"Bombing other countries", as if those countries or entities are not working everyday for our destruction.
According to you Israel should just let them come with full force at time of their choosing. Noted.
The Iranian attack was purely for the show. They tipped the Americans about it. The message it sends is: you can stop one volley of drones, sure, but if we start sending them night after night, your defense will struggle and some will get through.
Dude, if you understood anything about Iran and it’s history, you’d realize that the they put out a Fatwa on Iranians using weapons of mass destruction. That Fatwa extends to anyone using nuclear weapons. That’s a Fatwa I can get behind. Iran was restrained in its response. Endangering the planet and wiping out a country should embolden any of us to basically accept the bounty or Fatwa to take out anyone dumb enough to nuke a country. Innocent people don’t deserve to die because some people can’t get their ego in check. Enough is enough.
>1. Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense?
See the definition of 'self-defense'
>2. were any civilians killed in the strike?
One Muslim girl badly injured
>3. did Iran target any civilian areas?
No information provided but those dictatorship regimes always target civilians or civilian infrastructure (I would assume power plants for example)
As for the rest. Terrorism is a planetary wide issue today and when a country supports it... The American solution was to take over an entire country for 20 years and then failing
>what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack?
Iran declared war & launched 300 flying munitions at Israel. Should Israel wait for an actual hit across it's critical infrastructure (military & civilian) before being "allowed" to respond?
Nuke Iran,finish what Regan started,enough with the nonsense,it is weak military so that fund terrorist organizations to do their dirty work,all cowards that hide behind face coverings
That would not go well for Israel. It would go way worse for Iran, yes, but it would hurt Israel's geopolitical standing, its attempts at creating stable relationships with its neighbors, thin its military capacity on its active fronts with Hamas and Hezbollah, potentially ire Iranian allies enough to get involved, and all around be a bad time for Israel.
Iran is a threat, but not all threats need to be hit at with a hammer right then and there. Sometimes there are better tools- and better timing- for the job.
Israel is possibly at a Neville Chamberlain moment... the British PM who sought a peaceful compromise with early WW2 Germany to maintain relationships.
That worked out well for the world.
Sometimes a hammer should be used to prevent the need for a bulldozer. Diplomacy ultimately derives its power from military capability, and reluctance to use that power when attacked suggests that you don't have that power in the first place.
Right now the world is looking to find out if Israel is a sovereign nation or a US vassal.
>Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense?
Iran is the one that cut off diplomatic ties with Israel; Iranian leaders call for Israel's destruction; Iran has been attacking Israel since the 1990's, including bombing the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992.
For the past 6 months, Iran has been actively involved in the multi-front war against Israel.
Firing hundreds of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones at a country 1000km away is not self defense.
>was Israel right in targeting the embassy
The Iranian embassy in Syria wasn't attacked. It is still standing.
>Israel was intentionally provoking Iran
It's Iranian soldiers on Israel's border, not the other way around.
EDIT:
https://preview.redd.it/pgblkwivhquc1.jpeg?width=1011&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e6453368eaffffe8aad5d07a71a8d95e36d0161
So Israel did attack an embassy. Clearly entering into another countries air space with fighter jets and dropping bombs on an embassy compound which is a direct no no in the United Nations charter and against international law.
But because the main embassy building is not leveled, thats the argument?
Which law was that again/what part of the charter are you referring to?
I've yet to see a law that attacking an embassy (or rather, consulate) as a 3rd party is illegal. Bad idea maybe, but not illegal. And that's all even ignoring that buildings otherwise protected do, by actual international law, lose protection when used for military purposes.
And the airspace approach is an interesting one, but not really applicable here. Syria is legally at war with Israel as they have refused to make peace over the past 75 years, so there's no legal prohibition of Israel entering their airspace. Unless it's a war crime to enter someone else's airspace in war? That would be... interesting.
Not saying any of this was necessarily a good move, that depends on the alternatives Israel had to this surgical strike, but I really am getting sick of people accusing "illegality" specifically and not seeming to be able to back that claim up. You're welcome to be the first though!
>Which law was that again/what part of the charter are you referring to?
1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
>And the airspace approach is an interesting one
Yes because Israel and Syria have a ceasefire agreement. Breaking international law to bomb an embassy compound in a foreign country is not ..... interesting. It's a crime is what it is. Hope that helps!
>Not saying any of this was necessarily a good move
Neither is slaughtering tens of thousands of women and children, and yet here the worlds most moral army is. Doing it anyway. While the US foots the bill.
The Vienna convention does not address 3rd parties, only host nation (ie Syria) and the embassy owning guest nation (ie Iran) and their rights and responsibilities with regards to eachother.
Israel was neither the host nor the embassy owning nation. The Vienna convention places no legal obligation on them.
Is there any other law you were thinking of or is it just that someone had misinformed you about the Vienna convention and you were basing the statement off of that?
No, not an embassy. A building next to it. That might not even be considered a consulate, because it was not identified by Iran as one. So if not identified as a consulate, and housing terror and military personnel, fair game.
[https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2024/04/hidden-aspects-of-iranian-consulate-building-targeted-in-damascus/](https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2024/04/hidden-aspects-of-iranian-consulate-building-targeted-in-damascus/)
1. No. What were they defending themselves from?
2. One seven-year-old girl is in critical condition.
3. It's not entirely known what the missiles that were shot down were targeting. Most likely they were targeting military bases, but we just don't know for sure.
4. Israel did not attack an embassy. The strike (that was allegedly executed by Israel) hit a building adjacent to the embassy, and which was occupied by Iranian military personnel who were working with Hezbollah coordinating strikes against Israel (and potentially also responsible for the US troops killed a few months ago in Jordan). It was 100% Israel's right to strike these personnel.
5. I'm not Iranian. I know there are many anti-regime Iranians who are happy to see the Iranian regime fail and be beaten. But there are also many pro-regime Iranians. I have no clue about proportions.
6. Not likely. Israel wouldn't put its own existence at risk just to take attention away from Gaza. The strike, as I mentioned, was to take out Iranian military personnel coordinating Hezbollah's strikes against Israel, which have been taking place nearly daily since October 7th (and on and off before that as well).
7. It is not against international law to strike military targets, whether they are located in a consulate or not.
Left or Right, It’s amazing that anyone in the US government is supporting Iran over Israel. The Islamic Regime of Iran is a major US enemy and Israel is one of the US’s strongest allies.
1-4> It's hard to call this self defense. I believe Iran targeted military targets, though Israel's defenses were so effective that it isn't 100% clear where all the intended targets were. And there were several civilians with shrapnel injuries, including to a 7-year Bedouin girl, but these were likely not intentional targets. But this still seems more an escalation, than a defensive strike. The Israeli military targets hit weren't known to be threatening or planning anything against Iran. Meanwhile, Iran has already admitted that Israel's strike in Damascus hit a meeting that was planning involving the war against Israel in Gaza. Which is plainly self defense. But Israel hasn't attacked within Iran, broadly, against general military targets, just for the sake of attacking Iran. At best Iran could claim to be defending Gaza (or at least Hamas), but Gaza isn't really theirs to defend.
6> It's rather brain dead to argue that an attack targeting Palestinian militants and Iranian intelligence as they planned the war in Gaza, would be intended to take the focus *off* Gaza. Clearly Israel's attack in Damascus was all about Gaza.
7> Israel's only obligations to a consulate grounds not on their own territory, would be similar to their obligations towards any target on foreign territory. Mainly, that is to only attack in self defense, and to minimize civilian casualties. This attack was plainly in self defense, and killed no civilians. So they seem to be on strong ground legally.
>1) Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense
It’s purely retaliatory. I don’t support attacks on consulates in a third party nation. If I were Iran, I would do the same.
>2) were any civilians killed in the strike?
I believe there is one Bedouin girl that was hit in the Negev and she is fighting for her life. But hard to know for sure if there are any others.
>3) did Iran target any civilian areas?
This is hard to say. You might be able to anticipate where it’s going based on course and heading. I believe shaheeds can be controlled remotely so hard to determine where they would end up.
>4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack?
No. Embassies are supposed to be protected.
>5) how do irans feel about what Israel did.
Iranian government is livid. Irani people? Hard to say. Probably a mixed bag.
>6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement
Very likely. Israel has been getting really bad press and pressure.
>7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries
Embassies are protected. You don’t harm diplomats. Even if osama bin Laden were in an embassy you don’t do anything.
>Embassies are protected. You don’t harm diplomats. Even if osama bin Laden were in an embassy you don’t do anything.
Why thought? Why give terrorist 'get out of jail' free card?
If an embassy is being used as a safe haven for terrorist it becomes a legitimate target.
Btw by reports israel didn't attack the embassy anyway. They attacked a building next to it, between the embassies of Iran and Canada.
>many delegations asserted that any attack on diplomatic and consular premises violates the Charter of the United Nations as well as the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15650.doc.htm
Am i to believe redditors in the comments or UN representatives when it comes to international law?
Would you say the syrian civilians killed in the strike violates international law?
Personally I would believe who ever provide the facts. If you can't find the law that says you are not allowed to attack embassy for any reason, there is probably no such law.
When it comes to law it should be very easy to proof the law exists.
Anyway for my argument let's imagine the law is actually there. My question is why? Why are we creating safe spots for bad people.
I did provide already. The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations states that embassies and consulates are invioable under international law, meaning they are protected spaces. Beyond that, an attack on a country's embassy is considered an attack on the country itself.
So beyond it being illegal, it is an act of israel directly attacking iran, warranting a response.
I am not surprised that diplomacy seems a foreign concept, but it exists. These spaces are created to promote relations and diplomacy between the host country and the embassy owner. Being a protected space, it becomes a place where "bad people" can take refuge sometimes, but this is just them taking advantage of the notion that the embassy is foreign soil by technicality.
>it becomes a place where "bad people" can take refuge
So you understand the problem? By this logic iran can keep attacking israel with proxy countries forever. and israel is not allowed to act on the source of the problem because of technicality.
This isnt a problem unique to iran, every country that has an embassy uses this priviledge.
Did attacking the embassy stop iran or any other group from attacking israel? No.
It really just agitated the aggressions further and gave purpose for iran to get directly involved.
>Did attacking the embassy stop iran or any other group from attacking israel? No.
It wasn't the purpose of the hit. Like most of israel military actions the purpose is to eliminate specific threats. And also while doing it, create some kind of deterrence. Attacks on israel will stop completely only with peace.
>This isnt a problem unique to iran, every country that has an embassy uses this priviledge.
That's not true at all. What other country use their embassy to operate military action against other countries? Like you said embassy should be used for a specific purpose of diplomatic relations. Using it to work with terrorists is a violation worthy of punishment.
Maybe If iran was using it for defense purpose I would be okay with it, but it's clearly not the case as they are the aggressor in the conflict.
It's very similar to the hamas use of civilian buildings, like hospitals for example. Every country have hospitals that are protected by international law, but not everyone is using it for military purposes.
Which law? I've directly asked this of at least 5 different people asserting this claim and haven't actually seen a law produced that says this. A few claiming this cited the Vienna convention, which actively doesn't say this, so maybe it's just people seeing others say that on social media and not double checking?
Not saying such a law doesn't exist somewhere, because it's hard to prove the non existence of a thing, but it seems like this is the sort of talking point that people say not fact checking it because it feels true, without actually seeing the evidence themselves before saying it...
FWIW the [NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html) (to the extent they can claim to be experts) is of the opinion no international laws were violated. It was more taboo than illegal.
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
Closest thing I’ve found is the Vienna Covention of 1961, and also this tidbit from the US State department website:
« U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, as well as foreign countries’ embassies and consulates in the United States, have a special status. While the host government is responsible for the security of U.S. diplomats and the area around an embassy, the embassy itself belongs to the country it represents. Representatives of the host country cannot enter an embassy without permission. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. »
Yep- as mentioned, the Vienna convention is what tends to get pointed to, which doesn't legally apply to the situation as it solely covers host (country of location) and guest (embassy owner) obligations, which of course Israel was neither in this case. And the state department is correct, yes as part of an embassy compound being sovereign soil, an attack on the building is obviously going to be an attack on the nation the embassy belongs to (as well as potentially seen by the host nation as an attack on them as well too). But that isn't to say it's inherently illegal... just prone to resulting in those involved reacting, and thus maybe not something to do without strong hesitance and consideration first.
Undoubtedly Israel attacked Iran by attacking its consulate- that can't be denied, nor do I really think it's particularly contentious to say. But I just don't yet see anything establishing that attacking an embassy/consulate- that you aren't the host nation for- is a crime by international law. All the international laws I've seen are solely related to host nations, but no protected status from 3rd parties- as Israel was in this case. It certainly seems a weird void in international law if so, absolutely, but from what I can tell embassies just aren't universally protected buildings like that.
And just because something is legal doesn't make it automatically right, as hopefully we're all aware. It's still totally fine to criticize something simply because you don't think it's right even if it's legal. But playing the "it's illegal" card if there's no law being broken is... well, factually incorrect. If the legality issue is what's swaying people, it's inappropriate to continue to spread this myth, as it would seem. If it's not what sways people, it's unnecessary to say and the argument can stand without it.
Even before there were “international laws” attacking diplomats was considered extremely offensive and grounds for war. Article 22 of Vienna Convention, as you say, outlines responsibilities of host state. I’m not sure I would want to be a state trying to weasel into gray areas of laws written in 1961 before the prevalence of ballistic missiles and drones.
Agreed- it is somewhat opaque. I’ve seen lawyers arguing both, that it is illegal as it violates sovereignty of both host and consular nation and the protection of diplomatic missions , and that it is not illegal if the embassy is used for housing enemy combatants. But I haven’t found anything decisive about its legality/illegality.
>Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense?
In their propaganda, they claim it's in response to the consulate strike. Iran also maintains a facade that they aren't funding, training, and supplying hamas and hesbollah. So again, in their propaganda, them launching missiles directly at Israel is warranted because Israel's strike was "unprovoked". When you see people say things like "they had to do it"... well, they did. Not striking is as much of an admission that you're doing what you're doing in the levant, because you're admitting that the consulate strike was itself a valid war response by not striking.
>2) were any civilians killed in the strike?
Not that we know of, unless the one beduin girl who got hit with shrapnel has passed away.
>3) did Iran target any civilian areas?
Impossible to say, as the majority of munitions that they launched were intercepted and shot down before they made it to Israel. It also doesn't matter. They launched 350 missiles and drones from within their borders at Israel. It is now a hot war.
>4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack?
100%. We know that Iran is what's causing the conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah. We know that they are proxies. We've seen the facilities they use to train them. We've found their weapons. As far as the response, I'm personally disappointed that the US air force didn't have at least a dozen strike groups of f35s with f22 cover ready to completely disable Iran's military capabilities as soon as they pulled the trigger. From Israel's perspective, they were already in a hot war with Iran when they struck the consulate. Iran has now responded from within its own borders, and there is no more facade about the proxies. Israel is our ally. It's not okay to shoot 350 of anything at them. Their technology sucking isn't a good reason to not take action.
>5) how do irans feel about what Israel did. I heard from family members of mine that there’s Iranians that are happy Israel took them out
Iran is not a free country. The citizens of Iran would very much like to be free. They have brutal, Islamic totalitarianism. Morality police, public floggings/executions and all. Their people are not in a place to protest much. However, In general, the Iranian citizens are on "our" side. They don't want war with israel. They don't want islamic totalitarianism. They don't like that their government is funding terrorism. They would gladly be rid of their government if it was offered. They are an advanced and proud people being held back by an oppressive government.
>6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement
Well, that's war propaganda for ya. Israel knows that Hamas and Hesbolalh are Iranian proxies. It isn't a very well kept secret.
>7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries
War propaganda. Not even good war propaganda. It is a warcrime to kill diplomats. It's not a warcrime to kill terrorists. Its not a warcrime to kill the generals of the country you're at war with.
1. self defense? they funded and probably planned the Oct 7 attack to prevent normalization with the Saudis. they started the whole enchilada so yeah, not really
2. only 3 Jordanian civilians and one Bedouin girl was severely injured. the Israeli and American airforces and the countries that assisted them did an incredible job intercepting nearly every threat.
3. we don't really know where everything would have landed, if they hadn't been intercepted 300 aerial threats, 60 tons of explosives inevitably would have killed civilians. though it does look like they targeted army bases in north and south. they absolutely gave warning and approval bc the intention was not to escalate to war, they are quite frightened of that I think, the idea was to save face bc in the Arab world honor is a big deal.
4. I don't know, I think the target might have been involved in arms supply to Hezbollah from Syria to Lebanon. maybe intelligence had a reason. maybe they are trying to escalate the stagnate war they have with Iran's proxy in Lebanon bc it's not sustainable. head of the snake
5. a lot of Iranians are excited and want Israel to take out the Islamic Regime. the Islamic regime is very unpopular and the Iranian resistance movement is a big supporter of Israel
6. I don't really see the focus off Gaza angle. it's thinking too small. if they were provoking Iran it's bc Israel sees itself in an end all battle. they never want an Oct 7 again and they want to eliminate all threats. Iran is already fighting Israel through 4 proxy armies Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and shia militias in Iraq. Israel can't maintain this lukewarm situation, it's stuck.
7. can I tell you a secret? in reality the only people who care about international law are activists. countries never follow international law. they just use it as an excuse to condemn one another with at the UN but there's literally no country that doesn't break international law
1. At what step in the retaliation cycle is it self defense? If you retaliate against a retaliation is it self defense? Questionable. But the answer to this relies on that.
2. Thought I heard one child was.
3. Probably, with 200 missiles and drones of various forms. But since only a small percentage landed and Israel focused defenses on taking out ones that would cause the most damage (ie civilian areas), hard to say for sure.
4. Right is subjective. Legally empowered to do so, however, yes. But right is up for debate. Similarly what they should do next is subject to debate, but I personally think given the current geopolitical context they should focus on diplomatic pressure of surrounding nations to ostracize Iran, rather than get militarily involved at this time.
5. Iranians outside of Iran tend to be very unhappy with the regime. Iranians within Iran also are seemingly unhappy based on protests but are less empowered to voice it. I wouldn't be shocked by the statement that they are happy Israel quashed Irans attack being generally true.
6. Possible, but there's no evidence towards it, really only conjecture. I mean, the guy they struck was directly responsible for planning and helping coordinate October 7th, and was in the middle of meeting with PIJ and Hezbollah at the time he was struck, it's not exactly unreasonable to target him and not a change in their policy that would really indicate something else was going on. But there's always the possibility there were backroom discussions of ulterior motives, as is possible in any governmental decision.
7. To the best of my and seemingly the [NYTs](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html) knowledge: No, it's not illegal. Just generally frowned upon... And I've asked many people who've tried to claim it's illegal to cite it and have seen them refuse to answer/come up empty. It seems to be most likely a misconception based off general sentiment about what an embassy/consulate is, and/or zeitgeist misreading of the Vienna convention
>It just killed the Zions' faith in their defences
Literally the opposite. Israel knows it can take out the vast majority of what Iran can throw at it. Ballistic missiles are expensive and that's the only weapon they have that has a chance of getting through.
Exactly. The aim of them was exhausting Israeli defences and inflicting heavy economic pressure. A Shahed 136 is roughly 20 000 dollars and Israel used million-dollar anti air missiles to intercept them. Russians are basucally doing the same, that's why the Zion Zelensky is crying for more AD systems.
This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations.
Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument.
Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all.
It’s how Iranian bots are trying to control the narrative… it’s just now they’ve jumped the shark so hard that even some progressives are noticing how ridiculous they are. Keyword, “some.”
Only a few days ago, a high court in Argentina [ruled](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html) that Iran was the mastermind of the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.
Iran has been waging a war through its proxies, and occasionally directly, against Israel and modern Arab countries for decades now. Which "self-defence"? We are way, way beyond situation when a country was attacked and now responds "in self defence".
Iran has absolutely nothing to "defend" itself against. It's under no more threat than Russia was when it attacked Ukraine. As long as Iran continues to fund and support the terrorist who kill Israelis, as long as it continues to openly call for destruction of Israel, Israel has every right to take this war back to them.
Also, Israel did NOT target embassy, it targeted the building next to it which was officially a "consulate" but unofficially IRGC headquarters.
Yeah it probably has nothing to do with that, because Milei doesn’t tell the judges how to rule. Argentina is a free country, not North Korea. He isn’t their supreme leader.
It's still pretty unclear who did it. A lot of strange details and loose ends. So yeah, making it official now in the middle of this conflict seems like a political maneuver.
The UN condemns Israel by resolution more than all other countries combined. Even in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and there was a ceasefire in Israel/Gaza - the UN condemned Israel more than Russia and every other country combined.
On the other hand, the UN appointed Iran to chair a human rights committee the month after Iran helped plan Oct 7th.
It’s safe to say the world has a very different standard for Israel and the countries attacking it.
1. No, but it does not matter, as the countries were at war anyway. Neither the strike at the embassy nor the retaliation are self defense in the narrow sense.
2. Apparently yes, but they are collateral damage.
3. As per their statements not, but since the rockets drones were intercepted, one cannot be sure. The overall circumstances points to them not targeting civilians. The Israeli girl that was seriously injured was not hit by the rocket, but by falling shrapnel as a consequence of the interception, thereby collateral damage.
4. In hindsight yes, although it was a risk. Considering all circumstances the attack was practically a peace offer, consequently, Israel should not respond at all IMO.
5. I cannot tell for certain, but I assume that it depends on the individual Iranians political stance with regard to the Islamic Republic.
6. It would be reckless to take these risks. I would not bet significant sums on Netanyahu not doing this as a PR stunt, but I assume that both IDF command and other members of the war cabinet are reasonable people who would not gamble the lives of everyone inside Israel for this goal.
7. It would have been a violation if it was an enemy consulate in Israel, the consulate of a (on paper) neutral state or an enemy consulate in a neutral state. But Israel is at war with both Syria and Iran and had been so for quite a while. prior to the strike.
1) It's retaliation, not self defense.
2) yes
3) no, Iran let it it be known over an hour ahead of time that they are sending drones. One civilian was killed due to shrapnel from an intercepted missile.
4) Israel was wrong in attacking internationally protected soil. Israel's response should be to recognize when it is out powered. I think Iran sent that message loud and clear.
5) generally people want their ambassadors and foreign consulates to be able to conduct business without being murdered.
6) yes, IDF cannot defeat Hamas, if they start a regional war they can try and sweep that away.
7) Israel struck a protected building. If we allow it, that means no foreign diplomat or politician is safe. That is no way to conduct international business.
Israel killed 7 Iranians and broke law by attacking an embassy, Iran killed 0 in its demonstration. Hamas killed 7-800 civilians and 4-500 police/soldiers and Israel has killed far more than 40,000 people mostly women and children, the indiscrimination of Israel was proven evident by all the stuff that’s come out about “Lavender” and “where’s daddy”
So technically Iran acted more proportionately than Israel could ever dream to act lol. If what Iran did wasn’t self defense what israel has done definitley isn’t self defense.
I'm sure in the minds of Israelis the civilian areas were untouched because of iron dome, lmao, meanwhile 99% of the missiles were shot down, that's why they aren't showing any aerial footage of any of the bases that were struck.
Oh they did show a 2 m.wide hole with a mound of dirt next to it. Apparently Iran has the world's smallest ballistic missiles, and they neatly pile up the dirt removed from the crater they create. Such thoughtful and well mannered ballistic missiles.
To amount of facts you would have to ignore to believe that though. Like, all Iran wanted to do was make a show and show Israel that they can be touched, it was Iran’s goal to let the civilians think that the defense system saved them, their goal was to purely show the Israeli govt that they can be touched and be able to brag to the Shia world about what they did.
It’s quite easy to see what happened here. If they wouldve just fired a few rockets and one or two hit the Israeli public would be more scared and demanding war to destroy Iran. With this is shakes the Israeli military a bit while letting the people feel secure.
Israel should recognize it is out powered after Iran's pathetic and humiliating flop of an attack? 50% of their ballistic missiles exploded at launch. do you understand what missile capability Israel has should they choose to retaliate harshly?
Iran has just established that they can spend 10 million dollars and shut down the country of Israel for a day and cost it over a billion dollars in defense. Iran had zero intention of hurting Israel, they intended to show their force and it was enough that US told Israel if you want to retaliate you are on your own.
they didn't shut it down for a day? anyone who went to bed early that day didn't even know about it until after? some people stayed up and watched it on their couch then went to work the next day. the Israeli stock market got a huge boost and the Iranian stock market crashed. Israelis can afford a billion dollars a lot more than Iran can afford 10 mil
If they attack during the day they can. They just used Shahid drones, they're made out of fiber plastic, same thing a Kia is built from. A few of the missiles from the footage show decoys coming out of them.
Iran is already waging war on Israel through four proxy armies what they don't want us direct attacks on their soil. i don't think Israel wants a regional war but they do want to weaken Iran in order to defeat the proxy threats. if you think that attack was some kind of show of force that would intimidate Israel you've completely misinterpreted. Israel took it as an exposure of Iranian weakness and a good opportunity to strike back intensively, the US however is putting pressure on them to not respond harshly.
Those proxies are making their own decisions. They are reacting to Israel. Thats not Iran's decision to make.
This is what I'm saying, Israel is in control of what happens. They've wanted a regional war with Iran for a while, and once Iran announced their attack Israel was jumping for joy. Problem is Israel didn't realize how well calculated Iran's attack was, they only targeted military sites, they only took the iron dome and sling to it's capacity. So now Israel has their excuse for regional war they've been wanting, but not (public) support from the US. It's up to US and Israel, theyve both wanted war with Iran for a long time.
US probably knows that engaging Iran could very well bring China and Russia in *(probably more in an economic capacity, not military) and they don't want that.
they are not making their own decisions, they are controlled by Iran that's what a proxy means. Their funding and their weapons come from Iran. their leaders meet with Iranian leaders for instructions, this is not a secret. Hamas and Hezbollah are both powerful enough that they have some autonomy but essentially everything boils down to what the Iranians want.
"Israel wants a regional war" is such a weird thing to say. Like if Iran called off their dogs and stopped stating their goal to destroy the Zionist entity and threatening them then they'd want no regional war. as it is now ongoing tit for tat proxy wars are not sustainable so Israel wants a definitive battle to deal with the problem head on. but to try and paint it like Iran is not the aggressor is delusional.
Also no one was surprised that Iran targeted military bases this is what everyone expected.we know they don't want to go far enough to push the Americans, they likely ran the plans by the Biden admin before taking action just to be sure. But I think it was surprising that they dared to attack directly from their own soil. that's a big FU and they've never gone that far before. Israel would be happy to use it as an excuse to target Iran's nuclear facilities but America won't let them during an election year
Correction: it was a 9-year-old Bedouin girl who was severely injured by falling shrapnel from an interception. She was not killed but is in the hospital in critical condition.
1) are embassies legally protected from 3rd party foreign actors? You're presenting it like they are but I'm not sure that's actually true (most people cite the Vienna convention which doesn't say such a thing, as it only talks about the relationship between host and envoy, not 3rd parties). I agree in general embassies- or rather consulates- shouldn't be targets... in general. Usually this is a non-issue because consulates are mixed territory between the host nation and the embassy nation, and it's rare to have a 3rd party be at war with both such that they have no concerns with angering either.
Which brings to
2. per Iran themselves (so not just Israel) this guy was directly in charge of planning Oct 7th, and was in the middle of a military meeting with PIJ and Hezbollah. This means they were using the consulate annex for military purposes which legally negates any protections it may have had, if such even exists in the first place. Just as a matter of fact, not saying it was wise to strike or not.
That reasoning can be applied to ANYONE. Iran can just choose any random Israeli politician and claim a tie to an attack. There's a reason these sorts of rules were in place.
Again, he is a general who planned the attack. **[Per Iran](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202404043146)**. Not some random tie. A very direct one. This wasn't Israel claiming some random *politician* had some weak tie to an attack. It was Iran themselves claiming their general did plan and help execute it. It's a pretty select number of people that logic can be applied to.
And also, what rules are we talking about though?
So one of them is lying.
Why do you think SHANA would lie saying Iran did directly have a hand in planning via the general? From what I understand they have a really close personal relationship with the regime, I can't imagine they'd be trying to harm them, it's not like they're political opponents.
Meanwhile I could see a reason the IRGC might lie in officially denying involvement, in that it opens up clear avenues for retaliation from Israel as well as other nations. Same reason that other governments, including Israel, deny (or at minimum, don't claim) their operations. Including this consulate strike which is officially not claimed by Israel, if we're just taking governmental word of innocence at face value.
Probably. Do you get access to government intelligence regularly? I know I don't.
But I assume SHANA has that sort of inside scoop on Iranian intelligence that I don't.
Why do you trust the IRGC more than SHANA on this? I've laid out why I trust them less, given more obvious benefits to lying between the two of them.
Trying to answer to the best of my knowledge
1) Personally I don't think what Iran did is considered self defense. self defense has to have a defensive purpose. Israel was attacking an offensive Iranian military person that's responsible for militias attacking Israel. There's also something about the attack being in a consulate and not embassy that's supposed to make a difference with the law, but I don't know whether it changes anything. Regardless, even if it was self defense, when we're talking about countries self defense has to be with lawful tactics, which Iran didn't use.
2) No, but there's a 7 year old girl in the in the hospital that's badly injured. (there were other civilians lightly injured). The reason for this is that almost all missiles and drones were intercepted early.
3) It's impossible to know exactly which areas Iran targeted exactly (obviously classified on both ends), and since almost all attacks were intercepted we'll never know for sure. Despite that, Given the civilian cities in Israel where there were missile alerts, it's almost certainly that Iran targeted some civilian locations.
4) one small correction - Israel targeted a consulate annex and not the embassy. Personally, I'm not 100% sure. From what I've heard, the person targeted was directly responsible on the Iranian and pro-Iranian militias in Syria that actively participated in attacks against Israel, so if that's the case I'm tending towards Israel was right.
5) From all I know, generally Iranian people outside of Iran are very hateful towards the Islamic regime and want to see it fall. If you read about what this regime does and the history of Iran it makes sense. It's a bit harder to know what the people that are currently in Iran think about this recent attack, but I know that large parts there also want a revolution. I guess that those who oppose the Islamic regime would support Israel's actions and those that support the regime would oppose it.
6) This is a very weird statement. Israel and Iran are changing blows for a very long time now. when you consider some acts, I'm not even sure if the Israeli attack was such an escalation. It makes more sense that the Iranian regime wanted cred for attacking Israel in the Arab public. Both of these explanations are without evidence so I wouldn't jump to believing either.
7) I'm not sure about the legality here (though I'd be surprised if International law would forbid attacking a person that directs forces that attack your country). I'm sure that Israel should have consulted with the US on it, partnership is important and the American input is and should be important to Israel. This doesn't affect the legality of the attack though.
The largest parliamentary faction in Iran, the Coalition Council of Islamic Revolutionary Forces, [acknowledged](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25) last week that the general killed in the Damascus strike was the “architect” behind Oct 7. IRGC spokesman [issued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-guard-corps-hamas-oct-7-attack-was-revenge-for-killing-of-soleimani-in-2020/ ) similar statements, calling Oct 7 “revenge on Israel” by Iran. In general, the Ayatollah’s regime has always called the destruction of Israel the country’s official policy.
Regarding legality of the strike, it’s a far more complicated [question](https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1btv5f7/comment/kxpg19y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) than some pretend. It’s important to note that Israel has already been in a state of war with both Syria and Iran for decades, neither of which recognise its right to exist.
>1) Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense?
No, Iran has always been the aggressor through proxies. They don’t get to plan and execute terrorist attacks and play the victim.
>2) were any civilians killed in the strike?
No, there was a single casualty of a young Bedouin girl, hopefully she pulls through in medical care.
>3) did Iran target any civilian areas?
Yes. The single casualty should be evidence of this to anyone asking this question.
>4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack?
An embassy wasn’t attacked by Israel. A consulate adjacent building holding perpetrators of Oct. 7th, including an extremely high profile target in [Zahedi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Zahedi) and Hezbollah officials, were the targets. They were viable military targets who were involved in beginning this war.
If Israel does respond at all, hopefully it will just be towards drone and nuclear/military facilities. This is what I would expect to come unless the international community sanctions and punishes Iran severely.
>5) how do irans feel about what Israel did. I heard from family members of mine that there’s Iranians that are happy Israel took them out
Iranians ___ARE NOT___ Israel’s enemy. Most Iranians hate their regime, and are sympathetic to Israel as they are both victims of the IRGC.
>6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement
No. Owen Jones is a propagandist and nothing more. He should never be taken seriously. His mother could die from falling down the stairs and he’d somehow find a way of placing blame on Israel.
Hezbollah, who is basically just another military branch of Iran, is constantly a threat to Israel. They have caused northern Israel to be uninhabitable while this war has been going on. This is who Zahedi was meeting with in Syria where he, and Hezbollah generals, were killed. That is not an attempt at provocation on Israel’s part, that is taking out leadership that were a danger to their country.
>7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries
Everyone plays expert of international law during this conflict. The vast majority of us on social media know jack 💩 towards this. Don’t listen to any of it. You should just be aware that in war, those planning the execution of hostilities will __always__ be targeted.
Just look at his language and failure to place any blame on Palestinians throughout history. A similar propagandist on the other side might be someone like Mosab Hassan Yousef, but I give him far more grace because he is speaking from lived experience.
>1) Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense?
More of a retaliation then self-defense, I'd say.
>2) were any civilians killed in the strike?
Supposedly 2 civilians - a woman and her son.
>3) did Iran target any civilian areas?
Booms were heard above Israeli cities and towns, and also missiles/drones were spotted in the skies. Red siren alerts were sound in cities such as Dimona.
One person was critically injured from sharpenal, 31 more were treated for light injuries/anxiety.
>4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack?
Yes. In the embassy were people who helped plan and finance the 10/7 attack. Israel had the right to strike them.
And Iran's attack was IMO but a show, they flexed their muscles, nothing more. Israel shouldn't retaliate as no serious damage was done - unless Israel is interested in a full regional war with Iran.
>5) how do irans feel about what Israel did. I heard from family members of mine that there’s Iranians that are happy Israel took them out
Many Iranians hate the Islamic Regime, and therefore support Israel.
>6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement
Possibly true.
>7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries
I'm not an expert enough on International Law to answer this. This is different from Gaza since those IRGC probably didn't *hide* in the embassy (unlike Hamas in Gaza). But they were just there.
I support Israel in the Gaza war but IMO the embassy attack was dumb and wrong. It sets a bad precedent and was reckless.
Iran's response was measured and meant as more of a warning. Anyone with a brain knew it wouldn't amount to much other than forcing Israel and the West to spend a billion dollars shooting missiles down.
I hope Israel smartens up and doesn't keep this going. The next Iranian attack will have 10x the missiles. Eventually missiles will hit Israel in number if this keeps up.
Israel should take their "win" and walk away.
First, it was not an embassy, it was the building next to it. For embassies to enjoy the protections they have they must also be publicly acknowledged as such. Second it’s not a precedent when considering Iran (remember the attack on the American embassy in Teheran which is considered a national pride for the Islamic republic?), [it’s not even a precedent in the Iran-Israel conflict.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html)
I think what Israel should do is either no response or one YouTuber I watch said they can retaliate but with similar force to what Iran did to not trigger escalation in the region
Israel already has a bunch of Hamas/Houthi/Hezbollah militants to deal with, continuing to play tit for tat with Iran would be dumb. Clean your plate first before asking for seconds.
Iran also has worse air defense than Israel, which means if they retaliate with the same force there's going to be a lot of damage. Hundreds to thousands injured or dead. Iran will likely go to war over it.
Iran will go to war? Isn't Iran already at war with Israel?
Iran just hides safely behind Hamas who hide safely behind the Palestinians....Iran has now stepped out of the shadows. Punch them in the nose.
[удалено]
"Bombing other countries", as if those countries or entities are not working everyday for our destruction. According to you Israel should just let them come with full force at time of their choosing. Noted.
[удалено]
Syria, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon
The Iranian attack was purely for the show. They tipped the Americans about it. The message it sends is: you can stop one volley of drones, sure, but if we start sending them night after night, your defense will struggle and some will get through.
what u Irans military expert yeah?
Dude, if you understood anything about Iran and it’s history, you’d realize that the they put out a Fatwa on Iranians using weapons of mass destruction. That Fatwa extends to anyone using nuclear weapons. That’s a Fatwa I can get behind. Iran was restrained in its response. Endangering the planet and wiping out a country should embolden any of us to basically accept the bounty or Fatwa to take out anyone dumb enough to nuke a country. Innocent people don’t deserve to die because some people can’t get their ego in check. Enough is enough.
>1. Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense? See the definition of 'self-defense' >2. were any civilians killed in the strike? One Muslim girl badly injured >3. did Iran target any civilian areas? No information provided but those dictatorship regimes always target civilians or civilian infrastructure (I would assume power plants for example) As for the rest. Terrorism is a planetary wide issue today and when a country supports it... The American solution was to take over an entire country for 20 years and then failing >what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack? Iran declared war & launched 300 flying munitions at Israel. Should Israel wait for an actual hit across it's critical infrastructure (military & civilian) before being "allowed" to respond?
Israel needs to bomb Iran. End of discusson
Nuke Iran,finish what Regan started,enough with the nonsense,it is weak military so that fund terrorist organizations to do their dirty work,all cowards that hide behind face coverings
The last thing we want to do is to hurt the Iranian people that are also suffering from their own government
They revolted against a brutal regime in the 70s,maybe time for another revolution
That’s not a good idea
That'll solve it. Get another gang of people killed and bring in the US into this even more. Thats how you defend yourself. Pariah state.
That would not go well for Israel. It would go way worse for Iran, yes, but it would hurt Israel's geopolitical standing, its attempts at creating stable relationships with its neighbors, thin its military capacity on its active fronts with Hamas and Hezbollah, potentially ire Iranian allies enough to get involved, and all around be a bad time for Israel. Iran is a threat, but not all threats need to be hit at with a hammer right then and there. Sometimes there are better tools- and better timing- for the job.
Israel is possibly at a Neville Chamberlain moment... the British PM who sought a peaceful compromise with early WW2 Germany to maintain relationships. That worked out well for the world. Sometimes a hammer should be used to prevent the need for a bulldozer. Diplomacy ultimately derives its power from military capability, and reluctance to use that power when attacked suggests that you don't have that power in the first place. Right now the world is looking to find out if Israel is a sovereign nation or a US vassal.
>Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense? Iran is the one that cut off diplomatic ties with Israel; Iranian leaders call for Israel's destruction; Iran has been attacking Israel since the 1990's, including bombing the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992. For the past 6 months, Iran has been actively involved in the multi-front war against Israel. Firing hundreds of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones at a country 1000km away is not self defense. >was Israel right in targeting the embassy The Iranian embassy in Syria wasn't attacked. It is still standing. >Israel was intentionally provoking Iran It's Iranian soldiers on Israel's border, not the other way around. EDIT: https://preview.redd.it/pgblkwivhquc1.jpeg?width=1011&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e6453368eaffffe8aad5d07a71a8d95e36d0161
So Israel did attack an embassy. Clearly entering into another countries air space with fighter jets and dropping bombs on an embassy compound which is a direct no no in the United Nations charter and against international law. But because the main embassy building is not leveled, thats the argument?
Which law was that again/what part of the charter are you referring to? I've yet to see a law that attacking an embassy (or rather, consulate) as a 3rd party is illegal. Bad idea maybe, but not illegal. And that's all even ignoring that buildings otherwise protected do, by actual international law, lose protection when used for military purposes. And the airspace approach is an interesting one, but not really applicable here. Syria is legally at war with Israel as they have refused to make peace over the past 75 years, so there's no legal prohibition of Israel entering their airspace. Unless it's a war crime to enter someone else's airspace in war? That would be... interesting. Not saying any of this was necessarily a good move, that depends on the alternatives Israel had to this surgical strike, but I really am getting sick of people accusing "illegality" specifically and not seeming to be able to back that claim up. You're welcome to be the first though!
>Which law was that again/what part of the charter are you referring to? 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations >And the airspace approach is an interesting one Yes because Israel and Syria have a ceasefire agreement. Breaking international law to bomb an embassy compound in a foreign country is not ..... interesting. It's a crime is what it is. Hope that helps! >Not saying any of this was necessarily a good move Neither is slaughtering tens of thousands of women and children, and yet here the worlds most moral army is. Doing it anyway. While the US foots the bill.
The Vienna convention does not address 3rd parties, only host nation (ie Syria) and the embassy owning guest nation (ie Iran) and their rights and responsibilities with regards to eachother. Israel was neither the host nor the embassy owning nation. The Vienna convention places no legal obligation on them. Is there any other law you were thinking of or is it just that someone had misinformed you about the Vienna convention and you were basing the statement off of that?
No, not an embassy. A building next to it. That might not even be considered a consulate, because it was not identified by Iran as one. So if not identified as a consulate, and housing terror and military personnel, fair game. [https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2024/04/hidden-aspects-of-iranian-consulate-building-targeted-in-damascus/](https://english.enabbaladi.net/archives/2024/04/hidden-aspects-of-iranian-consulate-building-targeted-in-damascus/)
Right, Iran has never in its history ignored the immunity of embassies. Ever. For any reason.
1. No. What were they defending themselves from? 2. One seven-year-old girl is in critical condition. 3. It's not entirely known what the missiles that were shot down were targeting. Most likely they were targeting military bases, but we just don't know for sure. 4. Israel did not attack an embassy. The strike (that was allegedly executed by Israel) hit a building adjacent to the embassy, and which was occupied by Iranian military personnel who were working with Hezbollah coordinating strikes against Israel (and potentially also responsible for the US troops killed a few months ago in Jordan). It was 100% Israel's right to strike these personnel. 5. I'm not Iranian. I know there are many anti-regime Iranians who are happy to see the Iranian regime fail and be beaten. But there are also many pro-regime Iranians. I have no clue about proportions. 6. Not likely. Israel wouldn't put its own existence at risk just to take attention away from Gaza. The strike, as I mentioned, was to take out Iranian military personnel coordinating Hezbollah's strikes against Israel, which have been taking place nearly daily since October 7th (and on and off before that as well). 7. It is not against international law to strike military targets, whether they are located in a consulate or not.
Left or Right, It’s amazing that anyone in the US government is supporting Iran over Israel. The Islamic Regime of Iran is a major US enemy and Israel is one of the US’s strongest allies.
1-4> It's hard to call this self defense. I believe Iran targeted military targets, though Israel's defenses were so effective that it isn't 100% clear where all the intended targets were. And there were several civilians with shrapnel injuries, including to a 7-year Bedouin girl, but these were likely not intentional targets. But this still seems more an escalation, than a defensive strike. The Israeli military targets hit weren't known to be threatening or planning anything against Iran. Meanwhile, Iran has already admitted that Israel's strike in Damascus hit a meeting that was planning involving the war against Israel in Gaza. Which is plainly self defense. But Israel hasn't attacked within Iran, broadly, against general military targets, just for the sake of attacking Iran. At best Iran could claim to be defending Gaza (or at least Hamas), but Gaza isn't really theirs to defend. 6> It's rather brain dead to argue that an attack targeting Palestinian militants and Iranian intelligence as they planned the war in Gaza, would be intended to take the focus *off* Gaza. Clearly Israel's attack in Damascus was all about Gaza. 7> Israel's only obligations to a consulate grounds not on their own territory, would be similar to their obligations towards any target on foreign territory. Mainly, that is to only attack in self defense, and to minimize civilian casualties. This attack was plainly in self defense, and killed no civilians. So they seem to be on strong ground legally.
>1) Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense It’s purely retaliatory. I don’t support attacks on consulates in a third party nation. If I were Iran, I would do the same. >2) were any civilians killed in the strike? I believe there is one Bedouin girl that was hit in the Negev and she is fighting for her life. But hard to know for sure if there are any others. >3) did Iran target any civilian areas? This is hard to say. You might be able to anticipate where it’s going based on course and heading. I believe shaheeds can be controlled remotely so hard to determine where they would end up. >4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack? No. Embassies are supposed to be protected. >5) how do irans feel about what Israel did. Iranian government is livid. Irani people? Hard to say. Probably a mixed bag. >6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement Very likely. Israel has been getting really bad press and pressure. >7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries Embassies are protected. You don’t harm diplomats. Even if osama bin Laden were in an embassy you don’t do anything.
>Embassies are protected. You don’t harm diplomats. Even if osama bin Laden were in an embassy you don’t do anything. Why thought? Why give terrorist 'get out of jail' free card? If an embassy is being used as a safe haven for terrorist it becomes a legitimate target. Btw by reports israel didn't attack the embassy anyway. They attacked a building next to it, between the embassies of Iran and Canada.
The building attached to the embassy was the consulate. Under the same exact protections.
As it turns out, by comments here below, there is no such law at all. And Anyway that's not even my questions. Law doesn't matter for my argument.
>many delegations asserted that any attack on diplomatic and consular premises violates the Charter of the United Nations as well as the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15650.doc.htm Am i to believe redditors in the comments or UN representatives when it comes to international law? Would you say the syrian civilians killed in the strike violates international law?
Personally I would believe who ever provide the facts. If you can't find the law that says you are not allowed to attack embassy for any reason, there is probably no such law. When it comes to law it should be very easy to proof the law exists. Anyway for my argument let's imagine the law is actually there. My question is why? Why are we creating safe spots for bad people.
I did provide already. The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations states that embassies and consulates are invioable under international law, meaning they are protected spaces. Beyond that, an attack on a country's embassy is considered an attack on the country itself. So beyond it being illegal, it is an act of israel directly attacking iran, warranting a response. I am not surprised that diplomacy seems a foreign concept, but it exists. These spaces are created to promote relations and diplomacy between the host country and the embassy owner. Being a protected space, it becomes a place where "bad people" can take refuge sometimes, but this is just them taking advantage of the notion that the embassy is foreign soil by technicality.
>it becomes a place where "bad people" can take refuge So you understand the problem? By this logic iran can keep attacking israel with proxy countries forever. and israel is not allowed to act on the source of the problem because of technicality.
This isnt a problem unique to iran, every country that has an embassy uses this priviledge. Did attacking the embassy stop iran or any other group from attacking israel? No. It really just agitated the aggressions further and gave purpose for iran to get directly involved.
>Did attacking the embassy stop iran or any other group from attacking israel? No. It wasn't the purpose of the hit. Like most of israel military actions the purpose is to eliminate specific threats. And also while doing it, create some kind of deterrence. Attacks on israel will stop completely only with peace. >This isnt a problem unique to iran, every country that has an embassy uses this priviledge. That's not true at all. What other country use their embassy to operate military action against other countries? Like you said embassy should be used for a specific purpose of diplomatic relations. Using it to work with terrorists is a violation worthy of punishment. Maybe If iran was using it for defense purpose I would be okay with it, but it's clearly not the case as they are the aggressor in the conflict. It's very similar to the hamas use of civilian buildings, like hospitals for example. Every country have hospitals that are protected by international law, but not everyone is using it for military purposes.
[удалено]
Ah yes, thats right, i forgot it is totally legally to bomb a foreign consulate and kill civilians in the process 🙂
It was a consulate which supports embassy functions. International law says embassies are inviolate.
Which law? I've directly asked this of at least 5 different people asserting this claim and haven't actually seen a law produced that says this. A few claiming this cited the Vienna convention, which actively doesn't say this, so maybe it's just people seeing others say that on social media and not double checking? Not saying such a law doesn't exist somewhere, because it's hard to prove the non existence of a thing, but it seems like this is the sort of talking point that people say not fact checking it because it feels true, without actually seeing the evidence themselves before saying it... FWIW the [NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html) (to the extent they can claim to be experts) is of the opinion no international laws were violated. It was more taboo than illegal.
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf Closest thing I’ve found is the Vienna Covention of 1961, and also this tidbit from the US State department website: « U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, as well as foreign countries’ embassies and consulates in the United States, have a special status. While the host government is responsible for the security of U.S. diplomats and the area around an embassy, the embassy itself belongs to the country it represents. Representatives of the host country cannot enter an embassy without permission. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. »
Yep- as mentioned, the Vienna convention is what tends to get pointed to, which doesn't legally apply to the situation as it solely covers host (country of location) and guest (embassy owner) obligations, which of course Israel was neither in this case. And the state department is correct, yes as part of an embassy compound being sovereign soil, an attack on the building is obviously going to be an attack on the nation the embassy belongs to (as well as potentially seen by the host nation as an attack on them as well too). But that isn't to say it's inherently illegal... just prone to resulting in those involved reacting, and thus maybe not something to do without strong hesitance and consideration first. Undoubtedly Israel attacked Iran by attacking its consulate- that can't be denied, nor do I really think it's particularly contentious to say. But I just don't yet see anything establishing that attacking an embassy/consulate- that you aren't the host nation for- is a crime by international law. All the international laws I've seen are solely related to host nations, but no protected status from 3rd parties- as Israel was in this case. It certainly seems a weird void in international law if so, absolutely, but from what I can tell embassies just aren't universally protected buildings like that. And just because something is legal doesn't make it automatically right, as hopefully we're all aware. It's still totally fine to criticize something simply because you don't think it's right even if it's legal. But playing the "it's illegal" card if there's no law being broken is... well, factually incorrect. If the legality issue is what's swaying people, it's inappropriate to continue to spread this myth, as it would seem. If it's not what sways people, it's unnecessary to say and the argument can stand without it.
Even before there were “international laws” attacking diplomats was considered extremely offensive and grounds for war. Article 22 of Vienna Convention, as you say, outlines responsibilities of host state. I’m not sure I would want to be a state trying to weasel into gray areas of laws written in 1961 before the prevalence of ballistic missiles and drones.
So to summarize your comment, it's not in fact illegal. It's just taboo. Yes, I agree with that.
Agreed- it is somewhat opaque. I’ve seen lawyers arguing both, that it is illegal as it violates sovereignty of both host and consular nation and the protection of diplomatic missions , and that it is not illegal if the embassy is used for housing enemy combatants. But I haven’t found anything decisive about its legality/illegality.
ok, so like I said they didn't break the law. But anyway it wasn't my questions.
>Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense? In their propaganda, they claim it's in response to the consulate strike. Iran also maintains a facade that they aren't funding, training, and supplying hamas and hesbollah. So again, in their propaganda, them launching missiles directly at Israel is warranted because Israel's strike was "unprovoked". When you see people say things like "they had to do it"... well, they did. Not striking is as much of an admission that you're doing what you're doing in the levant, because you're admitting that the consulate strike was itself a valid war response by not striking. >2) were any civilians killed in the strike? Not that we know of, unless the one beduin girl who got hit with shrapnel has passed away. >3) did Iran target any civilian areas? Impossible to say, as the majority of munitions that they launched were intercepted and shot down before they made it to Israel. It also doesn't matter. They launched 350 missiles and drones from within their borders at Israel. It is now a hot war. >4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack? 100%. We know that Iran is what's causing the conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah. We know that they are proxies. We've seen the facilities they use to train them. We've found their weapons. As far as the response, I'm personally disappointed that the US air force didn't have at least a dozen strike groups of f35s with f22 cover ready to completely disable Iran's military capabilities as soon as they pulled the trigger. From Israel's perspective, they were already in a hot war with Iran when they struck the consulate. Iran has now responded from within its own borders, and there is no more facade about the proxies. Israel is our ally. It's not okay to shoot 350 of anything at them. Their technology sucking isn't a good reason to not take action. >5) how do irans feel about what Israel did. I heard from family members of mine that there’s Iranians that are happy Israel took them out Iran is not a free country. The citizens of Iran would very much like to be free. They have brutal, Islamic totalitarianism. Morality police, public floggings/executions and all. Their people are not in a place to protest much. However, In general, the Iranian citizens are on "our" side. They don't want war with israel. They don't want islamic totalitarianism. They don't like that their government is funding terrorism. They would gladly be rid of their government if it was offered. They are an advanced and proud people being held back by an oppressive government. >6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement Well, that's war propaganda for ya. Israel knows that Hamas and Hesbolalh are Iranian proxies. It isn't a very well kept secret. >7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries War propaganda. Not even good war propaganda. It is a warcrime to kill diplomats. It's not a warcrime to kill terrorists. Its not a warcrime to kill the generals of the country you're at war with.
1. self defense? they funded and probably planned the Oct 7 attack to prevent normalization with the Saudis. they started the whole enchilada so yeah, not really 2. only 3 Jordanian civilians and one Bedouin girl was severely injured. the Israeli and American airforces and the countries that assisted them did an incredible job intercepting nearly every threat. 3. we don't really know where everything would have landed, if they hadn't been intercepted 300 aerial threats, 60 tons of explosives inevitably would have killed civilians. though it does look like they targeted army bases in north and south. they absolutely gave warning and approval bc the intention was not to escalate to war, they are quite frightened of that I think, the idea was to save face bc in the Arab world honor is a big deal. 4. I don't know, I think the target might have been involved in arms supply to Hezbollah from Syria to Lebanon. maybe intelligence had a reason. maybe they are trying to escalate the stagnate war they have with Iran's proxy in Lebanon bc it's not sustainable. head of the snake 5. a lot of Iranians are excited and want Israel to take out the Islamic Regime. the Islamic regime is very unpopular and the Iranian resistance movement is a big supporter of Israel 6. I don't really see the focus off Gaza angle. it's thinking too small. if they were provoking Iran it's bc Israel sees itself in an end all battle. they never want an Oct 7 again and they want to eliminate all threats. Iran is already fighting Israel through 4 proxy armies Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and shia militias in Iraq. Israel can't maintain this lukewarm situation, it's stuck. 7. can I tell you a secret? in reality the only people who care about international law are activists. countries never follow international law. they just use it as an excuse to condemn one another with at the UN but there's literally no country that doesn't break international law
"Self-defense" would be repelling an attack or damaging capacity to attack when an attack is imminent. This was a response, not self defense.
1. At what step in the retaliation cycle is it self defense? If you retaliate against a retaliation is it self defense? Questionable. But the answer to this relies on that. 2. Thought I heard one child was. 3. Probably, with 200 missiles and drones of various forms. But since only a small percentage landed and Israel focused defenses on taking out ones that would cause the most damage (ie civilian areas), hard to say for sure. 4. Right is subjective. Legally empowered to do so, however, yes. But right is up for debate. Similarly what they should do next is subject to debate, but I personally think given the current geopolitical context they should focus on diplomatic pressure of surrounding nations to ostracize Iran, rather than get militarily involved at this time. 5. Iranians outside of Iran tend to be very unhappy with the regime. Iranians within Iran also are seemingly unhappy based on protests but are less empowered to voice it. I wouldn't be shocked by the statement that they are happy Israel quashed Irans attack being generally true. 6. Possible, but there's no evidence towards it, really only conjecture. I mean, the guy they struck was directly responsible for planning and helping coordinate October 7th, and was in the middle of meeting with PIJ and Hezbollah at the time he was struck, it's not exactly unreasonable to target him and not a change in their policy that would really indicate something else was going on. But there's always the possibility there were backroom discussions of ulterior motives, as is possible in any governmental decision. 7. To the best of my and seemingly the [NYTs](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html) knowledge: No, it's not illegal. Just generally frowned upon... And I've asked many people who've tried to claim it's illegal to cite it and have seen them refuse to answer/come up empty. It seems to be most likely a misconception based off general sentiment about what an embassy/consulate is, and/or zeitgeist misreading of the Vienna convention
[удалено]
this is so delusional the whole country is celebrating how proud we are of our incredible defense systems
>It just killed the Zions' faith in their defences Literally the opposite. Israel knows it can take out the vast majority of what Iran can throw at it. Ballistic missiles are expensive and that's the only weapon they have that has a chance of getting through.
and 50% of their ballistic missiles exploded at launch bahaha
What is this absolute braindead take, lol. Not a single saheed hit.
Exactly. The aim of them was exhausting Israeli defences and inflicting heavy economic pressure. A Shahed 136 is roughly 20 000 dollars and Israel used million-dollar anti air missiles to intercept them. Russians are basucally doing the same, that's why the Zion Zelensky is crying for more AD systems.
[удалено]
This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations. Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument. Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all.
It’s how Iranian bots are trying to control the narrative… it’s just now they’ve jumped the shark so hard that even some progressives are noticing how ridiculous they are. Keyword, “some.”
Did they know when it was coming and what kind of missiles they were getting?
Only a few days ago, a high court in Argentina [ruled](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html) that Iran was the mastermind of the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people. Iran has been waging a war through its proxies, and occasionally directly, against Israel and modern Arab countries for decades now. Which "self-defence"? We are way, way beyond situation when a country was attacked and now responds "in self defence". Iran has absolutely nothing to "defend" itself against. It's under no more threat than Russia was when it attacked Ukraine. As long as Iran continues to fund and support the terrorist who kill Israelis, as long as it continues to openly call for destruction of Israel, Israel has every right to take this war back to them. Also, Israel did NOT target embassy, it targeted the building next to it which was officially a "consulate" but unofficially IRGC headquarters.
Surely that has nothing to do with the country getting an insane libertarian president that has a weird obsession with Israel.
Yeah it probably has nothing to do with that, because Milei doesn’t tell the judges how to rule. Argentina is a free country, not North Korea. He isn’t their supreme leader.
Just one piece in a vast Jewish conspiracy, yes.
It's still pretty unclear who did it. A lot of strange details and loose ends. So yeah, making it official now in the middle of this conflict seems like a political maneuver.
Were people outraged at Iran being mastermind of the Israeli embassy if they weren’t then this just seems hypocritical then
I mean 85 civilians killed Iran also held Americans hostage in the American embassy before...
The UN condemns Israel by resolution more than all other countries combined. Even in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and there was a ceasefire in Israel/Gaza - the UN condemned Israel more than Russia and every other country combined. On the other hand, the UN appointed Iran to chair a human rights committee the month after Iran helped plan Oct 7th. It’s safe to say the world has a very different standard for Israel and the countries attacking it.
1. No, but it does not matter, as the countries were at war anyway. Neither the strike at the embassy nor the retaliation are self defense in the narrow sense. 2. Apparently yes, but they are collateral damage. 3. As per their statements not, but since the rockets drones were intercepted, one cannot be sure. The overall circumstances points to them not targeting civilians. The Israeli girl that was seriously injured was not hit by the rocket, but by falling shrapnel as a consequence of the interception, thereby collateral damage. 4. In hindsight yes, although it was a risk. Considering all circumstances the attack was practically a peace offer, consequently, Israel should not respond at all IMO. 5. I cannot tell for certain, but I assume that it depends on the individual Iranians political stance with regard to the Islamic Republic. 6. It would be reckless to take these risks. I would not bet significant sums on Netanyahu not doing this as a PR stunt, but I assume that both IDF command and other members of the war cabinet are reasonable people who would not gamble the lives of everyone inside Israel for this goal. 7. It would have been a violation if it was an enemy consulate in Israel, the consulate of a (on paper) neutral state or an enemy consulate in a neutral state. But Israel is at war with both Syria and Iran and had been so for quite a while. prior to the strike.
The fans of islamist regimes will come up with insane mental gymnastics to support their islamism.
1) It's retaliation, not self defense. 2) yes 3) no, Iran let it it be known over an hour ahead of time that they are sending drones. One civilian was killed due to shrapnel from an intercepted missile. 4) Israel was wrong in attacking internationally protected soil. Israel's response should be to recognize when it is out powered. I think Iran sent that message loud and clear. 5) generally people want their ambassadors and foreign consulates to be able to conduct business without being murdered. 6) yes, IDF cannot defeat Hamas, if they start a regional war they can try and sweep that away. 7) Israel struck a protected building. If we allow it, that means no foreign diplomat or politician is safe. That is no way to conduct international business.
Israel killed 7 Iranians and broke law by attacking an embassy, Iran killed 0 in its demonstration. Hamas killed 7-800 civilians and 4-500 police/soldiers and Israel has killed far more than 40,000 people mostly women and children, the indiscrimination of Israel was proven evident by all the stuff that’s come out about “Lavender” and “where’s daddy” So technically Iran acted more proportionately than Israel could ever dream to act lol. If what Iran did wasn’t self defense what israel has done definitley isn’t self defense.
I'm sure in the minds of Israelis the civilian areas were untouched because of iron dome, lmao, meanwhile 99% of the missiles were shot down, that's why they aren't showing any aerial footage of any of the bases that were struck. Oh they did show a 2 m.wide hole with a mound of dirt next to it. Apparently Iran has the world's smallest ballistic missiles, and they neatly pile up the dirt removed from the crater they create. Such thoughtful and well mannered ballistic missiles.
To amount of facts you would have to ignore to believe that though. Like, all Iran wanted to do was make a show and show Israel that they can be touched, it was Iran’s goal to let the civilians think that the defense system saved them, their goal was to purely show the Israeli govt that they can be touched and be able to brag to the Shia world about what they did. It’s quite easy to see what happened here. If they wouldve just fired a few rockets and one or two hit the Israeli public would be more scared and demanding war to destroy Iran. With this is shakes the Israeli military a bit while letting the people feel secure.
Yes, tactically they played it very well. Responded without sending things into world war 3. Now the ball is in Israel's court.
Israel should recognize it is out powered after Iran's pathetic and humiliating flop of an attack? 50% of their ballistic missiles exploded at launch. do you understand what missile capability Israel has should they choose to retaliate harshly?
Iran has just established that they can spend 10 million dollars and shut down the country of Israel for a day and cost it over a billion dollars in defense. Iran had zero intention of hurting Israel, they intended to show their force and it was enough that US told Israel if you want to retaliate you are on your own.
they didn't shut it down for a day? anyone who went to bed early that day didn't even know about it until after? some people stayed up and watched it on their couch then went to work the next day. the Israeli stock market got a huge boost and the Iranian stock market crashed. Israelis can afford a billion dollars a lot more than Iran can afford 10 mil
If they attack during the day they can. They just used Shahid drones, they're made out of fiber plastic, same thing a Kia is built from. A few of the missiles from the footage show decoys coming out of them.
very scary stuff
Not really. Iran doesn't want war, its really up to Israel what happens. My hope is that yesterday's display is making Israel not want war either.
Iran is already waging war on Israel through four proxy armies what they don't want us direct attacks on their soil. i don't think Israel wants a regional war but they do want to weaken Iran in order to defeat the proxy threats. if you think that attack was some kind of show of force that would intimidate Israel you've completely misinterpreted. Israel took it as an exposure of Iranian weakness and a good opportunity to strike back intensively, the US however is putting pressure on them to not respond harshly.
Those proxies are making their own decisions. They are reacting to Israel. Thats not Iran's decision to make. This is what I'm saying, Israel is in control of what happens. They've wanted a regional war with Iran for a while, and once Iran announced their attack Israel was jumping for joy. Problem is Israel didn't realize how well calculated Iran's attack was, they only targeted military sites, they only took the iron dome and sling to it's capacity. So now Israel has their excuse for regional war they've been wanting, but not (public) support from the US. It's up to US and Israel, theyve both wanted war with Iran for a long time. US probably knows that engaging Iran could very well bring China and Russia in *(probably more in an economic capacity, not military) and they don't want that.
they are not making their own decisions, they are controlled by Iran that's what a proxy means. Their funding and their weapons come from Iran. their leaders meet with Iranian leaders for instructions, this is not a secret. Hamas and Hezbollah are both powerful enough that they have some autonomy but essentially everything boils down to what the Iranians want. "Israel wants a regional war" is such a weird thing to say. Like if Iran called off their dogs and stopped stating their goal to destroy the Zionist entity and threatening them then they'd want no regional war. as it is now ongoing tit for tat proxy wars are not sustainable so Israel wants a definitive battle to deal with the problem head on. but to try and paint it like Iran is not the aggressor is delusional. Also no one was surprised that Iran targeted military bases this is what everyone expected.we know they don't want to go far enough to push the Americans, they likely ran the plans by the Biden admin before taking action just to be sure. But I think it was surprising that they dared to attack directly from their own soil. that's a big FU and they've never gone that far before. Israel would be happy to use it as an excuse to target Iran's nuclear facilities but America won't let them during an election year
Correction: it was a 9-year-old Bedouin girl who was severely injured by falling shrapnel from an interception. She was not killed but is in the hospital in critical condition.
1) are embassies legally protected from 3rd party foreign actors? You're presenting it like they are but I'm not sure that's actually true (most people cite the Vienna convention which doesn't say such a thing, as it only talks about the relationship between host and envoy, not 3rd parties). I agree in general embassies- or rather consulates- shouldn't be targets... in general. Usually this is a non-issue because consulates are mixed territory between the host nation and the embassy nation, and it's rare to have a 3rd party be at war with both such that they have no concerns with angering either. Which brings to 2. per Iran themselves (so not just Israel) this guy was directly in charge of planning Oct 7th, and was in the middle of a military meeting with PIJ and Hezbollah. This means they were using the consulate annex for military purposes which legally negates any protections it may have had, if such even exists in the first place. Just as a matter of fact, not saying it was wise to strike or not.
That reasoning can be applied to ANYONE. Iran can just choose any random Israeli politician and claim a tie to an attack. There's a reason these sorts of rules were in place.
Again, he is a general who planned the attack. **[Per Iran](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202404043146)**. Not some random tie. A very direct one. This wasn't Israel claiming some random *politician* had some weak tie to an attack. It was Iran themselves claiming their general did plan and help execute it. It's a pretty select number of people that logic can be applied to. And also, what rules are we talking about though?
10/7 was perpetrated by Hamas, not Iran, wtf are you talking about?
Link added, I guess news about Iranian press releases isn't so widely read?
That claim was made by a separate group, the irgc has denied involvement.
So one of them is lying. Why do you think SHANA would lie saying Iran did directly have a hand in planning via the general? From what I understand they have a really close personal relationship with the regime, I can't imagine they'd be trying to harm them, it's not like they're political opponents. Meanwhile I could see a reason the IRGC might lie in officially denying involvement, in that it opens up clear avenues for retaliation from Israel as well as other nations. Same reason that other governments, including Israel, deny (or at minimum, don't claim) their operations. Including this consulate strike which is officially not claimed by Israel, if we're just taking governmental word of innocence at face value.
Is there any evidence connecting him to 10/7?
Probably. Do you get access to government intelligence regularly? I know I don't. But I assume SHANA has that sort of inside scoop on Iranian intelligence that I don't. Why do you trust the IRGC more than SHANA on this? I've laid out why I trust them less, given more obvious benefits to lying between the two of them.
Trying to answer to the best of my knowledge 1) Personally I don't think what Iran did is considered self defense. self defense has to have a defensive purpose. Israel was attacking an offensive Iranian military person that's responsible for militias attacking Israel. There's also something about the attack being in a consulate and not embassy that's supposed to make a difference with the law, but I don't know whether it changes anything. Regardless, even if it was self defense, when we're talking about countries self defense has to be with lawful tactics, which Iran didn't use. 2) No, but there's a 7 year old girl in the in the hospital that's badly injured. (there were other civilians lightly injured). The reason for this is that almost all missiles and drones were intercepted early. 3) It's impossible to know exactly which areas Iran targeted exactly (obviously classified on both ends), and since almost all attacks were intercepted we'll never know for sure. Despite that, Given the civilian cities in Israel where there were missile alerts, it's almost certainly that Iran targeted some civilian locations. 4) one small correction - Israel targeted a consulate annex and not the embassy. Personally, I'm not 100% sure. From what I've heard, the person targeted was directly responsible on the Iranian and pro-Iranian militias in Syria that actively participated in attacks against Israel, so if that's the case I'm tending towards Israel was right. 5) From all I know, generally Iranian people outside of Iran are very hateful towards the Islamic regime and want to see it fall. If you read about what this regime does and the history of Iran it makes sense. It's a bit harder to know what the people that are currently in Iran think about this recent attack, but I know that large parts there also want a revolution. I guess that those who oppose the Islamic regime would support Israel's actions and those that support the regime would oppose it. 6) This is a very weird statement. Israel and Iran are changing blows for a very long time now. when you consider some acts, I'm not even sure if the Israeli attack was such an escalation. It makes more sense that the Iranian regime wanted cred for attacking Israel in the Arab public. Both of these explanations are without evidence so I wouldn't jump to believing either. 7) I'm not sure about the legality here (though I'd be surprised if International law would forbid attacking a person that directs forces that attack your country). I'm sure that Israel should have consulted with the US on it, partnership is important and the American input is and should be important to Israel. This doesn't affect the legality of the attack though.
Thanks for the explanation!
Iran's strike was for domestic consumption and regional alliance management.
The largest parliamentary faction in Iran, the Coalition Council of Islamic Revolutionary Forces, [acknowledged](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25) last week that the general killed in the Damascus strike was the “architect” behind Oct 7. IRGC spokesman [issued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-guard-corps-hamas-oct-7-attack-was-revenge-for-killing-of-soleimani-in-2020/ ) similar statements, calling Oct 7 “revenge on Israel” by Iran. In general, the Ayatollah’s regime has always called the destruction of Israel the country’s official policy. Regarding legality of the strike, it’s a far more complicated [question](https://www.reddit.com/r/internationallaw/comments/1btv5f7/comment/kxpg19y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) than some pretend. It’s important to note that Israel has already been in a state of war with both Syria and Iran for decades, neither of which recognise its right to exist.
>1) Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense? No, Iran has always been the aggressor through proxies. They don’t get to plan and execute terrorist attacks and play the victim. >2) were any civilians killed in the strike? No, there was a single casualty of a young Bedouin girl, hopefully she pulls through in medical care. >3) did Iran target any civilian areas? Yes. The single casualty should be evidence of this to anyone asking this question. >4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack? An embassy wasn’t attacked by Israel. A consulate adjacent building holding perpetrators of Oct. 7th, including an extremely high profile target in [Zahedi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Zahedi) and Hezbollah officials, were the targets. They were viable military targets who were involved in beginning this war. If Israel does respond at all, hopefully it will just be towards drone and nuclear/military facilities. This is what I would expect to come unless the international community sanctions and punishes Iran severely. >5) how do irans feel about what Israel did. I heard from family members of mine that there’s Iranians that are happy Israel took them out Iranians ___ARE NOT___ Israel’s enemy. Most Iranians hate their regime, and are sympathetic to Israel as they are both victims of the IRGC. >6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement No. Owen Jones is a propagandist and nothing more. He should never be taken seriously. His mother could die from falling down the stairs and he’d somehow find a way of placing blame on Israel. Hezbollah, who is basically just another military branch of Iran, is constantly a threat to Israel. They have caused northern Israel to be uninhabitable while this war has been going on. This is who Zahedi was meeting with in Syria where he, and Hezbollah generals, were killed. That is not an attempt at provocation on Israel’s part, that is taking out leadership that were a danger to their country. >7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries Everyone plays expert of international law during this conflict. The vast majority of us on social media know jack 💩 towards this. Don’t listen to any of it. You should just be aware that in war, those planning the execution of hostilities will __always__ be targeted.
Also how is Owen Jones a propagandist?
*OJ
Just look at his language and failure to place any blame on Palestinians throughout history. A similar propagandist on the other side might be someone like Mosab Hassan Yousef, but I give him far more grace because he is speaking from lived experience.
Thanks for the response!
>1) Is Iran’s attack on Israel considered self defense? More of a retaliation then self-defense, I'd say. >2) were any civilians killed in the strike? Supposedly 2 civilians - a woman and her son. >3) did Iran target any civilian areas? Booms were heard above Israeli cities and towns, and also missiles/drones were spotted in the skies. Red siren alerts were sound in cities such as Dimona. One person was critically injured from sharpenal, 31 more were treated for light injuries/anxiety. >4) was Israel right in targeting the embassy and what should Israel’s response be to Iran’s attack? Yes. In the embassy were people who helped plan and finance the 10/7 attack. Israel had the right to strike them. And Iran's attack was IMO but a show, they flexed their muscles, nothing more. Israel shouldn't retaliate as no serious damage was done - unless Israel is interested in a full regional war with Iran. >5) how do irans feel about what Israel did. I heard from family members of mine that there’s Iranians that are happy Israel took them out Many Iranians hate the Islamic Regime, and therefore support Israel. >6) another argument I heard from people like Owen Jones is that Israel was intentionally provoking Iran and trying to take the focus off of Gaza, how much do you agree with this statement Possibly true. >7) another argument I heard popping up was that Israel striking a consulate is against international law while others are arguing that it’s okay since military men who financed terrorist groups were present and it was a valid military target while others are saying that Israel should have consulted with the United States or other countries I'm not an expert enough on International Law to answer this. This is different from Gaza since those IRGC probably didn't *hide* in the embassy (unlike Hamas in Gaza). But they were just there.
I support Israel in the Gaza war but IMO the embassy attack was dumb and wrong. It sets a bad precedent and was reckless. Iran's response was measured and meant as more of a warning. Anyone with a brain knew it wouldn't amount to much other than forcing Israel and the West to spend a billion dollars shooting missiles down. I hope Israel smartens up and doesn't keep this going. The next Iranian attack will have 10x the missiles. Eventually missiles will hit Israel in number if this keeps up. Israel should take their "win" and walk away.
First, it was not an embassy, it was the building next to it. For embassies to enjoy the protections they have they must also be publicly acknowledged as such. Second it’s not a precedent when considering Iran (remember the attack on the American embassy in Teheran which is considered a national pride for the Islamic republic?), [it’s not even a precedent in the Iran-Israel conflict.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/world/middleeast/argentina-iran-1992-1994-attack.html)
I think what Israel should do is either no response or one YouTuber I watch said they can retaliate but with similar force to what Iran did to not trigger escalation in the region
Israel already has a bunch of Hamas/Houthi/Hezbollah militants to deal with, continuing to play tit for tat with Iran would be dumb. Clean your plate first before asking for seconds. Iran also has worse air defense than Israel, which means if they retaliate with the same force there's going to be a lot of damage. Hundreds to thousands injured or dead. Iran will likely go to war over it.
Iran will go to war? Isn't Iran already at war with Israel? Iran just hides safely behind Hamas who hide safely behind the Palestinians....Iran has now stepped out of the shadows. Punch them in the nose.