Like I said, I'm not confident of that. But I'm not confident of anything Iran says either. I don't trust Israel and I don't trust Iran. Neither government has given me reason to.
I wonder if we will ever find out the truth about anything either of them have done so far in this particular recent conflict they're involved in with each other.
Iran made it clear that if the attack was contained, than they would let it be. If not, then they retaliate.
If they do intend to retaliate, I don't expect it happening before the election. They know these kinds of things help Trump and the last thing they want is a Trump presidency.
My problem is that I don't trust Israel's claim that this was precise and I also don't trust Iran's claim that if it is contained, they won't retaliate.
I don't think they said they would not retaliate against a limited attack though that might end up being the case depending on the nature and scale of the damages.
If Israeli strikes — a response to a barrage of missiles from Iran earlier this month — inflict widespread damage and high casualties, they said, Iran will retaliate. But if Israel limits its attack to a few military bases and warehouses storing missiles and drones, Iran might well do nothing.
The officials said Ayatollah Khamenei had directed that a response would be certain if Israel strikes oil and energy infrastructure or nuclear facilities, or if it assassinates senior officials.
They made the terms clear. Now we see if Israel abides by them. My guess is no.
Iran's General Staff of the Armed Forces said in a statement carried by state media that any Israeli response would be met with "vast destruction" of Israeli infrastructure.
I believe the Iranian ambassador said something of the same vein at the UN security council meeting as well. Either way I still agree that they likely wont respond to this type of limited strike as things currently stand.
When in history a colonized power was stopped without ton of civilians dying because of the colonizer refusal for peace? Are you telling me that for example that India shouldn't have resisted the British empire because 100 millions Indian died? I wish there was a world where peace happen without sacrificing a single person, but that's not the reality.
The Usa and other allies won't stop supporting Israel politically and military, Palestine can't beat Israel alone, it need support from other countries . I don't hear people calling for not escalating against Russia and rightfully so. Both Israel and Russia are occupiers.
Yes Iran doesn't really care about Palestinians but their interests align with supporting armed groups against Israel
You don't seem to get it. There won't be a Palestine if this war keeps escalating. Because Iran will annihilate it along with Israel.
Believe it or not, Palestine doesn't have a giant radiation shield.
Also, the idea that millions of dead Israelis and Iranians even if nukes aren't used is worth it because of Palestine is extremely ethically messed up.
No what I'm saying is the only option right now for palestinians and countries that have interest in a weaker Israel is to use armed struggle . Even with tactical nuke, it's not possible to nuke Gaza without having a huge effect on Israeli land.
I'm still waiting for your answer for what's is preventing Israel from destroying Palestine completely right now.
Believe it or not, I am not privy to Israeli military policy. I do, however, understand how radiation works and I also understand that advocating for killing more people than a genocide has already killed to stop the genocide is supremely ethically messed up.
Would you also say that every single Israeli should be killed to stop the genocide in Gaza? Do you think a good solution to stop a genocide is a different genocide?