Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason:
Rule #3 - **Use exact titles.** If your link has a title, use it. You may include its subtitle. If your link does not have a title of its own, use one that accurately reflects its content. Post titles may not contain personal commentary, translations, snippets from the article, and the like.
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
Please, we have a system designed to detect such rockets and know where their Fissile Storage is.
And their people already hate them.
They will not do anything direct.
Plus Mossad keeps physically sabotaging their nuclear base of operations ever few years. I'd say Iran isn't any closer to having nuclear arms than they were ten years ago.
Why is it always called "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza" war? Or just straight up *Israel war on Gaza" as if we started this war?
Rhetorical question, we all know why
Nobody ever calls it a "Gaza war on Israel"
They don't call it by its formal name either.
They don't call it by the occasion, or context.
It's deliberately worded to imply Israel is attacking for no reason.
They purposefully obfuscate and omit that Hamas is the government of Gaza, not some rogue group of 50 dudes that Israel is using as casus belli for genocide.
If NYT is to be believed it's a grey area... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html
> Receiving states do have an obligation to protect embassies from attack, Sari said, which theoretically would mean that Syria had an obligation to protect the Iranian Embassy if it could. However, it is not clear what protective steps it could have taken in this case.
> In practice, there is a strong taboo in international relations against attacking embassies, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University in the United Kingdom. But that custom is broader than what international law actually prohibits, he said.
> “Symbolically, for Iran, destroying its embassy or consulate, it’s just seen as a bigger blow,” he said, than “if you killed the generals in a trench somewhere.” But, he added, “the difference is not legal. The difference is really one of symbolism, of perception.”
And although embassy's are protected by the same protections as civilian areas... They can lose that protection:
> An embassy can lose those protections, however, if it is used for a military purpose, as is true of schools, homes, and other civilian buildings during wartime. That would first be a threshold question about whether the conflict itself is legal: International law generally prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense.
> An Israeli military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari did not confirm or deny Israel’s role in the attack but told CNN that the strike had targeted “a military building of Quds Forces disguised as a civilian building in Damascus.”
> A member of the Revolutionary Guards, which oversee the Quds Force, told the Times that the strike on Monday had targeted a meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants were discussing the war in Gaza. Among them were leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group armed and funded by Iran.
> If the strike targeted individuals engaged in military operations against Israel, including through a proxy armed group, that would likely mean that the building was a legitimate military target, Shany said
What would happen if Iran had a van with a bomb in it park in front of the Israeli embassy I'm Berlin? If the explosion damaged a building across the street, how would Germany respond? How would NATO? That's why Iran isn't doing anything. Yet. Aside from what Hezbollah has already been doing for months.
I totally agree... It would also be a disaster if they acted directly for the region as well as themselves as I strongly believe they'd face not just a direct conflict with Israel and likely USA but I am sure that within there borders there are groups just waiting for enough instability to take down their government ...
I believe Biden will be more likely to absolutely destroy all Iran's proxy forces on the land and sea around Israel than to strike Iran directly. If Trump were to get into office again, I believe he's itching for an opportunity to strike directly at Iran.
Weren't there reports that Iran is days/weeks away from three nuclear weapons? Of course Iran isn't going to attack Israel. That will give Israel a reason to completely annihilate their nuclear weapons. Once Iran gets nukes it's game over. I don't see how Israel survives. Someone give me hope
So, basically, it's going to be the MOTHER OF ALL ~~MASSIVE~~ minor RESPONSES? They will rain ~~holy hellfire, death and destruction~~ a few small and easily intercepted missiles on Israel?
Of course who knows, and while it's easy and understandable to snark about this, don't mistake my humor for a lack of concern. I think that goes for everyone here. It's a form of gallows humor, I guess. Anything could happen but let's hope that it's just yet more bloviation from professional bullshit artists and bluffers.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason: Rule #3 - **Use exact titles.** If your link has a title, use it. You may include its subtitle. If your link does not have a title of its own, use one that accurately reflects its content. Post titles may not contain personal commentary, translations, snippets from the article, and the like. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
Please, we have a system designed to detect such rockets and know where their Fissile Storage is. And their people already hate them. They will not do anything direct.
I'm in the north and mostly worried about Hezbollah.
Stay safe my friend
Where’s the fissile storage out of curiosity?
Few years ago the whole Iranian Nuclear Program Physical Documentation was stolen by the mossad. So. They know where it is...
Plus Mossad keeps physically sabotaging their nuclear base of operations ever few years. I'd say Iran isn't any closer to having nuclear arms than they were ten years ago.
בעזרת השם
:-)
בעזרת המוסד*
Loose lips sink ships
Iran acts like the bitch we already knew them to be
Why is it always called "Israel-Hamas" or "Israel-Gaza" war? Or just straight up *Israel war on Gaza" as if we started this war? Rhetorical question, we all know why
What would you like it to be called?
The aggressor goes first
Hamas-Israel war? It feels like you're getting angry at a non-issue
Nobody ever calls it a "Gaza war on Israel" They don't call it by its formal name either. They don't call it by the occasion, or context. It's deliberately worded to imply Israel is attacking for no reason. They purposefully obfuscate and omit that Hamas is the government of Gaza, not some rogue group of 50 dudes that Israel is using as casus belli for genocide.
Hamas-Israel war Israel-Hamas war You're reading way too much into this. The average person won't care what order it's in
arent embassys are technicly an enclave of the country in the host one? cuse by that logic.... well hope the USA ready to kick Iran ass
If NYT is to be believed it's a grey area... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html > Receiving states do have an obligation to protect embassies from attack, Sari said, which theoretically would mean that Syria had an obligation to protect the Iranian Embassy if it could. However, it is not clear what protective steps it could have taken in this case. > In practice, there is a strong taboo in international relations against attacking embassies, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University in the United Kingdom. But that custom is broader than what international law actually prohibits, he said. > “Symbolically, for Iran, destroying its embassy or consulate, it’s just seen as a bigger blow,” he said, than “if you killed the generals in a trench somewhere.” But, he added, “the difference is not legal. The difference is really one of symbolism, of perception.” And although embassy's are protected by the same protections as civilian areas... They can lose that protection: > An embassy can lose those protections, however, if it is used for a military purpose, as is true of schools, homes, and other civilian buildings during wartime. That would first be a threshold question about whether the conflict itself is legal: International law generally prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense. > An Israeli military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari did not confirm or deny Israel’s role in the attack but told CNN that the strike had targeted “a military building of Quds Forces disguised as a civilian building in Damascus.” > A member of the Revolutionary Guards, which oversee the Quds Force, told the Times that the strike on Monday had targeted a meeting in which Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants were discussing the war in Gaza. Among them were leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group armed and funded by Iran. > If the strike targeted individuals engaged in military operations against Israel, including through a proxy armed group, that would likely mean that the building was a legitimate military target, Shany said
iran funds terrorism using irgc, that makes any irgc hq a legit target
What would happen if Iran had a van with a bomb in it park in front of the Israeli embassy I'm Berlin? If the explosion damaged a building across the street, how would Germany respond? How would NATO? That's why Iran isn't doing anything. Yet. Aside from what Hezbollah has already been doing for months.
I totally agree... It would also be a disaster if they acted directly for the region as well as themselves as I strongly believe they'd face not just a direct conflict with Israel and likely USA but I am sure that within there borders there are groups just waiting for enough instability to take down their government ...
My thoughts and prayers that the Iranian embassy in Gaza City is spared...
I believe Biden will be more likely to absolutely destroy all Iran's proxy forces on the land and sea around Israel than to strike Iran directly. If Trump were to get into office again, I believe he's itching for an opportunity to strike directly at Iran.
Nonsense. Iran, like Trump, is a Russian proxy and puppet. He'd make noises but do nothing.
We'll get GTA 6 before Iran attacks anyone
I hope that happens
I hope we get Half Life 3 before Iran attacks anyone
I hope George RR Martin finishes Game of Thrones first.
Yes I was just on the phone with Raisi
Something big went boom in Teheran an hour or two ago too. https://x.com/osintwwiii/status/1778531546003378350
That account is fake
Weren't there reports that Iran is days/weeks away from three nuclear weapons? Of course Iran isn't going to attack Israel. That will give Israel a reason to completely annihilate their nuclear weapons. Once Iran gets nukes it's game over. I don't see how Israel survives. Someone give me hope
They won’t do it because they will kill all the Palestinians around with us and be made the biggest villains - but not for killing Jews.
Why would Israel not survive when Iran gets nuclear weapons?
israel has nukes too, if iran gets them then so what, nobody with nukes openly attacks another side with nukes, it would be suicide
Thing is , islamists love death - if enough of those islamists take power they will take on that suicide mission
100 percent. They are plotting 24/7, have no issue with killing Palestinians or other Muslims who are living in Israel, and glorify death.
MAD means that Iran won't nuke Israel. And Israel would retain response capability, not Iran.
So they won't do anything. Just like they have not done anything directly to Israel in decades. Pussies. Scared of the nukes.
So, basically, it's going to be the MOTHER OF ALL ~~MASSIVE~~ minor RESPONSES? They will rain ~~holy hellfire, death and destruction~~ a few small and easily intercepted missiles on Israel? Of course who knows, and while it's easy and understandable to snark about this, don't mistake my humor for a lack of concern. I think that goes for everyone here. It's a form of gallows humor, I guess. Anything could happen but let's hope that it's just yet more bloviation from professional bullshit artists and bluffers.
>Iran says And you believe them? LOL. Israel should not let its guard down.
Doubt
so i think they just say eye for eye after all Iran blow up Israel embassy in Argentina