As I mentioned earlier, this was because the alternative was Israel fully aligning with the PRC in the 1990s-2000s.
During the 1980s-90s, Israel scrapped the IAI Lavi program and transferred it's IP to the Deng administration [0][1]. This was the precursor of the J-XX program which spawned the J-10, JF-17, and J-20. This continued until 2005 [2].
Saudi Arabia did the same thing in the 1980s as well, working with the PRC on the Dongfeng program and helping formalize the Pakistan-China relationship [3].
Even Israel's nuclear, jet fighter, and submarine program was due to a similar technology transfer Gaullist France did in the 1950s-60s [4] in order to retain strategic autonomy against the US and an ally to protect it's access to the Suez Canal in what became the Suez Crisis [5].
On the other hand, the US successfully prevented similar attempts by South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s-80s.
The Cold War was a crazy time.
Edit: can't reply
> we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing"
We turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia financially supporting Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1981 [6] as well as stopped India from striking Pakistan in 1981 [7]. This was what has been the core of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's mutual defense agreement for decades [3].
We could have stopped Saudi and Pakistan like we stopped Taiwan back then [8], but we didn't.
> the Zionist colony
Not a fan of that framing.
There was no reason for Iraqis to commit the Farhud, Imam Yahyi mandating all Yemeni Jews either convert to Islam or leave Yemen, Morroccans to commit the Oujda and Jerada riots, Libyans to commit the Tripolitania pogrom, and other instances in the Arab world that forced millions of Mizrahis to uproot and move to Israel in the 1940s. Israel's population has been heavily Mizrahi since those exoduses.
Similarly, Ashkenazim and Sephardim from Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans wouldn't have left for Israel in the 1930s-40s if those states didn't collaborate in the HOLOCAUST.
There was a chance for normalization in the 2000s - especially under Shimon Peres - but the rise of Hamas ended that.
We give Israel money because of lobbying and blackmail, there was never any valid interest in the US supporting the Zionist colony. You'll note that we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing".
alephnerd2 hours ago
[flagged]
spaghetdefects2 hours ago
There were plenty of other alternatives, starting with sanctions against Israel and followed with military action. The boomer generation's support for Israel created a very odd relationship that was entirely one way. Younger generations will certainly reverse this.
That does not count the money we've spent fighting their wars. We could have cut that off and sanctioned them at any time if they worked against our interests. Israel's strategy has been to compromise US leadership to stop this from happening, and until recently it was successful at that.
alephnerd2 hours ago
[flagged]
tomhow33 minutes ago
> Edit 2: @Dang - Flagging is not meant to be used as a downvote.
Sure, but complaining about downvotes is against the guidelines, and @replies are not a way to get moderator attention. The way to get moderator attention (including asking for flags to be reviewed) is to email hn@ycombinator.com.
Posting the same sentence as a way of protesting or attracting attention is poor conduct in a community like this, and makes it harder for moderators to help you.
spaghetdefects2 hours ago
And as I mentioned, there are other alternatives like sanctions against Israel and military action against Israel. It's a tiny country, 100% reliant on outside support to exist. The US has always had the ability to end Israel.
thisislife23 hours ago
Interesting that Iran has started using cluster munition missiles to strike Israel. Apparently Iran, Israel and US are some of the few countries that haven't signed the international convention banning cluster munitions. Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
dogma11381 hour ago
It’s because it’s one of the only things that effectively can hit Israel.
They release the submunitions at much higher altitudes than they were intended so they spread across a much larger area and thus ineffective at hitting anything other than an urban target.
But on the plus side for the Iranians they separate outside of the interception envelope of even the exo atmospheric interceptors Israel has so they actually get through even if each sub munition is only a nuance at best.
Qem3 hours ago
> Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
Estimated around 4 million of them against south Lebanon:
Countries tend to sign munition restrictions when they don't use those munitions or are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.
The map of countries which sign the convention against landmines is extremely obvious in that context.
markdown3 hours ago
> are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.
No such country exists. So long as enemies are likely to put boots, wheels, or tracks on the ground in your country, landmines are extremely useful, extremely cheap, and extremely effective.
cpgxiii3 hours ago
The point is that almost all of the signatories considered themselves to be immune to a "real war" in their futures at the time they signed. E.g. basically all of the European signatories assumed that the end of the cold war and existence of NATO would ensure the end of any possible threat. Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
breppp3 hours ago
which is exactly why european countries threatened by russia are starting to withdraw from the treaty, five had recently announced so
spwa43 hours ago
You also have the large number of countries that sign treaties, then just ignore them. Iran is an example of a nation that signs UN treaties, then openly boast about violating them.
Iran signed the human rights treaties ... and openly executes gays and minors. They boast about this publicly.
breppp3 hours ago
On the other side, iran's launch capability had fallen by 92% since the start of the war
Iran is actually attacking their former close friends at the gulf uninvolved civilian population centers more often than it attacks Israel
EDIT: fixed to 92%
wodenokoto3 hours ago
They are attacking close friends who literally harbor the armies attacking Iran.
The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend.
spwa43 hours ago
They've attacked everyone they possibly could with ZERO regard for anything. They attacked Cyprus! They've attacked Turkey. They've attacked Afghanistan (are you seriously going to claim Afghanistan is harboring the US army?) They've attacked everyone they possibly could attack, zero exceptions.
Next time all the gulf countries will know: get America and everyone else to launch attacks against Iran from your soil. Make sure to participate. Why? Iran will attack everyone regardless of alliances, who attacks, whether anyone attacks at all, what bases exist, whether or not they participate, or whether they avoid hostilities. So obviously, it's better to be part of the hostilities against Iran, to have an army on your soil that will protect at least some of your territory.
spaghetdefects2 hours ago
They're attacking US/Israel assets in all of those countries. It's effective too, the US is pulling out and showing that they are not a reliable ally. Just today the US told all US citizens to leave Iraq.
chomp2 hours ago
The US is keeping aircraft in allied bases in Cyprus, and a permanent one in Turkey. Haven’t seen anything about Afghanistan. Iran’s attacks make sense to some degree.
prewett1 hour ago
> Haven’t seen anything about Afghanistan.
Yeah, that's because about the Taliban took it over about 5 minutes after the US left Afghanistan a few years ago. It was a complete mess.
bdangubic1 hour ago
to all degrees
aaomidi43 minutes ago
Iran rejects attacking Cyprus and Turkey. Like, they clearly have no issue taking responsibility when they want to.
So you really can’t say with that level of confidence if they’ve hit those.
breppp3 hours ago
> The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend
If only they attacked the American bases as opposed to also attacking civilian infrastructure such as oil facilities and residential neighborhoods
If only they had skipped gulf countries who had pushed the US not to strike and refused to let the US use their bases to attack Iran (all of them)
If only they hadn't attacked countries without any bases such as Azerbaijan
Then I think your arguments would have had more merit
gravisultra2 hours ago
They've attacked many US bases. They've also retaliated against US/Israeli business interests when the US/Israel did the same to Iran. Iran is waging a very strategic war and quite a moral one I might add. They even gave evacuation orders to Tel Aviv neighborhoods they were targeting military installations in.
dogma11381 hour ago
Iran is running around like a headless chicken, they gravely miscalculated their capabilities in 2024 and are paying the price ever since.
Hikikomori2 hours ago
Israel uses human shields for their bases? Imagine that.
breppp2 hours ago
[flagged]
spaghetdefects2 hours ago
Where are you getting that 95% number from? Given that Trump has announced multiple times that the US has "won the war", I don't see how that could possibly be credible. Iran continues to launch successful attacks against Israel and Israel/US assets across the entire region.
Previously I had seen 95% somewhere else but cannot find the link, but that's close enough.
The reason why this is credible is Iran is limited by its amount of launchers, and Israel is very effective at destroying these. With complete air superiority and drones flying over, it's very easy to spot the heat signature for a launcher.
Add to that the launchers that were effectively buried at the start of the war when the openings to Iran's underground missile storage facilities were bombed.
Like I said, Iran just hit Tel Aviv again. They do this every day in addition to destroying Israeli/US assets across the Middle East. There has been no slow down, despite Trump announcing nearly every day that Iran has been defeated. The western media is shambles trying to spin the reality of the situation.
As far as I can tell what you see today in your link is a fire caused by the pieces that fall after a successful interception, these are not as dangerous as an actual missile, as they lack a warhead, especially for Israelis that are indoors while in alarms.
In any case, you are arguing something else. It is a fact that the number of ballistic missiles Iran is capable of launching had fallen sharply, this is very easy to see by the reduction of alarms in Israel, which is served by an open API. You are arguing whether missiles ever hit.
Because Iran ability to launch had fallen sharply, less Israeli citizens are hurt and less interceptors are needed. This is also progressive, as the days pass, Iran loses more and more launchers and is less capable of launching more missiles. Therefore even in the unlikely event of an Israeli interceptor crisis, the situation is rather favorable to Israel
coldtea3 hours ago
Nothing that saying they're sorry for being offensive and seeking a peace deal can't fix...
dlubarov41 minutes ago
It's not "peace" when the Iranian regime sends tens of thousands of projectiles to Hezbollah specifically for attacking Israel. It's not "offensive" to respond to decades of bombardment.
If we want peace, regime change in Iran is the only option, otherwise the best case is a return to somewhat slower paced proxy warfare.
tharmas3 minutes ago
Don't worry. The USA needs to maintain the Petro Dollar so this war will go on until Iran is rubble like Gaza.
The Gulf States are finished.
jazzpush23 hours ago
I.e. time American tax dollars to save the day!
Drupon3 hours ago
Good. Perhaps they will pay the ultimate price and face irreversible consequences that are decades overdue.
dogma11381 hour ago
Iran will quite soon.
Qem3 hours ago
I hope they have their Cuito Cuanavale[1] moment and follow the steps of South Africa in replacing their own version of the apartheid regime with democracy.
Then it was a very strange choice to go to war with a neighbor that's known to have massive stockpiles of missiles.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first. In fact, I would make it my mission to be the world recognized leader in diplomacy.
Spooky233 hours ago
Arrogance, and using war to avoid consequences for personal bad behavior of the leader.
cindyllm3 hours ago
[dead]
spwa43 hours ago
Do you honestly believe Israel hasn't done that for decades?
dr00tb3 hours ago
You seriously believe Israel has conducted good-faith diplomatic endeavors for decades? A history of terrorattacks and extrajudicial killings in neighboring countries and even European[1] countries tell a different story.
So wait ... you're going to use terror attacks and extrajudicial killings in foreign countries as an argument to defend Iran? Iran is responsible for the civil war in Lebanon, and thus for at least hundred thousand dead in extrajudicial killings. So your argument, even if we accept everything as 100% true ... Iran is at least 1000x more guilty than Israel. Or just take [1] ...
So it seems strange to use this as an argument to defend Iran. Bad faith, even.
As for diplomacy: Iran signs treaties ... then just refuses to uphold them. For example, Iran signed, then pretty openly violated it's nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations [2], same with the famous nuclear deal.
But, even where it comes to pretty basic things: Iran signed the human rights treaties, including the Geneva convention, and hangs gays and minors as a matter of course (according to amnesty #1 worldwide with hundreds of minors executed, and actually increasing the rate over time), attacks religious minorities, women, the government has a side business in kidnapping foreignors ...
Or other treaties. Iran signed freedom of navigation treaties, and has for decades violated them. Hell, Iran violates the international telecommunications union treaty.
The problem: Iran cannot be negotiated with, for the simple reason that they do not respect deals they make. There's no point in negotiating since their behavior does not change when they make deals. They make promises, and ignore them. They sign treaties, and boast openly about violating them.
You failed to mention that Iran violated the deal only after Trump withdrew the US from it...
Its hard to negotiate with Iran when Israel keeps killing their negotiators.
UltraSane3 hours ago
I think Israel is fighting for its survival against enemies that would absolutely destroy it if they could.
tharmas1 minute ago
Not to worry. If Israel's extinction is at risk that's when BB will use nukes.
jcgrillo55 minutes ago
Is that not true of literally every country on Earth? It's just a question of how they do it.
yongjik2 hours ago
A nation fighting for its survival doesn't randomly escalate by attacking a much bigger enemy.
Instead, we frequently see it from dictators with a delusion of grandeur.
dogma11381 hour ago
Iran attacked Israel directly twice, they are the ones which both escalated and miscalculated their position in the region.
UltraSane1 hour ago
"randomly escalate"?
You DO realize how absurd this is. Iran isn't exactly subtle about its hatred for Israel and desire to destroy it and funding of the "Axis of Resistance".
tastyface3 hours ago
Is continuing to apply extreme violence against these enemies likely to lead to a good result? What is the end state?
I think we are fast approaching an era where weapons of mass destruction, by way of cheap killbot swarms, are trivially accessible to any government. Without radical diplomacy, I fear the entire Middle East -- Israel included -- is on a path to annihilation.
steve-atx-76002 hours ago
I think it can be as simple as if you defeat your enemy first, they can’t defeat you or continue to threaten you.
wolvoleo2 hours ago
That only works against nation states. After what Israel have done in Gaza there's thousands of people who have lost family in a gruesome way and now have an axe to grind against Israel. This way it'll never stop.
The best way to prevent terrorism is to not give people reasons to want you dead.
Look at all the ethnic conflicts in the world. Like the troubles in Ireland. Did that stop because one side threw more bombs? No, it stopped because both sides agreed to talk.
spwa416 minutes ago
Really? Because there's extensive counterexamples in both directions ...
Europe attacked and even persecuted the Germans (with reason) for WW2. Tens of millions of victims. Neither side wants the other dead. US and Japan? Same. Most of these countries are allies.
Israel has never even had much business with Indonesia, and only little with India. Yet a large number of Indonesians want to kill all Jews (not just Israeli) and Indians largely support Israel, even in war. Or take Lebanese. Despite Israel attacking them many times and giving them plenty of "reasons to want them dead", if you talk to actual Lebanese, most population groups (in fact the ones that suffered the most) want normal relations with Israel. It seems they blame some other party, even for the deaths directly at the hands of Israel ...
So, none of these situations fit your theory. It's very obvious that the issues Israel has with a great many countries have nothing to do with "giving them reasons to want you dead". By contrast, there are countries who've given each other far better reasons to hate ... and yet don't want each other dead.
In fact, I have trouble finding an example of nations that want to attack each other because of such a historical situation. Hell, the history of China and Japan for the last millenium is one of each nation taking turns conquering and terrorizing the other and yet ... the only fear Japanese and Chinese have is the communist party suddenly deciding to conquer some country and attack, which every Japanese and Chinese person is secretly 100% certain will be a total disaster, for China as a whole AND for them personally.
And that gives the real reason behind conflicts: one party thinks they can just take what they want, and attacks, usually for ideological reasons. Sometimes they're right, mostly they're wrong.
tastyface2 hours ago
Defeating an enemy to the extent that they can't drive a truck full of AI killbots into a busy city center is an impossible task barring a scorched earth approach. And if that option is on the table -- killing millions to secure Israel's future -- then Israel seals its fate regardless.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.
hollerith2 hours ago
Non-Israelis also have people that can afford truckfuls of slaughter bots that would kill them if they could, so since Israel is cooked, we are all cooked, right?
NaN years ago
undefined
gravisultra2 hours ago
Just like Nazi Germany.
spaghetdefects2 hours ago
Since its inception, Israel has waged war and acts of terror on all of its neighbors (and much of the rest of the world).
Nevermark3 hours ago
I am certainly not defending Iran, but one of their gripes had merit. Israel’s illegal annexation and settling of land that wasn’t theirs.
And their policy of overlooking violence against the previous inhabitants. Genocide slow burn.
So I don’t know what good any diplomacy could have been in that context.
hersko3 hours ago
[flagged]
UltraSane3 hours ago
[flagged]
saint_yossarian3 hours ago
Do you honestly believe they did?
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since.
Keep in mind who pays for the replacements - U.S. Citizens to the tune of $317.9 billion over the last 70 years [1].
https://taxpayersforpeace.org/
When you put it that way it seems pretty cheap.
As I mentioned earlier, this was because the alternative was Israel fully aligning with the PRC in the 1990s-2000s.
During the 1980s-90s, Israel scrapped the IAI Lavi program and transferred it's IP to the Deng administration [0][1]. This was the precursor of the J-XX program which spawned the J-10, JF-17, and J-20. This continued until 2005 [2].
Saudi Arabia did the same thing in the 1980s as well, working with the PRC on the Dongfeng program and helping formalize the Pakistan-China relationship [3].
Even Israel's nuclear, jet fighter, and submarine program was due to a similar technology transfer Gaullist France did in the 1950s-60s [4] in order to retain strategic autonomy against the US and an ally to protect it's access to the Suez Canal in what became the Suez Crisis [5].
On the other hand, the US successfully prevented similar attempts by South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s-80s.
The Cold War was a crazy time.
Edit: can't reply
> we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing"
We turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia financially supporting Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1981 [6] as well as stopped India from striking Pakistan in 1981 [7]. This was what has been the core of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's mutual defense agreement for decades [3].
We could have stopped Saudi and Pakistan like we stopped Taiwan back then [8], but we didn't.
> the Zionist colony
Not a fan of that framing.
There was no reason for Iraqis to commit the Farhud, Imam Yahyi mandating all Yemeni Jews either convert to Islam or leave Yemen, Morroccans to commit the Oujda and Jerada riots, Libyans to commit the Tripolitania pogrom, and other instances in the Arab world that forced millions of Mizrahis to uproot and move to Israel in the 1940s. Israel's population has been heavily Mizrahi since those exoduses.
Similarly, Ashkenazim and Sephardim from Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans wouldn't have left for Israel in the 1930s-40s if those states didn't collaborate in the HOLOCAUST.
There was a chance for normalization in the 2000s - especially under Shimon Peres - but the rise of Hamas ended that.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/12/world/israel-selling-chin...
[1] - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-28-mn-13774-...
[2] - https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846
[4] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000271219.pdf
[5] - https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/97179.htm
[6] - https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/01/18/Saudis-reportedly-wi...
[7] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0005403744
[8] - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-0...
We give Israel money because of lobbying and blackmail, there was never any valid interest in the US supporting the Zionist colony. You'll note that we did not give Saudi Arabia $317.9 billion despite you saying that they "did the same thing".
[flagged]
There were plenty of other alternatives, starting with sanctions against Israel and followed with military action. The boomer generation's support for Israel created a very odd relationship that was entirely one way. Younger generations will certainly reverse this.
[flagged]
The US has given over $300B to Israel since its creation: https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-foreign-aid-does-the-u...
That does not count the money we've spent fighting their wars. We could have cut that off and sanctioned them at any time if they worked against our interests. Israel's strategy has been to compromise US leadership to stop this from happening, and until recently it was successful at that.
[flagged]
> Edit 2: @Dang - Flagging is not meant to be used as a downvote.
Sure, but complaining about downvotes is against the guidelines, and @replies are not a way to get moderator attention. The way to get moderator attention (including asking for flags to be reviewed) is to email hn@ycombinator.com.
Posting the same sentence as a way of protesting or attracting attention is poor conduct in a community like this, and makes it harder for moderators to help you.
And as I mentioned, there are other alternatives like sanctions against Israel and military action against Israel. It's a tiny country, 100% reliant on outside support to exist. The US has always had the ability to end Israel.
Interesting that Iran has started using cluster munition missiles to strike Israel. Apparently Iran, Israel and US are some of the few countries that haven't signed the international convention banning cluster munitions. Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
It’s because it’s one of the only things that effectively can hit Israel.
They release the submunitions at much higher altitudes than they were intended so they spread across a much larger area and thus ineffective at hitting anything other than an urban target.
But on the plus side for the Iranians they separate outside of the interception envelope of even the exo atmospheric interceptors Israel has so they actually get through even if each sub munition is only a nuance at best.
> Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
Estimated around 4 million of them against south Lebanon:
https://imeu.org/resources/key-issues/quick-facts-israels-il...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/02/16/flooding-south-lebanon...
Countries tend to sign munition restrictions when they don't use those munitions or are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.
The map of countries which sign the convention against landmines is extremely obvious in that context.
> are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.
No such country exists. So long as enemies are likely to put boots, wheels, or tracks on the ground in your country, landmines are extremely useful, extremely cheap, and extremely effective.
The point is that almost all of the signatories considered themselves to be immune to a "real war" in their futures at the time they signed. E.g. basically all of the European signatories assumed that the end of the cold war and existence of NATO would ensure the end of any possible threat. Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
which is exactly why european countries threatened by russia are starting to withdraw from the treaty, five had recently announced so
You also have the large number of countries that sign treaties, then just ignore them. Iran is an example of a nation that signs UN treaties, then openly boast about violating them.
Iran signed the human rights treaties ... and openly executes gays and minors. They boast about this publicly.
On the other side, iran's launch capability had fallen by 92% since the start of the war
https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-889435
Iran is actually attacking their former close friends at the gulf uninvolved civilian population centers more often than it attacks Israel
EDIT: fixed to 92%
They are attacking close friends who literally harbor the armies attacking Iran.
The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend.
They've attacked everyone they possibly could with ZERO regard for anything. They attacked Cyprus! They've attacked Turkey. They've attacked Afghanistan (are you seriously going to claim Afghanistan is harboring the US army?) They've attacked everyone they possibly could attack, zero exceptions.
Next time all the gulf countries will know: get America and everyone else to launch attacks against Iran from your soil. Make sure to participate. Why? Iran will attack everyone regardless of alliances, who attacks, whether anyone attacks at all, what bases exist, whether or not they participate, or whether they avoid hostilities. So obviously, it's better to be part of the hostilities against Iran, to have an army on your soil that will protect at least some of your territory.
They're attacking US/Israel assets in all of those countries. It's effective too, the US is pulling out and showing that they are not a reliable ally. Just today the US told all US citizens to leave Iraq.
The US is keeping aircraft in allied bases in Cyprus, and a permanent one in Turkey. Haven’t seen anything about Afghanistan. Iran’s attacks make sense to some degree.
> Haven’t seen anything about Afghanistan.
Yeah, that's because about the Taliban took it over about 5 minutes after the US left Afghanistan a few years ago. It was a complete mess.
to all degrees
Iran rejects attacking Cyprus and Turkey. Like, they clearly have no issue taking responsibility when they want to.
So you really can’t say with that level of confidence if they’ve hit those.
> The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend
If only they attacked the American bases as opposed to also attacking civilian infrastructure such as oil facilities and residential neighborhoods
If only they had skipped gulf countries who had pushed the US not to strike and refused to let the US use their bases to attack Iran (all of them)
If only they hadn't attacked countries without any bases such as Azerbaijan
Then I think your arguments would have had more merit
They've attacked many US bases. They've also retaliated against US/Israeli business interests when the US/Israel did the same to Iran. Iran is waging a very strategic war and quite a moral one I might add. They even gave evacuation orders to Tel Aviv neighborhoods they were targeting military installations in.
Iran is running around like a headless chicken, they gravely miscalculated their capabilities in 2024 and are paying the price ever since.
Israel uses human shields for their bases? Imagine that.
[flagged]
Where are you getting that 95% number from? Given that Trump has announced multiple times that the US has "won the war", I don't see how that could possibly be credible. Iran continues to launch successful attacks against Israel and Israel/US assets across the entire region.
For example here from March 10 detailing a progressive decline by 92% in ballistic missiles https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-889435
Previously I had seen 95% somewhere else but cannot find the link, but that's close enough.
The reason why this is credible is Iran is limited by its amount of launchers, and Israel is very effective at destroying these. With complete air superiority and drones flying over, it's very easy to spot the heat signature for a launcher.
Add to that the launchers that were effectively buried at the start of the war when the openings to Iran's underground missile storage facilities were bombed.
https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat...
Launch numbers are not an indicator of launch capacity fwiw.
Iran’s fewer launches are now hitting their targets more.
Jpost is an Israeli propaganda outlet not a credible source. In fact Iran just hit Tel Aviv again.
That's hardly true, but sure try this one or just google yourself
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/global-affairs/iranian...
Like I said, Iran just hit Tel Aviv again. They do this every day in addition to destroying Israeli/US assets across the Middle East. There has been no slow down, despite Trump announcing nearly every day that Iran has been defeated. The western media is shambles trying to spin the reality of the situation.
https://x.com/MintPressNews/status/2032983767430664447
As far as I can tell what you see today in your link is a fire caused by the pieces that fall after a successful interception, these are not as dangerous as an actual missile, as they lack a warhead, especially for Israelis that are indoors while in alarms.
In any case, you are arguing something else. It is a fact that the number of ballistic missiles Iran is capable of launching had fallen sharply, this is very easy to see by the reduction of alarms in Israel, which is served by an open API. You are arguing whether missiles ever hit.
Because Iran ability to launch had fallen sharply, less Israeli citizens are hurt and less interceptors are needed. This is also progressive, as the days pass, Iran loses more and more launchers and is less capable of launching more missiles. Therefore even in the unlikely event of an Israeli interceptor crisis, the situation is rather favorable to Israel
Nothing that saying they're sorry for being offensive and seeking a peace deal can't fix...
It's not "peace" when the Iranian regime sends tens of thousands of projectiles to Hezbollah specifically for attacking Israel. It's not "offensive" to respond to decades of bombardment.
If we want peace, regime change in Iran is the only option, otherwise the best case is a return to somewhat slower paced proxy warfare.
Don't worry. The USA needs to maintain the Petro Dollar so this war will go on until Iran is rubble like Gaza.
The Gulf States are finished.
I.e. time American tax dollars to save the day!
Good. Perhaps they will pay the ultimate price and face irreversible consequences that are decades overdue.
Iran will quite soon.
I hope they have their Cuito Cuanavale[1] moment and follow the steps of South Africa in replacing their own version of the apartheid regime with democracy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale
[flagged]
I consider Iran to be led and inhabited by indigenous people and not foreign colonizers.
Iran was violently colonized by Arabs between 633 and 651
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia
[flagged]
Islam is a religion. The people of Iran are indigenous to Iran.
Is the implication that someone can't dislike both?
[flagged]
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
Then it was a very strange choice to go to war with a neighbor that's known to have massive stockpiles of missiles.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first. In fact, I would make it my mission to be the world recognized leader in diplomacy.
Arrogance, and using war to avoid consequences for personal bad behavior of the leader.
[dead]
Do you honestly believe Israel hasn't done that for decades?
You seriously believe Israel has conducted good-faith diplomatic endeavors for decades? A history of terrorattacks and extrajudicial killings in neighboring countries and even European[1] countries tell a different story.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair
So wait ... you're going to use terror attacks and extrajudicial killings in foreign countries as an argument to defend Iran? Iran is responsible for the civil war in Lebanon, and thus for at least hundred thousand dead in extrajudicial killings. So your argument, even if we accept everything as 100% true ... Iran is at least 1000x more guilty than Israel. Or just take [1] ...
So it seems strange to use this as an argument to defend Iran. Bad faith, even.
As for diplomacy: Iran signs treaties ... then just refuses to uphold them. For example, Iran signed, then pretty openly violated it's nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations [2], same with the famous nuclear deal.
But, even where it comes to pretty basic things: Iran signed the human rights treaties, including the Geneva convention, and hangs gays and minors as a matter of course (according to amnesty #1 worldwide with hundreds of minors executed, and actually increasing the rate over time), attacks religious minorities, women, the government has a side business in kidnapping foreignors ...
Or other treaties. Iran signed freedom of navigation treaties, and has for decades violated them. Hell, Iran violates the international telecommunications union treaty.
The problem: Iran cannot be negotiated with, for the simple reason that they do not respect deals they make. There's no point in negotiating since their behavior does not change when they make deals. They make promises, and ignore them. They sign treaties, and boast openly about violating them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_diplomat_terror_plot_t...
[2] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...
You failed to mention that Iran violated the deal only after Trump withdrew the US from it...
Its hard to negotiate with Iran when Israel keeps killing their negotiators.
I think Israel is fighting for its survival against enemies that would absolutely destroy it if they could.
Not to worry. If Israel's extinction is at risk that's when BB will use nukes.
Is that not true of literally every country on Earth? It's just a question of how they do it.
A nation fighting for its survival doesn't randomly escalate by attacking a much bigger enemy.
Instead, we frequently see it from dictators with a delusion of grandeur.
Iran attacked Israel directly twice, they are the ones which both escalated and miscalculated their position in the region.
"randomly escalate"?
You DO realize how absurd this is. Iran isn't exactly subtle about its hatred for Israel and desire to destroy it and funding of the "Axis of Resistance".
Is continuing to apply extreme violence against these enemies likely to lead to a good result? What is the end state?
I think we are fast approaching an era where weapons of mass destruction, by way of cheap killbot swarms, are trivially accessible to any government. Without radical diplomacy, I fear the entire Middle East -- Israel included -- is on a path to annihilation.
I think it can be as simple as if you defeat your enemy first, they can’t defeat you or continue to threaten you.
That only works against nation states. After what Israel have done in Gaza there's thousands of people who have lost family in a gruesome way and now have an axe to grind against Israel. This way it'll never stop.
The best way to prevent terrorism is to not give people reasons to want you dead.
Look at all the ethnic conflicts in the world. Like the troubles in Ireland. Did that stop because one side threw more bombs? No, it stopped because both sides agreed to talk.
Really? Because there's extensive counterexamples in both directions ...
Europe attacked and even persecuted the Germans (with reason) for WW2. Tens of millions of victims. Neither side wants the other dead. US and Japan? Same. Most of these countries are allies.
Israel has never even had much business with Indonesia, and only little with India. Yet a large number of Indonesians want to kill all Jews (not just Israeli) and Indians largely support Israel, even in war. Or take Lebanese. Despite Israel attacking them many times and giving them plenty of "reasons to want them dead", if you talk to actual Lebanese, most population groups (in fact the ones that suffered the most) want normal relations with Israel. It seems they blame some other party, even for the deaths directly at the hands of Israel ...
So, none of these situations fit your theory. It's very obvious that the issues Israel has with a great many countries have nothing to do with "giving them reasons to want you dead". By contrast, there are countries who've given each other far better reasons to hate ... and yet don't want each other dead.
In fact, I have trouble finding an example of nations that want to attack each other because of such a historical situation. Hell, the history of China and Japan for the last millenium is one of each nation taking turns conquering and terrorizing the other and yet ... the only fear Japanese and Chinese have is the communist party suddenly deciding to conquer some country and attack, which every Japanese and Chinese person is secretly 100% certain will be a total disaster, for China as a whole AND for them personally.
And that gives the real reason behind conflicts: one party thinks they can just take what they want, and attacks, usually for ideological reasons. Sometimes they're right, mostly they're wrong.
Defeating an enemy to the extent that they can't drive a truck full of AI killbots into a busy city center is an impossible task barring a scorched earth approach. And if that option is on the table -- killing millions to secure Israel's future -- then Israel seals its fate regardless.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.
Non-Israelis also have people that can afford truckfuls of slaughter bots that would kill them if they could, so since Israel is cooked, we are all cooked, right?
undefined
Just like Nazi Germany.
Since its inception, Israel has waged war and acts of terror on all of its neighbors (and much of the rest of the world).
I am certainly not defending Iran, but one of their gripes had merit. Israel’s illegal annexation and settling of land that wasn’t theirs.
And their policy of overlooking violence against the previous inhabitants. Genocide slow burn.
So I don’t know what good any diplomacy could have been in that context.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Do you honestly believe they did?
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations
that's untrue by the way, Israel sold weapons to Iran and supported it with intelligence against Iraq after 1979
Israel killed Irans negotiators just last year. How can you be this deluded.
Neighbor?!
Next door? No. In the neighborhood? Undoubetly.
"Iran is close to nuclear device, diplomacy doesn't work, should we attack?" -"no, we don't have enough interceptors. let them become nuclear."
That's what your logic sounds like
Diplomacy did work, they stopped and had regular IAEA inspections.
Sounds like they only went into this with concepts of a plan
Let's send them thousands of tiny violins.
[dead]
[dead]