Iran has told Israel through the UN that it will intervene if the country’s operations against Hamas in Gaza continue, a report has claimed.
Israel has warned 1.1 million people living in the north of the enclave to evacuate ahead of an expected ground operation in Gaza with the IDF planning to strike the territory from land, sea and air.
Iran’s involvement could be through a militant group from Syria or by backing Hezbollah to join the conflict, diplomatic sources told Axios.
Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said that Israel’s operations could cause fighting to expand to other areas of the Middle East which would cause Israel to suffer “a huge earthquake”, reported the Associated Press.
Israel is 110% not going to heed this warning in the absolute slightest.
Iran does not pose a credible military threat to Israel. They only have a couple of options - terrorist attacks from their proxies, maybe a cross-border incursion from Lebanon that would be a slaughter and change the balance of power there, or an air strike. Israel is so amped up right now that they’d respond with airstrikes inside Iran, and US carrier groups are in the area with no misunderstanding as to what they signify.
This is saber-rattling for theatrics.
Iran are not wrong though, Israel need to chill.
It’s really annoying how the mainstream media is like yeah this is cool, when they’re commuting atrocities no better than Hamas committed.
I don’t know what it is with Israel that makes the world walk on eggshells but they have committed horrific acts and they should be called out on it.
Fucking monsters the Israeli government are.
They might not be wrong about Israel committing atrocities. They would be wrong to add to it by committing atrocities of their own. The article certainly doesn’t seem to indicate they’ll “intervene” in a benign manner, and their track record is as blemished or worse.
This is doubly dumb if Israel is like they say. There is zero chance Israel would back down if Iran intervened; really, they’d probably have no issue extending the rampage to Iran as well. More people will die horribly.
It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, as Iran is implying they will do here, is somehow worse than apathy.
I’m not saying I support Iran with their threats but I think I have a problem with the generality of what you said. The same could be used to say the west shouldn’t support Ukraine with weapons because then the war would be over sooner, preventing deaths and violence.
Iran is an uninvolved third party poised to add to the bloodshed with no possible gain, unlike with Ukraine where lives in the future may be saved. I’m not saying there should be no third party interventions in general. Simply that Iran coming in to make things expressly worse— I think we can all see there will be absolutely nothing improved by their intervention— is of unparalleled uselessness and would result in pointless loss of life. If they could contribute, all power to them, but they cannot do anything but make it worse.
Again I am not in support of Iran taking action here, I disliked the general dismission of intervention in your first comment
I feel like even in that first comment alone I repeated that I’m against this specific case of intervention because it would be “committing atrocities of their own” despite “zero chance that Israel would back down,” and that adding “more violence with absolutely no chance of preventing loss of life”.
That’s three separate quotes from three separate paragraphs, very narrowly commenting only on Iran’s proposed intervention. I’m not sure how I could have made it more clear that I’m only against the pointless killing this specific intervention, the one indicated by the article would lead to? Like even now I don’t see how it could have been clarified, and I’m genuinely interested in knowing how. This thread isn’t even about intervention in general, just the exact instance I was commenting on.
Apologies if this sounds even the slightest bit hostile— I genuinely don’t mean it to have that tone, and I haven’t gotten into a single argument on Lemmy. I just cannot see how it wasn’t abundantly clear when I paid extra effort to comment very very very narrowly across three paragraphs in the first comment alone.
Sorry I should have clarified/specified what I was objecting to. I apparently misinterpreted this paragraph
The rest of your comment is fine and it’s clear that you are explicitly talking about the actions of Iran. I read this paragraph as a summary/generalization which you used as the basis of your opinion about the actions of Iran. I’ll switch it around a bit to make it clear how I read it:
Where the first two sentences are the generalization tied back to the conflict discussed in the thread with the last sentence. And I would object to this generalization.
Edit:
Don’t worry I am always happy to be more specific if asked! I get that I am sometimes not as specific as I should be in these comments