Could cause civil war in those countries if they actively support Israel/US. What an odd position to be in. They are shameless for their apathetic stance on the genocide.
Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Could cause civil war in those countries if they actively support Israel/US. What an odd position to be in. They are shameless for their apathetic stance on the genocide.
Probably Russian-made?
Penned that 7ish hours ago when I was listening to the breakinh news, forgot to post it.
Let's not bandy about semantics or who kicked it last, the missiles ultimately came from Iran.
I've just seen the footage of that, it was caught on a security camera, which is unlikely enough by itself. Its obscenely unlucky though, just lands on his head as he's walking along, RIP that guy.
Nah, I thought you meant there was another wave incoming.
You have to start somewhere. Definitely what is happening helps less, don't you think?
Gotcha! My bad on the forgotten post ultimately posted so late!
Why does the West have to be the one to give up all their leverage for 1 issue that Iran causes? Talks are meant to be multi-lateral.
Reminder that Israel doesn't have any intrinsic hatred towards Iran, it was only after 79 where relations collapsed:
-Iran was the first Middle Eastern Country to recognise Israel
-Iran and Israel had a huge military co-operation, including joint aircraft and joint missile projects together
-Iran was the primary supplier of Oil to Israel
-Iran supplied Israel with supplies, petroleum during the six-day war and the yom kippur war.
-Iran was the first state in the middle East which had an Israeli Embassy and vice versa.
All that changed with the revolution. Overnight all business between the two nations was unilaterally cancelled by Iran and the posture did a complete 180 flip. All ambassadors were expelled and assets in the country seized and all trade stopped.
So the claim that "Iran had no choice," is wrong. There is a choice. It was done before and lasted for nearly 3 decades.
Thanks.
They switched an external dictator for an internal dictator (Iran). The reality is that internal dictatorships always last longer than external dictatorships especially when revolutionary to begin with (though that is almost always lost somewhere along the line). It was a colonial outpost and then became a rather unique revolutionary theocracy (not what the revolution was at the outset, per se) which has its own problems but is easier to accept than the previous iteration.
I'm not one to defend Iran, but its hardly an outrageous shift to decide you don't want any formal ties with a regional pariah state, one that has been for decades massacring, occupying and oppressing native people in the region. Now of course its outrageous to suggest that Iran is some beacon of democracy and human rights, but to decide they're suddenly calling a spade a spade is hardly the 'wrong' choice.
Heck if the UK miraculously did a full 180 tomorrow and decide it wanted nothing to do anymore with the genocidal maniacs and cut all ties effective immediately, that would be praised as the right choice, from a moral standpoint anyway (obviously not from the usual Israeli apologists who would obviously use more scathing and colourful rhetoric to condemn it as some form of submission to Hamas or what have you).
Fake Obama is the fecking worst. All the weirdos and freaks that wanted this piece of shit on the ticket.
So, forgive my ignorance, but did the iron dome effectively protect against these Iranian missile attacks or was there any significant damage done?
But we were discussing from a geopolitical reason and not a moral reason.
The phrasing was that Iran was left with no choice but to go down this route, due to external pressures.
The decision to be anti-Israel was a choice, not a necessity. That choice from a moral perspective is not all that outrageous at all, and I agree with you there. But from a geopolitical perspective, it made little to no sense.
Think of how much resources, money, intl' relations that Iran has burnt trying to oppose Israel, at the cost most of all to its own people.
Because the West has more to lose than Iran that is in the shit. The same could be said with Cuba that has an embargo from the 50s. Oh! Cuba was a great partner with the US before Fidel! Cuba should be the one making the steps. Same land, different regimes
The reality is that regimes like Iran, are not rational and they will not flip 1 day to another if there is not a revolution that reverses what the other revolution did. So far, external pressure hasn't provoked the changed. You can try to invade them a la Iraq or Afghanistan (great results) or try not to put them between a sword and a hard place. You will not strike a great deal at the beginning and I think that delaying or halting the nuclear capabilities is a great beginning for everyone and stop the sanctions that you seem to like so much that only cause suffering to the general population.
You will not strong arm Iran because it had been tried for 40 years. if there is a crevice that can open the country to a collaboration, it should be explored and definitely not go back to an international deal after 4 years to implement it
I mean, immediately after the revolution the US sent Sadam off to war against Iran. Is it even factual, despite Iranian rhetoric, for a very anti-Israeli base, to consider Iran's actions as opposing Israel or as opposing US attempt after attempt to coup the revolutionary regime? It is clearly the latter if we read history with any sense of fact. Israel merely supports these things and as land-based aircraft carrier for the US, is often base of operations (though they have competition these days with the US all over the place in that region).
Actually Cuba is a great example of why unilateral politics sucks - US embargo on it makes 0 sense in any capacity and honestly, they need to pivot from that position. (Just not with stupid UN mandates on it which is silly).
However, you cannot apply Cold War politics to Israel-Iran. There was a lot of political paranoia after the Cuban Missile Crisis, what threat did Israel pose to Iran during the Shah-years?
Cuba was anti-US during the late 50's and 60's because it genuinely had no choice. US were hellbent on toppling the new "Communist" regime.
Iran did not have that same political pressure - Israel were more than happy to deal with the new Iranian regime the same way they dealt with the Shah.
cnut is going to be a cnut. The lying is hard to take. The UK, internally (defense heads), were expecting this event because Iran was goaded into it. It's just fecking malignant gibberish for a population which is constantly bombarded by stupid British warmongering. Still trying to be an empire by taking harder lines on various conflicts than even the US. The UK has become a complete joke.
Sorry, I’m either too thick or too drunk (or both) to understand that response
Can you cite that? Not trying to be a cnut but that just doesn't read well with what I know of that period in time. During and after the Embassy fiasco (and more) are you genuinely saying the Israeli state would break from the US dictate? It's retrospective fantasy.
In the first years of the Shah, Israel did everything it could to try and salvage the relationship.
It even reached the point where: Israel provided Iran weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. They volunteered Mossad operatives in Iran to be commanded by the Ayatollah to help them. Israel also sent 650 IDF officers to Iran to help plan operations, train soldiers and discuss the best strategies.
See above:
For further detailed information
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T01058R000506980002-7.pdf
declassified CIA documents highlights just how far Israel was willing to aid Iran in return for goodwill and to create an anti-Saddam alliance.
In the years where everything was in flux? I mean consider the contra scandal. The US was washing money through Iran despite being "enemies" with it. After the Iranian revolution there was just no chance of Iranian-Israeli normalcy.
Cheers.
The anti-Saddam alliance is hardly surprising (Saddam being more anti-Israeli than the Iranians) but I don't see any way the Israelis do more than that and maintain their American cover.
The document highlights that the Israeli's themselves were aware they were going against US interests.
This is the section in question:
The straits of hormuz will be in flames if this escalates (if any serious attempt is made). Sabre rattling by nations which have nothing directly to lose. Unless these fecking clowns want an actual second front to an already out-of-hand war, which will be disastrous, I have no idea what their rhetoric is about (barring that they've backed themselves into this corner by historical approaches).
A lot the missiles landed, but I'm not seeing any confirmation of anything significant being hit, just speculation about two airfields as a lot of impacts were in the vicinity. Wait and see.
'Iron Dome' is the thing that protects against small rockets, so irrelevant to this kind of attack, that's why the military nerd gave you a weird response
We dunno yet if their other AD systems are crap against ballistic missiles, or if they let them land cos they did the math and calculated they weren't hitting anything.So it's Israel's turn to win stupid prizes it seems.
Pentagon of the day just reiterates my points (and some of yours) and the rest is then history.The document highlights that the Israeli's themselves were aware they were going against US interests.
This is the section in question:
Sorry, not your fault.
Everyone has been banging on about Iron Dome today when it's wholly irrelevant to medium/long range ballistic missile attacks.
My point is simple:
The new regime could have easily maintained cordial relations with Israel and focused its efforts internally but made an active choice not to, despite Israel wanting otherwise.
So the idea that "they were left with no choice" to me, is wrong.
I hate Britain so damn much.
Question.. in the US, are the democrats more pro Israel (likely to join any potential war) or the republicans? or are the both the same?
It doesn't matter which turd stinks more at this point. It's like constipation vs Diarrhea