this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
236 points (98.0% liked)
World News
32324 readers
812 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This defense enables and emboldens Israeli aggression.
It removes, or significantly reduces, the threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles.
That means, it removes, or reduces, any deterrent effect they have, on moderating Israel.
This is not good, but less because of the risk of American KIA, and more because of how it changes the Israeli calculus.
Indeed. Israel will only come to a diplomatic solution when they cannot win militarily. This has always been the case in the past.
Preventing a military Israeli defeat prolongs the Israeli aggression.
It doesn't, Israel is going to do whatever they want just as they always have. We're they not aggressive yet, did I miss calm level headed Israeli sometime in the last 50 years? No?
Iran never intended to strike with authority, they struck back because they are intended to, they didn't want involved and now they have every reason not to be.
Iran isn't now not has it ever truly been a moderating influence in Israel.
There's no change to the math, even without the us Israel is more than equipped to lay siege to Gaza for the foreseeable future and Iran had no intention of getting involved.
Not really. Iran wants an excuse to sit it out and they just got it.
What it will do is give the us more intelligence agents in the ground figuring out what the actual duck is going on.
We don't care about isrealis killing ours. Neither attacking a ship nor running a civilian over with a bulldozer raised too much issue.
I'm quite aware of THAAD's capabilities, including its tracking radars, at least as far as publicly disclosed information goes.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about this reducing, or removing, one of Iran's primary means of deterrence against Israeli attacks.
If Israel doesn't have to worry about the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles, it frees them up for an even more aggressive course of action.
Unless you're suggesting that this means Israel can, and should, continue to directly attack Iran...?
No I mean they can intercept Israeli missiles and they aren't Israeli controlled.
These will not be used to shoot down Israeli missiles...