Israel is running critically low on interceptors, US officials say
semafor.com
semafor.com
What exactly are you buying with that money, to know it's cheap?
1. Israel's sugar daddy will give (as in gift) them all the munitions they need. They'll never come close to running out.
2. This is the country that's been crying wolf over Iran being months away from having the bomb for something like twenty years now, while having up to several hundred nukes of their own. Why should we believe them when they're crying wolf about running out of munitions?
The map of countries which sign the convention against landmines is extremely obvious in that context.
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.
Doubly so, since they understood themselves to be backed up by a non-signatory (the US).
Iran signed the human rights treaties ... and openly executes gays and minors. They boast about this publicly.
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...
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.
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%
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.
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.
What US/Israel assets are in Afghanistan?
> Just today the US told all US citizens to leave Iraq.
Isn't that pretty standard practice when there's a war on?
When did Iran attack Afghanistan? I've never heard of this and googling does not return anything.
I don't know, but the GGGP comment mentioned it, and the comment I responded too left it completely unaddressed, referring to countries with "US/Israel assets."
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.
So you really can’t say with that level of confidence if they’ve hit those.
You probably meant Azerbaijan, which is the only country without US assets that Iran attacked (once, then apologised, and explained that the losses in the military leadership created special issues with the military orders, which, fair).
Also an Iranian cell was caught planning an attack on an oil pipeline in Azerbaijan.
Previously two years ago Iran had attacked Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation. The only thing clear here is what would be the result of a nuclear Iran
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...
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/global-affairs/iranian...
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
Yesterday night, Iran was able to hit multiple targets in Tel Aviv including rail infrastructure, a factory and a few buildings. They reportedly launched around 300 missiles almost on par with what they launched in Feb but with more direct hits.
> Therefore even in the unlikely event of an Israeli interceptor crisis, the situation is rather favorable to Israel
Most of the missiles were destroyed by interceptors. If they run out, we will be looking at huge casualties and infra damage within few days.
Iran’s fewer launches are now hitting their targets more.
This can be seen in much less overall damage than the 12 day war or the death count which is lower
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.
The Gulf States are finished.
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.
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.
So slow it's going backwards.
My point was that Israel was also not an innocent player in the failure of diplomacy.
Neither country's participation in systematic unjust violence is excused by the other. Regardless of relative differences in scale or not, they both harm people who did not deserve it, promote and coerce complicity within their own populations, create international instability, and degrade the human condition for everyone else.
The Palestinians who have been killed by settlers might not find that helpful. Just as innocent Israeli’s who have been killed by Iranian proxies do not benefit from their own country’s crimes.
Victims are victims.
Any argument by a group that their crimes get a pass, because they commit fewer atrocities is broken.
The perpetrators of fewer atrocities, and those who give them cover, regardless of whataboutism, have still thrown away any moral standing.
Do you think that makes the killing, violence and harassment of Palestinians, individuals who are not provoking, by uninvited settlers on their land one iota less detestable?
It doesn’t help Israel to only point out the crimes of others, if they are not concerned about their own.
This is a problem that troubles many people who support Israel against Iran. Which, I do, whole heartedly.
I am not making any arguments of false equivalence. But concern about only one set of crimes is a deeply false and immoral dichotomy.
Most Gazans want to destroy Israel and that is the explicit goal of Hamas. They think they can get their land back by force but they can't and trying just makes their lives worse.
That’s called murder.
We are talking about families, men, women, children, brutalized. By uninvited invaders. Chased off their own property. Systematically. With complicity from authorities that are supposed to stop and rectify crimes.
Your (lack of) moral logic is this is ok because there are other Palestinians that are not innocent.
Unlike you, I won’t judge other people, or groups of people, based on you. Only you are responsible for inhumanity which you attest to.
Crimes are crimes. There are no good excuses for any of them.
How are you any different from the people you condemn?
How does your selective sense of justice not validate the people you condemn?
If you don’t stand for justice for everyone, including Palestinians, you are no different from those who approve of atrocities to innocent Israeli’s in response to the crimes of other Israelis.
Several times here I have clearly confirmed I stand with Israel against anyone harming its people. Iran, Hamas, any of them. But their crimes don’t absolve other crimes by other people.
I believe people with selective justice are doing great harm to Israel. Undermining its moral standing, and feeding its opposition, in these conflicts.
I did no such thing. The Israeli settlers are just as much crazed religious lunatics as the average Hamas member.
But over and over again the Palestinians have proven to be their own worse enemies.
Ok, we are close to agreement.
> But over and over again the Palestinians have proven to be their own worse enemies.
That's a good way to put it. Palestinians and sympathizers who support crimes against Israeli’s, are destroying their own people’s prospects.
It is awful and depressing.
Likewise, Israeli settlers, who perpetrate violence against Palestinians, counter productively motivate radicalization against Israel.
--
But things go beyond what you have acknowledged.
Israeli's leaders protect those radicals. They are not held accountable.
I am encouraged by the Israeli military's many successes against their enemies. But sad that radicals in Israel, and their crimes, are tolerated and protected by its leadership.
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since.
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.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.
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.
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.
I don't see many common elements with the situation in Gaza (and now Iran). A policy of "mowing the grass" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass) will never lead to stability or warm and fuzzy feelings towards Israel.
EVEN where you do see terror attacks, there are large differences. The IRA, for example, went out of it's way to avoid hitting children and hospitals. By contrast, Palestinians really, really try to go after children and the sick. In fact the IRA made big efforts, sometimes outright stupid, to go after military bases or politicians involved in the situation they wanted to change, and to avoid everyone else. They have apologized, without being asked, to unintended victims. They have even given up some of their own members who "went too far". And, of course, given a way out, they choose to take it. The IRA was a lot closer to someone like Luigi Mangione than they are to the PLO. The explanation? We all know it but it's forbidden to say: ideology.
Even restricting to Israel itself. Israel has had to defend itself a lot, and the situation is not at all what the GP predicts. It's not the case that every group that got attacked wants to commit terror acts against Israel, in fact it's really just 1 group (or 2 if you consider them separately). And it's not even Palestinians! The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are in Jordan, and not attacking Israel at all. It's Palestinians living under state sponsored terror groups, it's very large amounts of Palestinians, a bunch of supposedly Lebanese but really Syrians, and Yemenites. The Palestinians paid originally by the Soviets, now the UN, the rest as well as Palestinians now paid by Iran. And paid A LOT, on a large scale. The terror attacks are a mercenary army, bought and paid for, and the only God they believe in is not allah but the true, undeniable almighty: Thomas Jefferson on a green background.
I am told it goes this far: a foot soldier for Hamas in Gaza makes more than a hospital director makes in Egypt. The unemployment benefits in Gaza are 3 times a normal wage in Egypt. And this in a part of the world that has >90% unemployment. THAT explains some things, doesn't it?
Hence the explanation that countries/groups/... attack because they want to steal something and think they can get it through brute force, not because of actual grievances, is the only explanation that I find even remotely fits.
Instead, we frequently see it from dictators with a delusion of grandeur.
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".
Well, that's what I've been saying!
To be clear, I have nothing to do with neither Israel nor Iran, and am sympathetic to people of both separately - but pretending like Gaza - and what Israel has been doing for all this time there - doesn't exist is something else.
Please explain why Hamas needed to parade the body of the young Germany woman they murdered like a hunting trophy?
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...
Its hard to negotiate with Iran when Israel keeps killing their negotiators.
That's what your logic sounds like
Such a nice thought. I wonder why they didn't do it? They must just be a bad, warmongering people. Oh wait, almost forgot...
> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since. Originally, relations were relatively cordial during the first three decades of Israeli independence, and saw close partnership between the two countries. However, following the revolution, Iran adopted the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state as a core component of its foreign policy.[1] The Iranian government refuses to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a state, calling for its destruction. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations)
"We tried nothing and it didn't work."
> They must just be a bad, warmongering people.
Oh wait, the other side is though, so that justifies everything. Convenient.
> The Iranian government
Yet when you drill down to actual public opinion the picture is more complicated. It's almost as if you tried something you could have a measurable impact there. Political pressure has been known to change regime positions before.
You might even consider showing Palestine some extremely inexpensive good will as a softening gesture towards opening dialog directly with Iran. The great part of diplomacy is you can actually say the quiet part out loud without shame as you work towards peace. "We're changing our policy on Palestine as a means of opening dialog with Iran." Now you have international pressure on your side as well.
The joint US-Israeli venture is the sole aggressor in this war, that much is clear to everyone not completely brainwashed.