So we're supposed to believe that Israel is only at this late date "ready to risk (an) all-out war" that it in fact has brazenly and obviously been trying to provoke for months now?
Seriously?
To many Israelis, there is now little to lose: Iran’s efforts to strike the urban sprawl around Tel Aviv crossed a threshold that Tehran has never previously breached, even during its earlier missile attack in April, which targeted air bases but not civilian areas.
Glad to see Israel finally admit that attacking civilian centers is bad.
Also they attacked the Mossad HQ in Tel Aviv. Why is Israel using human shields and its allies are not outraged about this heinous terrorist tactic?
Because they tend to shoot or kill those reporting on it
It doesn't take a genius to see this tit-for-tat is just going to continue and amplify each time. Strike, bigger counterstrike, rinse & repeat. Without a doubt Israel's next strike is likely going to be the biggest we've seen yet.
Honestly, and I don't think it's hyperbole, but I think there is nothing in the current environment that is going to prevent a full-scale total war in the middle east, possibly even beyond that.
I hope I'm wrong.
The US pulling its support might.
We back off, Israel loses a lot of protection it’s just taking for granted.
I think that if the democrats win this election there is a decent chance the US could start slowly pulling support. Right now, democrats have to be rabidly pro Israel or else they will lose the election, since unfortunately pro-Israel groups still hold a lot of influence over our elections
I think that if the democrats win this election there is a decent chance the US could start slowly pulling support.
Why do you think that? Did I miss something perhaps? I haven't seen a hint from democrats during the past year up to now to support this claim. On the contrary, they actively send Israel tones of bombs and money to genocide Palestinians, and no matter what "red lines" the Biden administration puts on the matter, soon after they forget about them. And Harris (if I remember correctly) she said she will continue the same policy.
Right now they have to be pro-Israel since it’s election season and if they do anything less than give another 10 billion to Israel every week, republicans will accuse them of wanting to kill all Jews. After the election passes, there will be a lot less incentive for democrats to continue supporting Israel
I don't understand this logic. You claim that the US is supporting by all means a genocide because it's election year and out of fear of being called antisemites by the republicans? Therefore, after the elections this genocide will not be supported by the democrats anymore?
I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me.
I’m not saying this is what’s definitely going to happen, I’m saying there’s a chance democrats lessen their support for Israel after the election since they won’t have to care about the (depressingly large) influence of pro Israel groups in our elections.
This is what we professionally call "cope"
pro-Israel groups still hold a lot of influence over our elections
I really wonder how much though. They seem content with either losing key swing states or even the election altogether as opposed to downgrading anything with Israel. AIPAC is strong, but surely they must have done vote prediction calculations.
I think the opposite. So far AIPAC is supporting both sides so it has the power to punish and make one side loose over a lack of support for Israel.
This concept needs to break for either party to change their support for Israel. If the Dems win they will understand that opposition to Israels crime is not important as it will not change the outcome, while they still fear AIPAC.
No no no, you don't understand. We're just de-escalating through escalation.
I wish this was /s rather than a direct quote...
This has been going on for decades.
It is a bit scary right now. But odds are one side will blink, make a "statement" attack with little to no casualties, and then things will cool down for another year or so until it ramps up again.
a full-scale total war in the middle east, possibly even beyond that
Who else would enter the war on Iran's side? It doesn't have any powerful allies among the other Middle Eastern countries, which rightly perceive it as an ideological rival and a would-be regional hegemon, and its proxies appear to be doing as much as they can already.
I think Iran is vulnerable because it overplayed its hand. Thus a war now may be better than dealing with Iran as a nuclear power later.
Russia/China/North Korea could provide cash and weapons, and others who want to run down US resources.
I think the lens of a localized, regional war in the Middle East is becoming too narrow. If we're escalating things to the point of America's direct and significant involvement (beyond shooting missiles out of the sky, but rather conducting its own attacks on Iran), then I think Iran's potential allies extend beyond the region as well.
Most likely Russia first, as it's already in a proxy war with the US/West.
Potentially China, but not likely until it's most advantageous for them to do so. Or perhaps they'll enter opportunistically, such as attacking Taiwan if America's Naval might is sent to the Gulf, opening a potential three front war.
The economic connection between these three has continued to grow in recent years, and may be reason enough.
Who else would enter the war on Iran's side?
Maybe Syria, but other than that only its proxies. However, nobody will enter on Israel's side (no middle eastern despot would fight with Israel and survive the week) so yeah.
nobody will enter on Israel's side (no middle eastern despot would fight with Israel and survive the week) so yeah.
Perhaps not directly, but if America steps up it's involvement, they will be relying on their relationships with allies in the region to do so.
I'm not entirely convinced other Arab nations would come to Iran's defense if Israel attacks it. They've been pretty hesitant to respond to Hamas' attempt to ignite a total conflict in the region, which is a very good thing. There's very little chance that the U.S. wouldn't come to Israel's aid if a regional war were to ignite, and everyone in the region knows their combined strength is nowhere near enough to win a war against Israel with the U.S. directly involved. I have hope that the desire for self-preservation will keep the fighting contained. Honestly, the best thing everyone can do now is choose not to fight. Let Bibi's war efforts die out in a sputter so that the Left in Israel can finally get him out of power.
so that the Left in Israel can finally get him out of power.
The Israeli left is a creature about as rare as Bigfoot. Israel simply doesn't have a major pro-peace party right now.
I know this isn't what you mean, but it sounds awfully close to "the best thing the Palestinians and Lebanese can do right now is just eat those punches until Israel tuckers itself out."
Which is quite a take.
An Austrian kept on this kind of “flight forward”s in Europe less than a century ago… it did not end well for millions
Despite media speculation, Israel is not currently planning to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to four Israeli officials, even though Israel sees Iran’s efforts to create a nuclear weapons program as an existential threat. Targeting nuclear sites, many of which are deep underground, would be hard without U.S. support. President Biden said Wednesday that he would not support an attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear sites.
I wonder what the strategy here is, given that the USA also wants to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. Is the implication here that the USA will not enable an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as long as Iran doesn't actually try to build a bomb? How confident are Israel and the USA that Iran can't build a bomb in secret? Is there a way Iran could retaliate against an attack on its nuclear facilities but not against an attack on other major targets?
I think the logic is that an attack on nuclear facilities would be -- and would be perceived by Iran to be -- more substantial. The US accepts that Israel is going to respond but is hoping that Iran won't escalate after the Israeli retaliation because they don't want war. They'd be less willing and, maybe, unable to back down after an attack on nuclear facilities.
A big part of it is that we can't be certain they don't already have nukes (or dirty bombs). And removing their nuclear capability is the kind of existential threat that leads to "Fuck it, we ball" levels of counterattacks.
Its comparable to using very measured responses against russian aggression.
They already have uranium levels enough to be dirty. Just strap it to a missile and wait to aim it so that it rains over during the right wind once the iron dome destroys it.
The USA us probably confident, Israel just needs it as a existential threat.
Stuxnet and their targeted assassinations of Iran's scientists seem to have made their efforts unfeasible for the foreseeable future. They have the enrichment cylinders, but they can't keep both the infrastructure and research safe from constant attacks, which makes progress very difficult since it is very expensive both materially and in knowledge. They likely can't break past 20% enrichment which is useless for a bomb.
For reference the technology was supposedly smuggled/provided by Pakistan, and they did it covertly in about 6-9 years, which also apparently upset Mossad because they thought Pakistan would get involved in the middle east.
I don't think that Israelis en masse want a a war with Iran, but Bibi appears to.
Bibi just wants war. Whatever keeps him out of jail
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/world/middleeast/iran-missile-attack-israel-war.html
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/