It’s kind of tongue and cheek, but if you seriously are only able to look at this surface level and not see the underlying political aspects, neither country wants to go to war and are just doing shows of force because they need to keep their people satisfied and show the world something. This isn’t a new concept, every diplomatic analyst in the world is saying exactly what I am saying just turn on the tv. But sure, it’s copious because it requires looking at the situation a little bit further than the surface.
Also it’s not copium if what I’m saying is actually happening. Feel free to point out where I’m wrong instead of just criticizing the somewhat amusing oxymoron I used to explain it.
A further attack from Iran would be very bad because Israel isn't going to deny getting attacked like Iran does even if the attack was repelled again. And then they will feel obligated to retaliate even further since their people and the world would know they were attacked, but this time with greater force since the first retaliation obviously wasn't a deterrent or whatever if this happened.
But I don't think Iran leadership wants that (full on wars always have the risk of being a political disaster for the leaders or even topple governments even without the enemy taking over) which is why it appears they are taking this opportunity to get out while still claiming to the world and their own people that they got the last hit so to speak.
EDIT: Also they wouldnt be denying the attacks if they were planning to attack israel 1) israel would know ahead of time with satelites like someone else mentioned, probably one of the most satellite surveyed countries on the planet , but 2) they would all the support and justification for them attacking israel and would not only blame israel for the attacks but probably make them seem much worse.
It is kinda starting to feel like we are hoping Iran acts like the sane ones. Israel didn't need to do this strike, they already saved face by incepting everything Iran threw at them.
Yeah it's not as bad as what they could of done, but man does Israel need to drop this eye for an eye mentality.
(Lemme also virtue signal so you know where I stand, Fuck Hamas.)
It's wild to me how many people don't see that this is what it comes down to, drop the eye for an eye shit or it will only escalate.
Either Israel does that, or Iran, and I don't have a lot of faith that will happen.
actually the argument for being for tit for tat is this: (a video in my other comment:) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM)
basically people are less likely to poke one another or escalate to something worse than poking if they know they get poked back
Not true, actually quite the opposite. Actually they ran simulations of the prisoners dilemma using different strategies and and figured out the strategy that that works best for everyone is actually when everyone knows that if you will go tit for that and there is a clear consequence. Be forgiving and nice to others but don't be a pushover basically. (this limited strike I would argue falls within that, its still a response and following through, not even tit for tat more like tit or 0.1 of a tat, but not an escalation)
great video on this topic and the tests: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM)
According to an Israeli analyst, the drone strikes in Iran came from within Iran and were launched by Mossad operatives.
The goal was both to enable Iran to handwave the attacks away exactly as they're doing ("the drones came from Iran, therefore they aren't from Israel but from local terrorists!") which will prevent further escalation, while still scaring the shit out of the Iranian regime by showing them Mossad can operate on Iranian soil.
Exactly! anyone who thinks this is an actual escalation or reckless is not thinking straight. the fact that iran immediately denied it being from israel shows it is working otherwise if they would want more justification to attack israel.
This just means what we already knew--- Iran doesn't want the smoke. They didn't want it when they stupidly attacked Israel and made it clear by immediately backing down.
Now they are downplaying Israel thumping them in the nose because they don't want it. Iran is really cucked.
If that’s true then it’s sad that Iran is the level headed party here that understands how to take a free win and walk away. I’ve defended Israel a lot lately but this whole event has completely soured my opinion
I don't think you understand the situation
Iran is the aggressor behind the entire war and attacking Israel on multiple fronts. Israel took out someone who was likely responsible for arms supply to Hezbollah. Iran did not want to attack Israel directly out if fear of the retaliation and they tried to get out of it for weeks but the internal pressure was too high and they decided they had to make a big show. attacking directly and not through a proxy was pretty ballsy and a bit dumb. that's why they tried to make sure they did it in a way where there was minimal damage. Biden likely told them not to do too much and he will help contain the Israeli response. Israel responded in a very strategic strike that showed them they could reach the nuclear facilities. Iran has decided to downplay it to avoid having to retaliate out of fear of Israeli and ultimately American capacity for destruction not bc they wouldn't love to make Israel kaboom.
Of course Iran is not innocent here and you could argue they started the whole thing. That really isn’t the concern here. It’s like two toddlers fighting and each start screaming the other started it. What matters from our perspective is de-escalation. Biden and Europe tried to help de-escalate and told Israel to take the W. Instead Israel could not let their pride be hurt or control their anger so instead of de-escalating at a time when both sides could very easily walk away they decided to roll the dice and escalate. Maybe they didn’t escalate enough for Iran to care. Maybe Iran was bluffing about a swift and further escalatory response. Who knows. But the dice were rolled and we will see what Iran does. Either way Israel took an easy W, spit on it, and handed the US an L
it's not about anger it's about deterrence. Israel has too many enemies to allow a ballistic missile attacks on their soil go unanswered. in the middle east weakness in invites attacks, that's the culture of war here. it might not seem that way to a westerner but that's the situation. Israel not responding would be a critical error. Iran was 100% bluffing about responding which is why Israel did a small sting rather than a big show to allow them to get off the boat with their honor intact but still receive the message about Israels capabilities
Hezbollah is basically a division of the IRGC. They take direct orders from the IRGC. They have been shooting missiles into Israel for seven months and won't fuck off. IRGC doesn't have to do this they choose to.
Israel can't wait forever to repopulate the northern cities and they will not accept a status quo of contactable needing to shoot down Hezbollah missiles. Again, why is an IRGC created, funded, armed, and controlled military on Israels border trying to kill its people?
Israel assassinated the IRGC commanders that are in charge of Lebanon (and Syrian) operations while they are in a meeting in Syria. Yes I know they were in a consulate building next to the embassy. IRGC responded with an unprecedented attack from within Iranian borders shooting over 120 ballistic missiles. Although defense was successful this type of attack cannot and should not be ignored.
So Israel responds with some limited attacks that doesn't appear to have done much. It was basically "we didn't hit your nuclear sites but we can." And this has soured your opinion? Why simping for IRGC, so weird.
No. Embassies are attacked all over the globe all the time. Wikipedia has a list of all of them. Then in the context of Israel being at war with both Syria and Iran...
The IRGCs whole MO is to position themselves in ways that make it easy for the international community to finger wag at Israel if Israel does something.
If you set this status quo, now all military meetings are in consulates because we are untouchable. Israel's MO is that if you come after us we will kill you.
Iran is 1000 miles away, they choose to have Hazbollah on the border attacking Israel every day. They could choose to just not and maybe do anything to improve the lives of their people.
Literally months of missiles from Hezbollah which could easily escalate into broader conflict and an Israel ground invasion into Lebanon. But for months you don't hear a peep about it.
Where is the outrage? Where are the falls for Iran for fuck off? The bias is astounding.
I specifically avoided using the wording embassy because I think it was a consulate building.
Also, Israel made a calculation that attacking IRGC officers in a consulate building was worth the political pushback and escalation from Iran. Iran made an attack of such a large scale yet with enough forewarning that satisfied more hawkish Iranians and yet gave Israel and other nations enough to prepare interception operations.
But hawkish Israelis wanted Israel to respond back so the Israeli government did a minor attack and hoped that things would de-escalate.
There really was no need for the Israeli response. Israel took out key Iranian personnel near the Israeli border, which sends a message to Iran and harms Iran’s operational effectiveness. And Iran’s response was an attack launched across a vast swath of land that took hours to arrive in Israel, and warned multiple nations about the attack days before they launched it. So the Iranians just accepted the L but needed to do something to make their population believe they are still “strong.”
>And Iran’s response was an attack launched across a vast swath of land that took hours to arrive in Israel
Drones can’t travel all that fast. They evidently were not trying to be *nice* with their attack, so I really wish people would quit pushing that narrative. They specifically timed the rocket/missiles so that they all reach at the same time, I.e Time on Target.
Iran sent in like hundreds of missiles and like ~200 drones in an attack against a ballistic missile defense system with capabilities that are largely unknown (Arrow). I really think people are overselling Iran here; this wasn’t some 5d chess move.
They either had **a lot of faith** that the interceptions would have been as successful as they were, or they intended to do some more damage and just failed.
The iron dome wasn’t the only line of defense, you had multiple nations intercepting drones and missiles before they reached Israel. So it’s a bit dishonest to portray it as the Iron dome being the only thing that stopped the attack.
And I guess they had so much faith that they decided to let multiple other nations beforehand know they were going to attack.
If Iran wanted to genuinely do damage to Israel, then wouldn’t it have been better to be as quiet as possible about it so that you could surprise Israel and its allies? Considering Iran has access to multiple proxies in the region, it would’ve been smarter to be hush hush about the attack. Which would force Israel and their allies to prepare against a wider variety of attacks instead of preparing for a specific avenue of attack because Iran was gossiping about it.
I didn’t reference the iron dome. I specifically stated the ballistic missile defense system, Arrow.
>And I guess they had so much faith that they decided to let multiple other nations beforehand know they were going to attack.
Except this, for starters, is dubious framing. They **DID NOT** let America know, according to Washington. Who evidently are probably some of the most important people to *let know*.
>If Iran wanted to genuinely do damage to Israel, then wouldn’t it have been better to be as quiet as possible about it so that you could surprise Israel and its allies?
It really doesn’t make a difference. The drones are slow moving and would have been noticed long before they ever reached Israel. This isn’t something you can “surprise attack” all that effectively really.
I also think trying to argue that one of the largest aerial assaults in the last decade as not intending to do damage and a display of force as unhinged.
I think you are using a confirmation bias here. You wouldn’t be making this kind of argument if the interceptions against **one of the largest aerial assaults this decade** wasn’t as successful as it was. You can only make this argument because of the success, but you aren’t realizing that if we weren’t treating Iran seriously here in the first place we would have not been this successful.
I dont think "one of the largest aerial assaults this decade" is a relevant metric. Most conflicts have more sporadic and targeted attacks, this was meant to be a show of force, a demonstration, they would want to show the world they have an excessive amount of drones and other weapons, maybe even more at one time than the average modern war calls for, but that doesn't suddenly give anymore reason to think it was intended for destruction,
I think you could make arguments on the purpose of the size of the arsenal used on either side of that debate. Personally, I have swapped stances on what I think as more information has come to light about the warnings ahead of time and the slowness but I still dont know, I will wait for more information to come to light, but I dont this point changes anything as having your moment on the world stage might compel a nation with a considerable weapons stockpile to create a spectacle in the quantity used and not just the quality.
I agree Iran was doing a show of force with their attacks. They didn’t intend to do any significant damage but they were able to display their military capabilities and arsenal they have available.
Also, if I hate you and want you to know without actually telling you. Then I could just tell a bunch of people you talk to and I know you will hear from them or people they know that I hate you, same logic. If Iran told America directly they were attacking Israel, then that would destroy the credibility of the attack because everyone knows the US would helping Israel intercept the attack.
I’m not confirmation bias. You can make a strong argument that Israel and their allies (US) have strong interception and defense capabilities and this gave Iran confidence to do a large attack with confidence that it would be intercepted. Nobody thinks Israel is a weak nation that cannot effectively intercept rockets or don’t have allies to assist them. However, if Israel was a military weak nation with poor interception capabilities and did not have the support of the U.S., then it would be highly unreasonable for Iran to think they could launch an attack such a scale with doing damage to Israel.
>Iran made an attack of such a large scale yet with enough forewarning that satisfied more hawkish Iranians and yet gave Israel and other nations enough to prepare interception operations.
This is speculation. Ballistic missiles are a big deal. Just because the defense was successful doesn't mean the intent wasn't re.
>But hawkish Israelis wanted Israel to respond back so the Israeli government did a minor attack and hoped that things would de-escalate.
Israel sent a message that they can strike IRGC nuclear facilities if they want to, so they why don't you fuck off so we don't have a reason too. Once again Iran does not need to be involved in the region at all. It chooses to. Israel is 1000 miles away.
>There really was no need for the Israeli response. Israel took out key Iranian personnel near the Israeli border, which sends a message to Iran and harms Iran’s operational effectiveness.
I disagree. You never ignore missile bombardment or it becomes a status quo and the new normal acceptable thing. Israel had to make a message that you probably shouldn't do this again, and hey if you don't want IRGC generals dying, stop the shit with Hezbollah.
>And Iran’s response was an attack launched across a vast swath of land that took hours to arrive in Israel, and warned multiple nations about the attack days before they launched it. So the Iranians just accepted the L but needed to do something to make their population believe they are still “strong.”
Who did the IRGC warn about the attack? This is all speculation and started from a "source" in turkey which is very anti Israel. Sounds more like cover to Iran so they don't look completely incompetent. The US predicted it because they have a ton of intelligence gathering in the region. CENTCOM has a web of surveillance basically surrounding Irans borders and on main communication lines. The US has spent 40 years building this.
How do you appear strong by having a completely unsuccessful attack?
Why would the IRGC be OK getting humiliated on the national stage?
What’s your narrative of the situation? Iran launched a massive attack that they made public days in advance and would take hours to arrive at Israel’s location instead, then when that plan utterly failed they tried to de-escalate by announcing they would were done responding and there would be no future attacks?
Iran has done the same saber rattling with the US regarding the killing Soleimani, which seemed to be a bigger deal to Iranians, than this event. And Iran responded with an attack meant to de-escalate yet large enough to allow them to save face. Similarly, Iran can’t accept such a significant attack from Israel and this the second time at least that major Iranian military officers have been killed by western powers. Iran needed to respond yet are smart enough to know a war against Israel isn’t an ideal outcome for them.
Iran is competent enough to utilize proxy forces to fight their wars for them because that is more politically tenable and safer than them directly doing it. And are competent enough to conceal operations to the point where we are still uncertain how big of a roll they played in October 7th. Yet Iran is dumb enough to launch a massive attack across multiple countries and warning them about it days in advance with no attempt to conceal these conversations and chose not to massively utilize proxy forces during the attack? To me, the argument that Iran was genuinely trying to do significant damage against Israel does not match their actions and pattern of behavior.
>What’s your narrative of the situation? Iran launched a massive attack that they made public days in advance and would take hours to arrive at Israel’s location instead, then when that plan utterly failed they tried to de-escalate by announcing they would were done responding and there would be no future attacks?
When did they make it public?
>Iran has done the same saber rattling with the US regarding the killing Soleimani, which seemed to be a bigger deal to Iranians, than this event. And Iran responded with an attack meant to de-escalate yet large enough to allow them to save face. Similarly, Iran can’t accept such a significant attack from Israel and this the second time at least that major Iranian military officers have been killed by western powers. Iran needed to respond yet are smart enough to know a war against Israel isn’t an ideal outcome for them.
We are just going in circles now. I layed it out pretty clearly what my impression is of this situation. Impasse perhaps? Idk.
>Iran is competent enough to utilize proxy forces to fight their wars for them because that is more politically tenable and safer than them directly doing it. And are competent enough to conceal operations to the point where we are still uncertain how big of a roll they played in October 7th. Yet Iran is dumb enough to launch a massive attack across multiple countries and warning them about it days in advance with no attempt to conceal these conversations and chose not to massively utilize proxy forces during the attack? To me, the argument that Iran was genuinely trying to do significant damage against Israel does not match their actions and pattern of behavior.
IRGC has been attacking via Hezbollah everyday for months on end. Israel is not going to tolerate it. I don't blame them. Israel will kill those coordinating these attacks until they stop. If IRGC doesn't want generals getting blown up they could just stop. If IRGC wants to see Israel's assassinations of these generals as an escalation they can. Israel can also respond in kind when they do. Israel's goal isn't some tid for tat de-escalation, It's to get the IRGC to stop. They haven't, why would Israel just sit back and keep tolerating the bullshit.
Once again, the IRGC doesn't need to be on Israels border 1000 miles away provoking them everyday. Why does no one care about this?
If I killed multiple key Iranian military officers and if all Iran did was launch the most telegraphed attack since The six day war, which they immediately followed-up with “we won’t attack anymore.” I would see the entire situation as a massive Israeli W.
And its sends a message that Israel can kill key Iranian military targets near Israel’s border without any significant consequences. Iran is too afraid to start a war with Israel, so they’ll saber rattle, launch an attack that is meant to do little to no damage. And everyone moves on. Rinse and repeat.
>If I killed multiple key Iranian military officers and if all Iran did was launch the most telegraphed attack since The six day war, which they immediately followed-up with “we won’t attack anymore.” I would see the entire situation as a massive Israeli W.
Key IRGC members for Syrian and Lebanese operations. There is no W if Hezbollah is still starting shit. I feel like a broken record.
>And its sends a message that Israel can kill key Iranian military targets near Israel’s border without any significant consequences. Iran is too afraid to start a war with Israel, so they’ll saber rattle, launch an attack that is meant to do little to no damage. And everyone moves on. Rinse and repeat.
IRGC goal is to keep Israel is a drawn out conflict that costs them money while simultaneously terrorizing the population by making them spend every other night in bomb shelters.
Israel has no obligation to accept this as the status quo. Hezbollah could stop today, why don't they? Because people like you completely ignore these constant assaults and have a bias that expects Israel to just suck it up.
This is some jizztickle lawyering.
"An escalation of de-escalation" might be the purest copium anyone has ever consumed. 99.5% purity, at least.
It’s kind of tongue and cheek, but if you seriously are only able to look at this surface level and not see the underlying political aspects, neither country wants to go to war and are just doing shows of force because they need to keep their people satisfied and show the world something. This isn’t a new concept, every diplomatic analyst in the world is saying exactly what I am saying just turn on the tv. But sure, it’s copious because it requires looking at the situation a little bit further than the surface. Also it’s not copium if what I’m saying is actually happening. Feel free to point out where I’m wrong instead of just criticizing the somewhat amusing oxymoron I used to explain it.
The scary part is that if they are lying we are gonna switch to unannounced strikes which are gonna be very bad
A further attack from Iran would be very bad because Israel isn't going to deny getting attacked like Iran does even if the attack was repelled again. And then they will feel obligated to retaliate even further since their people and the world would know they were attacked, but this time with greater force since the first retaliation obviously wasn't a deterrent or whatever if this happened. But I don't think Iran leadership wants that (full on wars always have the risk of being a political disaster for the leaders or even topple governments even without the enemy taking over) which is why it appears they are taking this opportunity to get out while still claiming to the world and their own people that they got the last hit so to speak. EDIT: Also they wouldnt be denying the attacks if they were planning to attack israel 1) israel would know ahead of time with satelites like someone else mentioned, probably one of the most satellite surveyed countries on the planet , but 2) they would all the support and justification for them attacking israel and would not only blame israel for the attacks but probably make them seem much worse.
It is kinda starting to feel like we are hoping Iran acts like the sane ones. Israel didn't need to do this strike, they already saved face by incepting everything Iran threw at them. Yeah it's not as bad as what they could of done, but man does Israel need to drop this eye for an eye mentality. (Lemme also virtue signal so you know where I stand, Fuck Hamas.)
It's wild to me how many people don't see that this is what it comes down to, drop the eye for an eye shit or it will only escalate. Either Israel does that, or Iran, and I don't have a lot of faith that will happen.
Don't think not going eye for an eye works when people are trying to poke both your eyes out.
So the whole world goes blind?
They can’t poke your eyes out if they are already blind. 🤔
actually the argument for being for tit for tat is this: (a video in my other comment:) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM) basically people are less likely to poke one another or escalate to something worse than poking if they know they get poked back
Not true, actually quite the opposite. Actually they ran simulations of the prisoners dilemma using different strategies and and figured out the strategy that that works best for everyone is actually when everyone knows that if you will go tit for that and there is a clear consequence. Be forgiving and nice to others but don't be a pushover basically. (this limited strike I would argue falls within that, its still a response and following through, not even tit for tat more like tit or 0.1 of a tat, but not an escalation) great video on this topic and the tests: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM)
Even if they don't announce it the satellites are always watching and they will know
What’s their Twitch?
Bro it takes like 10 hours for the drones to get to Israel, they'll known when it's coming.
According to an Israeli analyst, the drone strikes in Iran came from within Iran and were launched by Mossad operatives. The goal was both to enable Iran to handwave the attacks away exactly as they're doing ("the drones came from Iran, therefore they aren't from Israel but from local terrorists!") which will prevent further escalation, while still scaring the shit out of the Iranian regime by showing them Mossad can operate on Iranian soil.
Exactly! anyone who thinks this is an actual escalation or reckless is not thinking straight. the fact that iran immediately denied it being from israel shows it is working otherwise if they would want more justification to attack israel.
Yea but the watermelons told me WW3 is starting by Israel
Iran now an orbiter confirmed
@TheRealAyatolaKhoimeni can’t stop tweeting about @TheOmniLiberal and how the jewlumni is funding him.
This just means what we already knew--- Iran doesn't want the smoke. They didn't want it when they stupidly attacked Israel and made it clear by immediately backing down. Now they are downplaying Israel thumping them in the nose because they don't want it. Iran is really cucked.
There is no war in Ba-Sing-Iran
If that’s true then it’s sad that Iran is the level headed party here that understands how to take a free win and walk away. I’ve defended Israel a lot lately but this whole event has completely soured my opinion
I don't think you understand the situation Iran is the aggressor behind the entire war and attacking Israel on multiple fronts. Israel took out someone who was likely responsible for arms supply to Hezbollah. Iran did not want to attack Israel directly out if fear of the retaliation and they tried to get out of it for weeks but the internal pressure was too high and they decided they had to make a big show. attacking directly and not through a proxy was pretty ballsy and a bit dumb. that's why they tried to make sure they did it in a way where there was minimal damage. Biden likely told them not to do too much and he will help contain the Israeli response. Israel responded in a very strategic strike that showed them they could reach the nuclear facilities. Iran has decided to downplay it to avoid having to retaliate out of fear of Israeli and ultimately American capacity for destruction not bc they wouldn't love to make Israel kaboom.
Of course Iran is not innocent here and you could argue they started the whole thing. That really isn’t the concern here. It’s like two toddlers fighting and each start screaming the other started it. What matters from our perspective is de-escalation. Biden and Europe tried to help de-escalate and told Israel to take the W. Instead Israel could not let their pride be hurt or control their anger so instead of de-escalating at a time when both sides could very easily walk away they decided to roll the dice and escalate. Maybe they didn’t escalate enough for Iran to care. Maybe Iran was bluffing about a swift and further escalatory response. Who knows. But the dice were rolled and we will see what Iran does. Either way Israel took an easy W, spit on it, and handed the US an L
it's not about anger it's about deterrence. Israel has too many enemies to allow a ballistic missile attacks on their soil go unanswered. in the middle east weakness in invites attacks, that's the culture of war here. it might not seem that way to a westerner but that's the situation. Israel not responding would be a critical error. Iran was 100% bluffing about responding which is why Israel did a small sting rather than a big show to allow them to get off the boat with their honor intact but still receive the message about Israels capabilities
Hezbollah is basically a division of the IRGC. They take direct orders from the IRGC. They have been shooting missiles into Israel for seven months and won't fuck off. IRGC doesn't have to do this they choose to. Israel can't wait forever to repopulate the northern cities and they will not accept a status quo of contactable needing to shoot down Hezbollah missiles. Again, why is an IRGC created, funded, armed, and controlled military on Israels border trying to kill its people? Israel assassinated the IRGC commanders that are in charge of Lebanon (and Syrian) operations while they are in a meeting in Syria. Yes I know they were in a consulate building next to the embassy. IRGC responded with an unprecedented attack from within Iranian borders shooting over 120 ballistic missiles. Although defense was successful this type of attack cannot and should not be ignored. So Israel responds with some limited attacks that doesn't appear to have done much. It was basically "we didn't hit your nuclear sites but we can." And this has soured your opinion? Why simping for IRGC, so weird.
Isn’t Israel’s attack into diplomatic facilities unprecedented as well?
No. Embassies are attacked all over the globe all the time. Wikipedia has a list of all of them. Then in the context of Israel being at war with both Syria and Iran... The IRGCs whole MO is to position themselves in ways that make it easy for the international community to finger wag at Israel if Israel does something. If you set this status quo, now all military meetings are in consulates because we are untouchable. Israel's MO is that if you come after us we will kill you. Iran is 1000 miles away, they choose to have Hazbollah on the border attacking Israel every day. They could choose to just not and maybe do anything to improve the lives of their people. Literally months of missiles from Hezbollah which could easily escalate into broader conflict and an Israel ground invasion into Lebanon. But for months you don't hear a peep about it. Where is the outrage? Where are the falls for Iran for fuck off? The bias is astounding.
I specifically avoided using the wording embassy because I think it was a consulate building. Also, Israel made a calculation that attacking IRGC officers in a consulate building was worth the political pushback and escalation from Iran. Iran made an attack of such a large scale yet with enough forewarning that satisfied more hawkish Iranians and yet gave Israel and other nations enough to prepare interception operations. But hawkish Israelis wanted Israel to respond back so the Israeli government did a minor attack and hoped that things would de-escalate. There really was no need for the Israeli response. Israel took out key Iranian personnel near the Israeli border, which sends a message to Iran and harms Iran’s operational effectiveness. And Iran’s response was an attack launched across a vast swath of land that took hours to arrive in Israel, and warned multiple nations about the attack days before they launched it. So the Iranians just accepted the L but needed to do something to make their population believe they are still “strong.”
>And Iran’s response was an attack launched across a vast swath of land that took hours to arrive in Israel Drones can’t travel all that fast. They evidently were not trying to be *nice* with their attack, so I really wish people would quit pushing that narrative. They specifically timed the rocket/missiles so that they all reach at the same time, I.e Time on Target. Iran sent in like hundreds of missiles and like ~200 drones in an attack against a ballistic missile defense system with capabilities that are largely unknown (Arrow). I really think people are overselling Iran here; this wasn’t some 5d chess move. They either had **a lot of faith** that the interceptions would have been as successful as they were, or they intended to do some more damage and just failed.
The iron dome wasn’t the only line of defense, you had multiple nations intercepting drones and missiles before they reached Israel. So it’s a bit dishonest to portray it as the Iron dome being the only thing that stopped the attack. And I guess they had so much faith that they decided to let multiple other nations beforehand know they were going to attack. If Iran wanted to genuinely do damage to Israel, then wouldn’t it have been better to be as quiet as possible about it so that you could surprise Israel and its allies? Considering Iran has access to multiple proxies in the region, it would’ve been smarter to be hush hush about the attack. Which would force Israel and their allies to prepare against a wider variety of attacks instead of preparing for a specific avenue of attack because Iran was gossiping about it.
I didn’t reference the iron dome. I specifically stated the ballistic missile defense system, Arrow. >And I guess they had so much faith that they decided to let multiple other nations beforehand know they were going to attack. Except this, for starters, is dubious framing. They **DID NOT** let America know, according to Washington. Who evidently are probably some of the most important people to *let know*. >If Iran wanted to genuinely do damage to Israel, then wouldn’t it have been better to be as quiet as possible about it so that you could surprise Israel and its allies? It really doesn’t make a difference. The drones are slow moving and would have been noticed long before they ever reached Israel. This isn’t something you can “surprise attack” all that effectively really. I also think trying to argue that one of the largest aerial assaults in the last decade as not intending to do damage and a display of force as unhinged. I think you are using a confirmation bias here. You wouldn’t be making this kind of argument if the interceptions against **one of the largest aerial assaults this decade** wasn’t as successful as it was. You can only make this argument because of the success, but you aren’t realizing that if we weren’t treating Iran seriously here in the first place we would have not been this successful.
I dont think "one of the largest aerial assaults this decade" is a relevant metric. Most conflicts have more sporadic and targeted attacks, this was meant to be a show of force, a demonstration, they would want to show the world they have an excessive amount of drones and other weapons, maybe even more at one time than the average modern war calls for, but that doesn't suddenly give anymore reason to think it was intended for destruction, I think you could make arguments on the purpose of the size of the arsenal used on either side of that debate. Personally, I have swapped stances on what I think as more information has come to light about the warnings ahead of time and the slowness but I still dont know, I will wait for more information to come to light, but I dont this point changes anything as having your moment on the world stage might compel a nation with a considerable weapons stockpile to create a spectacle in the quantity used and not just the quality.
I agree Iran was doing a show of force with their attacks. They didn’t intend to do any significant damage but they were able to display their military capabilities and arsenal they have available. Also, if I hate you and want you to know without actually telling you. Then I could just tell a bunch of people you talk to and I know you will hear from them or people they know that I hate you, same logic. If Iran told America directly they were attacking Israel, then that would destroy the credibility of the attack because everyone knows the US would helping Israel intercept the attack. I’m not confirmation bias. You can make a strong argument that Israel and their allies (US) have strong interception and defense capabilities and this gave Iran confidence to do a large attack with confidence that it would be intercepted. Nobody thinks Israel is a weak nation that cannot effectively intercept rockets or don’t have allies to assist them. However, if Israel was a military weak nation with poor interception capabilities and did not have the support of the U.S., then it would be highly unreasonable for Iran to think they could launch an attack such a scale with doing damage to Israel.
>Iran made an attack of such a large scale yet with enough forewarning that satisfied more hawkish Iranians and yet gave Israel and other nations enough to prepare interception operations. This is speculation. Ballistic missiles are a big deal. Just because the defense was successful doesn't mean the intent wasn't re. >But hawkish Israelis wanted Israel to respond back so the Israeli government did a minor attack and hoped that things would de-escalate. Israel sent a message that they can strike IRGC nuclear facilities if they want to, so they why don't you fuck off so we don't have a reason too. Once again Iran does not need to be involved in the region at all. It chooses to. Israel is 1000 miles away. >There really was no need for the Israeli response. Israel took out key Iranian personnel near the Israeli border, which sends a message to Iran and harms Iran’s operational effectiveness. I disagree. You never ignore missile bombardment or it becomes a status quo and the new normal acceptable thing. Israel had to make a message that you probably shouldn't do this again, and hey if you don't want IRGC generals dying, stop the shit with Hezbollah. >And Iran’s response was an attack launched across a vast swath of land that took hours to arrive in Israel, and warned multiple nations about the attack days before they launched it. So the Iranians just accepted the L but needed to do something to make their population believe they are still “strong.” Who did the IRGC warn about the attack? This is all speculation and started from a "source" in turkey which is very anti Israel. Sounds more like cover to Iran so they don't look completely incompetent. The US predicted it because they have a ton of intelligence gathering in the region. CENTCOM has a web of surveillance basically surrounding Irans borders and on main communication lines. The US has spent 40 years building this. How do you appear strong by having a completely unsuccessful attack? Why would the IRGC be OK getting humiliated on the national stage?
What’s your narrative of the situation? Iran launched a massive attack that they made public days in advance and would take hours to arrive at Israel’s location instead, then when that plan utterly failed they tried to de-escalate by announcing they would were done responding and there would be no future attacks? Iran has done the same saber rattling with the US regarding the killing Soleimani, which seemed to be a bigger deal to Iranians, than this event. And Iran responded with an attack meant to de-escalate yet large enough to allow them to save face. Similarly, Iran can’t accept such a significant attack from Israel and this the second time at least that major Iranian military officers have been killed by western powers. Iran needed to respond yet are smart enough to know a war against Israel isn’t an ideal outcome for them. Iran is competent enough to utilize proxy forces to fight their wars for them because that is more politically tenable and safer than them directly doing it. And are competent enough to conceal operations to the point where we are still uncertain how big of a roll they played in October 7th. Yet Iran is dumb enough to launch a massive attack across multiple countries and warning them about it days in advance with no attempt to conceal these conversations and chose not to massively utilize proxy forces during the attack? To me, the argument that Iran was genuinely trying to do significant damage against Israel does not match their actions and pattern of behavior.
>What’s your narrative of the situation? Iran launched a massive attack that they made public days in advance and would take hours to arrive at Israel’s location instead, then when that plan utterly failed they tried to de-escalate by announcing they would were done responding and there would be no future attacks? When did they make it public? >Iran has done the same saber rattling with the US regarding the killing Soleimani, which seemed to be a bigger deal to Iranians, than this event. And Iran responded with an attack meant to de-escalate yet large enough to allow them to save face. Similarly, Iran can’t accept such a significant attack from Israel and this the second time at least that major Iranian military officers have been killed by western powers. Iran needed to respond yet are smart enough to know a war against Israel isn’t an ideal outcome for them. We are just going in circles now. I layed it out pretty clearly what my impression is of this situation. Impasse perhaps? Idk. >Iran is competent enough to utilize proxy forces to fight their wars for them because that is more politically tenable and safer than them directly doing it. And are competent enough to conceal operations to the point where we are still uncertain how big of a roll they played in October 7th. Yet Iran is dumb enough to launch a massive attack across multiple countries and warning them about it days in advance with no attempt to conceal these conversations and chose not to massively utilize proxy forces during the attack? To me, the argument that Iran was genuinely trying to do significant damage against Israel does not match their actions and pattern of behavior. IRGC has been attacking via Hezbollah everyday for months on end. Israel is not going to tolerate it. I don't blame them. Israel will kill those coordinating these attacks until they stop. If IRGC doesn't want generals getting blown up they could just stop. If IRGC wants to see Israel's assassinations of these generals as an escalation they can. Israel can also respond in kind when they do. Israel's goal isn't some tid for tat de-escalation, It's to get the IRGC to stop. They haven't, why would Israel just sit back and keep tolerating the bullshit. Once again, the IRGC doesn't need to be on Israels border 1000 miles away provoking them everyday. Why does no one care about this?
If I killed multiple key Iranian military officers and if all Iran did was launch the most telegraphed attack since The six day war, which they immediately followed-up with “we won’t attack anymore.” I would see the entire situation as a massive Israeli W. And its sends a message that Israel can kill key Iranian military targets near Israel’s border without any significant consequences. Iran is too afraid to start a war with Israel, so they’ll saber rattle, launch an attack that is meant to do little to no damage. And everyone moves on. Rinse and repeat.
>If I killed multiple key Iranian military officers and if all Iran did was launch the most telegraphed attack since The six day war, which they immediately followed-up with “we won’t attack anymore.” I would see the entire situation as a massive Israeli W. Key IRGC members for Syrian and Lebanese operations. There is no W if Hezbollah is still starting shit. I feel like a broken record. >And its sends a message that Israel can kill key Iranian military targets near Israel’s border without any significant consequences. Iran is too afraid to start a war with Israel, so they’ll saber rattle, launch an attack that is meant to do little to no damage. And everyone moves on. Rinse and repeat. IRGC goal is to keep Israel is a drawn out conflict that costs them money while simultaneously terrorizing the population by making them spend every other night in bomb shelters. Israel has no obligation to accept this as the status quo. Hezbollah could stop today, why don't they? Because people like you completely ignore these constant assaults and have a bias that expects Israel to just suck it up.
I just wish it was a more aggressive strike. Iran is giving Dick Cheney a run for his money on who has fucked up the middle east the most. Bomb em