this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
182 points (97.9% liked)

World News

32285 readers
515 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 71 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 34 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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 31 points 6 months ago (6 children)

That man from the trump administration with the goofy moustache also

I forget his name

[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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."

[–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

draft dodging is good actually. sending people to die in war is what makes them despicable.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 13 points 6 months ago

The problem is not the draft dodging. The problem is then turning around and being a pro war advocate and building policy that puts others in combat.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Bolton.

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

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 13 points 6 months ago

John Bolton

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 12 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?

[–] Arelin@lemmy.zip 24 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 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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 32 points 6 months ago

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

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 17 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).

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah, loathe as I am to say anything kind about the Iranian regime, this is still a remarkably constrained response given the circumstances. Isreal blew up their embassy, killing two of their top generals. Obviously, in an ideal world you'd work out a purely diplomatic solution, but then in an ideal world Isreal wouldn't have blown up that embassy in the first place. The Iranian government know they have to show strength or else the backlash among their people would be insane. They were put between a rock and a hard place and picked a pretty smart way out.

And they know damn well that this whole thing kicked off in the first place because Netanyahu is trying to engineer a war. He knows he's losing international support with his genocide in Gaza, and a war with Iran would effectively reset the field. As soon as its "ally vs enemy" all the other questions go out the window. Isreal gets a clean slate, and probably wipes out or at least seriously damages several enemies in the process. The only question is how he can make it happen in a way that will draw the US in.

[–] Roopappy@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Octospider@lemmy.one 8 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 7 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.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago (13 children)
[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

If WWIII is knocking on the door it started with Russia trying to invade Ukraine.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago

Yeah well considering how Russia and Iran are buddy buddy, that makes sense. But I would say Russia vs Ukraine is the oil, and Israel was the spark as soon as they deliberately hit the Iranian embassy in Syria.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 3 points 6 months ago

It kinda feels like it.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

…along with the receding line of defense against Russia in Europe.

[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, when it comes to WWIII I'm more worried about what NATO/EU is going to do if Ukraine starts collapsing than Israel vs. Iran. If Russia takes Ukraine and starts eyeing other Eastern European countries, or strongly anti-Putin EU countries decide they are willing to go to war to stop him then things could get messy FAST. That's why it's so important that the US doesn't stop funding for Ukraine (like a some politicians, especially Republicans, seem to want). Ukraine is legitimately the bulwark against Russian aggression that could bloom into something much worse.

Israel vs. Iran would be bad, but I don't think enough countries would join in on Iran's side to make this a world war. I'd expect more of a new Gulf/Iraq/Afghanistan War than WWIII.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Agreed. The lifetime KGB agent turned president is actively destabilizing all non-NATO nations on his border, while pushing his way through Ukraine. If he’s successful in taking Ukraine, with the allegiance of Belarus, he’ll have Poland on two borders.

[–] foofiepie@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Poland will go absolutely fucking postal if Russia starts something. There’s some deep down, righteous grievance there.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

As there should be. That didn’t stop Putin from suggesting Russia’s rightful ownership of Poland during the Tucker Carlson interview.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca -1 points 6 months ago

All Iran needs to do is hit an American target for supporting Israel and that would be it. Then everybody's gonna get involved.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] chalk46@kbin.social -1 points 6 months ago

it's like listening to a little yappy dog that thinks he's got all the power in the world

[–] Rascabin@lemmy.ml -4 points 6 months ago

We're all being played. It's just a chess game for them and for us to drink the Kool aid. Just like the fake rap beef these days. Skeletor out....