ITN: Israel

[1pooh4u]

 

2 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

The drone attack could take up to 9 hours to actually get to its targets.

Lots of questions if this is it, or if Iran will also launch missiles at Israel to hit at the same time as the drones.

Missiles were seen flying over Iraq so yeah they probably did. Saw it about 20 minutes ago.  This is fucked. This could lead to a world war. Idw us involved in this shit even though we kinda already are but jfc we should’ve put a stop to this decades ago

[Master-Debater131]

 

[Master-Debater131]

5 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

 

Missiles were seen flying over Iraq so yeah they probably did. Saw it about 20 minutes ago.  This is fucked. This could lead to a world war. Idw us involved in this shit even though we kinda already are but jfc we should’ve have put a stop to this decades ago

I dont think it will be a world war. Iran already put out a statement essentially saying they were "done". So now we just have to wait and see what happens. The damage will dictate any Israeli response.

[Master-Debater131]

US Jets have apparently been intercepting Iranian drones over Syria and Jordan.

 

Jordanian Air Force is also in their skies shooting stuff down.

 

The RAF (UK) is also apparently in the skies shooting stuff down as well. The UK is denying this, but British press is reporting it.

Edited April 13 by Master-Debater131

[Master-Debater131]

So this is pretty unusual. Previous attacks against Israel from Iraq and Iranian proxies have tried to avoid Jerusalem as much as possible. The risk of hitting the Al-Aqsa mosque was simply too great to shoot stuff over Jerusalem.

[1pooh4u]

17 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I dont think it will be a world war. Iran already put out a statement essentially saying they were "done". So now we just have to wait and see what happens. The damage will dictate any Israeli response.

Idk even if damage is minimal Israel will probably respond

[Master-Debater131]

Just now, 1pooh4u said:

Idk even if damage is minimal Israel will probably respond

Oh they absolutely will respond. That response is just going to be dictated by this attack. If the attack does little to no damage then Israel probably responds by putting a missile into a drone factory or two. Maybe hit a proxy ammo dump in Syria. But not a whole lot more than some superficial attacks.

If the attack is more extensive than we currently think then things get interesting. Israel said earlier this week that they would explicitly target Iranian nuclear facilities if Irans attack was extensive. That likely caused Iran to delay their attack because the intelligence all said that the attack would happen earlier this week.

[1pooh4u]

I’m definitely not as excited about this as you are.  More people are going to die or starve or get hurt and wish they were dead 

[ghostrek]

 

Apparently there's going to be a Counter-Strike somewhere I know that Israel allegedly has nuclear deterrence so I don't know if they would be using theirs and yes they can strike Iran supposedly they have submarine launch missiles not ballistic missiles but some kind of cruise capability that can be used with nuclear warheads

[Master-Debater131]

40 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I’m definitely not as excited about this as you are.  More people are going to die or starve or get hurt and wish they were dead 

Your mistaking excitement for anxiety.

[1pooh4u]

Injury reports coming in from Israel a 10 yo child is among the first injured 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/medics-treating-first-injury-from-iran-attack-a-10-year-old-boy-from-bedouin-town-of-arad-in-serious-condition/

[1pooh4u]

1 minute ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Your mistaking excitement for anxiety.

My apologies 

[Master-Debater131]

1 minute ago, 1pooh4u said:

My apologies 

Its OK. they can appear similar through a screen. You dont have a hookup to my HR monitor lol. Its telling me to breathe

Ide be lying if I said I wasnt super anxious over this. This could easily spiral into something really really bad.

[Master-Debater131]

Saudi Arabia has also been involved in shooting down Iranian drones and missiles.

You read that right.

Saudi Arabia has been helping defend Israel.

[Jman]

Looking this over, it seems ceremonial.  They want to make a big ruckus and kill some people, but they gave enough time and notice to avoid it being a declaration of war.

[Jman]

1 minute ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Saudi Arabia has also been involved in shooting down Iranian drones and missiles.

You read that right.

Saudi Arabia has been helping defend Israel.

The Saudis have no reason to want the region to descend into hell.  If the fighting is kept contained, so will the consequences.

[Icarus27k]

 

 

 

 

[scoobdog]

13 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Saudi Arabia has also been involved in shooting down Iranian drones and missiles.

You read that right.

Saudi Arabia has been helping defend Israel.

Saudi Arabia is mortal enemies with Iran, so they would, naturally, assist any operation that diffuses an Iranian attack.

[Master-Debater131]

3 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Saudi Arabia is mortal enemies with Iran, so they would, naturally, assist any operation that diffuses an Iranian attack.

Sure, to an extent. SA and Israel have been working to normalize ties, but this is a step beyond that.

[ghostrek]

Paper gun people saying Israel will do something but militarily what they can do and I don't mean they can't really do a long-range strike to Iran from Israel without causing the whole Middle East to go up in flames but you know there mossad  but I mean there's nothing it's not like they can put troops on the the ground on large scales they can pull off some thing like  the  Raid on Entebbe

[Icarus27k]

 

 

 

 

 

[scoobdog]

On that, this whole thing has unfolded in slow motion, which brings up a few points.  Iran had to have anticipated the response given the unusually long time between announcing it would retaliate and the actual retaliation. Not that I want more innocent people to die, but it doesn’t seem effective to delay the actual air strike unless there’s another purpose. 

[Jman]

1 minute ago, Icarus27k said:

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully.  Ego is the kicker here.

[Icarus27k]

3 minutes ago, Jman said:

Hopefully.  Ego is the kicker here.

Yeah, I meant to put a sentence in that post that was something like, "sounds like someone is an optimist". 

[Icarus27k]

It seems Israel got help in defending itself from the U.S., U.K., France and probably some other nations that don't want to be identified. 

[Icarus27k]

 

 

 

[Icarus27k]

[Icarus27k]

Oh thank glob. I was really worried about this.

 

 

 

 

[naraku360]

7 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I dont think it will be a world war.

You're the last person anyone wants to make this prediction.

Spoiler

It's because you keep getting everything wrong, in case you couldn't figure out why.

 

[Top Gun]

If only one of the damn things had fallen on Netanyahu's head we might get somewhere.

[MasqueradeOverture]

9 hours ago, Icarus27k said:

Oh thank glob. I was really worried about this.

 

*proceeds to donate an entire warhead arsenal*

[Icarus27k]

9 minutes ago, MasqueradeOverture said:

*proceeds to donate an entire warhead arsenal*

 

Surprisingly, Israel's long-range airstrike capability is limited. They only have one type of missile that could reach that far. I'm not sure a direct Israeli air attack on Iran would work without the U.S.'s help.

 

U.S. military aid to Israel has been about defensive operations like what we saw yesterday. 

I understand the outrage over Israel's war is Gaza but I still support giving air defense aid to Israel.

[ghostrek]

8 hours ago, naraku360 said:

You're the last person anyone wants to make this prediction.

  Hide contents

It's because you keep getting everything wrong, in case you couldn't figure out why.

 

I agree with that it's less likely this would start World War 3 in comparison to say Taiwan or Russia attacking Poland head on I do not suggest anyone do such things but speakingly yeah we are kind of obligated to defend them more than we are obligated the  state of Israel

[ghostrek]

Just now, ghostrek said:

I agree with that it's less likely this would start World War 3 in comparison to say Taiwan or Russia attacking Poland head on I do not suggest anyone do such things but speakingly yeah we are kind of obligated to defend them more than we are obligated the  state of Israel

Plus Israel since 1947 has the best Victory to defeat ratio then any other country on the planet. One day Say Never Again they do mean never again

[André Toulon]

🤯

[1pooh4u]

Israel is reporting one casualty a 7 yo Bedouin girl.   She’s probably the same person that was the “10 year old boy” of earlier reports because it was a Bedouin Village or neighborhood that was hit. 
Edit- there was a 10yo boy injured and a 7 yo girl killed, both from the Bedouin Village. 
 

hopefully this is the end of it 

Edited April 14 by 1pooh4u
Correction

[Master-Debater131]

14 hours ago, scoobdog said:

On that, this whole thing has unfolded in slow motion, which brings up a few points.  Iran had to have anticipated the response given the unusually long time between announcing it would retaliate and the actual retaliation. Not that I want more innocent people to die, but it doesn’t seem effective to delay the actual air strike unless there’s another purpose. 

Israel is saying that they intercepted 99% of the missiles and drones. Iran telegraphed this for a few days, so the slow motion attack likely was the point. They can use it for internal propaganda purposes, while the rest of the world looks at it like the impotent attack that it was.

This was the "escalation without escalating" option.

[scoobdog]

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Israel is saying that they intercepted 99% of the missiles and drones. Iran telegraphed this for a few days, so the slow motion attack likely was the point. They can use it for internal propaganda purposes, while the rest of the world looks at it like the impotent attack that it was.

This was the "escalation without escalating" option.

The only thing I can think of to explain this is that Iran needed to retaliate, but still can’t afford an all out war with the West.  That in turn suggests that their alliance with Russia isn’t offering the resources it promised.

[Icarus27k]

Just like with the Ukraine war, there are a dime-a-dozen "experts" from think tanks and academia that people should completely ignore because they have no idea what they are talking about. 

 

I just skimmed one opinion from a guy affiliated with a foreign policy think tank who was complaining about the U.S.'s supposed lack of deterrence toward its enemies, who he then helpfully listed as Russia, Hamas, the Houthis and Iran. He did this with complete confidence, placing all those very different things in the same basket.

Hamas and the Houthis and closer to terrorist organizations than states. Deterrence isn't a thing with terrorist groups. I don't think 9/11 was a sign the U.S. failed to deter al-Qaeda. They just attack. 

The recent actions of Hamas specifically doesn't even apply to the U.S. They attacked ISRAEL randomly on Oct. 7, 2023, not the U.S. 

But do those nuances matter to Mr. Foreign Policy Expert. No. He just kept on with his premise. 

[Master-Debater131]

5 hours ago, scoobdog said:

The only thing I can think of to explain this is that Iran needed to retaliate, but still can’t afford an all out war with the West.  That in turn suggests that their alliance with Russia isn’t offering the resources it promised.

Thats exactly what this was. They cant afford a full blown war with Israel, let alone with Israel + some combination of the US and other Western nations. They still had to do something though. So they launched a bunch of slow moving missiles and drones, and Israel + others took them out. Iran gets to say they attacked Israel, and Israel gets to say their missile defense system is impenetrable.

[scoobdog]

35 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Thats exactly what this was. They cant afford a full blown war with Israel, let alone with Israel + some combination of the US and other Western nations. They still had to do something though. So they launched a bunch of slow moving missiles and drones, and Israel + others took them out. Iran gets to say they attacked Israel, and Israel gets to say their missile defense system is impenetrable.

Israel is in a fairly weak position without its big brothers, but it’s immaterial given that everyone besides Israel and the Palestinians treats this as a proxy war… and that includes the United States.  The whole point of telegraphing the missile barrage is to see how the US deploys its defense system and who it gets to sign on for the operation.  Russia isn’t going to be of any help and China has no interest in getting involved, so who does the US get for their side?

TheIranians are inviting the West into the region with this operation, but that might have benefits for the Palestinians.  It potentially puts American air forces in the region and makes it more difficult for the IDF to use their aerial attacks as capriciously.  It also diffuses the powder keg on the northern border.  We’ll see if this eventually pushes everyone toward a ceasefire.

[Master-Debater131]

 

Community Notes is such an amazing feature.

 

If it doesnt come through when this embeds, the notes say that she is one of 14 Republicans who voted against a stand-alone Israel bill.

[1pooh4u]

Just a friendly reminder that Current Events, while allowing for some passionate “fuck off” replies, still has a civility bar.  It’s lower than General Discussion but higher than Thunderdome.  Going forward any “stfu” or “fuck off” reply must include counterpoints to the points that are being disagreed with. 

Edited April 15 by 1pooh4u
English is hard

[Icarus27k]

Flashback: Saddam Hussein's Iraq used to randomly attack Israel with missiles in the 90s. 

So there is at least some precedent on how Israel can handle this. 

[1pooh4u]

Israel is planning to retaliate against Iran they’re readying their war planes.  It’s as though they want a world war retaliation isn’t necessary.  Israel killed a high ranking Iranian general hitting an embassy in the process. Iran responded and the response was mostly ineffective thanks to the US UK and SA. This seems so unnecessary 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/latest-world-leaders-urge-israel-retaliate-iranian-drone-109232836

[discolé monade]

5 hours ago, Icarus27k said:

Flashback: Saddam Hussein's Iraq used to randomly attack Israel with missiles in the 90s. 

So there is at least some precedent on how Israel can handle this. 

yes, it's called remind the u.s. that they're in it for the long haul. 

they put a ring on it, in the 11th hour, for better or worse baby....

[Winter_Rain]

On 4/13/2024 at 7:09 PM, Jman said:

The Saudis have no reason to want the region to descend into hell.  If the fighting is kept contained, so will the consequences.

Tbh it seems to me that no one --- and I do mean NO ONE --- wants this conflict or for it to escalate except for like, a very small number of players, namely Israel and Hamas leadership.  

The big boys (US, Russia, China, etc) don't want it.  Smaller regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia (and I would say Iran too) don't want it.  The Arab states definitely don't want it.  

Palestine is an internal PR issue for a lot of Muslim countries in particular, but actual war or intervention about it?  None of them have indicated that they're willing to fall on their swords for this, and I can't say I entirely blame them.  It's a fragile region and most MENA countries are focused on their own development, have dictatorships, have dealt with major conflicts or internal conflicts recently, etc.

[Winter_Rain]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:00 PM, scoobdog said:

The only thing I can think of to explain this is that Iran needed to retaliate, but still can’t afford an all out war with the West.  That in turn suggests that their alliance with Russia isn’t offering the resources it promised.

I don't know if it's a matter of "can't afford an all out war"... I'm not convinced Iran is even seriously interested in one in the first place.  

They like proxy wars and do a lot of dick waving to save face but an actual hot war where you send your army somewhere else instead of keeping them at home is a totally different thing.  (The last time they were involved in an all out war, hundreds of thousands died and it was defending their own territory).  

The current regime has had to put down multiple major internal protests within the last decade.  Iran's population is discontented.  They're going to do actions to maintain a strong image, but they have to be careful.   They're in a tenuous geopolitical position with multiple unstable neighbors, multiple regional rivals/potential threats nearby and have seen multiple nearby regimes collapse or face serious internal conflicts.  

So an "all out war"...?  No, I think it's the last thing they want.  It's possible of course, but I think they'll try hard to avoid it tbh.  

[Winter_Rain]

On 4/14/2024 at 2:46 PM, Icarus27k said:

Just like with the Ukraine war, there are a dime-a-dozen "experts" from think tanks and academia that people should completely ignore because they have no idea what they are talking about. 

 

I just skimmed one opinion from a guy affiliated with a foreign policy think tank who was complaining about the U.S.'s supposed lack of deterrence toward its enemies, who he then helpfully listed as Russia, Hamas, the Houthis and Iran. He did this with complete confidence, placing all those very different things in the same basket.

Hamas and the Houthis and closer to terrorist organizations than states. Deterrence isn't a thing with terrorist groups. I don't think 9/11 was a sign the U.S. failed to deter al-Qaeda. They just attack. 

The recent actions of Hamas specifically doesn't even apply to the U.S. They attacked ISRAEL randomly on Oct. 7, 2023, not the U.S. 

But do those nuances matter to Mr. Foreign Policy Expert. No. He just kept on with his premise. 

Sounds like a typical US-centric geopolitical analysis to me.  

There's a specific type of "expert" that pretty much centers everything that happens in the world around the US (or sometimes "the West" more broadly).  Usually it's "USA bad, anyone against USA good" type stuff but there are also ones who just try to make everything US-centric in general.  

While the US is a big player obviously, I personally have a hard time taking people like that seriously because such shallow views strip the autonomy of human beings and ignore all nuance.  (And all history too, like --- most of the world has personal histories with each other that have nothing to do with the US at all, they have their own internal movements, they have their own mindsets and cultures, not every single thing in the world has to be blamed on or tied to the US somehow).  

[scoobdog]

7 minutes ago, Winter_Rain said:

I don't know if it's a matter of "can't afford an all out war"... I'm not convinced Iran is even seriously interested in one in the first place.  

They like proxy wars and do a lot of dick waving to save face but an actual hot war where you send your army somewhere else instead of keeping them at home is a totally different thing.  (The last time they were involved in an all out war, hundreds of thousands died and it was defending their own territory).  

The current regime has had to put down multiple major internal protests within the last decade.  Iran's population is discontented.  They're going to do actions to maintain a strong image, but they have to be careful.   They're in a tenuous geopolitical position with multiple unstable neighbors, multiple regional rivals/potential threats nearby and have seen multiple nearby regimes collapse or face serious internal conflicts.  

So an "all out war"...?  No, I think it's the last thing they want.  It's possible of course, but I think they'll try hard to avoid it tbh.  

Afford doesn’t mean just financially, it means overall capability.  In the simplest possible terms, Iran would not be able to defend itself if it got into open conflict with the US without the backing of Russia and (probably) China.  They don’t have the manpower, the technologically advanced weaponry, the financial backing, or the regional alliances to sustain their integrity outside of their own borders, and that’s no better exemplified by the assassination that precipitated this.  Ultimately their isolation puts them in the unenviable situation of needing to essentially play a very high stakes bluff.