyahu will take this advice.
What would it have been called if ISIS had been responsible?
Only Russia is in the same ballpark when it comes to assasinations of people who displease them.
This is a minor quibble in the scheme of things, but there is no evidence that the Israelis were "aiming" at the embassy and simply missed. This was precise and aiming at the embassy and missing does not violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Additionally, a consulate is not the territory of the particular country it represents and in this case was a separate building Period.
Before anyone here jumps all over me for supporting Israeli policies - don't. I lived and worked in Palestine from 2014 - 2017 and again in 2022/2023. I believe that Israeli policy on the West Bank is wrong and all settlers should be removed. Israeli policies are, for lack of a better word, establishing an apartheid regime. Hamas is a pure terrorist organisation, that should have been destroyed a long time ago but, as we all now know, the Netanyahu government helped them because it gave Netanyahu's religious right-wing fanatics a free hand to do anything they wanted on the West Bank. They knew October 7 was going to happen and ignored their security services. The Israeli's response is grotesque, aside from being a failure. Netanyahu, at a minimum in the government, must go. How that happens, and when, is anyone guess - but it must happen.
"Hamas is a pure terrorist organisation ..."
No, it isn't. Hamas sponsors legitimate schools and hospitals.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
ProbStat, how did you celebrate on 10/7?
I banged your girlfriend.
Thanks for asking.
Oh, she says, "Hi."
I banged his dad.
Kevin, can we remove this bigot yet?
It is a foundational principle of modern international legitimacy and even morality that every national group where possible deserves it's own state. You might have heard the term "self-determination." The Israelis are incontestably a national group. Even the Palestinians deserve their own state, despite the likelihood that their government would be awful, based n how the PA and Hamas have performed.
If this is your "considered opinion," well, I have a pretty good gauge on what your opinion is worth.
"It is a foundational principle of modern international legitimacy and even morality that every national group where possible deserves it's own state. " No it isn't. No one in the US besides a minority of mohwaks think they deserve their own state. This is true of all of the indigenous nations of the US. Similar for the Roma. Similar for the multitude of groups in china or india. And even if European Jews deserve their own territory, it would be in europe, not asia.
You obviously don't know shit about political science. Nor are you very good at writing coherent comments.
That you completely fabricated a "foundational principle of modern international legitimacy and even morality" gives a pretty good gauge of what your opinion is worth.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
It is a foundational principle of modern international legitimacy and even morality that every national group where possible deserves it's own state.
Ah, this again. The phrase "where possible" is doing a ridiculous amount of heavy lifting in that sentence. All sorts of people say that they are for national self-determination. In practice no one behaves as if they really believe that.
The Kurds are shit out of luck. So are Romanians who live in Hungary, and Hungarians who live in Romania. The Chechens and Dagestanis are screwed. All of the various tribes in Myanmar are fucked. Tibetans and Uighurs have to sit there and take it.
Even in the beginning, national self-determination was observed far more in the breach than put into practice. It only applied to Europeans. Even in Europe, it was cast aside when convenient. (I should note that I think that the various instances of ethnic Germans being denied self-determination were absolutely correct decisions, but it demonstrates that, in the end, national self-determination was far down the list of priorities.)
As foundational principles go, that's astonishingly weak tea.
But it's worse in this case. The Israelis don't just claim that they have a right to a state in which they are a majority. They are arguing that they have a right to a state in which one ethnic group, the Jews, have more legal rights (the right of return; the right to lease land from quasi-governmental agencies; a right to exclude others from their communities; and a lot more) then the other ethnic groups.
National self-determination isn't a foundational principle. It's something given lip service and then discarded.
Well argued.
This site (Cornell law school) states:
That is far from a right to a nation-state. The brief article goes on to describe a spectrum in which self-determination may consist of political and civil rights, to statehood. It is further noted that the principle, that national borders are not to be altered by force of arms, may conflict with this right.
Your excuses would apply to Hamas or Iran as well as Israel, though.
Do you have a source for the status of a consulate? A quick search didn’t show anything definitive.
I tried again and turned this up: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf
Consulates are ‘inviolate’, and the host country may not tax the premises, and is obligated to protect the premises. But nothing is said about territorial status.
But clearly if the Israeli strike was not an attack on Iranian territory, it was then an attack on Syrian territory.
At this point, I think Kevin has said so many dumb things about the Middle East that it’s fair to call him an idiot.
I try to refrain from online name-calling. I believe in elevated discourse. But it’s not my fault if someone uses their platform to turn themselves into a laughingstock. And this is just plain stupidity:
“The Israeli airstrike on April 1 was aimed at Iran's embassy in Damascus. That's legally Iranian territory.
“Does Israel seriously think they can do this and should expect to suffer no consequences—not even the light tap they got in return?”
Kevin is - I kid you not - defending Iran. IRAN! Not just that, he’s defending Iran at Israel’s expense! Sorry, but Kevin is - objectively speaking - a moron.
From the WP, here’s what an intelligent person sounds like when discussing the recent events in question:
“The latest round of hostilities began Oct. 7, when Hamas, a terrorist organization funded and armed by Iran, launched a barbaric attack on Israel. Israel responded by first bombing and then invading the Gaza Strip. Six months later, Israeli forces continue to battle Hamas in Gaza, with Palestinian civilians suffering devastating damage as Hamas hides among them … Iran’s proxies in Hezbollah opened steady rocket and missile fire from southern Lebanon into northern Israel, forcing roughly 60,000 Israelis from their homes …
“On April 1, Israel upped the ante by bombing the Iranian consulate in Damascus. The dead included two senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) generals and several other officers. This airstrike was no doubt intended to put pressure on Iran to end the Hezbollah attacks on Israel”
And here’s another reality-based perspective, this time from the NYT:
“It’s no secret that Israel and Iran have fought a shadow war for decades. The weekend attack is notable for two reasons: its directness and its ineffectuality. Iranian military commanders undoubtedly understood that most of their slow-moving drones, about 170 in all, would be shot down before reaching their targets. They were a diversion. Those commanders were probably more surprised that their 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles also did negligible damage …
“Israel has every moral and legal right to respond in kind — and then some. It is not enough for Israel to demonstrate its capacity for defense, as it did over the weekend. It must also re-establish its capacity for deterrence. That is, it needs to show Iran’s leaders that the price for bringing their war against Israel out of the shadows will be unbearably high … But if right is one consideration, prudence is another.”
I wish Kevin a speedy recovery from his various health issues; meanwhile, I wish he would stop shredding whatever reputation he once had for intelligence.
You're the idiot.
Kevin is defending international law. That international law occasionally benefits bad regimes is not cause to abandon it.
And Israel's illegal colonists and the IDF had killed around 250 Palestinians in the West Bank in 2023 BEFORE October 7. To pretend that October 7 occurred in a vaccuum is the work of a sloppy propagandist.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
We get it. You're an anti-Semite. You can stop repeating your hatred and ignorance.
If you're not getting paid to spread pro-Israel propaganda, contact https://hasbarafellowships.org/
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
So you think that Israel has the right to attack other countries without blowback?
Why?
Iran funds Hamas. Hamas launched the 10/7 attack.
America funds Israel.
So I guess Iran is justified in attacking America.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
So does Israel.
Why is it your bigoted comments can be read backwards, too?
It is a hallmark of basic intelligence to think about the implications of the things you want to believe. You should try that. You can avoid hypocritical and obviously wrong formulations of principle if you remove your friend's and enemy's names from your thinking.
What are the implications of your principle that if country A provides funds to country B and country B attacks country C, country C is justified in attacking country A? Where does that lead us?
Do you, perchance, know about Shakespeare?
Irony of ironies, he offered up a soliloquy for a Jewish charactor in one of his plays that Israelphiles desperately need to learn.
The 'Oh my ducats, oh my daughter' bit? Or the 'Hath not a Jew eyes' monologue?
The "prick me, do I not bleed" speech,
+1
Kevin, why do we allow these bigots free reign?
Attack was on Iranian consulate or military compound next to consulate—the “or” is how propaganda works (so well on some of the commenters here!). One account is more credible than the other given that, as you noted, it was military leaders who were killed, which appears to be a fact that Iran, US, Israel, other countries of the region, and puppet master Russia all agree about.
There were other people killed as well.
Way too many innocent people killed in that region, this world, but I can only find reports saying seven (first heard eight) members of the military were killed in that attack. Welcome more info though.
And I agree about getting bigot off KD’s comments section.
They will never stop fighting. Two (or more!) rival gangs living in a zero sum world.
I'll reiterate what SRDIblacksea said upthread: the building Israel bombed in Damascus wasn't the embassy proper, but an annex where Iranian RG officials were coordinating with Hezbollah about attacking Israel. If they didn't know they would be targets, they should have. That said, one can argue about whether targeting RG generals right now in the middle of the Gaza War when everything was already a powder keg ready to go off was a good idea or not, but acting like they were just a bunch of innocent diplomatic personnel sitting around drinking tea and talking about the football match or whatever is a little disingenous.
And you know this how -- ?
Oh, that's right: you don't.
And Israel has been committing acts of terrorism against Iran for over two decades now.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
You do know that Israel doesn't get to pick and choose which parts of a consulate in a foreign country is or is not part of their sovereignty, right? That's between the host and guest.
Ultimately, any Iranian attack is in defense of its ideology, which is violently anti-Zionist. And any attack by Israel is in defense of Zionism. That's one reason that I long ago gave up any hope that outside influence might help the Palestinians and the Israelis reach some kid of peace agreement. As long as Iran, et al support the Palestinian claim to ALL of what used to be Palestine, there will be Palestinians signing up to fight for just that.
Which is why my position now is that the US should stop funding the Israeli military and pursue its interests independently, aligning them with Israel's interests only when it is not ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE for us, which Israel's Gaza war clearly is. And don't say "but Hamas." We don't fund Hamas, and we oppose Iran at every turn, as well as Iran's proxies. It doesn't mean we have to support ethnic cleansing, illegal settlements and mass killings of civilians.
How I see it, this approach quickly leads to the end of Israel. Unless Israel can ally with another super power like Russia or China. How long do you think Israel can last in the middle east without support from the US and Europe? If this support abruptly ends, what do you think happens to Israel? Is it so clear to you that Israel can survive? It is not clear to me. If Israel as we know it today were not to survive, what do you think happens to 7M Jews living there?
Frankly I don't want to know the answers to these questions. Maybe the Palestinians and Arabs turn out to be great governors for all the Jews take over. Just like they do in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Perhaps nothing happens and everyone lives happily ever after. Perhaps Israel is fine. I don't want them to risk it.
The ideological justification Americans give for supporting Israel is that Israel "shares our values" as a democracy. The least the US can expect in return for its support is that those values are honored enough that the international reputation of the US isn't besmirched by policies that are in violation of international law. But Israel has been breaking international law for some time now (illegal settlements being the most notable longstanding example of this). Really, is it too much to expect that a client state of the most powerful global empire that has ever existed will ACT like a client state?
Israel has spent its last 70 odd years making enemies of everyone around it, and in recent years, with the rest of the world. Every chance for settling the land conflicts, they have either refused to take the win or have reneged on their (very minimal) responsibilities, choosing further antagonizing their neighbors and the resident Palestinians and stealing land, killing Palestinians, and stealing some more.
As an "ally", Israel has tried to serve only its own interest, and its behavior towards the US has been to demand, take, demand more, take, insult, demand, and keep taking.
What will happen to them if the US abandons them? Well, what does their behavior deserve?
The loss of U.S. military aid would force Israel to spend more to purchase foreign-made (including U.S.-made) weapons, but would not put Israel’s continued existence at any greater risk. Israel would still have the most powerful military in its near vicinity. Iran has no capacity to deploy its larger forces against Israel. The U.S. would still have a vital interest in preventing a major outbreak of war in the Middle East, but could eventually be seen as something closer to an ‘honest broker’ between antagonists.
I would suggest Ukraine to bomb a Russian consulate in the country of its choice and kill a few spies and military attachés.
This would ensure the unconditional protection of Ukraine skies by the US and Europe against the ongoing onslaught by Russian drones and missiles.
Who needs Jake Sullivan.
I find it mildly ironic this is about the sanctity of an embassy.
Kevin,
Since you are shouting, I will return the favor.
Israel bombed a CONSULATE , not an EMBASSY. In either case, IT IS NOT IRANIAN TERRITORY. Do a google search of reputable sites. Here's one with links to the original documents.
https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/
And whatever international protections a consulate has, they are only in force when the consulate is used for its proper purposes. You can't set up a consulate, then start launching missiles from it and claim any protection.
The Iranian consulate held SOLDIERS WHO WERE PLANNING ATTACKS ON ISRAEL, so it was not protected.
And you very conspicuously ignore the THOUSANDS OF MISSILES SHOT INTO ISRAEL OVER SEVERAL YEARS BY GROUPS SUPPORTED BY IRAN. Every single one is an act of war. Those are aimed at civilians, not soldiers.
And by now you have been made aware that there were 60 tons of bombs sent to Israel. Yet you call it a "light tap".
If someone shoots you 10 times but you have a bulletproof vest, is that a "light tap"?
And you pretend that Iran only attacked because of the Israeli bombing of their consulate. You conspicuously ignore the long history of threats by Iran against Israel. Google "wipe them off the map", Iran, Israel.
Tsk, tsk only two posts in, the first admonishing another poster, and already you're doing the shouty thing. You're not credible, as previously indicated in my rolodex. But why did you have to crash and burn so quickly?
It is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
What other states in the world do you think do not have the right to exist?
Your answer, or your lack of answer, will say a lot.
I don't think states have rights at all, and I didn't write anything about states' "rights."
However, implicit in my statement is that the people who support the State of Israel do not have the right to enforce its rule on the people and the territory that it controls.
But to try to address your question, I don't that the Apartheid state of South Africa deserved to exist, and now it doesn't. That's the main complete example I can think of; sorry it's not current.
I also think that Russia doesn't deserve to control Donbas or Crimea, and probably some other territories that it claims sovereignty over. But I don't think Russia is completely illegitimate.
And, really, America's control of Hawai'i is pretty illegitimate, too. It might pass muster now, if the heirs of the people who ought to have had a right to determine Hawai'i's fate when its fate was decided without their input now accept that it is part of the United States. But really the native population and any foreigners they freely admitted and accepted should have had a choice in their fate.
Furthermore it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
Aren't you going to tell me what my answer says?
Disappointing.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
You nor Israel, get to choose what parts of a consulate in a country not Israel are sovereign territory. That's between the host and guest nation.
Crissa,
I didn't choose anything. I read the relevant international agreements. If you do the same, I am sure you will come to the same conclusion.
Get back to me after you read the actual documents.
These are two rather extrordinary claims, launching missles and planning attacks. Is this hyperbolic rhetoric supporting a fallacious argument, or do you have evidence for both, or either?
The first is not a claim. It is a hypothetical to show the absurdity of claiming that consulates can never be attacked, no matter what.
The second is documented in several news reports.
Okay, misunderstood the first, fair enough. Please do better than "is documented in several news reports". You have evidence or you don't, it is your claim. "Just google it" is the internet discussion equivalent of "my Canadian girlfriend" (ie it most likely does not exist).
'Why do I keep reading Mideast hawks decrying the Iranian attack on Israel as "unprecedented" and demanding retaliation?'
At least they had the decency not to claim that it was "unprovoked."
Baby steps.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
Let's see what happens after the election.
"Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist."
Your opinion is shared by the Iranian Mullah's, the Al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.
So you're saying they're not completely unreasonable -- ?
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
What other states do you think to not deserve to exist?
Addressed above.
Sigh. This comment section reminds me why I don't often comment.
Iran has attacked Israel for decades. The unprecedented thing here is that this attack was launched from Iran itself, instead of through proxies.
And vice versa...
Exactly.
...because you came to forget that Israel rarely strikes directly at Iranian diplomats and Iranian soil? Usually they use agents with probable deniability and hit them when they're not in Iranian facilities.
It is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
I don't know about that; to my mind that's succubing to the pathetic fallacy. I do know that Israel does not have the 'right' to exist and why people keep repeating this as if it were a touchstone is beyond me. Don't they know that (nation) states don't have rights?
Implicit in my comment is that the people who support the State of Israel do not have the right to impose it's rule upon the territory and the people it controls.
Which -- according to foundational principles of international legitimacy and even of morality -- they indeed do not have.
What other states do you think to not deserve to exist?
Could you two please stop spamming the thread with the same posts over and over again?
Yes, is today like a cess pool, alas.
Iran (with Russia's blessing, urging) doing its part to get djt elected. Even the Hamas attack in October was probably in part geopolitical U.S. election interference. Not to be so myopic that I think the world revolves around this troubled country . . . but sadly, so much does.
But that is quite, as you say "myopic". In that uniquely American way, too.
Ilhan Omar got in trouble for responding to one of many situations in which Israel acted in ways that would get condemned if done by any other country and asking how Israel gets away with it. For this she was condemned as anti-Semitic which seems to be nonsense. Drum is basically asking the same question now, but without the language which got Omar in trouble, but really shouldn't have.
The answer is that the West buys into a kindergarten version of the history of the region that Drum had been pushing since 10/7 in which the noble Jews fleeing Eastern Europe, and later the Holocaust reasonably agreed that they should be able to control the bulk of the British Mandate, while leaving the Palestinians with ungovernable separated territories, and the unreasonable Arabs did not agree so everything that followed is the fault of the Arabs.
Having gotten away with an incredibly long list of bad acts that no other country would have gotten away with without criticism, it should surprise nobody that Israel bombed a consulate and people are pretending the problem is that Iran fired back (in a way designed to minimize casualties).
This is just an indication of how deeply the kindergarten history has taken hold. That would not have happened if it was so easy to not think about the Palestinians as people. But in the US and much of Europe it is not just possible, but easy.
As evinced here in this vey forum over the last six months, the reason these people believe the kindergarten version is beause they want to believe. Directing them to cites and links (I get the impression they don't go to library very often) doesn't help. Spoonfeeding them here with quotes by various historical personages and exerpts from various articles, magazines, and books doesn't deter them from spouting the same deeply flawed assertions over and over again. Nothing reasoned and rational works. Nothing.
I've seen this cycle twice before, once in the 90', and again in the later oughts. Both times I tried to be persuasive, providing quotes and later links to back up anything I said. I did what i will call the MelanchyMonkey style. Now? Now I'm just tired. Sick and tired. I'm not going to make the effort. But I will point out their very, very abusive behaviour.
Bulk of British Mandate (70+%) went to Jordan.
About half of what was left went to Israel.
This is false.
Jordan was never meaningfully a part of Palestine. That anyone ever considered it to be so is the result of British legal shenanigans, perpetuated by people who are lying.
The proposed borders for the Palestinian Mandate were agreed to at the Conference of San Remo in April, 1920. The inclusion of any territory east of the Jordan River was never even brought up there. The Mandate would only include what we now think of as Palestine.
In July, 1920, the French crushed a revolt in Syria, over which they were to have a Mandate. This left the British in control of what is now Jordan. Initially, they assumed that it would be a part of the French Mandate. When the French didn't seem so inclined, they promised it to the Arabs.
In reality, they decided to keep it for themselves, through Arab proxies. But they didn't have a legal justification for that. At the Cairo Conference in March, 1921, they created one.
They decided that the way to proceed was to create a legal fiction of attaching the territory east of the Jordan either to their Mandate for Palestine, or their Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq). They went with the former once their strategy for controlling Iraq changed.
So, they unilaterally declared that "Transjordan" was now a part of the Palestinian Mandate. This lasted less than a week. Before the Cairo Conference was over, they declared that Transjordan would be governed separately from the rest of the Mandate, and they installed a Hashemite monarch as a puppet.
In the most technical of senses, Transjordan remained a part of the Mandate, asrepresented in Article 25 of the Mandate itself. But, as Article 25 makes clear, they exempted Transjordan from all of the governing restrictions in place in the rest of the Mandate. It was, in every practical sense, entirely separate, as it was always intended to be.
None of the relevant parties objected. The French were up to their own shenanigans in Syria, and were happy to let British machinations slide, so long as it was reciprocated. The rest of Europe didn't care. The Arabs east of the Jordan thought this arrangement was better than the alternatives. And the Arabs west of the Jordan, who have come to be Palestinians, never thought of Transjordan as being the same country.
Despite the obvious bad faith of those who argue that "70% of the Mandate was given to Jordan," this canard never dies.
"Light tap"? Kevin, that is one of the silliest things I've even seen you write. Iran fired over 350 missiles and drones. Each of those projectiles could have killed dozens or more of people on the ground in Israel. Just because Israel and its allies were able to shoot down most of them does not diminish Iran's intent to kill hundreds of people. A criminal would still be guilty of attempted murder even if the victim is saved by a bullet proof vest.
I'm not advocating a big response by Israel and I'm sure they expected some response from Iran. But calling it a "light tap" is ridiculous.
Oh, Atticus, here to lie again.
Just because rockets have a failure rate, they shouldn't have counted upon it?
What rockets? I said missiles and drones. That is what the 350+ consisted of What is it you think I'm lying about?
Oh, it's the bigoted guy who thinks there's a technical difference between missiles, rockets, and drones.
Guess what? There isn't.
You're doing a basic motte and bailey strawman argument.
If someone is shot 20 times, but the bullets are stopped by a bulletproof vest, is it just a light tap?
Assault is a thing. Attempted murder is a thing.
If you say "I am going to shoot at you in 30 seconds", then watch me step behind bullet proof glass before firing your shots, I find it hard to say that it was attempted murder rather than a warning or intimidation.
Please be rational. Just because they are your enemy does not mean you have to squint your eyes until everything they do is pure evil.
Don't feed the troll.
Thousands of Israeli soldiers deserve to be incarcerated and perish in Soviet gulags, like their Nazi peers were.
Considering Israel has a top-of-the-line missile defense system it claims can respond to at least half again as many targets, that also shot down everything Iran sent its way?
Come on atticus, prove to us you have something between your ears, will you?
Did he forget to mention that Iraq announced its response in advance and further, the counterstrike was hours away from Israel once it was launched? Whyever do you ask?
Sorry, that should have been Iran, of course. I wonder if Kevin would implement a better comment system if a bunch of us forked over some mullah.
"moola" or "moolah" for that meaning
Its atticus. He often 'forgets' to mention anything that runs contrary to his fantasies.
You're anti-Semitism is clouding your judgement.
It's "your," as in "Your racism is showing."
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
"Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist."
Again, your opinion is shared with the hoards of neo Nazi's around the world.
I don't care if KD decides to ban me, but, you can go fuck yourself.
And Hitler was a vegetarian, so what?
If you share an opinion with a terrible person, yes, you should reconsider it.
However... that doesn't, intrinsically, make it a bad opinion.
Thanks for the good wishes, but that's actually anatomically impossible.
Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that the State of Israel does not deserve to exist.
What other states do you think to not deserve to exist?
Noted, no anti-semitism was shown. Just more from Atticus the bigot.
Its anti-semitic to point out basic facts to an ignorant child like yourself?!
Geebus, you Israelphiles are desperate to delegitimize the term, arent you?
"Just because Israel and its allies were able to shoot down most of them does not diminish Iran's intent to kill hundreds of people."
If the intent of Iran was to kill hundreds of people they would not have responded in this way.
They responded in a way that allowed them to show they responded, while at the same time minimizing any potential damage because they knew well in advance that Israel's defense system would catch most of the missiles/drones.
It's the equivalent of a football team running a run down the middle on 3rd and long just for the sake of running a play that minimizes their risks of losing the ball, and knowing the play won't help them get any points.
This is a good description, Solar.
"they knew well in advance that Israel's defense system would catch most of the missiles/drones.
Give me reasons why I should believe that claim. Explain how many is "most". Did Iran know it would be 99%, and not 51%? Did they know that none of the 150 missiles containing 1600 lb warheads would hit an apartment building, killing hundreds?
Unless you can conclusively demonstrate that certainty, then your entire premise is ridiculous.
Iran knows full well that if it ever actually landed a bomb in Tel Aviv and killed alot of Isreali's it would be full on, open war with both Isreal and the US. If you can set aside your cartoon character view of the region it is obvious that Iran does not want this. They did the attack they did because they had to, given the nature of Isreal's provocation.
Think about motivations! Even your enemies have them, and they are rarely as irrational as American media and the political class presents it. War with Iran is good for Bibi Netanyaho (in his mind at least) and bad for Iran.
I think speculation is unhelpful here. Whatever is known about the precision of the Iranian weapons, or their targeting, will never be made public by any party. The only civilian injured, the unfortunate 7-year-old child, was struck by a missile fragment, obviously no longer on a controlled trajectory. If the Iranians wanted to target civilians, they certainly wouldn’t fire into the Negev.
The very few weapons that weren’t intercepted apparently hit in military reservations, but that is too small a number to conclude that only military facilities were targeted.
I did see one report (not sure where now) that nothing new was seen among the Iranian munitions; it was all technology the West has already seen. The author’s presumption was that Iran was willing to accept a higher loss rate to avoid revealing recent technological progress.
In KD’s previous Iran/Israel post, commenter shapeofsociety described the Iranian attack as ‘performative warfare’. I think we’ll never know for sure, but the quickly-released statement by the UN ambassador is evidence that at least whatever Iranian faction the ambassador supports wasn’t expecting much.
I find the debate here largely beside the point. The answer to "Who started it?" is always "The other side," and the response to what started it will always be "But before that came ...."
There is always justification for an attack, for those who want to find it. The only way to avoid an escalating cycle of violence is when one side decides not to attack despite apparent justification (and internal pressure) to retaliate.
The Biden advice is the wisest, if you ask me. Call it a victory, and let it go. But Israel is not about to do that. Israel says it will respond and that may be imminent.
Netanyahu, like Trump and Putin, is a hard-liner. All of them are clinging (or aspiring) to power with the knowledge that losing power means jail or death. They are desperate leaders who care more about themselves than the country or people they represent.
The other thing they have in common is that they hate Biden and want to see him lose. That's why this election is unusual and dangerous: powerful forces (inc. an "ally" and a candidate) working to defeat a president and reshape the world.
Good points.
I think the West at large thoroughly misreads Iran. Whatever its internal policies may be - bad, IMO, but no worse than in many countries the West sees as allies or proxies - its external ones are pragmatic if sometimes at odds with those of the West. Proof is precisely its recent attack on Israel which it announced with a bullhorn, which is not what you do if you don't want your missiles intercepted.
1. Antisemitism: Iran is the LEAST antisemitic country in the ME and treats its Jewish minority well, even giving it a guaranteed seat in parliament and making it the BEST represented group in the country on a per capita basis. The vile talk by former president Ahmadinejad was an exception to the rule.
2. Israel: neither Israel nor Iran were obsessed with each other until Netanyahu came along with his fixation since boyhood on it. And even after that Iran maintained its key foreign policy objective which is to further Shiite interests and rights. Its support for Hezbollah should be seen in this light. Sure, it can be really good at pretending to care about Israel/Palestine but it doesn't all that much.
3. Hamas: Iran off and on supports it. Off during the Syrian civil war when they supported different sides, on when it helps Iran get some street popularity in Sunni areas. But that's all. No love lost. Just ad hoc interests.
4. Nukes: if Iran pursues them, it sure is taking its time. On this issue even more than on others, never believe a word Bibi says.
5. The US and West generally. Iran can be cooperative and often has been. It doesn't want conflict and neither should we. The "axis of evil" talk is dangerous.
6. Mad mullahs: Iran is all about regime survival. Its strength is that it takes the long view. No mad mullahs in Teheran, that's just frenzied neocon talk.
7. Women's rights: much better in Iran than in most of the ME(don't get me started on Saudi or UAE) but have been rolled back since the 2010s. This is one area where greater openness to the West would have been good.
In regard to nukes, Netanyahu was instrumental in getting Trump to ditch the Iran nuke deal that Obama had negotiated. Iran has had moderates and less-moderates in government, and reneging on the deal has understandably given the more hard line side in Iran a better argument. Netanyahu has a habit of empowering the more belligerent factions with his neighbors. He did the same in strengthening Hamas.
The question for me is what Netanyahu does in retaliation now. Is he going to make Iran "pay a price," or is he hellbent on taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities (whatever they may be)? I'm afraid he may see this as his one opportunity to do the latter.
Regarding point 4:
- 1995
- 1996
- 2002
- 2009
- 2010
- 2012
Those excerpts are from a 2015 article. He has continued since.
You are better off getting your intelligence assessments from Donald "I have a big brain" Trump.
War is hell, and hell is evil, incarnate. Thus, any good person or group should adopt every smart problem-solving strategy available to avoid it, teach and train themselves in these strategies, and not support any activity that furthers it, because if you don't do everything in your power to avoid it, at best you are not good (far from it) and at worst complicit and hence evil (which stems from selfishness).
Even worse, some of these self-righteous warring folks will clothe themselves in Jesus, who would have nothing to do with their evil, war or mayhem, and actually showed and preached the way and path to the good, and how to steer away from evil and selfishness.
Would Jeremiah be just as ignored and disrespected today as in his own time?
Sometimes no matter how many times you read something, if you're not open to the message, you'll never hear, you're just looking for answers for yourself, and those close to you, when that's not the message, we are all in this together, people living today and future generations, this is not a zero-sum game.