As I mentioned earlier, this was because the alternative was Israel fully aligning with the PRC in the 1990s-2000s.
During the 1980s-90s, Israel scrapped the IAI Lavi program and transferred it's IP to the Deng administration [0][1]. This was the precursor of the J-XX program which spawned the J-10, JF-17, and J-20. This continued until 2005 [2].
Saudi Arabia did the same thing in the 1980s as well, working with the PRC on the Dongfeng program and helping formalize the Pakistan-China relationship [3].
Even Israel's nuclear, jet fighter, and submarine program was due to a similar technology transfer Gaullist France did in the 1950s-60s [4] in order to retain strategic autonomy against the US and an ally to protect it's access to the Suez Canal in what became the Suez Crisis [5].
On the other hand, the US successfully prevented similar attempts by South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s-80s.
The Cold War was a crazy time.
Edit: can't reply
> we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing"
We turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia financially supporting Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1981 [6] as well as stopped India from striking Pakistan in 1981 [7]. This was what has been the core of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's mutual defense agreement for decades [3].
We could have stopped Saudi and Pakistan like we stopped Taiwan back then [8], but we didn't.
> the Zionist colony
Not a fan of that framing.
There was no reason for Iraqis to commit the Farhud, Imam Yahyi mandating all Yemeni Jews either convert to Islam or leave Yemen, Morroccans to commit the Oujda and Jerada riots, Libyans to commit the Tripolitania pogrom, and other instances in the Arab world that forced millions of Mizrahis to uproot and move to Israel in the 1940s. Israel's population has been heavily Mizrahi since those exoduses.
Similarly, Ashkenazim and Sephardim from Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans wouldn't have left for Israel in the 1930s-40s if those states didn't collaborate in the HOLOCAUST.
There was a chance for normalization in the 2000s - especially under Shimon Peres - but the rise of Hamas ended that.
> There was a chance for normalization in the 2000s - especially under Shimon Peres - but the rise of Hamas ended that.
You mean in the 90s, but the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin ended that, no? The Likud called for his death.
And the Hamas rise has the same roots of the IRGC. Marxists against religious fundamentalists during elections, of course the US support and fund the religious fundamentalists (through Irak for one, through Israel for the other), and 10 years later everybody's surprised when fundamentalists are crazy and attack for no reason.
We give Israel money because of lobbying and blackmail, there was never any valid interest in the US supporting the Zionist colony. You'll note that we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing".
There were plenty of other alternatives, starting with sanctions against Israel and followed with military action. The boomer generation's support for Israel created a very odd relationship that was entirely one way. Younger generations will certainly reverse this.
That does not count the money we've spent fighting their wars. We could have cut that off and sanctioned them at any time if they worked against our interests. Israel's strategy has been to compromise US leadership to stop this from happening, and until recently it was successful at that.
And as I mentioned, there are other alternatives like sanctions against Israel and military action against Israel. It's a tiny country, 100% reliant on outside support to exist. The US has always had the ability to end Israel.
> Edit 2: @Dang - Flagging is not meant to be used as a downvote.
Sure, but complaining about downvotes is against the guidelines, and @replies are not a way to get moderator attention. The way to get moderator attention (including asking for flags to be reviewed) is to email hn@ycombinator.com.
Repeatedly posting the same sentence as a way of protesting or attracting attention is poor conduct in a community like this, and makes it harder for moderators to help you.
Interesting that Iran has started using cluster munition missiles to strike Israel. Apparently Iran, Israel and US are some of the few countries that haven't signed the international convention banning cluster munitions. Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
It’s because it’s one of the only things that effectively can hit Israel.
They release the submunitions at much higher altitudes than they were intended so they spread across a much larger area and thus ineffective at hitting anything other than an urban target.
But on the plus side for the Iranians they separate outside of the interception envelope of even the exo atmospheric interceptors Israel has so they actually get through even if each sub munition is only a nuance at best.
You also have the large number of countries that sign treaties, then just ignore them. Iran is an example of a nation that signs UN treaties, then openly boast about violating them.
Iran signed the human rights treaties ... and openly executes gays and minors. They boast about this publicly.
> are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.
No such country exists. So long as enemies are likely to put boots, wheels, or tracks on the ground in your country, landmines are extremely useful, extremely cheap, and extremely effective.
The point is that almost all of the signatories considered themselves to be immune to a "real war" in their futures at the time they signed. E.g. basically all of the European signatories assumed that the end of the cold war and existence of NATO would ensure the end of any possible threat. Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
> Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
Doubly so, since they understood themselves to be backed up by a non-signatory (the US).
They are attacking close friends who literally harbor the armies attacking Iran.
The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend.
> The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend
If only they attacked the American bases as opposed to also attacking civilian infrastructure such as oil facilities and residential neighborhoods
If only they had skipped gulf countries who had pushed the US not to strike and refused to let the US use their bases to attack Iran (all of them)
If only they hadn't attacked countries without any bases such as Azerbaijan
Then I think your arguments would have had more merit
They've attacked many US bases. They've also retaliated against US/Israeli business interests when the US/Israel did the same to Iran. Iran is waging a very strategic war and quite a moral one I might add. They even gave evacuation orders to Tel Aviv neighborhoods they were targeting military installations in.
Moral? Hm. From a moral POV this would be about who has the right to terrorize the Iranian population: the Iranian government or the US/Israel government.
They've attacked everyone they possibly could with ZERO regard for anything. They attacked Cyprus! They've attacked Turkey. They've attacked Afghanistan (are you seriously going to claim Afghanistan is harboring the US army?) They've attacked everyone they possibly could attack, zero exceptions.
Next time all the gulf countries will know: get America and everyone else to launch attacks against Iran from your soil. Make sure to participate. Why? Iran will attack everyone regardless of alliances, who attacks, whether anyone attacks at all, what bases exist, whether or not they participate, or whether they avoid hostilities. So obviously, it's better to be part of the hostilities against Iran, to have an army on your soil that will protect at least some of your territory.
They're attacking US/Israel assets in all of those countries. It's effective too, the US is pulling out and showing that they are not a reliable ally. Just today the US told all US citizens to leave Iraq.
The US is keeping aircraft in allied bases in Cyprus, and a permanent one in Turkey. Haven’t seen anything about Afghanistan. Iran’s attacks make sense to some degree.
You probably meant Azerbaijan, which is the only country without US assets that Iran attacked (once, then apologised, and explained that the losses in the military leadership created special issues with the military orders, which, fair).
Where are you getting that 95% number from? Given that Trump has announced multiple times that the US has "won the war", I don't see how that could possibly be credible. Iran continues to launch successful attacks against Israel and Israel/US assets across the entire region.
Previously I had seen 95% somewhere else but cannot find the link, but that's close enough.
The reason why this is credible is Iran is limited by its amount of launchers, and Israel is very effective at destroying these. With complete air superiority and drones flying over, it's very easy to spot the heat signature for a launcher.
Add to that the launchers that were effectively buried at the start of the war when the openings to Iran's underground missile storage facilities were bombed.
Actually no, Iran's missiles aren't that accurate and if you count those that disintegrate on the way, hit open areas or are intercepted you get very few missiles that are able to hit from the very few that are launched.
This can be seen in much less overall damage than the 12 day war or the death count which is lower
Like I said, Iran just hit Tel Aviv again. They do this every day in addition to destroying Israeli/US assets across the Middle East. There has been no slow down, despite Trump announcing nearly every day that Iran has been defeated. The western media is shambles trying to spin the reality of the situation.
As far as I can tell what you see today in your link is a fire caused by the pieces that fall after a successful interception, these are not as dangerous as an actual missile, as they lack a warhead, especially for Israelis that are indoors while in alarms.
In any case, you are arguing something else. It is a fact that the number of ballistic missiles Iran is capable of launching had fallen sharply, this is very easy to see by the reduction of alarms in Israel, which is served by an open API. You are arguing whether missiles ever hit.
Because Iran ability to launch had fallen sharply, less Israeli citizens are hurt and less interceptors are needed. This is also progressive, as the days pass, Iran loses more and more launchers and is less capable of launching more missiles. Therefore even in the unlikely event of an Israeli interceptor crisis, the situation is rather favorable to Israel
I hope they have their Cuito Cuanavale[1] moment and follow the steps of South Africa in replacing their own version of the apartheid regime with democracy.
Then it was a very strange choice to go to war with a neighbor that's known to have massive stockpiles of missiles.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first. In fact, I would make it my mission to be the world recognized leader in diplomacy.
> Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first.
Such a nice thought. I wonder why they didn't do it? They must just be a bad, warmongering people. Oh wait, almost forgot...
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since. Originally, relations were relatively cordial during the first three decades of Israeli independence, and saw close partnership between the two countries. However, following the revolution, Iran adopted the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state as a core component of its foreign policy.[1] The Iranian government refuses to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a state, calling for its destruction. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations)
Oh wait, the other side is though, so that justifies everything. Convenient.
> The Iranian government
Yet when you drill down to actual public opinion the picture is more complicated. It's almost as if you tried something you could have a measurable impact there. Political pressure has been known to change regime positions before.
You might even consider showing Palestine some extremely inexpensive good will as a softening gesture towards opening dialog directly with Iran. The great part of diplomacy is you can actually say the quiet part out loud without shame as you work towards peace. "We're changing our policy on Palestine as a means of opening dialog with Iran." Now you have international pressure on your side as well.
You seriously believe Israel has conducted good-faith diplomatic endeavors for decades? A history of terrorattacks and extrajudicial killings in neighboring countries and even European[1] countries tell a different story.
So wait ... you're going to use terror attacks and extrajudicial killings in foreign countries as an argument to defend Iran? Iran is responsible for the civil war in Lebanon, and thus for at least hundred thousand dead in extrajudicial killings. So your argument, even if we accept everything as 100% true ... Iran is at least 1000x more guilty than Israel. Or just take [1] ...
So it seems strange to use this as an argument to defend Iran. Bad faith, even.
As for diplomacy: Iran signs treaties ... then just refuses to uphold them. For example, Iran signed, then pretty openly violated it's nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations [2], same with the famous nuclear deal.
But, even where it comes to pretty basic things: Iran signed the human rights treaties, including the Geneva convention, and hangs gays and minors as a matter of course (according to amnesty #1 worldwide with hundreds of minors executed, and actually increasing the rate over time), attacks religious minorities, women, the government has a side business in kidnapping foreignors ...
Or other treaties. Iran signed freedom of navigation treaties, and has for decades violated them. Hell, Iran violates the international telecommunications union treaty.
The problem: Iran cannot be negotiated with, for the simple reason that they do not respect deals they make. There's no point in negotiating since their behavior does not change when they make deals. They make promises, and ignore them. They sign treaties, and boast openly about violating them.
Is continuing to apply extreme violence against these enemies likely to lead to a good result? What is the end state?
I think we are fast approaching an era where weapons of mass destruction, by way of cheap killbot swarms, are trivially accessible to any government. Without radical diplomacy, I fear the entire Middle East -- Israel included -- is on a path to annihilation.
That only works against nation states. After what Israel have done in Gaza there's thousands of people who have lost family in a gruesome way and now have an axe to grind against Israel. This way it'll never stop.
The best way to prevent terrorism is to not give people reasons to want you dead.
Look at all the ethnic conflicts in the world. Like the troubles in Ireland. Did that stop because one side threw more bombs? No, it stopped because both sides agreed to talk.
Really? Because there's extensive counterexamples in both directions ...
Europe attacked and even persecuted the Germans (with reason) for WW2. Tens of millions of victims. Neither side wants the other dead. US and Japan? Same. Most of these countries are allies.
Israel has never even had much business with Indonesia, and only little with India. Yet a large number of Indonesians want to kill all Jews (not just Israeli) and Indians largely support Israel, even in war. Or take Lebanese. Despite Israel attacking them many times and giving them plenty of "reasons to want them dead", if you talk to actual Lebanese, most population groups (in fact the ones that suffered the most) want normal relations with Israel. It seems they blame some other party, even for the deaths directly at the hands of Israel ...
So, none of these situations fit your theory. It's very obvious that the issues Israel has with a great many countries have nothing to do with "giving them reasons to want you dead". By contrast, there are countries who've given each other far better reasons to hate ... and yet don't want each other dead.
In fact, I have trouble finding an example of nations that want to attack each other because of such a historical situation. Hell, the history of China and Japan for the last millenium is one of each nation taking turns conquering and terrorizing the other and yet ... the only fear Japanese and Chinese have is the communist party suddenly deciding to conquer some country and attack, which every Japanese and Chinese person is secretly 100% certain will be a total disaster, for China as a whole AND for them personally.
And that gives the real reason behind conflicts: one party thinks they can just take what they want, and attacks, usually for ideological reasons. Sometimes they're right, mostly they're wrong.
Not OP, but: peace between Germany and the rest of the West required a) millions slaughtered in war, b) an obvious big bad who got killed, c) relatively lenient and merciful occupation for years, and ultimately d) waiting for the Nazi generation to die out. I'm sure sharing a common cultural background helped a lot, too. And maybe a collective sense of optimism about the post-war world.
I don't see many common elements with the situation in Gaza (and now Iran). A policy of "mowing the grass" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass) will never lead to stability or warm and fuzzy feelings towards Israel.
My point was that Germans were killed by the millions too, by just about everyone ... and no attacks. Nobody is predicting any attacks by Germans either. And there's 100s of examples of such conflicts with every variable you could possibly want. We have the problem that nobody wants to face: terror attacks are a choice by the group that uses them, and the vast majority of groups just don't, including under far worse circumstances than this particular group.
EVEN where you do see terror attacks, there are large differences. The IRA, for example, went out of it's way to avoid hitting children and hospitals. By contrast, Palestinians really, really try to go after children and the sick. In fact the IRA made big efforts, sometimes outright stupid, to go after military bases or politicians involved in the situation they wanted to change, and to avoid everyone else. They have apologized, without being asked, to unintended victims. They have even given up some of their own members who "went too far". And, of course, given a way out, they choose to take it. The IRA was a lot closer to someone like Luigi Mangione than they are to the PLO. The explanation? We all know it but it's forbidden to say: ideology.
Even restricting to Israel itself. Israel has had to defend itself a lot, and the situation is not at all what the GP predicts. It's not the case that every group that got attacked wants to commit terror acts against Israel, in fact it's really just 1 group (or 2 if you consider them separately). And it's not even Palestinians! The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are in Jordan, and not attacking Israel at all. It's Palestinians living under state sponsored terror groups, it's very large amounts of Palestinians, a bunch of supposedly Lebanese but really Syrians, and Yemenites. The Palestinians paid originally by the Soviets, now the UN, the rest as well as Palestinians now paid by Iran. And paid A LOT, on a large scale. The terror attacks are a mercenary army, bought and paid for, and the only God they believe in is not allah but the true, undeniable almighty: Thomas Jefferson on a green background.
I am told it goes this far: a foot soldier for Hamas in Gaza makes more than a hospital director makes in Egypt. The unemployment benefits in Gaza are 3 times a normal wage in Egypt. And this in a part of the world that has >90% unemployment. THAT explains some things, doesn't it?
Hence the explanation that countries/groups/... attack because they want to steal something and think they can get it through brute force, not because of actual grievances, is the only explanation that I find even remotely fits.
Defeating an enemy to the extent that they can't drive a truck full of AI killbots into a busy city center is an impossible task barring a scorched earth approach. And if that option is on the table -- killing millions to secure Israel's future -- then Israel seals its fate regardless.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.
Non-Israelis also have people that can afford truckfuls of slaughter bots that would kill them if they could, so since Israel is cooked, we are all cooked, right?
State-level groups in the same physical vicinity that have blood feuds and generational grievances against each other are quite possibly cooked, yes. I sincerely hope this can be preempted through diplomacy, but the prognosis is not good. The depopulated, fiber-laced front lines of Ukraine set the stage for all future war and terror.
You DO realize how absurd this is. Iran isn't exactly subtle about its hatred for Israel and desire to destroy it and funding of the "Axis of Resistance".
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since.
Iran severely persecutes Baha'is with bans on higher education, employment, and imprisonment. The Iranian government often labels unrecognized religious minorities as "heretics" or "apostates," subjecting them to harassment and violence.
That's the plan in both Lebanon and Iran. Send out an initial impulse and steady stream of drones and ballistic missiles to expend expensive interceptors that take a long time to make. Make it seem like the traditional launch capability and stockpiles are low. After that time, Iran and/or Lebanon maintain an option to ready and launch underground-stockpiled Shaheeds and similar from improvised launchers on the back of pickup trucks and trailers by the hundreds/thousands to obliterate US bases and major Israeli cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv. That's the most likely scenario should Iran/Lebanon decide escalation would be essential for existential defense.
Keep in mind who pays for the replacements - U.S. Citizens to the tune of $317.9 billion over the last 70 years [1].
https://taxpayersforpeace.org/
When you put it that way it seems pretty cheap.
> pretty cheap
What exactly are you buying with that money, to know it's cheap?
When you put it that way, sounds like they should be able to take care of themselves and not need the US to help fight their battles for them.
As I mentioned earlier, this was because the alternative was Israel fully aligning with the PRC in the 1990s-2000s.
During the 1980s-90s, Israel scrapped the IAI Lavi program and transferred it's IP to the Deng administration [0][1]. This was the precursor of the J-XX program which spawned the J-10, JF-17, and J-20. This continued until 2005 [2].
Saudi Arabia did the same thing in the 1980s as well, working with the PRC on the Dongfeng program and helping formalize the Pakistan-China relationship [3].
Even Israel's nuclear, jet fighter, and submarine program was due to a similar technology transfer Gaullist France did in the 1950s-60s [4] in order to retain strategic autonomy against the US and an ally to protect it's access to the Suez Canal in what became the Suez Crisis [5].
On the other hand, the US successfully prevented similar attempts by South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s-80s.
The Cold War was a crazy time.
Edit: can't reply
> we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing"
We turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia financially supporting Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1981 [6] as well as stopped India from striking Pakistan in 1981 [7]. This was what has been the core of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's mutual defense agreement for decades [3].
We could have stopped Saudi and Pakistan like we stopped Taiwan back then [8], but we didn't.
> the Zionist colony
Not a fan of that framing.
There was no reason for Iraqis to commit the Farhud, Imam Yahyi mandating all Yemeni Jews either convert to Islam or leave Yemen, Morroccans to commit the Oujda and Jerada riots, Libyans to commit the Tripolitania pogrom, and other instances in the Arab world that forced millions of Mizrahis to uproot and move to Israel in the 1940s. Israel's population has been heavily Mizrahi since those exoduses.
Similarly, Ashkenazim and Sephardim from Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans wouldn't have left for Israel in the 1930s-40s if those states didn't collaborate in the HOLOCAUST.
There was a chance for normalization in the 2000s - especially under Shimon Peres - but the rise of Hamas ended that.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/12/world/israel-selling-chin...
[1] - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-28-mn-13774-...
[2] - https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
[4] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000271219.pdf
[5] - https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/97179.htm
[6] - https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/01/18/Saudis-reportedly-wi...
[7] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0005403744
[8] - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-0...
> There was a chance for normalization in the 2000s - especially under Shimon Peres - but the rise of Hamas ended that.
You mean in the 90s, but the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin ended that, no? The Likud called for his death.
And the Hamas rise has the same roots of the IRGC. Marxists against religious fundamentalists during elections, of course the US support and fund the religious fundamentalists (through Irak for one, through Israel for the other), and 10 years later everybody's surprised when fundamentalists are crazy and attack for no reason.
We give Israel money because of lobbying and blackmail, there was never any valid interest in the US supporting the Zionist colony. You'll note that we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing".
[flagged]
There were plenty of other alternatives, starting with sanctions against Israel and followed with military action. The boomer generation's support for Israel created a very odd relationship that was entirely one way. Younger generations will certainly reverse this.
[flagged]
The US has given over $300B to Israel since its creation: https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-foreign-aid-does-the-u...
That does not count the money we've spent fighting their wars. We could have cut that off and sanctioned them at any time if they worked against our interests. Israel's strategy has been to compromise US leadership to stop this from happening, and until recently it was successful at that.
[flagged]
And as I mentioned, there are other alternatives like sanctions against Israel and military action against Israel. It's a tiny country, 100% reliant on outside support to exist. The US has always had the ability to end Israel.
> Edit 2: @Dang - Flagging is not meant to be used as a downvote.
Sure, but complaining about downvotes is against the guidelines, and @replies are not a way to get moderator attention. The way to get moderator attention (including asking for flags to be reviewed) is to email hn@ycombinator.com.
Repeatedly posting the same sentence as a way of protesting or attracting attention is poor conduct in a community like this, and makes it harder for moderators to help you.
Interesting that Iran has started using cluster munition missiles to strike Israel. Apparently Iran, Israel and US are some of the few countries that haven't signed the international convention banning cluster munitions. Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
It’s because it’s one of the only things that effectively can hit Israel.
They release the submunitions at much higher altitudes than they were intended so they spread across a much larger area and thus ineffective at hitting anything other than an urban target.
But on the plus side for the Iranians they separate outside of the interception envelope of even the exo atmospheric interceptors Israel has so they actually get through even if each sub munition is only a nuance at best.
> Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
Estimated around 4 million of them against south Lebanon:
https://imeu.org/resources/key-issues/quick-facts-israels-il...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/02/16/flooding-south-lebanon...
Countries tend to sign munition restrictions when they don't use those munitions or are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.
The map of countries which sign the convention against landmines is extremely obvious in that context.
You also have the large number of countries that sign treaties, then just ignore them. Iran is an example of a nation that signs UN treaties, then openly boast about violating them.
Iran signed the human rights treaties ... and openly executes gays and minors. They boast about this publicly.
> are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.
No such country exists. So long as enemies are likely to put boots, wheels, or tracks on the ground in your country, landmines are extremely useful, extremely cheap, and extremely effective.
The point is that almost all of the signatories considered themselves to be immune to a "real war" in their futures at the time they signed. E.g. basically all of the European signatories assumed that the end of the cold war and existence of NATO would ensure the end of any possible threat. Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
> Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
Doubly so, since they understood themselves to be backed up by a non-signatory (the US).
which is exactly why european countries threatened by russia are starting to withdraw from the treaty, five had recently announced so
On the other side, iran's launch capability had fallen by 92% since the start of the war
https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-889435
Iran is actually attacking their former close friends at the gulf uninvolved civilian population centers more often than it attacks Israel
EDIT: fixed to 92%
They are attacking close friends who literally harbor the armies attacking Iran.
The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend.
> The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend
If only they attacked the American bases as opposed to also attacking civilian infrastructure such as oil facilities and residential neighborhoods
If only they had skipped gulf countries who had pushed the US not to strike and refused to let the US use their bases to attack Iran (all of them)
If only they hadn't attacked countries without any bases such as Azerbaijan
Then I think your arguments would have had more merit
They've attacked many US bases. They've also retaliated against US/Israeli business interests when the US/Israel did the same to Iran. Iran is waging a very strategic war and quite a moral one I might add. They even gave evacuation orders to Tel Aviv neighborhoods they were targeting military installations in.
Strategic? Yes.
Moral? Hm. From a moral POV this would be about who has the right to terrorize the Iranian population: the Iranian government or the US/Israel government.
Iran is running around like a headless chicken, they gravely miscalculated their capabilities in 2024 and are paying the price ever since.
Israel uses human shields for their bases? Imagine that.
[flagged]
They've attacked everyone they possibly could with ZERO regard for anything. They attacked Cyprus! They've attacked Turkey. They've attacked Afghanistan (are you seriously going to claim Afghanistan is harboring the US army?) They've attacked everyone they possibly could attack, zero exceptions.
Next time all the gulf countries will know: get America and everyone else to launch attacks against Iran from your soil. Make sure to participate. Why? Iran will attack everyone regardless of alliances, who attacks, whether anyone attacks at all, what bases exist, whether or not they participate, or whether they avoid hostilities. So obviously, it's better to be part of the hostilities against Iran, to have an army on your soil that will protect at least some of your territory.
They're attacking US/Israel assets in all of those countries. It's effective too, the US is pulling out and showing that they are not a reliable ally. Just today the US told all US citizens to leave Iraq.
> They're attacking US/Israel assets in all of those countries.
What US/Israel assets are in Afghanistan?
> Just today the US told all US citizens to leave Iraq.
Isn't that pretty standard practice when there's a war on?
The US is keeping aircraft in allied bases in Cyprus, and a permanent one in Turkey. Haven’t seen anything about Afghanistan. Iran’s attacks make sense to some degree.
> Haven’t seen anything about Afghanistan.
Yeah, that's because about the Taliban took it over about 5 minutes after the US left Afghanistan a few years ago. It was a complete mess.
to all degrees
Iran didn't attack Afghanistan.
You probably meant Azerbaijan, which is the only country without US assets that Iran attacked (once, then apologised, and explained that the losses in the military leadership created special issues with the military orders, which, fair).
Actually Iran denied it attacked Azerbaijan, even though countries around the region know due to radar data.
Also an Iranian cell was caught planning an attack on an oil pipeline in Azerbaijan.
Previously two years ago Iran had attacked Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation. The only thing clear here is what would be the result of a nuclear Iran
Iran rejects attacking Cyprus and Turkey. Like, they clearly have no issue taking responsibility when they want to.
So you really can’t say with that level of confidence if they’ve hit those.
Where are you getting that 95% number from? Given that Trump has announced multiple times that the US has "won the war", I don't see how that could possibly be credible. Iran continues to launch successful attacks against Israel and Israel/US assets across the entire region.
For example here from March 10 detailing a progressive decline by 92% in ballistic missiles https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-889435
Previously I had seen 95% somewhere else but cannot find the link, but that's close enough.
The reason why this is credible is Iran is limited by its amount of launchers, and Israel is very effective at destroying these. With complete air superiority and drones flying over, it's very easy to spot the heat signature for a launcher.
Add to that the launchers that were effectively buried at the start of the war when the openings to Iran's underground missile storage facilities were bombed.
https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat...
Launch numbers are not an indicator of launch capacity fwiw.
Iran’s fewer launches are now hitting their targets more.
Actually no, Iran's missiles aren't that accurate and if you count those that disintegrate on the way, hit open areas or are intercepted you get very few missiles that are able to hit from the very few that are launched.
This can be seen in much less overall damage than the 12 day war or the death count which is lower
Jpost is an Israeli propaganda outlet not a credible source. In fact Iran just hit Tel Aviv again.
That's hardly true, but sure try this one or just google yourself
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/global-affairs/iranian...
Like I said, Iran just hit Tel Aviv again. They do this every day in addition to destroying Israeli/US assets across the Middle East. There has been no slow down, despite Trump announcing nearly every day that Iran has been defeated. The western media is shambles trying to spin the reality of the situation.
https://x.com/MintPressNews/status/2032983767430664447
As far as I can tell what you see today in your link is a fire caused by the pieces that fall after a successful interception, these are not as dangerous as an actual missile, as they lack a warhead, especially for Israelis that are indoors while in alarms.
In any case, you are arguing something else. It is a fact that the number of ballistic missiles Iran is capable of launching had fallen sharply, this is very easy to see by the reduction of alarms in Israel, which is served by an open API. You are arguing whether missiles ever hit.
Because Iran ability to launch had fallen sharply, less Israeli citizens are hurt and less interceptors are needed. This is also progressive, as the days pass, Iran loses more and more launchers and is less capable of launching more missiles. Therefore even in the unlikely event of an Israeli interceptor crisis, the situation is rather favorable to Israel
Imagine believing that.
Nothing that saying they're sorry for being offensive and seeking a peace deal can't fix...
[flagged]
How many arms has the US sent Israel? Why do you believe only one side is responsible for this conflict?
[flagged]
Don't worry. The USA needs to maintain the Petro Dollar so this war will go on until Iran is rubble like Gaza.
The Gulf States are finished.
I.e. time American tax dollars to save the day!
I hope they have their Cuito Cuanavale[1] moment and follow the steps of South Africa in replacing their own version of the apartheid regime with democracy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale
[flagged]
I consider Iran to be led and inhabited by indigenous people and not foreign colonizers.
Iran was violently colonized by Arabs between 633 and 651
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
[flagged]
Islam is a religion. The people of Iran are indigenous to Iran.
Is the implication that someone can't dislike both?
[flagged]
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
Then it was a very strange choice to go to war with a neighbor that's known to have massive stockpiles of missiles.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first. In fact, I would make it my mission to be the world recognized leader in diplomacy.
Arrogance, and using war to avoid consequences for personal bad behavior of the leader.
> Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first.
Such a nice thought. I wonder why they didn't do it? They must just be a bad, warmongering people. Oh wait, almost forgot...
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since. Originally, relations were relatively cordial during the first three decades of Israeli independence, and saw close partnership between the two countries. However, following the revolution, Iran adopted the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state as a core component of its foreign policy.[1] The Iranian government refuses to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a state, calling for its destruction. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations)
> I wonder why they didn't do it?
"We tried nothing and it didn't work."
> They must just be a bad, warmongering people.
Oh wait, the other side is though, so that justifies everything. Convenient.
> The Iranian government
Yet when you drill down to actual public opinion the picture is more complicated. It's almost as if you tried something you could have a measurable impact there. Political pressure has been known to change regime positions before.
You might even consider showing Palestine some extremely inexpensive good will as a softening gesture towards opening dialog directly with Iran. The great part of diplomacy is you can actually say the quiet part out loud without shame as you work towards peace. "We're changing our policy on Palestine as a means of opening dialog with Iran." Now you have international pressure on your side as well.
Do you honestly believe Israel hasn't done that for decades?
You seriously believe Israel has conducted good-faith diplomatic endeavors for decades? A history of terrorattacks and extrajudicial killings in neighboring countries and even European[1] countries tell a different story.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair
So wait ... you're going to use terror attacks and extrajudicial killings in foreign countries as an argument to defend Iran? Iran is responsible for the civil war in Lebanon, and thus for at least hundred thousand dead in extrajudicial killings. So your argument, even if we accept everything as 100% true ... Iran is at least 1000x more guilty than Israel. Or just take [1] ...
So it seems strange to use this as an argument to defend Iran. Bad faith, even.
As for diplomacy: Iran signs treaties ... then just refuses to uphold them. For example, Iran signed, then pretty openly violated it's nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations [2], same with the famous nuclear deal.
But, even where it comes to pretty basic things: Iran signed the human rights treaties, including the Geneva convention, and hangs gays and minors as a matter of course (according to amnesty #1 worldwide with hundreds of minors executed, and actually increasing the rate over time), attacks religious minorities, women, the government has a side business in kidnapping foreignors ...
Or other treaties. Iran signed freedom of navigation treaties, and has for decades violated them. Hell, Iran violates the international telecommunications union treaty.
The problem: Iran cannot be negotiated with, for the simple reason that they do not respect deals they make. There's no point in negotiating since their behavior does not change when they make deals. They make promises, and ignore them. They sign treaties, and boast openly about violating them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_diplomat_terror_plot_t...
[2] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...
You failed to mention that Iran violated the deal only after Trump withdrew the US from it...
Its hard to negotiate with Iran when Israel keeps killing their negotiators.
I think Israel is fighting for its survival against enemies that would absolutely destroy it if they could.
Not to worry. If Israel's extinction is at risk that's when BB will use nukes.
That's the rationale for Israel's aggressive behavior anyway. Find it increasingly hard to believe.
Is that not true of literally every country on Earth? It's just a question of how they do it.
Is continuing to apply extreme violence against these enemies likely to lead to a good result? What is the end state?
I think we are fast approaching an era where weapons of mass destruction, by way of cheap killbot swarms, are trivially accessible to any government. Without radical diplomacy, I fear the entire Middle East -- Israel included -- is on a path to annihilation.
I think it can be as simple as if you defeat your enemy first, they can’t defeat you or continue to threaten you.
That only works against nation states. After what Israel have done in Gaza there's thousands of people who have lost family in a gruesome way and now have an axe to grind against Israel. This way it'll never stop.
The best way to prevent terrorism is to not give people reasons to want you dead.
Look at all the ethnic conflicts in the world. Like the troubles in Ireland. Did that stop because one side threw more bombs? No, it stopped because both sides agreed to talk.
Really? Because there's extensive counterexamples in both directions ...
Europe attacked and even persecuted the Germans (with reason) for WW2. Tens of millions of victims. Neither side wants the other dead. US and Japan? Same. Most of these countries are allies.
Israel has never even had much business with Indonesia, and only little with India. Yet a large number of Indonesians want to kill all Jews (not just Israeli) and Indians largely support Israel, even in war. Or take Lebanese. Despite Israel attacking them many times and giving them plenty of "reasons to want them dead", if you talk to actual Lebanese, most population groups (in fact the ones that suffered the most) want normal relations with Israel. It seems they blame some other party, even for the deaths directly at the hands of Israel ...
So, none of these situations fit your theory. It's very obvious that the issues Israel has with a great many countries have nothing to do with "giving them reasons to want you dead". By contrast, there are countries who've given each other far better reasons to hate ... and yet don't want each other dead.
In fact, I have trouble finding an example of nations that want to attack each other because of such a historical situation. Hell, the history of China and Japan for the last millenium is one of each nation taking turns conquering and terrorizing the other and yet ... the only fear Japanese and Chinese have is the communist party suddenly deciding to conquer some country and attack, which every Japanese and Chinese person is secretly 100% certain will be a total disaster, for China as a whole AND for them personally.
And that gives the real reason behind conflicts: one party thinks they can just take what they want, and attacks, usually for ideological reasons. Sometimes they're right, mostly they're wrong.
Not OP, but: peace between Germany and the rest of the West required a) millions slaughtered in war, b) an obvious big bad who got killed, c) relatively lenient and merciful occupation for years, and ultimately d) waiting for the Nazi generation to die out. I'm sure sharing a common cultural background helped a lot, too. And maybe a collective sense of optimism about the post-war world.
I don't see many common elements with the situation in Gaza (and now Iran). A policy of "mowing the grass" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass) will never lead to stability or warm and fuzzy feelings towards Israel.
My point was that Germans were killed by the millions too, by just about everyone ... and no attacks. Nobody is predicting any attacks by Germans either. And there's 100s of examples of such conflicts with every variable you could possibly want. We have the problem that nobody wants to face: terror attacks are a choice by the group that uses them, and the vast majority of groups just don't, including under far worse circumstances than this particular group.
EVEN where you do see terror attacks, there are large differences. The IRA, for example, went out of it's way to avoid hitting children and hospitals. By contrast, Palestinians really, really try to go after children and the sick. In fact the IRA made big efforts, sometimes outright stupid, to go after military bases or politicians involved in the situation they wanted to change, and to avoid everyone else. They have apologized, without being asked, to unintended victims. They have even given up some of their own members who "went too far". And, of course, given a way out, they choose to take it. The IRA was a lot closer to someone like Luigi Mangione than they are to the PLO. The explanation? We all know it but it's forbidden to say: ideology.
Even restricting to Israel itself. Israel has had to defend itself a lot, and the situation is not at all what the GP predicts. It's not the case that every group that got attacked wants to commit terror acts against Israel, in fact it's really just 1 group (or 2 if you consider them separately). And it's not even Palestinians! The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are in Jordan, and not attacking Israel at all. It's Palestinians living under state sponsored terror groups, it's very large amounts of Palestinians, a bunch of supposedly Lebanese but really Syrians, and Yemenites. The Palestinians paid originally by the Soviets, now the UN, the rest as well as Palestinians now paid by Iran. And paid A LOT, on a large scale. The terror attacks are a mercenary army, bought and paid for, and the only God they believe in is not allah but the true, undeniable almighty: Thomas Jefferson on a green background.
I am told it goes this far: a foot soldier for Hamas in Gaza makes more than a hospital director makes in Egypt. The unemployment benefits in Gaza are 3 times a normal wage in Egypt. And this in a part of the world that has >90% unemployment. THAT explains some things, doesn't it?
Hence the explanation that countries/groups/... attack because they want to steal something and think they can get it through brute force, not because of actual grievances, is the only explanation that I find even remotely fits.
Defeating an enemy to the extent that they can't drive a truck full of AI killbots into a busy city center is an impossible task barring a scorched earth approach. And if that option is on the table -- killing millions to secure Israel's future -- then Israel seals its fate regardless.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.
Non-Israelis also have people that can afford truckfuls of slaughter bots that would kill them if they could, so since Israel is cooked, we are all cooked, right?
State-level groups in the same physical vicinity that have blood feuds and generational grievances against each other are quite possibly cooked, yes. I sincerely hope this can be preempted through diplomacy, but the prognosis is not good. The depopulated, fiber-laced front lines of Ukraine set the stage for all future war and terror.
A nation fighting for its survival doesn't randomly escalate by attacking a much bigger enemy.
Instead, we frequently see it from dictators with a delusion of grandeur.
Iran attacked Israel directly twice, they are the ones which both escalated and miscalculated their position in the region.
You mean Iran miscalculated... by thinking they have any power to annihilate or even seriously hurt Israel?
Well, that's what I've been saying!
They had to power to hurt Israel, but after 2 large scale attacks Israel decided to take it away from them.
"randomly escalate"?
You DO realize how absurd this is. Iran isn't exactly subtle about its hatred for Israel and desire to destroy it and funding of the "Axis of Resistance".
[flagged]
Since its inception, Israel has waged war and acts of terror on all of its neighbors (and much of the rest of the world).
Do you honestly believe they did?
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations
that's untrue by the way, Israel sold weapons to Iran and supported it with intelligence against Iraq after 1979
I am certainly not defending Iran, but one of their gripes had merit. Israel’s illegal annexation and settling of land that wasn’t theirs.
And their policy of overlooking violence against the previous inhabitants. Genocide slow burn.
So I don’t know what good any diplomacy could have been in that context.
Iran severely persecutes Baha'is with bans on higher education, employment, and imprisonment. The Iranian government often labels unrecognized religious minorities as "heretics" or "apostates," subjecting them to harassment and violence.
> Genocide slow burn.
So slow it's going backwards.
Israel killed Irans negotiators just last year. How can you be this deluded.
[dead]
Neighbor?!
Next door? No. In the neighborhood? Undoubetly.
"Iran is close to nuclear device, diplomacy doesn't work, should we attack?" -"no, we don't have enough interceptors. let them become nuclear."
That's what your logic sounds like
Diplomacy did work, they stopped and had regular IAEA inspections.
Good. Perhaps they will pay the ultimate price and face irreversible consequences that are decades overdue.
Iran will quite soon.
That's the plan in both Lebanon and Iran. Send out an initial impulse and steady stream of drones and ballistic missiles to expend expensive interceptors that take a long time to make. Make it seem like the traditional launch capability and stockpiles are low. After that time, Iran and/or Lebanon maintain an option to ready and launch underground-stockpiled Shaheeds and similar from improvised launchers on the back of pickup trucks and trailers by the hundreds/thousands to obliterate US bases and major Israeli cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv. That's the most likely scenario should Iran/Lebanon decide escalation would be essential for existential defense.
Sounds like they only went into this with concepts of a plan
Let's send them thousands of tiny violins.
[dead]
[dead]