Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic

And here is the anti-Israel view, which essentially argues the exact opposite to the above:

Israel Uses Its Firepower, Far And Wide

Israel recently has been expanding its military attacks across much of the Middle East, hitting multiple countries. The aggressive campaign far outpaces anything any adversaries of Israel have been doing to it, or even trying unsuccessfully to do to it.

Over the past two years Israel has used combat aircraft to conduct scores of attacks in Syria. Israel has stayed silent about most of this campaign of bombardment, but when it speaks it says the targets it hits are associated with Iran. The most recent widening of Israel’s assaults have involved Lebanon, including drone attacks on facilities in suburban Beirut associated with Hezbollah—a departure from the cease-fire established after the last Israeli-Hezbollah war.

The most dramatic geographic widening of the Israeli assault came last month with multiple attacks, reportedly conducted with F-35s, in Iraq—which, of course, does not even border Israel. Among the targets hit was one facility that is 500 miles from Israel but only about 50 miles from the Iranian border.

It is difficult to identify anything being fired in anger in the opposite direction that justifies such an expansive Israeli military campaign. In January of this year, Israel’s missile defense system intercepted a missile heading for the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, but that is about as close as anyone in Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq has come lately to inflicting damage on Israel. Planned or failed attempts to inflict such damage all appear aimed at retaliating for Israel’s own attacks. Israel claimed that sorties it conducted this past weekend in Syria had thwarted an Iranian attempt to launch attack drones against Israel. That claim is unconfirmed, but it is quite plausible that, as suggested by Israeli sources, Iran was indeed planning such an operation to retaliate for the Israeli attacks last month in Iraq. One searches in vain for hostile operations that are unprovoked and not attempted tit-for-tat responses to Israel’s own actions.

The escalated Israeli military campaign exhibits some longstanding attributes of Israeli policies and practices. One is to assert a right to seek absolute security even if that means absolute insecurity for everyone else. The mere possibility of someone harming Israel is taken as sufficient reason to inflict certain harm on someone else. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in commenting on the most recent Israeli operations in Syria, said that Israel “won’t tolerate attacks on its territory.” Evidently that means asserting the privilege of attacking anyone else’s territory, even if those countries have not already attacked Israel.

Domestic politics figures into such matters, in Israel as elsewhere. With an Israeli election looming, Netanyahu has a political reason to use aggressive operations to bolster his image as a tough-minded guardian of Israeli security.

The operations also are part of the larger anti-Iran theme that the Israeli government uses to keep a regional rival weak, preclude any rapprochement between that rival and the United States, blame someone other than itself for all the ills of the region, and distract international attention from subjects involving Israel that Netanyahu’s government would rather not talk about. The Israeli government wants to retain Iran permanently as a perceived threat, loathed and isolated, rather than to negotiate away any issues or problems involving Iran. Netanyahu demonstrated this when, after years of sounding an alarm about a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, he opposed the very agreement that closed all possible paths to such a weapon. His government demonstrated it again this week when it opposed President Trump’s expressed willingness to meet and negotiate with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Israel’s heightened military aggressiveness has multiple bad consequences, in addition to being an affront to the sovereignty of multiple regional states. It pours gasoline on fires in places that need de-escalation, not escalation. It is certain to provoke more attempts at retaliation. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah was quite explicit in promising such retaliation in response to the recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon.

Given the close U.S. association with Israel, the Israeli attacks disadvantage the United States in its own relations with the affected states, in the form of increased resentment and lessened willingness to cooperate with Washington. This type of reaction is appearing today in Iraq, as a result of the Israeli attacks there. The episode has been the occasion for a powerful bloc in the Iraqi parliament to call for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and for shouts of “Death to America” to accompany “Death to Israel” at the funeral of one of those killed in the attacks.

No benefits offset these harmful consequences. It is useful to recall the previous time, before last month, that Israel attacked Iraq: the bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. Far from setting back the Iraqi development of a nuclear weapon, the attack energized and accelerated what until then had been a semi-moribund program. Armed attacks on states have a way of provoking that sort of reaction.

U.S. policy has failed to recognize these realities. Following the attacks in Iraq, the Pentagon did issue a statement—in the course of denying direct U.S. involvement—that “we support Iraqi sovereignty and have repeatedly spoken out against any potential actions by external actors inciting violence in Iraq.” But such mild language will hardly deflect Israel from its present course when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls Netanyahu and, according to the official State Department statement, “expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself from threats posed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and to take action to prevent imminent attacks against Israeli assets in the region.”

It is not just current U.S. policy that fails to recognize realities, but also wider discourse in the United States about troubles in the Middle East. A question that needs to be pondered carefully is, “Who is destabilizing the Middle East?” Stoked by the Trump administration’s own unrelenting campaign of hostility toward Iran, the stock and overly simple answer has been, “Iran.” That is an insufficient answer even when excluding Israel from the picture. And Israel does get excluded, and excused, for the variety of reasons—ranging from religious doctrine and historical legacies to the inner workings of domestic U.S. politics—for the strong U.S. favoritism toward Israel.

It may be too much to ask for consistency rather than hypocrisy in such matters, but the rest of the world easily perceives the hypocrisy. It at least would be honesty to acknowledge that the U.S. approach toward the region has been shaped not by which players are or are not destabilizing the region, but instead by U.S. fondness for some players rather than others.
 
No benefits offset these harmful consequences. It is useful to recall the previous time, before last month, that Israel attacked Iraq: the bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. Far from setting back the Iraqi development of a nuclear weapon, the attack energized and accelerated what until then had been a semi-moribund program. Armed attacks on states have a way of provoking that sort of reaction.

U.S. policy has failed to recognize these realities. Following the attacks in Iraq, the Pentagon did issue a statement—in the course of denying direct U.S. involvement—that “we support Iraqi sovereignty and have repeatedly spoken out against any potential actions by external actors inciting violence in Iraq.” But such mild language will hardly deflect Israel from its present course when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls Netanyahu and, according to the official State Department statement, “expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself from threats posed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and to take action to prevent imminent attacks against Israeli assets in the region.”

It is not just current U.S. policy that fails to recognize realities, but also wider discourse in the United States about troubles in the Middle East


I think it is liberals and the left that do not recognise "reality". The reaity is that the nationalists Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, MbS and Modi are showing remarkable international soidarity when neccessary in order to push their agenda, overturning a century of learned facts/"common sense". This article is living in the "reality-based" paradigm of actions and responses and proportions while the leaders of the world make their own reality. Their opponents (not left-right ideological oppoonents, since the left is dead, but geopolitical enemies) also understand this - Xi and Erdogan, maybe Iran, as examples.

Using power to transform the world fundamentally - that is something the left has forgotten is possible. So we are reduced to blogs about the bad long-term consequences of actions. There will be no bad consequences if you are always stronger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community#Origin

edit- Boris today is another example. He is creating history.
If there is world left to inherit from them, the parliamentary left should study and learn from Mitch McConnell, Boris, and the left in power should learn from Modi, Netanyahu, etc.
 
Last edited:
Just another day on Iranian media:

 
Above posted in this thread because Khamenei has been on a week long Twitter rant posting stuff like this:



while pretending he/Iran has no problem with Jews:

 
Above posted in this thread because Khamenei has been on a week long Twitter rant posting stuff like this:



while pretending he/Iran has no problem with Jews:


Israel is running an apartheid regime against the Palestinians, and their military apparently have a special pleasure shooting civilians, including children. All the tweets of all dictators of this word are not going to change this fact.
 
Just another day on Iranian media:


They are very strange. I don't understand why you'd need to create such cartoons to dehumanise Israelis and paint them as bad guys.

Facts alone do a great job of painting Israel as the bad guy - no need for anti semitism.
 
They are very strange. I don't understand why you'd need to create such cartoons to dehumanise Israelis and paint them as bad guys.

Facts alone do a great job of painting Israel as the bad guy - no need for anti semitism.

Nothing especially strange about it, antisemitism is fundamental to how the Iranian government views the world and the problems it faces.
 
Why is that though? I've never understood it.

To put it very very simply, it’s down to a combination of pre-modern anti-Jewish polemics available in the Islamic (and in the case of Iran more particularly Shi’i) tradition, and the crisis produced by the challenge of Western-led modernity/domination and influence of Western-style antisemitism, all inflamed by the conflict over Palestine. This is a decent enough article which explains it in more depth -https://haitiholocaustsurvivors.wor...an-continuities-and-changes-by-meir-litvak-2/
 
They are very strange. I don't understand why you'd need to create such cartoons to dehumanise Israelis and paint them as bad guys.

Facts alone do a great job of painting Israel as the bad guy - no need for anti semitism.
It's a tactic to factionalise the Sunni population. Iran is aware of the sympathy surrounding the plight of the Palestinians is close to the hearts of most Sunni Muslims and its a division tactic.

Basically, we care more slogan.
 
Israelis have been killing Iranians for years. There'll be a response from Iran but don't expect anything overly dramatic.
 
Israelis have been killing Iranians for years. There'll be a response from Iran but don't expect anything overly dramatic.
I guess it'll be similar to the same tepid response to the US killing Soleimani. A few rockets hitting nothing in particular.
 
The world knows Israel are a bunch of lying cnuts...they won't believe Israel on anything if its kicks off between them and Iran
 

They won't do shit.

They'll keep Israel half busy on their northern border to give the illusion that they somehow didn't (completely) let Hamas and the Gazans down, but the fact is that Nasrallah can't afford an open war, unless Israel crosses the line and really goes at it. Then it's a whole other matter and the region will very likely go in flames.

Until then, it's lip service on every side and Palestininans dying in the hundreds every day without anyone really giving a flying one.
 
The world knows Israel are a bunch of lying cnuts...they won't believe Israel on anything if its kicks off between them and Iran

The Iranian government is no better. It's a shame for the good people in both countries that they are so dominated politically by scumbags.
 
Not even close.

They both murder their own citizens, fight proxy wars across the region, allow the political classes to thieve, make war on the grounds of race and religion, and either have or are pursuing nuclear arsenals...quite a lot of similarities in my book.
 
Not even close.

Israel had 300,000 people on the street protesting its government a few months ago and not a single citizen was murdered by the government.

Islamic Republic regime has murdered tens of thousands of Iranian citizens Over the past 44 years. Just in the last 5 years alone:

1500 murdered in 4 days in November 2019

176 passengers shot down in a civilian airliner January 2020

600 protestors including many women and children murdered during Mahsa Amini protests last year.

They aren’t even comparable. Israel govt at least pretends (and does) value the lives of its own citizens , Islamic Republic doesn’t.

Razi Mousavi and the 11 other IRGCcommanders killed yesterday in Damescus airport can all go to hell.

Lots of Kotlets joining the grand scum bag Kotlet Soleimani in hell :)
 
They both murder their own citizens, fight proxy wars across the region, allow the political classes to thieve, make war on the grounds of race and religion, and either have or are pursuing nuclear arsenals...quite a lot of similarities in my book.

Both are cnuts but one of them has been so for much longer while also causing a lot more suffering in the region.
 
Both are cnuts but one of them has been so for much longer while also causing a lot more suffering in the region.

I thought the ayatollah came in in the 70s? Pretty sure the Israelis have been being cnuts since the 50s.
 
It was terrible but it's hardly comparable to murdering citizens like Iran does.

And we're ignoring the 20,000 dead Gazans. Cool.

I didn't actually say they are identical to Iran, just said there are a lot of parallels between the governments, not the least of which is the colossal amount of blood on their hands all over the Middle East, and the fact that they kill their own people.
 
And we're ignoring the 20,000 dead Gazans. Cool.

I didn't actually say they are identical to Iran, just said there are a lot of parallels between the governments, not the least of which is the colossal amount of blood on their hands all over the Middle East, and the fact that they kill their own people.

You wrote that they both murder their citizens. Israel, for all its faults, does not murder its citizens.
 
You wrote that they both murder their citizens. Israel, for all its faults, does not murder its citizens.

They do though...as I quite adequately demonstrated. I believe it's 1 in 8 Israeli military casualties are believed to be from "friendly fire" too by the by.
 
Didnt they just shoot the hostages? Back a while ago? Thinking they were Hamas?

Indeed. It was a monumental and tragic error. But as you've written yourself - the shooters feared that the hostages were Hamas. It was hardly murder, and not something anyone in the country wanted - or wants to repeat. And it's nowhere near what Iran is doing to its citizens.
 
They do though...as I quite adequately demonstrated. I believe it's 1 in 8 Israeli military casualties are believed to be from "friendly fire" too by the by.

Indeed, there have been instances of friendly fire. Again, how is that comparable to murder or to Iran intentionally killing citizens?
 
Does Iran intentionally kill its own citizens? Death sentences exist, as they do in many countries. Random protests with one or two deaths hardly constitute Stalin's purges either. Uprisings? Well given the long history of American backed coups, of which are there are way too many to even begin listing, any sane government would respond to uprisings with a heavy hand. Outside of Europe and America it's almost a formality.

I'm not talking about death sentences. I'm am talking about authorities killing people on the street, and I believe we're talking about a lot more than one or two deaths.

And that is, in no way, comparable to the accidental killing of hostages.

Israel had plenty of protests this year. Heated ones. No one came close to dying.