There's no need for further hostilities with Iran. Israel destroyed 90% of their strategic strike force. Iran does not have the strategic airlift capacity to try to invade Istrael nor do they have the ability to provide air cover. For that matter, Israel is no threat to Iran. The Iranian government needs a bogeyman to divert public hatred of the government. They succeeded in doing it but for how long. Something like 70% of Iranians despise their government. That being the case, won could argue that Iran is not a sovereign nation.
B. It's about deterrence for the future. Iran also control Hizbullah, the houthis, etc. looking narrowly at the 'Iranian air force' is meaningless strategically.
C. I might have agreed with you before October 7th. Then we thought deterrence was enough. Now the argument with Iran is that we don't even need deterrence, which is even worse. You have to see the middle launch as just part of an ongoing kinetic attack on Israel by Iran. Everybody shooting at us, north, south and east, are Iran.
D. If the regime is so unpopular this may be a good opportunity to destabilize the regime.
E. What difference does it make if they are 'sovereign' in the sense you imply? There have been many non-representative governments through history which lasted a very long time and effectively fought a lot of wars...
In 1953, the US and UK destabilized and overthrew the elected constitutional Iranian government to install the Shah. Today, the memory lingers and few in Iran want to see another destabilizing foreign intervention with no predictable outcome. Remember that once the regime goes down, there's no telling what will take its place. Witness what happened to in Russia when the Tsar stepped down. Who'da thunk that Lenin and company would show up out of exile and bring down the entire system. Indeed, remember that when the Shah went down, a coalition of reasonable parties thought that they could create constitutional democracy. Instead, the Ayatollah returned from exile and engineered a complete restructuring of Iranian politics and society.
And in 1945 the US overthrew the government of Japan. You win some you lose some. In the case of Iran I'm hard pressed to imagine what could be worse. Chaos might sure more terrorism but less organized and capable and unable certainly to develope nuclear weapons (about which you seen out blase).
One rule in determining a nation's sovereignty is whether or not the government rules by the consent of the governed. If 70% of voters don't approve of their system of government then one can argue that the Islamic Republic is a failed state. Lincoln use a similar device when referring to the so-called Confederate States of America, which he never referred to as anything other than a "rebellion." The CSA lacked sovereignty. At least half of its residents were either black or Unionist so the government didn't rule by consent. Iran meets the other main requirements of sovereignty but not this one. I'm not sure what this means but it's a talking point.
Iran has no "nuclear weapons." A "nuke" must be deliverable which means they need to be able to produce plutonium as well as master the extremely complex detonation process. Then, it all Once again, even they had a deliverable thermonuclear device and used it to attack Israel, the resultant fallout would spread beyond Israel's borders and indiscriminately kill millions. Then, nuclear winter would arrive. In short the entire region would become uninhabitable. Without a viable airforce they can't launch an effective invasion of Israel. That's what the article implies. Hez can cause trouble but can't go toe to toe with the IDF. Houthis can't project power beyond Yemen. These are all threats but not on the level where they can destroy Israel. Destabilize the regime? It's been tried. Also a government can be nonrepresentative and still rule with the consent of the people. Look at the 3rd Reich.
Fareed has a lot to say about Bibi and how he will manipulate events to stay in office. I'm skeptical of his reasons for destroying the consulate. What was the provocation? Was it serious enough to warrant this. Attacking an embassy or consulate is a grave violation of international law.
Also the army specifically did not request or need Bibi's approval for that hit. It was part of their standing operational orders. The commanders have already spoken about this in the Israeli press. I hate Bibi because he's a chicken and it's not being aggressive enough, he is the one who called off an immediate response to Iran. He is the one who vetoed an immediate war with Lebanon in October. He is a venal politician and a nasty person but he's no warmonger in fact the opposite.
It was not an embassy or consulate but a building near the consulate being used to organize terrorism against Israel. That is anti Israel propaganda by the Iranians.
There's no need for further hostilities with Iran. Israel destroyed 90% of their strategic strike force. Iran does not have the strategic airlift capacity to try to invade Istrael nor do they have the ability to provide air cover. For that matter, Israel is no threat to Iran. The Iranian government needs a bogeyman to divert public hatred of the government. They succeeded in doing it but for how long. Something like 70% of Iranians despise their government. That being the case, won could argue that Iran is not a sovereign nation.
A. It only takes one nuclear missile...
B. It's about deterrence for the future. Iran also control Hizbullah, the houthis, etc. looking narrowly at the 'Iranian air force' is meaningless strategically.
C. I might have agreed with you before October 7th. Then we thought deterrence was enough. Now the argument with Iran is that we don't even need deterrence, which is even worse. You have to see the middle launch as just part of an ongoing kinetic attack on Israel by Iran. Everybody shooting at us, north, south and east, are Iran.
D. If the regime is so unpopular this may be a good opportunity to destabilize the regime.
E. What difference does it make if they are 'sovereign' in the sense you imply? There have been many non-representative governments through history which lasted a very long time and effectively fought a lot of wars...
In 1953, the US and UK destabilized and overthrew the elected constitutional Iranian government to install the Shah. Today, the memory lingers and few in Iran want to see another destabilizing foreign intervention with no predictable outcome. Remember that once the regime goes down, there's no telling what will take its place. Witness what happened to in Russia when the Tsar stepped down. Who'da thunk that Lenin and company would show up out of exile and bring down the entire system. Indeed, remember that when the Shah went down, a coalition of reasonable parties thought that they could create constitutional democracy. Instead, the Ayatollah returned from exile and engineered a complete restructuring of Iranian politics and society.
And in 1945 the US overthrew the government of Japan. You win some you lose some. In the case of Iran I'm hard pressed to imagine what could be worse. Chaos might sure more terrorism but less organized and capable and unable certainly to develope nuclear weapons (about which you seen out blase).
One rule in determining a nation's sovereignty is whether or not the government rules by the consent of the governed. If 70% of voters don't approve of their system of government then one can argue that the Islamic Republic is a failed state. Lincoln use a similar device when referring to the so-called Confederate States of America, which he never referred to as anything other than a "rebellion." The CSA lacked sovereignty. At least half of its residents were either black or Unionist so the government didn't rule by consent. Iran meets the other main requirements of sovereignty but not this one. I'm not sure what this means but it's a talking point.
That and ten shekels will buy me a cup of coffee.
Where did the story originate that it was a consulate?
Iran has no "nuclear weapons." A "nuke" must be deliverable which means they need to be able to produce plutonium as well as master the extremely complex detonation process. Then, it all Once again, even they had a deliverable thermonuclear device and used it to attack Israel, the resultant fallout would spread beyond Israel's borders and indiscriminately kill millions. Then, nuclear winter would arrive. In short the entire region would become uninhabitable. Without a viable airforce they can't launch an effective invasion of Israel. That's what the article implies. Hez can cause trouble but can't go toe to toe with the IDF. Houthis can't project power beyond Yemen. These are all threats but not on the level where they can destroy Israel. Destabilize the regime? It's been tried. Also a government can be nonrepresentative and still rule with the consent of the people. Look at the 3rd Reich.
Fareed has a lot to say about Bibi and how he will manipulate events to stay in office. I'm skeptical of his reasons for destroying the consulate. What was the provocation? Was it serious enough to warrant this. Attacking an embassy or consulate is a grave violation of international law.
Also the army specifically did not request or need Bibi's approval for that hit. It was part of their standing operational orders. The commanders have already spoken about this in the Israeli press. I hate Bibi because he's a chicken and it's not being aggressive enough, he is the one who called off an immediate response to Iran. He is the one who vetoed an immediate war with Lebanon in October. He is a venal politician and a nasty person but he's no warmonger in fact the opposite.
It was not an embassy or consulate but a building near the consulate being used to organize terrorism against Israel. That is anti Israel propaganda by the Iranians.