That’s true, but is that a wise move, geopolitically? If Iran retaliates with force, it risks escalation, because Israel will hit back, likely with the help of its powerful allies. Iran’s BRICS allies may stand by it, or they may keep a distance, not wanting to get dragged into armed conflict. Such an attack will also shift moral and media focus away from the genocide in Gaza, allowing Israel to play up external threats in its public messaging.
Its BRICS allies will support Iran if it makes its case to the UN for an international response, and it may get support from other nations which are fed up with Israel at the moment. It seems like the international order is spooked right at the moment about Israel’s and Ecuador’s attacks on embassies; it’s a good time to make this pitch. And if the UN does little to address Iran’s grievances, its leaders can play that up at home as evidence of hostility toward it by the West to undermine the pro-Western youth movement threatening their rule.
This is looking at it from the point of view of Iran’s interests. From my point of view, less bombing of things and less war is better for the world.
Well, and Russia does not have much of war resources to spare, and Syria is not exactly the biggest player in town. Yes, they do have and used poison gas on enemies, but that would probably lead to “The Crater, formerly known as Damascus”.
Lol? You’re ok with a nuclear Iran? You’re chill with having another geopolitical actor holding a gun to Europe? Maybe sit down and think things thru before you open your mouth.
You dont get to decide who has enough clout to be taken seriously. The US made it so nukes aree essential if you are not their ally. I am not okay with anyone having them, but they are there so it is fair game.
Israel has been bombing them for ages. At some point people are allowed to defend themselves.
That’s true, but is that a wise move, geopolitically? If Iran retaliates with force, it risks escalation, because Israel will hit back, likely with the help of its powerful allies. Iran’s BRICS allies may stand by it, or they may keep a distance, not wanting to get dragged into armed conflict. Such an attack will also shift moral and media focus away from the genocide in Gaza, allowing Israel to play up external threats in its public messaging.
Its BRICS allies will support Iran if it makes its case to the UN for an international response, and it may get support from other nations which are fed up with Israel at the moment. It seems like the international order is spooked right at the moment about Israel’s and Ecuador’s attacks on embassies; it’s a good time to make this pitch. And if the UN does little to address Iran’s grievances, its leaders can play that up at home as evidence of hostility toward it by the West to undermine the pro-Western youth movement threatening their rule.
This is looking at it from the point of view of Iran’s interests. From my point of view, less bombing of things and less war is better for the world.
Iran would not get any support, aside from maybe Russia or Syria.
Well, and Russia does not have much of war resources to spare, and Syria is not exactly the biggest player in town. Yes, they do have and used poison gas on enemies, but that would probably lead to “The Crater, formerly known as Damascus”.
Lol? You’re ok with a nuclear Iran? You’re chill with having another geopolitical actor holding a gun to Europe? Maybe sit down and think things thru before you open your mouth.
You dont get to decide who has enough clout to be taken seriously. The US made it so nukes aree essential if you are not their ally. I am not okay with anyone having them, but they are there so it is fair game.
Actions have consequences