Biden's message to Iran about retaliatory strike on Israel: 'Don't'
Biden's message to Iran about retaliatory strike on Israel: 'Don't'
At the same time, he said he expects an Iranian attack "sooner than later."
"Would the U.S. respond?" ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce asked repeatedly as the president walked away after the end of an unrelated event. He paused, thought for a moment and then returned to the lectern.
"We are devoted to the defense of Israel. We will support Israel. We will help defend Israel and Iran will not succeed," he said.
According to one U.S. defense official, the assets being moved to the region include both "ships and aircraft."
You're viewing a single thread.
Big brother Biden standing behind his little brother bullying everyone and making sure they can't hit back.
It really sucks that Joe is hitching his legacy to this shitty government (Israel). I'm guessing this is meant as a general strategy to moderate the conflict leaking out of Gaza. But I can't imagine support for the conflict is still high among US Israelis but I'd have to fact check that. Does Joe need the Jewish vote more than the youth in this election? I just don't get it.
Israel is a pet project of more than 50 years. Noone is going to throw it out on a whim, genocide or not.
A whim?
Thats what i said!
There are two major issues here:
- Israel is a U.S. ally. The United States doesn't just abandon its allies (Republican/Russian recalcitrance regarding Ukraine notwithstanding).
- Israel's current government is being run by a right-wing asshole who decided the appropriate response to Hamas' barbaric attack was to turn barbarism up to 11, with predictable calamitous results for the entire region.
Joe Biden's diplomatic job is to try to prevent things from descending into a full-scale regional war, try to protect Gaza civilians, try to reduce tensions, try to keep Israel as an ally... Notice how some of those have come into contradiction with each other? Yeah. He's trying to thread a very difficult needle.
I'm not saying he's succeeding, either, but he's at least trying.
The US doesn't arbitrarily choose to make and keep allies. Israel represents a huge geopolitical strategic advantage in the region, given its position on the Mediterranean and its proximity to trade routes and oil pipelines. They're willing to put up with an ally committing genocide not just on principle but because they don't actually care about that as much as their own power in the region.
Israel's current government
80% of Israelis support the war in Gaza. Netanyahu is a convenient fall guy to what is a PR nightmare (and nothing more). If tomorrow they vote in a new government, nothing fundamentally changes for Palestinians, except perhaps fewer bombs drop on their heads. They face genocide through Israel's blockade and remain in an apartheid state.
The US has geopolitical interests in the region: that didn't change when Israel went full genocide.
I tried to find backing for that 80% statistic you cited, and couldn't. Could you provide a link? I'd also be interested in the details of how that support breaks down. Is that 80% fully in support of the genocide in Gaza? Or is that 80% support destroying Hamas, while the particulars of the war are much more varied in their support?
I don't disagree but we should be careful with polls. This 80% pole is being spammed everywhere now. If you think back after 9/11 support for the Iraq invasion was high initially then it tapered off. I'm just saying: polls aren't indicative of a sharp picture. I take them as a pulse of the people at a snapshot in time.
Israel was founded on a zionist mission, which has always been in contradiction with the existence and independence of the Palestinian people. I'm not sure I see a reason to doubt a poll showing support for a war against Palestine, except possibly a poll that shows support for the means of that war, but then again that's the US's stance too: they support the war, but disagree with the optics and methods used.
So what? And America was founded on manifest destiny. It doesn't mean Americans born today want to wipe out the native Americans. We can't ascribe the sins of our grandfathers to our children. A great deal of Israeli people were actively against settlements and for a two state solution before Oct 7. This is a fact that has to be contended with and can't be ignored.
America already did wipe out the Native Americans
Try saying this back when western expansion was still happening.
You're missing the point of my comment because you're fixated on the suffering and expansion. I'll repeat myself in case it wasn't clear: we cannot ascribe the sins of the grandfathers to the children. A big percentage of Israeli population already vehemently opposes settlements and expansion.
I'm fixated on the suffering and expansion because it's currently happening
I'm not ascribing the sins of a past generation onto a new one, I'm pointing to the sins of the current generation
Technically America was founded on proto-manifest destiny, fuck britain, and keeping the thirteen colonies from killing eachother and being reconquered
The attack on the Iranian embassy was retaliatory. Iran previously attacked Israel on multiple occasions with missiles that were intercepted by the Iron Dome. Israel attacked the embassy, targeting eight IRGC officers, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, their highest-ranking commander.
That’s why Iran is pissed.
Iran did not attack israel this is twisting facts.
Has America attacked Russia by supplying Ukraine?
An embrassy is not a valid military target to begin with. it's a blatant direct attack.
Umm, that's just factually wrong.
That was in 2018. Things have been tense between the countries ever since.
Edit: Look, I'm not trying to defend Israel, here, I'm just pointing out the truth. Truth is all too often a victim of war, and if we pretend Iran has no history of violence directed at Israel, we do ourselves a disservice.
So this is in retaliation for something that happened 5 years ago? What took them so long?
Linkerbaan said Iran didn't attack Israel. I was just pointing out that Iran actually has a history of attacking Israel, and that Linkerbaan is factually incorrect.
A pretty arbitrary line to draw around 'factually incorrect.'
You could've gone on about Lebanon and Hezbollah too and easily gone back to 2006 without a hiccup, too.
But in this discussion it's pretty obvious the scope is well within the current events of the embassy being struck this month.
Yes, but that was in response to Iran sponsoring groups like the Houthis that have been committing terrorist attacks.
Which, yes, was probably in response to earlier actions by Israel. Which were in response to earlier actions by Iran. Which were...
I mean, you can probably see where that goes. There are no innocent parties in this, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that there are.
Permanently Deleted
Embassy staff in the diplomatic service ARE civilian casualties.
I’m sure Israel thinks breaking international laws are worth it but there’s consequences.
I only read of the seven IRGC military casualties. If there were more, I didn’t know about them.
That’s all the media focused on but it wasn’t an empty embassy on a workday. It’s like how the world media focused on the WCK workers killed in Gaza but ignored the Palestinian drivers who also were killed.
I just read more, and you’re right. I’ll delete my comments. Thank you for prompting me to look for more information.