Israel warns ‘Tehran will burn’ as Iran fires drones and missiles in response to Israeli strikes
Israel warns ‘Tehran will burn’ as Iran fires drones and missiles in response to Israeli strikes
Israel launched an expanded assault on Iran on Sunday while Tehran unleashed a fresh barrage of missiles.
Israel’s defense minister warned Saturday that “Tehran will burn” if Iran continues firing missiles, as the two countries traded blows a day after Israel launched a blistering surprise attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing several top generals.
Israel’s military said the strikes also killed nine senior scientists and experts involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s U.N. ambassador said 78 people were killed and more than 320 wounded.
Iran retaliated by launching waves of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, where explosions lit the night skies over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and shook buildings. The Israeli military urged civilians, already rattled by 20 months of war in Gaza sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, to head to shelter for hours. Health officials said three people were killed and dozens wounded.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't know what to think anymore. I hate both these regimes. Bibi told the Iranian people to rise up against their government, and I...agreed with him? I am a child lost in the woods right now.
Bibi told the Iranian people to rise up against their government, and I...agreed with him?
Well, consider how similar regime changes have gone in recent history. Instability, failed states, mass terrorist organization. It's not impossible to get a better outcome if Iran's regime is overthrown, but odds aren't on their side. And then you have the actions of Bibi when this sort of thing happened in Syria - taking territory, bombing them, despite their pleadings for peace. None of this is good for getting a stable democratic governance as societies under threat go authoritarian to be able to act more quickly and efficiently in order to protect themselves. So while on the surface you might agree with Bibi, if you think about what that actually means, Bibi might want something else than that. Another failed state they can bomb if they feel any threat without repercussions because "terrorism" could be a lesser threat than a democratic economic and inevitably military power with much larger population that can wipe Israel if attacked.
Hmm, you make good points.
One side is a signatory to a nuclear nonproliferation agreement who is trying to create a nuclear energy program for civilian energy, under watchdog guidance for 40+ years.
The other side is Israel. A nation committing a genocide, with the full backing and support of another nation, the US, who itself is the only nation, in the history of the world, to use nuclear weapons. Ever.
You might be forgetting the part about about the Iranian regime being a violent, repressive theocracy that jails, tortures, and executes dissenters, treats women like state property, rigs every election, and bankrolls terrorism just to cling to power
were you speaking about Iran or the US? It’s hard to tell.
Yes
Maybe it's both.
It’s both
regime being a violent, repressive theocracy that jails, tortures, and executes dissenters
That's pretty much like Israel?
Pretty much. They are also an awful regime. Everyone is fucking awful and the world sucks.
Almost as if two thing can be shit at the same time
One of the things I hate about this is that an all out war will just solidify power and make it harder for the Iranian people to topple this leadership. A shared enemy will distract from the importance of antagonizing the regime.
That's a very good point. It's an awful thing. But a very good point. Maybe they will rise up though? Fingers crossed 😬
One side is a signatory to a nuclear nonproliferation agreement who is trying to create a nuclear energy program for civilian energy, under watchdog guidance for 40+ years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mg7kx2d45o
In a confidential report seen by the BBC, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran now possesses over 400kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity - well above the level used for civilian purposes and close to weapons grade, and a near 50% increase in three months.
You can support Iran, their right to nuclear weapons (then deal with the inevitable proliferation to SA), right to self defense and even the influence it seeks as the leader of the middle east, but please don't be naive or play others for fools.
a near 50% increase in three months.
This makes sense. I recall thinking after Israel's previous attack and dismantling Hezbollah that if I were the Ayatollah, I'd now be going full speed towards a nuclear weapon test, as that's the only thing that can secure my regime's survival and by extension the stability of the country (in whatever state it exists). After the last attack, that pressure is that much higher.
It's a great tool to blackmail other nuclear powers to be responsible for your own state's stability against your own fuckups e.g. Pakistan, fall of the USSR and Ukraine, NKorea, putin now. Nobody wants a messy state collapse, they can't look away and risk losing nukes or letting them fall in the wrong hands.
Which on the whole I think is a good thing since we've seen that significant instability often affects most of us.
Iran should if they so desire have weapons too. After all, the US and Israel do. Two nations who are doing crimes live in front of our eyes.
For the record, pun intended, “confidential report” means “no evidence.” Remember the Gulf of Tonkin?
There is no such thing as a preemptive strike when Israel has no articulated reason to believe Iran was going to harm them. Iran, by rights written in that silly UN, has the RIGHT to strike back defending itself.
Israel wants a larger war because that gaslights the greater nations into conflict, destroys more working class people, and brings about greater profit for Israel’s owners.
All nations are bad. Do not get that wrong.
But Israel, not even truly a nation, is a fucking terrorist organization.
Sure, but don't pretend it's just for civilian nuclear power, that's all.
A) There is no second source verifiable proof it’s for weapons. Only “super secret promises of proof” by the same people that printed claims hamas has bunkers under hospitals.
B) They should have weapons. After all, Israel does.
C) There have been no indications of testing, something verifiable and easily seen, something necessary to make weapons.
If you think they should have the weapons, why are you so reluctant to believe that they are trying to build them? Pick a lane:
A) Iran would never attempt to build nuclear weapons.
B) Iran has a duty to build nuclear weapons.
PS: btw, I haven't made my mind up on whether they should have the right to them or not (if Pakistan/Israel can have them, these guys can too I guess, but that's too late to fix now), but I bet that all UNSC members and most countries in the UN breathed a sigh of relief at what Israel did (it's just less shit to deal with), even if it was illegal and everyone did their usual theatric posturing for and against the attack.
I think both can be true. It start with one, then US withdraw from an agreement, thanks to Trump, and now trust in the US government specifically after the escalated genocide in Gaza, will be down and they have to Build it to protect themselves.
You can't hold both at the same time, especially as they're arguing that Iran couldn't possibly be building nukes at this point by suggesting that the BBC reference to the report must be false. What you are saying is that Iran is justified in switching from A to B, which I can understand.
Why do you mention “duty”? there is no obligation. I simply mean that they are a state capable of deciding their own path.
B) They should have weapons. After all, Israel does.
How does that describe duty in the form of obligation?
e.g. "You should pick up the trash."
https://www.politico.eu/article/trumps-anti-iran-push-boosts-a-royal-outcast-reza-pahlavi-shah/
Officials wondered whether Trump should record a dramatic video message congratulating the Iranian people on their new year. The twist? Trump would appear alongside an Iranian royal who lives quietly in the Washington area: Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the country’s late shah, the U.S.-allied leader toppled during Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.
this is why we can't have nice things...the US keeps making the same mistake and expecting different results...
They both suck, but one is receiving billions of dollars in aid from the US every year.