100 drones isn’t enough to do any meaningful damage, so this is a warning shot to Israeli. Or the Iran government is doing this exercise to save face among their own people.
However is Israel doesn’t back down from attacking Iranians, Iran might be forced to go all out war with Israel.
IDF now reporting over 200 missiles.
I wonder where they are getting the money for weapons. I thought there were economic sanctions imposed on them. Or did I miss something and were they lifted?
drones are pretty cheap as far a weapons go, Iran is a pretty big country with a fair bit of economic potential all on its own, and sanctions can only do so much, especially when theyve been in place for a long time such that the target has had time to work around or adapt to them
good.
I’m curious why you think missiles flying for any reason is “good”.
Iran has the right to defend itself. Israel bombed their embassy and killed civilians; don’t Biden and Netanyahu repeatedly say for years that a country has the right to respond when attacked and their civilians are killed?
One could argue that the embassy attack was Israel defending itself from the IRGC commander and generals that were supplying the Houthis and Hamas with intel and weapons.
I’m not defending the attack on the embassy, since I’ve learned about civilian casualties. I’m simply saying this is a long standing conflict. Israel didn’t just come at Iran out of nowhere.
No one can argue that. It’s stupidity.
By this logic, Israel can also bomb Chinese and Russian embassies. They only did it to Iran, because they want to draw the US into the conflict.
That’s a very America-centric sentiment. This conflict has been ongoing since 1985.
Yes but the reason they acted out this week rather than before is because Biden publicly announced criticisms of Israel and threatened to condition aid. You cannot ignore the context.
I’m not defending the attack on the embassy
And yet you are.
International law says embassies are sacrosanct. Even if there was commander and generals in there, you cannot attack first and argue self defense without a credible threat of “imminent” danger. Israel had none and has not even argued for this claim. We went over this when the US illegally assassinated Suleimani.
No. I’m not. I’m debating the point that Israel attacked “first,” just as you said, in a 40 year long conflict.
That’s not what you said, you said Israel could claim justification for bombing an embassy because enemies were in it. Then you made a vague comment about how long the conflict is, as if that excuses it. If that is true, then all israeli embassies are fair game because Mosaad is in them and US embassies as well since they openly have CIA officers in them.
Firing missiles into a country to blow up an embassy of another country is a “first” no matter what justification you or Israel can come up with.
I said “one could claim it was retaliation” referring to the Houthi Red Sea attacks. My point is this has been going back and forth for 40 years.
So the guy with a week old account is condescending. I’m pretty sure I’ve read and taught more history than you. Peace.
Just a 7 day old account JAQing off
Your account was 7 days old once too. Thanks for the warm welcome.
So then in that case, Hamas attacking US embassies is completely fair game for arming Israel?
Israel is a sovereign nation, the Houthis are not.
Under international law, the attacks of a nation are the responsibility of the attacking nation. The same is not true for independent militant groups. For example:
France arms Ukraine and Ukraine attacks Russia, Ukraine is responsible. Iran arms Houthis and Houthis attack Israel, Iran is responsible.
