This thread exists to discuss Iran. The thread's scope covers the nation's history, culture, domestic politics and international relations.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
As with other OTC threads, off-topic posts may be thumped or edited by the moderators.
As of April 2024, the OTC Israel and Palestine thread is locked indefinitely and that discussion should not migrate to other threads. Aspects directly relevant to Iran are on-topic here, but this should not be used as an excuse for wider conversation about Israel and/or Palestine.
since the Military Thread seems to have shifted towards Iran, lets talk about them here, we'll start with some videos children
(Updated April 15 2024 to add mod pinned post)
Edited by Mrph1 on Apr 15th 2024 at 11:22:13 AM
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=14587279130A18481200&page=14#comment-346
Posting this here as I compiled the data on the embassy attack and I quoted some "interesting" stuff for peeps to check reagrding whether an attack in a third country is sound or not.
An article from the New York Times about the attack:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/world/middleeast/israel-response-iran-attack.html
Some excerpts:
(..........)
Israel has intensified its attacks on Iranian interests and commanders in Syria. In a series of strikes from last December onward, Israel has assassinated at least 18 Iranian commanders and military personnel .
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House said:
I think Tehran saw a need to draw this red line and make it clear to Israel that Iran does have red lines and would not continue to tolerate the slow degradation of its position.
Nasser Imani, a prominent analyst living in Tehran think that:
Finally
![[nja]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/user_ninja_2074.png "[nja]"){kind=small}
.....................
In short, that is what I was saying before: the attack was in response to years long provocations, it was meant only to send a message, and it was more theatrical than a serious attack.
Also, worth mentioning, the article note " that the Iranians targeted only military sites in an apparent effort to avoid civilian casualties and advertised their attack well in advance".
Edited by jawal on Apr 15th 2024 at 1:30:23 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
he/him
On attacks on embassies: there are two different issues here.
- If, say, Belgium attacks the Swiss embassy in Belgium, that's a breach of the "premises of the mission shall be inviolable" rule.
- If another state is in an armed struggle with Belgium and an attack on Brussels directly targets the Swiss embassy, that doesn't break the first rule but it is likely to be considered a direct attack on Switzerland, not Belgium. The building may not legally be Swiss sovereign territory, but for most other purposes it's treated as Swiss.
Hence attacking an Iranian consulate being seen as an escalation that, rightly or wrongly, warrants a response.
That is believable. They targeted an Israeli military site, intending to minimize civilian casualties - though I think they were hoping for more IDF casualties than they got, and instead got the equivalent of that time where Trump made a pothole in a Syrian airfield when Syria was caught using chemical weapons again.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Don't you mean embassy?
Technically the Israeli airstrike destroyed the Iranian consulate annex building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
Edited by jawal on Apr 15th 2024 at 1:57:20 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
The building that got hit was the consulate, its adjacent to the embassy but not the same building.
Edited by doineedaname on Apr 15th 2024 at 8:57:37 AM
Huh...
That part was called the "consulate annex building adjacent to the Iranian embassy" aka the embassy compound at least in some news reports I've read up on.
Edited by Ominae on Apr 15th 2024 at 6:01:30 AM
A consulate here, refere to the building occupied by the embassy's staff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulate
Edited by jawal on Apr 15th 2024 at 2:04:32 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
he/him
to the far more effective Iran-backed surprise attack on Saudi oil facilities in 2019, where a far smaller attack knocked out 5% of the world's oil supply.
That attack didn't have to travel 2000km, I'd compare it more to the missile attack on US bases as reprisal for Solamani's death which also came with a warning and caused no casualties
In terms of price Israel's defence would have cost over 1 billion vs my rough estimate of Iran's attack costing 250 million
20 000 for a Shahed drone x 170 = 3.4 million
300 000 for a ballistic missile x 110 = 36 million
6.5 million for a Paveh Cruise missile x 30 = 195 million
This isn't counting the cost to Jordan who stopped part of the attack.
Edited by Gaiazun on Apr 15th 2024 at 7:05:50 AM
I'll just go out and say it: why shoot the missiles in the first place if your plan hinges on most of them being shot down? What's the point of all this posturing if everyone knows they're bullshitting each other, and people get killed or injured in the process? And before Jawal points it out, Israel is off topic. But this is really more about the theory of realism and realpolitik in general.
I actually wanted to be Resileaf
Basically because you know that you can't win a war against Israel but you still need to respond to the attack on your embassy. Make a show of force that is likely not to do much damage but still expend resources from your foe, claim that you got what you wanted out of it, and say you're not going to make a further move if you're not provoked again.
Edited by Resileafs on Apr 15th 2024 at 1:45:17 PM
I don't know. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, as the saying goes. Some of this could be considered "strategic" but a lot of it is theatre, bending the rules or exploiting diplomatic loopholes. I know it's been normalized and almost every major power is guilty of it, but I just had to call it out.
Okay? What do you want Iran to do? Just take their x+1 beating like a chump?
....................................
Also, in general principle "an eye for an eye make the world blind", seem like something the first person should think about; otherwise, you are asking the victim to stop complaining accept being blind in order not to cause an inconvenience to his abuser
Edited by jawal on Apr 15th 2024 at 6:51:24 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
he/him
In terms of the effect:
- As noted, it cost Israel a lot of money.
- Domestic critics of Netanyahu are saying that the longstanding deterrence policy has been shattered and the current government has "become an existential threat to Israel".
Iran may be disappointed by the number of drones and missiles intercepted, but I'm willing to bet that some in the Iranian government will be smiling at that.
And that, I think, is all we can say about Israel here unless the situation changes again.
I don't know. But after giving it some thought, the principle of "proportional response" is a bit suspect. It's very hard to get people to agree what is actually proportional, and what isn't. And this can lead to escalation. Or worse. A lot of it seems driven more by emotion than reason.
This sentiment applies to all parties involved here, btw.
Ironically, the IDF spooksman just finished a press conference (watched it in France 24) when he promised a response to the attack when the time is right.
Edited by jawal on Apr 15th 2024 at 7:01:52 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
I'll just go out and say it: why shoot the missiles in the first place if your plan hinges on most of them being shot down?
US officials claim it didnt and they're just trying to save face after failing to do much damage.
Turkey's Foreign Ministry said it had spoken to both Washington and Tehran before the attack, adding it had conveyed messages as an intermediary to be sure reactions were proportionate.
"Iran said the reaction would be a response to Israel’s attack on its embassy in Damascus and that it would not go beyond this. We were aware of the possibilities. The developments were not a surprise," said a Turkish diplomatic source. One senior official in U.S. President Joe Biden's administration denied Amirabdollahian's statement, saying Washington did have contact with Iran through Swiss intermediaries but did not get notice 72 hours in advance.
"That is absolutely not true,” the official said. “They did not give a notification, nor did they give any sense of ... 'these will be the targets, so evacuate them.'" Tehran sent the United States a message only after the strikes began and the intent was to be "highly destructive" said the official, adding that Iran's claim of a widespread warning may be an attempt to compensate for the lack of any major damage from the attack.
he/him
At the very least, Israel and allies were on high alert for days. They knew some sort of retaliation was coming, and I suspect they knew what sort of attack it would be.
Though from that same link:
(........)
Iraqi, Turkish and Jordanian officials each said Iran had provided early warning of the attack last week, including some details.
There is no reason for those three to lie, and Jordan in particular sent jets to help intercept the missiles.
Also, Biden himself said on Friday, that he expects an attack from Iran "sooner than later" and warned them by saying "don't".
Edited by jawal on Apr 15th 2024 at 8:01:33 PM
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
A lot of this is about trying to do two things at once:
1) Demonstrate to both the internal and external audience that they're strong, should be taken seriously and can deter their enemies.
2) Not miscommunicate and accidentally escalate the conflict beyond what you're trying to accomplish.
The problem is that an attack which has the capability to do significant damage, but then doesn't, is not a great demonstration and raises some confusion about your intent. Should it be viewed as intended to have the effect it had, or the effect it could have had, had defenses been less successful?
The actual intent is basically unknowable (to the extent nations even have intents). But the big concern is about what is actually communicated or miscommunicated, especially since you're trying to communicate different things to different audiences, but can't separate out the channels.
Probably also 3) to wear down Israel's anti-air capacity. In a war of attrition, the first few operations can seem useless if you don't have exact tabs on everybody's materiel.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Also in a war torm place like middle east, this kind of thing are to be expected, demostration of force are more likey to happen and Israel need a check down, at least for the Iranian perpective.
Issue is they want to hurt israel and just said "well it is as it is" or just did a symbolic gesture.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
All this talk about realpolitik got me thinking. What exactly is the appropriate response to an attack on a country's embassy? Is it to attack another country's embassy? Would that be considered a 'proportional response'? Is it still reasonable after taking into account the innocent people that are killed in the process? Would doing nothing in retaliation really discredit a country's ability to defend itself? And if the attacking country is bound by the same principles then how does that prevent escalating to all out war? There really do seem to be a lot of contradictions in this theory of international relations