The Jerusalem Post: "Netanyahu asks IDF to provide 'target options' for Iranian attack - report"

GrymEdm@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 58 points –
Netanyahu asks IDF to provide 'target options' for Iranian attack - report
jpost.com

According to the report, the targets include an Iranian facility in Tehran or a cyberattack.

In a visit to the Nevatim base on Monday, IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi said that the Iranian attack which was carried out early Sunday morning will be met with an Israeli response, according to Israeli media.

14

Israel's allies need to apply meaningful pressure to keep this planning from being acted upon. No matter what your position on the Gaza war or support for Israel, another strike against Iran is an avoidable additional escalation with serious risks.

Hard to do that while also sending them weapons.

Sarcasm aside, the US absolutely can, and should, sanction the munitions that were sold under agreement for use in accordance with international law.

then they wouldn't be sending weapons, Israel doesn't give a rats arse about international law

The US has already sold munitions to Israel. I’m suggesting the US holds Israel to their contracted use.

That should then be applied to US's use of the ammunition, something that would never happen.

The UN can hold any member nation accountable to international law. The US can directly hold Israel accountable, because it was part of the sale agreement for the munitions.

I don't really understand a few things about this conflict.

  • What prompted Israel to bomb Iran's embassy in Syria? I know there are tensions between Israel and Iran. I also know that Israel has been targeting Hezbula targets in Syria. Why attack Iranian generals in Syria?
  • Why would Israel think that they can attack an Iranian embassy without reprisal?
  • Why is Israel acting like the aggrieved party in this instance where they appear to be the aggressor?
  • Why does Israel think it is a good idea to add another front to their current conflict? A stronger front than the one they are currently fighting?

The bombing of the embassy was an escalation. Intentional.

Where you get into theories, is how does Israel benefit from an escalated shooting war? Does it get them international support so that their genocide in Gaza is ignored? Does it get the current incumbent president more time within an emergency context so they don't have to deal with political pressure internally? Fighting external wars to solve internal problems is a traditional tool dictators have fallen upon in the past

I think the genocide gets ignored whether or not they get international support. And I think Netanyahu knows this full well.

Israel and Iran going to war was something everyone pretty much felt was an inevitability one day, so "it's finally happened" covers up genocide quite well.

They want to draw in the us, they have bomb em Biden, acting the victim will cause some people to act like they are one, they want to draw in the us

Iranian generals often instruct and train Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, since they're Iranian proxies. Those same groups continously terrorize Israel.

Iran regularly calls for the destruction of Israel, though generally chooses to fight using their proxies rather than directly attacking Israel. Israel also targets Iranian proxies in Syria on the regular. Why they allegedly hit the Iranian embassy this time, nobody knows. Keep in mind that Israel never officially acknowledged that strike as theirs. People simply assume it because of all of the above.

Except Israel targeted terrorists that were being harbored in that embassy. Has Iran made any statement about the military targets on board that ship?

This you? Yeah, that's you.

Also, Generals aren't terrorists.

Also, this is the weakest justification I've ever read. You do know that the US and the Soviet Union didn't blow up the others embassies during the cold war, right? You do recognize that intentionally bombing embassies was a line that had never been crossed before, right?

This is the best summary I could come up with:


On Monday, The Jerusalem Post reported that within the corridors of Israel's power, a critical internal debate rages on concerning the timing and manner of a response to recent Iranian aggressions.

Iran, with its significant population, vast land, and burgeoning nuclear program, represents not just a transient challenge but a long-term existential threat.

Israeli leaders are thus caught in a strategic bind, balancing the urgency of immediate action to restore deterrence with the risks of escalating into a broader conflict.

Some advocate for swift, decisive action to signal strength, while others urge patience, suggesting that waiting might draw further international support or create more strategic advantages.

The implications of these decisions extend beyond immediate military tactics; they involve intricate geopolitical considerations, factoring in the looming US presidential elections and Israel's political dynamics.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself but recommended a strategic response that avoids direct retaliation.


The original article contains 565 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!