213
submitted 6 months ago by Alsephina@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

Iranian military chief says overnight attack ‘achieved all its goals’, adding that US bases are under threat if it backs Israeli retaliation.

Iran has warned Israel of a larger attack on its territory should it retaliate against Tehran’s overnight drone and missile attacks, adding that the United States should not back an Israeli military action.

“If the Zionist regime [Israel] or its supporters demonstrate reckless behaviour, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response,” Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said in a statement on Sunday. ⠀

However, in a signal that Iran’s response was calculated in an attempt to avoid any major escalation, the Iranian foreign minister Amir Abdollahian said that Tehran had informed the US of the planned attack 72 hours in advance, and said that the strikes would be “limited” and for self-defence.

That did not stop more aggressive language from other officials, with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, warning that Tehran would retaliate against any Israeli attacks on its interests, officials or citizens.

“From now on, whenever Israel attacks Iranian interests… we will attack from Iran.” ⠀

“The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe,” said a statement.

It added that the US should “stay away” from the conflict, as it is an issue between Iran and Israel.

Archive link

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 70 points 6 months ago

… the US should “stay away” from the conflict, as it is an issue between Iran and Israel.

Yeah no shit, we should stay away from any country that’s mass killing children and other civilians. Fuck Israel, bunch of goose stepping nazis.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago

I’m thankful we don’t have Bush and Cheney in the whitehouse right now. Cheney had the biggest hard on for an Iran war.

[-] tourist@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago

That man from the trump administration with the goofy moustache also

I forget his name

[-] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Going to guess you mean John Bolton, the infamous warmonger who loudly started calling for immediate, "far stronger" US response yesterday. He's a draft dodger who has admitted he joined the National Guard and then went to law school just to avoid going to Vietnam. "I wasn't going to waste time on a futile struggle," he has written, adding "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy… I considered the war in Vietnam already lost". Yet the whole time he advocated for keeping other US soldiers fighting in the war. He didn't fight in the war of his time, he won't ever go to war now that he's old, but by damn is he ever sure that the US should send people to fight everywhere from Iran to Cuba.

In 2019, Democrat Seth Moulton, who actually served 4 tours in Iraq, called both Bolton and Trump "chickenhawks" because they're hawkish for war but completely unwilling to fight it themselves. (Trump reportedly "avoided service in the Vietnam War after his father called in a favor with a doctor, who wrote a note saying that Trump had bone spurs on his feet, making him ineligible for the draft.") To use the popular Franklin D. Roosevelt quote - "War is young men dying and old men talking."

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Bolton.

Trump’s administration also had a lot of old Bush folks that wanted to antagonize Iran.

[-] Bipta@kbin.social 14 points 6 months ago

John Bolton

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago

John Bolton, warhawk whispering (and often yelling) nothing but "WAR WAR WAR" for decades. Trump sacked him in 2019 when US was already 5 minutes from attacking Iran, but Iran shown that it wasn't easy target and are determined to defend itself, so US did U turn from war in like 2 days, Bolton was pretty slow with realigning there, so got sacrificed. He then wrote very salty book accusing Trump of things like having tiny bit of common sense left, not being absolute berserker and even being able to notice an ocean on map. Pretty funny and ironic actually.

Of course the rep warhawks needed to be appeased after such a serious setback and to have last word US assassinated general Soleimani short time after.

[-] qarl@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

John Bolton?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Arelin@lemmy.zip 31 points 6 months ago
[-] livus@kbin.social 22 points 6 months ago

Unfortunately escalation threats are catnip to Netanyahu at the moment.

[-] athairmor@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Isn’t it Iran’s MO, when attacked by superior enemies, to make some kind of response that’s not very damaging, make a threat and hope it all goes away?

[-] Bipta@kbin.social 34 points 6 months ago

Yes, and Netanyahu's MO is to manipulate the US into a war.

[-] blargerer@kbin.social 16 points 6 months ago

In terms of direct responses, Iran tends to behave extremely rationally in like game theory terms. Most countries do, though obviously some misjudgements of each others capabilities can happen. With that said, Iran does very transparently fund terrorists to do their dirty work for them (not that this is unique to Iran).

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

With that said, Iran does very transparently fund terrorists to do their dirty work for them (not that this is unique to Iran).

This is a mischaracterization of how force works. Guerilla war is far superior to " doing the dirty work themselves". You can train a guerilla force as part of your main military, but by its very nature it needs to be decentralized or it's not effective, it needs to be distributed or it's easy to decapitate, and it needs to be constantly shifting in response to conditions. In essence, using guerilla forces IS doing the dirty work yourself, it's not delegating it to another group so you don't have to get your hands dirty.

The terrorist label is a useless term anyway. Terrorism is strategy for using civilian terror to effect change. The USA military uses the strategy of terrorism, they call it "shock and awe doctrine". But calling rank and file soldiers "terrorists" doesn't make any sense. Similarly, guerilla fighters don't actually use terrorism, IEDs target military caravans. Shooting rockets at air defense systems to understand their limits is a military intelligence campaign. Enforcing a blockade/embargo is a core military function. Hit and run tactics works. Urban warfare is as necessary as mountain warfare and jungle warfare. In essence, the USA invented the label of terrorist to vilify people instead of tactics, and then drifted its usage away from "using civilian terror" towards "guerilla tactics". This became enshrined in law in the USA as "enemy combatant", a third label never before seen in law. Previously there was civilian and military. There's a thousand years of law and jurisprudence using those two categories, from international treaties to domestic military courts to penal codes. This new third status, invented by the USA, discards all of that and allows the USA to do anything they want to anyone they deem fits this new legal category, which maps directly to whoever they call a "terrorist" which, as I think I've established, is far more about fighting guerillas than it is about fighting terrorism.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yes. This was classic "we need to do something to save face domestically, but are going to be as ineffective as possible to avoid actually getting caught up in the conflict."

They straight up said afterwards "we consider this matter concluded" (i.e. even stevens).

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was even backchannel communication with 'Western' intelligence as it was occurring to ensure it didn't get out of control.

I really can't think of a response from Iran that was more tepid.

People need to remember that a lot of the Middle Eastern governments are much more afraid of radicalized domestic threats than foreign nations and need to do a song and dance to not appear too weak or ineffective against the West to those interests.

Iran didn't realistically have the option of doing nothing, and it's amazing they did as little as they ended up doing (which I think reflects just how fucking nuts they think Bibi is right now, something that should scare the shit out of his allies).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Roopappy@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago

I got an idea.

Aggressively develop and move everything to non-fossil fuel technology. Share that technology with the rest of the world. Then, boom: Iran loses 70% of it's GDP, and everyone wins without any shots fired.

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 6 months ago

China is doing it and guess what, the US is complaining about it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/08/janet-yellen-china-visit-remarks/

[-] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 23 points 6 months ago

Would be funny if the world finally gets motivated to save the planet from climate change only so that the genocidal state can continue genociding in peace.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Fucking over saudi Arabia has been my motivation for years now.

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 15 points 6 months ago

Aggressively develop and move everything to non-fossil fuel technology. Share that technology with the rest of the world

Only one thing is standing in the way of that happening. amerikkka Marg Bar Amerikkka

[-] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 9 points 6 months ago

Moving away from fossil fuels aside, how come your solution for "everyone" to win here is just to punish Iran for being attacked and retaliating in a very minor way but not punish Zionists for waging a genocide in Palestine and attacking a recognized external State?

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 6 points 6 months ago

I think we know why us-foreign-policy

[-] Octospider@lemmy.one 9 points 6 months ago

War is like really super profitable though. So, on one hand we could potentially save the planet.. but on the other hand we could get some short term profits. Tough call.

[-] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago

Good luck with that. The US is the world’s largest oil producer and therefore it has a vested interest in preventing the development of sustainable energy alternatives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago
[-] DmMacniel@feddit.de 3 points 6 months ago

It kinda feels like it.

load more comments (27 replies)
[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago

Marg bar Amerikka, of course amerikkka

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
213 points (98.2% liked)

World News

32218 readers
619 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS