The attack is expected to come in the form of missile or drone strikes against Israeli government sites, according to the report.
  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    So stupid. If they were smart, Iran’s leadership would use this opportunity to gain international support and clout by behaving like the reasonable ones while Israel is going rogue.

    • filister@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      What I struggle with the most is how the West just shrugged shoulders when Israel hit embassies in foreign countries.

      If this has happened in any other country/embassy the international outcry would have been much bigger. Those double standards which we apply to international politics are despicable. And this also creates a sense of impunity in Israel and we all see what that leads to.

      How can you preach morale when you yourself are wicked?

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        Naw, I’m just highlighting the difference between what smart leaders would do, compared to what Iran’s leaders will probably do.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        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.

          • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            6 months ago

            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”.

      • zerog_bandit@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          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

    • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      That’s an interesting take.

      I think it helps to remember that these decisions are often made by people who have very specific goals that aren’t aligned with the nation itself. Generals who want to get promoted to higher levels, government ministers looking to curry favor with their patrons.

      You might be right, but they’re likely not trying to improve Iran’s standing. They’re looking to each improve their own. Also, most people in these positions, in my observation ARE very dumb.