|
I think it's worth noting that Iran petitioned the UN Security Council to censure Israel for the strike in Damascus and offered every possible opportunity for deescalation before the attack, as well as slow rolling the attack in a way that could get non-combatants out of harm's way. I think the contrast between how Iran conducted themselves in this response versus how Israel has conducted themselves since Oct. 7 is worthy of mention.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Iran absolutely did have a right to respond, but a direct attack on Israel proper is an escalation that puts us in uncharted territory. It's likely to lead to at the very least a strike in kind from Israel, which dramatically increases the chance of a full war. Would it have been better if they had, say, struck the Israeli embassy in Jordan? That would have been pretty much in kind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
Either an attack on Israeli assets abroad or a response delivered via its proxies (Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc), similar to how it has responded to US strikes, would've been less likely to lead to a direct confrontation with Israel, yeah. Although I can't imagine an attack on Jordan would be a good idea given that it would significantly help Israel in its efforts to build a regional alliance against Iran. e: the one saving grace is that the vast majority of the attack was intercepted, and it seems to have only ended up doing minimal damage, so while Israel will certainly want to respond on principal the attack probably hasn't triggered the same level of psychotic bloodlust that October 7th unleashed Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 16:16
|
|
|
Israel will over respond because that’s what they do. Edit: The JLOTS army boats are still en route, the James Loux is east of Malta now. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which international law dictates is Iranian territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Either an attack on Israeli assets abroad or a response delivered via its proxies (Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc), similar to how it has responded to US strikes, would've been less likely to lead to a direct confrontation with Israel, yeah. Although I can't imagine an attack on Jordan would be a good idea given that it would significantly help Israel in its efforts to build a regional alliance against Iran. I don't think you can accurately call what Iran did last night an escalation. Yes it was more than they have done before, but it was a necessary and logical reaction to what Israel did to them. The problem with breaking the kayfabe of cold warfare and publicly committing actual direct acts of war against another country is that they demand an overt response. That's exactly what Israel did, and they seemingly were deliberately inviting an overreaction. Instead of falling for it Iran played the game, seeking diplomatic redress at the UN, and when it wasn't forthcoming they carried out an entirely proportional and appropriately restrained military response to Israel's outrageous action. If any of Israel's friends had had an embassy hit by a nation in the way Iran's was we would absolutely have punished them directly and militarily, and we wouldn't be accusing them of having escalated. That's why America is, in the language of diplomacy, telling Israel to shut up and sit down on this one. None of the western nations are going to admit it publicly, but Israel overstepped and got what was coming for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1779419645369340226?s=19 I mean Iran is openly saying 'honor satisfied, no intent to escalate'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
I'm baffled by the suggestion that a strike on a country's consulate/embassy is somehow ranked below an attack within the country's borders (especially when said attack is on state/military personnel or infrastructure). I means it would be one thing if Iran had leveled a hospital in Tel-aviv, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
kiminewt posted:If anything this attack demonstrated the effectiveness of aye defenses. Only a handful of missles hit out of (though this is according to Israeli media) a few hundred UAVs and missles. Only around nine reported injured so far. Keep in mind that the supposedly high interception rate is after the Israelis had days of preparation and a full six hours of warning after initial launches, along with participation by Jordan, the US, and UK in interceptions and Iranian missiles still got through to targets. They blew through a billion dollars worth of interceptors in a single night and the IDF doesn't have a limitless supply of those. In a full scale attack, this would likely be a far different scenario with cruise and ballistic missiles going after SAM sites and radars first to put holes in air defense coverage for later waves of drones and more missiles to exploit. This was almost a best case scenario for the IDF, but the bloodthirsty morons who run their government will probably think it means they're invincible and double down on escalating the situation now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Would it have been better if they had, say, struck the Israeli embassy in Jordan? That would have been pretty much in kind. Not practical. Involves attacking in a neutral country, with immense risk of stray missiles/drones killing Jordanian civilians/infrastructure, ruining relations with a neighbor and making Iran appear inept/weak. Besides, there will likely be jordanians in the embassy itself, so there's very little upside. Compare it to striking Israel directly: even one missile that lands makes you the first local faction to land a punch in Israel's territory since 1967, very little risk of a bomb falling somewhere inconvenient, you get to make them spend expensive counter-missile material on your cheap decoys, maybe get some data on their defenses. And the level of IDF response from doing either is about the same. I mean, cooler heads have all left the stage at this point, it seems, but one would wonder if any israeli leader might pause and think "Our present course just resulted in the largest killing of jewish people since the Holocaust, international relations that were slowly thawing now making GBS threads the bed again, and our territory being bombed by actual modern cruise missiles for the first time ever. Maybe this is not the way."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
Vernii posted:Keep in mind that the supposedly high interception rate is after the Israelis had days of preparation and a full six hours of warning after initial launches, along with participation by Jordan, the US, and UK in interceptions and Iranian missiles still got through to targets. They blew through a billion dollars worth of interceptors in a single night and the IDF doesn't have a limitless supply of those. In a full scale attack, this would likely be a far different scenario with cruise and ballistic missiles going after SAM sites and radars first to put holes in air defense coverage for later waves of drones and more missiles to exploit. This was almost a best case scenario for the IDF, but the bloodthirsty morons who run their government will probably think it means they're invincible and double down on escalating the situation now. I'm also certain that Iran flew them in a way to be more detectable and intercepted by flying them at higher altitudes. When Russia started flying Shaheds vs. Ukraine, they were at such low altitudes that, if they could spot them in time, could be engaged at assault rifle ranges, indicating typical operation flight ceilings of less than 400m to evade radar. Treetop flying and the construction of the drone means that typical tactics for the Shahed would be hard to detect plus difficult to intercept without the Iron Dome interceptors accidentally hitting the targets they're meant to protect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Curious what Iran's submarine fleet is up to right now
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I'm also certain that Iran flew them in a way to be more detectable and intercepted by flying them at higher altitudes. When Russia started flying Shaheds vs. Ukraine, they were at such low altitudes that, if they could spot them in time, could be engaged at assault rifle ranges, indicating typical operation flight ceilings of less than 400m to evade radar. Treetop flying and the construction of the drone means that typical tactics for the Shahed would be hard to detect plus difficult to intercept without the Iron Dome interceptors accidentally hitting the targets they're meant to protect. The alternative reason they flew them high was to stop people in Iraq or Jordan from shooting them down maybe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
shimmy shimmy posted:This is totally thread unrelated but do you have a source talking about this, because I hadn't heard that they do this. The model was DoorDash would guarantees minimum driver payout per order, and then they’d offset their contribution to that minimum by the tip amount. E.g., if the minimum was $7 and the tip was $5, the company would pay out $2. If the tip was $4 they’d pay out $3. DoorDash claims they changed this model in 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/nyregion/doordash-tip-policy.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:I'm baffled by the suggestion that a strike on a country's consulate/embassy is somehow ranked below an attack within the country's borders (especially when said attack is on state/military personnel or infrastructure). There's not really a ranking system, and it's not lesser or greater in all cases. It is nuanced. This misconception continues to keep repeating every couple of pages, and it emerges exactly because they would be very closely ranked in most cases. People take this fact that they're very close in severity of offense and then make (likely unintentional) hyperbolic statements saying they're literally the same thing--not just in severity of offense, but in the international recognition of territorial rights and responsibilities. Edit: I agree with Lovely Joe Stalin's post, but was trying to avoid a conversation litigating the Israeli Embassy attack. The key part is violating the bounds of 'cold war'. I would not be surprised to find that the IRGC in that consulate was doing something hankey with regards to Israel in that consulate, just because why wouldn't they be? Im fairly certain IRGC has run ops in Israel like Mossad has in Iran and nothing about the current circumsta ces makes me think theyd quit now. Chief among the IRGC's jobs is rustling up non-state proxy actors and Damascus is very close to Israel. It would be reasonable for Russia to be distrustful of the Ukranian and US consulates in Belarus (though maybe dont bomb them). The US and the USSR probably would have solved this by discovering and laying out transgressions to a host nation in a semi-public action forcing an action. That obviously doesn't work in Syria right now. The next escalation would probably be convincing some other third party to strike. Israel crossed the spheres here in a way that should be quite embarrassing to the Mossad and shows why during the Western-Soviet Cold War, that the US and the USSR behaved the ways they did. piL fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:I means it would be one thing if Iran had leveled a hospital in Tel-aviv, but come on. Leveling hospitals is cultural appropriation of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 20:00
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Iran absolutely did have a right to respond, but a direct attack on Israel proper is an escalation that puts us in uncharted territory. It's likely to lead to at the very least a strike in kind from Israel, which dramatically increases the chance of a full war. Calling the Iranian response an “escalation” in any way is ridiculous. It was a clear response to a consulate bombing and assassination of a high ranking official. For purposes of deterrence and domestic politics Iran had to do something and did everything possible to deescalate and telegraph it. Doing nothing invites Israel and every Arab rival to attack Iran. I am baffled that people can see what is going on think there was any other realistic or more responsible course of action for Iran to take here. At least from a realpolitik perspective, every nation that isn’t Israel is being relatively very calculated and cautious and both Iran and the US are clearly trying to prevent a regional war that Israel’s current leadership really wants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
All things considered, Iran's response to the consulate attack can be considered pretty measured, comprehensive and effective at the same time. In no way could this be objectively considered an escalation. Not that it would matter though, the regime in Israel would take literally anything as an escalation, anyway. Iran has every right to defend itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
You wouldn't know that from the official statements of western leaders. Everyone calling it an unprovoked and disproportionate response.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:All things considered, Iran's response to the consulate attack can be considered pretty measured, comprehensive and effective at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
A lot of western outlets are still pretending that the bombing of the Iranian embassy is a mystery or merely “suspect to be Israel”. Expecting anything short of blatant lies where Israel is involved is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
Iran's response is asymmetric in the sense that they've launch a lot more things in Israel's direction. But whether it alone makes it disproportionate is debatable.fool of sound posted:A lot of western outlets are still pretending that the bombing of the Iranian embassy is a mystery or merely “suspect to be Israel”. Expecting anything short of blatant lies where Israel is involved is a joke. Really? Heard an Israeli spokesman on LBC today trying to downplay and excuse the attack on the consulate as opposed to deny it in any way. Were they American outlets?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:A lot of western outlets are still pretending that the bombing of the Iranian embassy is a mystery or merely “suspect to be Israel”. Expecting anything short of blatant lies where Israel is involved is a joke. Media usually wants to be neutral rather than objectiv, like when in Crimea 2014 there was suddenly a lot of unidentified soldiers, speaking russian, using russian equipment, having russian plates on cars and saying they were from Russia, media still said that they were unidentifed, because Russia denied they were theirs. Likewise Trump (and politicans in general) are never liars, they are making disputed claims, regardless how obvious it is. Rincewinds fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Iran's response is asymmetric in the sense that they've launch a lot more things in Israel's direction. But whether it alone makes it disproportionate is debatable. at military targets, as opposed to israel's diplomatic target. seems much more measured and symmetrical than not
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Iran's response is asymmetric in the sense that they've launch a lot more things in Israel's direction. But whether it alone makes it disproportionate is debatable. From CNN 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Iran's response is asymmetric in the sense that they've launch a lot more things in Israel's direction. But whether it alone makes it disproportionate is debatable. Saying Iran's launched stuff at Israel before last night, is like saying the United States has bombed the Russian army, assuming you're referring to "Iranian proxies". Or are only non western forces given agency but if Iran arms and supports regional allies they're completely controlled out of Tehran?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
Huh, looks like Israel never actually took the responsibility officially, although they never officially denied it either. But CNN is definitely being unduly cautious here. Even the wikipedia article is very straightforward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus adebisi lives posted:Saying Iran's launched stuff at Israel before last night, is like saying the United States has bombed the Russian army, assuming you're referring to "Iranian proxies". Or are only non western forces given agency but if Iran arms and supports regional allies they're completely controlled out of Tehran? My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, sorry. What I meant was that Israel's strike on the consulate involved only a handful of bombs, while Iran launched hundreds of drones and rockets in retaliation (possibly causing less damage). That's literally the only metric you can use to say it was an asymmetrical response. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
If you click that red text it gives you the actual article, lays out the evidence, and explains why they're not willing to just say it was an Israeli attack. If you check the associated NYT article, it directly attributes the attack to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If you click that red text it gives you the actual article, lays out the evidence, and explains why they're not willing to just say it was an Israeli attack. I did and it’s spurious. “Apparent” Israeli attack is about as much benefit of the doubt as their reasoning justifies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I did and it’s spurious. “Apparent” Israeli attack is about as much benefit of the doubt as their reasoning justifies. Kind of crazy that even US spokespeople (not just "sources") are openly and plainly blaming Israel for the embassy strike and they're being so cagey about assigning blame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:39
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I did and it’s spurious. “Apparent” Israeli attack is about as much benefit of the doubt as their reasoning justifies. It's not spurious. The set of sources they had were Iran, Syria, an initial US assessment, and the New York Times. All of these sources are provided with attribution; none of these are sources that CNN should be taking at their word for the purpose of reporting the source of an attack, even if the circumstances make the source really likely- and the article makes it clear that the source is really likely Israel. Also they literally refer to it as an apparent Israeli attack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:You wouldn't know that from the official statements of western leaders. I think it should be clear by now that most western leaders are dogs, and any principles they claim to have will be applied only when it benefits them. Iran is An Enemy, so whatever they do is wrong. Considering the last 6 months, I don't see how anyone can ever take complaints from the west about human rights or the rules based international order seriously again. Discendo Vox posted:If you click that red text it gives you the actual article, lays out the evidence, and explains why they're not willing to just say it was an Israeli attack. If you check the associated NYT article, it directly attributes the attack to Israel. Okay, let's see what they have to say. The article posted:The Israeli military told CNN it does not comment on foreign reports. However, a military spokesperson said Israel believes the target struck was a “military building of Quds forces” — a unit of the IRGC responsible for foreign operations. So the NYT (sourcing 4 unnamed Israeli officials), Iran and the Pentagon all say Israel did it, and when asked, Israel says "The bombing was good actually, it wasn't even an embassy". What exactly is your standard for how much evidence a media organization needs to draw a conclusion? It's very dumb to defend this kind of propaganda, especially coming from a compromised (as we have covered in this thread before) outlet like CNN. This is the same organization that refuses to refer to the Gaza Health Ministry without the "Hamas-run" prefix. Esran fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not spurious. The set of sources they had were Iran, Syria, an initial US assessment, and the New York Times. All of these sources are provided with attribution; none of these are sources that CNN should be taking at their word for the purpose of reporting the source of an attack, even if the circumstances make the source really likely- and the article makes it clear that the source is really likely Israel. Also they literally refer to it as an apparent Israeli attack. Skepticism about the US assessment is not a courtesy that most mainstream US outlets extend to any other state, certainly not when all available evidence agrees with that assessment. Further, when the victim's assessment, the host state's assessment, AND their enemy's assessment is all the same, sprinkling doubt throughout the report without further evidence isn't responsible journalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Skepticism about the US assessment is not a courtesy that most mainstream US outlets extend to any other state, certainly not when all available evidence agrees with that assessment. Further, when the victim's assessment, the host state's assessment, AND their enemy's assessment is all the same, sprinkling doubt throughout the report without further evidence isn't responsible journalism. The enemy's assessment is only sourced through the New York Times. It is not in fact normal to simply take the word of either the host or targeted state's assessment, and you are now objecting to not taking initial US assessment at face value, even as the article in question does the exact thing you'd said was justifiable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 22:07
|
|
|
When you ask the spokesman of the military accused of the attack and they basically say "Bitch had it coming", it's just too hard to conclude anything from that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 22:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It is not in fact normal to simply take the word of either the host or targeted state's assessment, That does not seem true. Can you tell us where you’re pulling these rules from? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 22:12
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Media usually wants to be neutral rather than objectiv, like when in Crimea 2014 there was suddenly a lot of unidentified soldiers, speaking russian, using russian equipment, having russian plates on cars and saying they were from Russia, media still said that they were unidentifed, because Russia denied they were theirs. Likewise Trump (and politicans in general) are never liars, they are making disputed claims, regardless how obvious it is. Curious, are Israelis actually American?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The enemy's assessment is only sourced through the New York Times. It is not in fact normal to simply take the word of either the host or targeted state's assessment, and you are now objecting to not taking initial US assessment at face value, even as the article in question does the exact thing you'd said was justifiable. I said that was the most that could be justified, and meeting that low bar incidentally in the article does not justify their going beyond it elsewhere. Certainly not when all available evidence is in agreement while Israel fails to deny or dispute those conclusions. Again, this is not a courtesy extended to any other nation. When say, the US and UK and EU all agree that Russia assassinated a former spy, news agencies don't feel the need to wait for Russia to admit it before they stop doubting the explaination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 22:16
|
|
|
Esran posted:When you ask the spokesman of the military accused of the attack and they basically say "Bitch had it coming", it's just too hard to conclude anything from that. It's not the same as actually saying they performed the attack. If you wanted to actually point to a problem with coverage, a good place to focus is on how much credulity is provided to the "it wasn't a consulate/embassy" line from Israel, because that's something the mediator can check. The NYT coverage of the attack, while actually saying it was from Israel because they have access to Israeli military sources, took this seriously. fool of sound posted:I said that was the most that could be justified, and meeting that low bar incidentally in the article does not justify their going beyond it elsewhere. Certainly not when all available evidence is in agreement while Israel fails to deny or dispute those conclusions. Again, this is not a courtesy extended to any other nation. When say, the US and UK and EU all agree that Russia assassinated a former spy, news agencies don't feel the need to wait for Russia to admit it before they stop doubting the explaination. I do not know how you are getting to "incidentally," or why you think that this is particularly analogous to Russia's targeted asssassinations, or, indeed, why you think that it's common practice to not qualify claims about Russian targeted assassinations along a similar timeline. For example, coverage of the recent Kuzminov killing still doesn't just say Russia killed the guy. The same is true for broader coverage of the practice. Even when there's tons of direct evidence it's the kind of thing that's usually handled especially cautiously. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
i say swears online posted:at military targets, as opposed to israel's diplomatic target. seems much more measured and symmetrical than not Israel's targe in the consulate bombing was military. The target was the high ranking Quds force officials that were inside the consulate. Of course it was incredibly dumb to kill them there, but the target wasn't the consulate itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 23:24
|
|