Tehran views the attack as equivalent to an attack on its own territory, so a direct response on Israeli soil by Iran itself is a serious possibility
Countries including India, France, Poland and Russia have warned their citizens against travel to the region, already on edge over the war in Gaza ⠀
“The revenge will come,” wrote Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth. “For the moment, the premise is that it will be very soon, in the next few days.” ⠀
“It’s going to be very difficult for Iran not to retaliate,” said Raz Zimmt, senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.
“I still believe that Iran doesn’t want to engage in full-scale, direct military confrontation against Israel, and certainly not with the United States. But it has to do something.” ⠀
Iranian sources and diplomats from the United States, Israel’s main protector, say Tehran has signalled to Washington that it wishes to avoid escalation and will not act hastily.
But the risk remains that any response might spin out of control. ⠀
Iran has missiles capable of hitting Israel directly and in recent weeks, Israel has bolstered its air defences, which have intercepted thousands of rockets fired by Hamas from Gaza and by Hezbollah from Lebanon.
I mean it’s an embassy, it literally is equivalent to an attack on Iranian soil. No viewpoint necessary, that is a fact. Israel committed an act of war against Iran and they are entirely within their right to retaliate.
Yup. And Ecuador just raided a Mexican embassy last week. It sure seems like the international order is breaking down. Thanks, Biden
Haven’t Israel attacked Iran many times before anyway?
Also frequently assassinated their scientists.
Could you post some reports/sources on this? I’m interested about it
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2022/aug/11/timeline-israeli-attacks-iran
I seem to remember lots of attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities over the years.
Thanks
What I still do not get is why they attacked the embassy of a country that always was clearly hostile towards them and has quite some military power. I mean right now with the war in Gaza, don’t they have enough on their plate?
Edit (finally could @-mention): As @wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works mentioned, it must have been clear from the beginning that this is a serious violation of international law.
-
the provocation was deliberate
-
they can position themselves as threatened/defending themselves (no reasonable person thinks Gaza poses an existential threat to Israel)
-
they can draw the US into defending them
-
this will dampen/limit US backlash against the Gaza genocide
-
Netanyahu needs the war to go on because it helps him stay in power and away from being prosecuted, US entry could achieve that
Gaza is definitely no threat, that’s why I thought that the whole world (politically, not necessarily the people) already accepted that Israel will not stop there until it has taken Gaza, West Bank and maybe even Golan (without the people that lived there of course…). With continued weapon shipments and other material needed therefore from its allies of course.
However, the US engaging in a war against Iran would be, well, I don’t know how to put it… some serious shit…
On the other hand Iran is not very stable politically and a war can be the last straw and I think their political elite thinks very carefully how to retaliate, like showing the world they aren’t weak and at the same time not triggering more global war.
This doesn’t change the fact that Israel’s action was absolutely reckless and irresponsible, even towards their own population.
That’s a good point, thanks.
Astonishing how complicated and fragile the political state of the world is right now.
And in a way it feels that we are on the verge of another world war and I really hope I am wrong about that.
I don’t think they need a full war, just enough skirmishing to take up all the oxygen. Kind of like how international attention went off Afghanistan when the US invaded Iraq.
-
They’re desperate to get more US military support, and the US won’t let anyone make a big fuss about the embassy strike, imo.
Maybe it’s the spoiled brat syndrome.
The best thinks he can attack everyone because his Daddy never put any limits
They want Iran to retaliate so they can use it as justification for escalation.
“We need to secure Gaza and the West Bank to protect it from Iran”
Agreed, however, this only works if Iran retaliates with restraint. If a full-scale war in the already destabilized region emerges with Iran bombing the shit out if them, all just because of that embassy attack… idk… this is some really risky strategy, but I’m far from an expert here.
I mean right now with the war in Gaza, don’t they have enough on their plate?
No. If Israel is ever threatened, they will have the full backing of the US military.
It’s better Americans die than zionists give up their religious nationalism.
Netanyahu wants the war to escalate and Joe Biden will support and defend Netanyahu in every war crime.
Joe Biden not putting a leash on his rabid attack dog is the reason this is happening.
I get that the paper is trying to thread carefully. But Iran doesn’t just “view” the attack as equivalent to an attack on its own territory. Internat law does.
Internet law?
Lol nice, yeah international law, obviously. I’m leaving it!
I’m curious about that.
Could you point to the law, section and paragraph saying that? That’s a good argument for me to use in conversations
This blog says that an embassy is the property of the sending nation, and enjoys diplomatic immunity, but that it is still part of the host’s territory. They cite articles 21-25 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
This is how actual wars begin. An attack on an embassy, then a retaliatory attack, then a huge attack in retaliation of the first retaliatory attack, and then war.
squinting at post title
Embassies are universally treated as the territory of the embassy’s nation. That’s why ppl can jump into the embassy of some country without an extradition treaty and say “lol you can’t get me now, coppers!”
Iran doesn’t view the attack as on its territory, the attack was on its territory.
