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