Iran said it launched dozens of drones and ballistic missiles towards Israel on Saturday in a major attack following days of acute tension building up in the region and warnings from the US and elsewhere about a wider conflict erupting.
Air attack warning sirens began wailing over Jerusalem just before 2am local time on Sunday after the weapons were fired a few hours earlier from Iran with US and Jordanian military assisting Israel’s air defenses in intercepting the first incoming barrage.
With weapons believed to be still in the air en route to Israel, Iran’s mission to the United Nations posted on X: “Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus. The matter can be deemed concluded.”
However, it threatened more severe action in the face of further Israeli aggression and warned the US and Jordan specifically not to assist Israel.
Edit: here are links to the NYT and BBC live feeds.
Edit 2: updated summary and archive to reflect article changes.
Iran’s response isn’t proportional though. Israel made a single strike on military leaders using a nearby embassy. Launching dozens of drones is an escalation.
It’s not even a smart escalation. It allows Israel to claim they were attacked disproportionately and launch strikes on Iran’s actual military in country. Iran has much worse defenses against cruise missiles and drones. Now they may lose what sympathy they had from other countries.
I predict the US will free the ship Iran took today within a few weeks. Maybe the Navy will knock out all Iran’s anti-air radar in the south, just as a show of force, and then not attack anything. That would be a good way to tell them to stop without killing.
Iran attacked the specific military installations that Israel used to perform their highly illegal attack on the Iranian embassy. This is the most textbook example of textbook examples of appropriate, proportional and measured self-defense we have seen in a very long time in the entire region. The relevant thing to count is not the number of missiles or drones, but the number of targets and their relevance to the case.
The US just tried to negotiate with Houthis over the attacks in the Red Sea, an omission that things aren’t going so well. Iran is in a stronger position than Houthis, I think your over estimating the US right now.
Well the whole premise is that the US is trying to play middle ground seacop (shittily). Obviously if they wanted to they could delete the existing houthi command/regime. (And thereby creating Arab quagmire new, electric boogalo)
That’s not so obvious. The US heavily supported the Saudi’s military campaign against Ansar Allah which ultimately failed. The US has since bombed them directly which has also failed. Like if the US didn’t have the capacity institutionally or otherwise to eliminate the Taliban why would Ansar Allah be any different?
Have you already forgot Afghanistan?!
Do you need to be reminded how well the US “deleted” the Taliban Poshtun leadership?
Because the Houtis in Yemen is a very similar situation, even to the point of the Houtis also being a mountain people, and they’ve already been enduring American and British bombs delivered by Saudi planes for years now.
The reason the US and Britain, after an initial couple of days of heavy and loud chest pounding, very quickly went very quiet about their attacks on the Houtis following the latter’s attack on shipping, is because it just wasn’t working all that well.
America’s ability to militarilly bully a group into compliance with American wishes relies on the targets being city people, who are pinned down and own shit they don’t want to lose, and doesn’t frigging work on mountain nomads.
I don’t think the warlords of the taliban are the closest available comparison. I also don’t think the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan is the closest available comparison.
That said, it would still become a huge mess, as I clearly indicated
You need to read more, A LOT more, to even begin to opinate on how easy it would be for America to “delete” the leadership of this Yemeni faction.
The northern part of Yemen is mountainous and these guys are tribal people from that area, who have taken over a large part of the rest of Yemen, to the point that Saudi Arabia directly intervened to try and stop them and have been at it for many years now (and it’s not working).
It’s not perfectly like Afghanistan (and it would never be, as it’s not Afghanistan) yet the whole situation is a lot more like Afghanistan, than, say Iraq, so your casual expectation that the US can “delete” them is ridiculous and seems to have no foundations other than nationalism and ignorance of the situation.
No, I’m good. Simmer on the tone.
I made very clear it would not be a good thing. I’m not stanning for another middle east war.
The houthi faction has much more established infrastructure and footprint than the afghani Taliban ever did, and it was obviously that infrastructure i was referring to.
Further, the mountains of Afghanistan are much larger and more complicated than those of Yemen. I didn’t say Yemen is flat.
Let me put things another way: you originally made quite a tall claim that the US “if it wants could delete the Houthi leadership” and confronted with my point that in similar conditions not long ago the US failed to “delete” a leadership even though it wanted to, your whole argument is now “it’s not quite the same conditions”.
Of course it’s not the same: it’s a bloody different country.
The thing is, merely me pointing out a situation were the US failed to “delete” a leadership when it wanted to is enough to prove my point (and if you want another example, how about Vietnam) because I was never making the point that the US will fail if it tries, I was making the point that US is not guaranteed to succeed, i.e. I was disproving your original claim and all that it takes to disprove a certaintly of success is to point out 1 situation where the it was a failure.
The entirety of your argument now is about “it might succeed” because Yemen ain’t Afghanistan.
Well, yeah, sure, I agree that it might, but that’s not what you wrote originally: what you wrote originally is that “if it wants it can”, which is a whole different claim from “it can try and maybe it will succeed”.
Whilst Yemen not being Afghanistan means US is not guaranteed to fail to “delete the Houthi leadership” if it tries (and I never claimed it will), Yemen being similar to Afghanistan makes it more likely (IMHO) that the US will fail than if, for example Yemen was like Iraq instead.
All that however is mere decoration to my original disproving of your original post which was done since I pointed out how it once in the recent past wanted to and failed.
I made 2 points:
The US could make a targeted strike to decapitate houthi leadership and and command infra. I made this claim knowing a bit about Yemen, but specifically knowing that Yemen is very different from Afghanistan and that the leadership and critical military infrastructure is very different to afghan / Taliban setups.
This action would result in a “quagmire” the likes of our past attempts to assert control over a middle eastern country via military power.
I am and have been clear that America shouldn’t do this, wouldn’t be successful in the long run, and wouldn’t create any of the change they would hope to achieve.
Edit but if they foolishly chose to, they absolutely could strike Yemen and massively destabilize / decapitate / destroy much of what makes the houtis a regional concern.
There guys keep losing wars and fucking up internationally, yet still behave like they have presidency over everyone’s existence lmao
Israel escalated by striking an embassy, breaking the Vienna convention, to Iran arming insurgents. That was Israel launching four missiles at Iranian sovereign territory, targeting high-ranking Iranian military officials, on ground that is considered to be sacrosanct internationally to preserve diplomacy in times of war.
The thing is, the drones are proportional retaliation, but still, it should be on both sides to try to de-escalate.
What I see though is that Israel wasn’t even condemned for the attack, in fact they tried to claim it wasn’t even an embassy they hit. Now the problem is that Iran, with its leadership and government being how it is, can’t let this go as they are humiliated. When Trump killed Soleimani, which was a similar strike (but not at an embassy!), Iran launched attacks at US bases, wounding US troops which the US let go without retaliation. That’s how it got de-escalated.
Your point with “let’s humiliate Iran by performing a show of force” is that they won’t take it and de-escalate. It will make it worse. I’m not saying we should let Iran walk all over us, but stepping in to cover one shitty side against another will just lead to either war or another 9/11.
You didn’t mention the ship they took. If you think the missiles and drones (dozens) are proportional, then the ship makes no sense. Commandeering a civilian ship is clearly extra and disproportionate. They’re probably not going to give that up without getting something in return.
The leaders of Iran are desperate to seem tough to their domestic audience, like Putin. That’s why they did this. Unfortunately for the people of Iran, this is going to hurt them further with sanctions.