The Jerusalem Post: "Netanyahu asks IDF to provide 'target options' for Iranian attack - report"
The Jerusalem Post: "Netanyahu asks IDF to provide 'target options' for Iranian attack - report"
According to the report, the targets include an Iranian facility in Tehran or a cyberattack.
According to the report, the targets include an Iranian facility in Tehran or a cyberattack.
In a visit to the Nevatim base on Monday, IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi said that the Iranian attack which was carried out early Sunday morning will be met with an Israeli response, according to Israeli media.
Israel's allies need to apply meaningful pressure to keep this planning from being acted upon. No matter what your position on the Gaza war or support for Israel, another strike against Iran is an avoidable additional escalation with serious risks.
I don't really understand a few things about this conflict.
- What prompted Israel to bomb Iran's embassy in Syria? I know there are tensions between Israel and Iran. I also know that Israel has been targeting Hezbula targets in Syria. Why attack Iranian generals in Syria?
- Why would Israel think that they can attack an Iranian embassy without reprisal?
- Why is Israel acting like the aggrieved party in this instance where they appear to be the aggressor?
- Why does Israel think it is a good idea to add another front to their current conflict? A stronger front than the one they are currently fighting?
Reading between the lines of a lot of the reporting:
Iran has had their shit kicked in by Israel during direct conflict, so they've been funding and training proxies to do their dirty work for ages now.
Israel saw an opportunity. A chunk of the Iranian military brass was in the same place at the same time - and most importantly - were outside of Iran. The catch was that they were meeting in an embassy, so making that meeting go boom would be a no-no. And before you ask yes, that is a technical term.
Figuring that opportunities like this didn't come by very often Israeli brass took the risk and made the meeting go boom. To minimize political damage abroad they didn't officially take credit for the attack. This is a fig leaf, but that kind of thing matters in international relations.
Now all that was left was to deal with the retaliation, which came in the form of a huge missile/drone barrage. While just about everything got intercepted, a few Israeli pilots have been quoted as saying that the volume of incoming fire was greater than anything they'd trained for. Even without significant damage on the ground it was a big deal.
Afterwards, Iran literally said "the issue is settled". No, really. They told everyone that it was time to start climbing back down the ladder of escalation.
So here's the real question: why isn't Israeli leadership just chilling out? Because you don't just get off the ladder of escalation, you climb down off of it. Publicly asking for a list of targets is pretty low key. It sounds scary, but is ultimately of little consequence. Every major player has their target lists already, it's just bluster.
If my assessment is correct the next step is a super public statement made by Iranian leadership condemning Israel (more than usual) and/or releasing some kind of damning intelligence if they have it.
EDIT: Hey, look at that the very next day an Iranian diplomat in London accused Israel of trying to draw the US into a war with them. Looks like they went with the "strong denouncement" route!
That is legitimately one of the most level-headed replies I've read here in the last few months. Kudos.
Two things I want to add:
- one of the two IRGC generals killed helped plan October 7th - one of the semi-official war goals is to kill every person who was involved
- Ignore the amount intercepted - that's not what matters for geopolitics. An equivalent escalation would mean Israel responding with 15,000 ballistic missiles and 30,000 suicide drones
The bombing of the embassy was an escalation. Intentional.
Where you get into theories, is how does Israel benefit from an escalated shooting war? Does it get them international support so that their genocide in Gaza is ignored? Does it get the current incumbent president more time within an emergency context so they don't have to deal with political pressure internally? Fighting external wars to solve internal problems is a traditional tool dictators have fallen upon in the past
I think the genocide gets ignored whether or not they get international support. And I think Netanyahu knows this full well.
Israel and Iran going to war was something everyone pretty much felt was an inevitability one day, so "it's finally happened" covers up genocide quite well.
They want to draw in the us, they have bomb em Biden, acting the victim will cause some people to act like they are one, they want to draw in the us
Iranian generals often instruct and train Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, since they're Iranian proxies. Those same groups continously terrorize Israel.
Iran regularly calls for the destruction of Israel, though generally chooses to fight using their proxies rather than directly attacking Israel. Israel also targets Iranian proxies in Syria on the regular. Why they allegedly hit the Iranian embassy this time, nobody knows. Keep in mind that Israel never officially acknowledged that strike as theirs. People simply assume it because of all of the above.
Except Israel targeted terrorists that were being harbored in that embassy. Has Iran made any statement about the military targets on board that ship?
This you? Yeah, that's you.
Also, Generals aren't terrorists.
Also, this is the weakest justification I've ever read. You do know that the US and the Soviet Union didn't blow up the others embassies during the cold war, right? You do recognize that intentionally bombing embassies was a line that had never been crossed before, right?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
On Monday, The Jerusalem Post reported that within the corridors of Israel's power, a critical internal debate rages on concerning the timing and manner of a response to recent Iranian aggressions.
Iran, with its significant population, vast land, and burgeoning nuclear program, represents not just a transient challenge but a long-term existential threat.
Israeli leaders are thus caught in a strategic bind, balancing the urgency of immediate action to restore deterrence with the risks of escalating into a broader conflict.
Some advocate for swift, decisive action to signal strength, while others urge patience, suggesting that waiting might draw further international support or create more strategic advantages.
The implications of these decisions extend beyond immediate military tactics; they involve intricate geopolitical considerations, factoring in the looming US presidential elections and Israel's political dynamics.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself but recommended a strategic response that avoids direct retaliation.
The original article contains 565 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
@GrymEdm
He chose . . . poorly. :a_thisisfine: