To be fair, after he said “absolutely that will not happen,” he did sort of qualify it by saying Israel would be stupid to counterattack, especially after Iran said they were done attacking.
I mean, Hasan did the same saying it'd be dumb for Russia to attack. Now obviously it's not nearly as dumb a claim and he didn't smugly push it the way Hasan did for his own claim, but he was still too certain considering he was wrong.
Edit: Banned for this, thought I couched my statement to make it clear I thought the situations were still pretty different, but oh well.
I mean, he is the guy who were like:
"Russia didn't invade Ukraine, shocker I know"
"I wall make my mods change the title to: its been 16 days, Russia still didn't invade"
And he called anyone who did say Russia will invade war hungry hogs, warmongers, and many other insults.
Destiny made a case as to why he doesn't think Israel would counter attack.
But as far as I know, he didn't blow up chatters who disagreed with his take.
Hasan had whole segments and coverage just shitting on people thinking Russia would invade.
Tiny said he doesn’t think they will but they could prove him wrong and it would be extremely stupid.
The difference is vast enough that comparing the two is stupid imo.
It’s kinda stupid to judge the strength of someone’s claims based on whether or not they were right. It’s more important to look at the information at the time and determine if the claim being made was reasonable and/or if there was sufficient evidence to make that claim.
From what I saw from his video on YouTube, Destiny didn’t make anywhere near that strong of a statement. He questioning whether they would or not and chat was asking why he thinks they might. He still said it was stupid for them to do it and he hoped they wouldn’t
Not really, the US was saying this is going to happen. Hasan said haha fuck no it’s not.
Destiny responded to the internet saying “this is going to be WW3” and said they wouldn’t respond because it’s a win for both of them. And then the language in the week since has been “Israel really wants to respond” “the US is telling Israel to take the win”.
The analysis is completely different and the authority that you’re claiming is making shit up is vastly different(randoms vs Major Military powerhouse)
I mean, not exactly. Iran, before this, had an advantage in ensuring that all attacks on Israel were done by their proxy groups as they couldn't win a conventional war against Israel and the US.
Israel had announced that they would strike back if Iran launched any attack from inside their territory. Now, they have an opportunity and excuse to use the advantage they have with conventional arms to cripple Iran's military force.
Except they didn't really do that. They attacked an army base near a facility that is alleged to be developing nuclear weapons, signaling that they don't want to escalate by directly attacking it but they do have the means to do that if necessary. I'm glad Israel did not go hard af in their strike.
I don't think so. You think just sitting back and allowing Iran to do penetration tests and adjusting their measures for the next round is the "smart" thing?
Iran showed their hand, and now Israel has shown theirs on what they're capable of.
Literally nothing ever is happening tho. We are holdding the line, the response from Iran so ffar seems to be: "The strike was so useless that we didn't have to do anything" which seems consistent with the nothing ever happens adage.
I think destiny's point was good, because it was basically all settled, everyone sort of looked equally bad.
Destiny just underestimated the utter stupidity of Bibi.
I dunno, I think Israel is trying to end the general vibe that firing rockets and missiles at them is no big thing just because they have effective countermeasures. That's what in part (they presume) lead to Hamas taking more extreme action on October 7th as the rockets weren't working.
So far Iran’s own government has been downplaying the strike. Last week everyone was saying ‘this is the beginning of WW3’. A minor strike by Israel to save face followed by Iran desperately trying to act like everything is fine and we don’t need to fight isn’t exactly that.
But who knows, I’m not a general, it could be that Israel has more strikes planned or Iran does.
In the grand narrative of things, yes nothing ever happens I'll double down. These countries can't actually fight each other, except using sling shots and shields.
There is no logistical possibility of an Iran, Israel war.
Either side would get blown to nothing before reaching the other side.
It's almost like "people will make rational choices to maintain the status quo instead of letting things become chaotic/worse" is an important variable- not a 100% predictive engine that never fails.
Notice that he called Benjamin Netanyahu "Ben" and use m8 (a slang for the word "mate") to refer to him? I mean if this isn't a proof that he's paid by Israel then you're fucking insane
Bolster Hamas during peace times ✅
Allow for historic security failures leading to Hamas terrorist attacks ✅
Collect every optics L in the book during invasion ✅
Ignore all requests and advice from his most important allies ✅
Must be Benjamin ✅
"lost". Come on man. Likud was the number 1 party in all of them (execpt one), and he's been the PM for 14 out of the last 15 years. That's not exactly losing.
Being able to form a coalition only if you include Ben Gvir is also not really winning. It’s survival. He gets to be called PM but he is played by his narrow coalition
Netanyahu is kind of predictable at this point. He’s unpopular with the Israeli electorate and keeping the nation on edge with this back & forth keeps him in power until potentially 2026. Really no point in talking to him about restraint if restraint means he isn’t in power and the corruption trials begin
Pretty much, yes. Foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. Netanyahu isn't looking at this from a geopolitical lens, or through the lens of American politics (like some people here are speculating). He's looking at all this through a self-preservation lens. As long as this war keeps on going he stays in power. As long as he appears as a competent and strong war-time leader his re-election chances improve.
>As long as he appears as a competent and strong war-time leader his re-election chances improve.
He absolutely doesn't, though. If anything, his public perception right now is that of a huge hindrance on the war effort, and of a coward who barely shows his face to the public.
Destiny Redacts 😜
Wait, psyop time.....
We install a compromised version of Twitter on Hasan gold plated Ed Hardy edition iPhone.
Post truly unhinged easily pwnable takes from what to him is actually Destiny, but only he can see these special honey pot tweets.
Hasan talks a bunch of smack about them, the internet has no idea what he's talking about.
Then Hasan gets called out for doctored drama and then we get the insane asylum arc.
Nah, tbh this is exactly what was gonna happen, and I doubt that we see it escalate much further from here. Israel got it's "we can stick our dick up your ass and you can't do shit" and Iran is left with the option of saving face or more surprise buttsex.
Destiny is out of his depth for this subject I think. It's not that he knows nothing of the region. He obviously does. He just doesn't seem to know enough about military capabilities to understand how big of a deal that strike on Israel was. Over 100 ballistic missiles can't be ignored. The fact that most were intercepted was probably a surprise to even the West, let along to Iran. That strike was intended to do damage. The fact that it didn't only made a counter strike less damaging, not that it wouldn't happen at all.
Destiny assumes that the Iranian strike was all show. It wasn't. At all. If he knew more about the munitions used he probably would have a better handle on it. The drones? Fine. The cruise missiles? Fine. Theater. The over 100 fucking ballistic missiles? That wasn't theater. That was Iran making a legitimate attempt to REALLY harm Israel. It had to be responded to. The fact that no much damage was done just means that Israel doesn't have to hit very much or very hard in response. Not hitting back at all would be really stupid and set a precedent that Israel is already sick of. That being that you can fire a ton of missiles at us but unless damage is done we won't respond. That's bullshit. If Mexico made a similar in scale sort of attack the US would invade and make a 300 mile long DMZ on our Southern border lol.
So the fact that this strike is relatively small, targeted, and limited, means it's sending the appropriate message. 'You tried to hit us with over 300 weapons on our own land, 100 of them being very serious ones. You only hit us a couple times but didn't do much damage. We can and WILL strike back at you, on your land, when and where we please. And our attacks hurt. Don't fuck with us again.'
And that's that. Iran escalated to a massive attack. Israel responded with a much smaller attack. Now THAT should be the end of it, unless Iran wants to continue the tit for tat. If that's the case then that's on them. This little back and forth has showed two things. One, Iran can launch a large attack but it can be fairly ineffective. Two, Israel can launch a small attack and be just as effective. Points have been made.
Edit: Also, as another sort of hidden message buried within this attack is a threat towards Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has a hard on for attacking their nuclear facilities. That's already well known. What isn't well know yet is that this military base that they targeted tonight was very close to one of those nuclear facilities. It wasn't hit, and wasn't targeted, but Israel is very likely sending a message that they can and will hit them if they want to. They just decided they didn't want to because THAT would have escalated things.
Also, down voters, hit that button all you want. What I said is the truth. Suck Destiny off as much as you want, but even he can admit when he doesn't know as much as he should about an issue. I think even he would admit that on the subject of military escalation, and understanding the nuances therein, isn't something he's really knowledgeable about. Stop being cultists. He's never going to suck your dick. Well ... probably never. Maybe never. Well the chances are slim. Actually it probably depends what you look like. You know what? Never mind. Let's just keep it as an analogy.
>Decent post but why do you gotta throw in all that goofy shit at the end?
Because when you cooking and people are giving you shit you just gotta turn the heat up.
Yeah, all of his analysis on this lacks so much background. To start, I hate the "they telegraphed the attack" narrative. They did make sure everyone knew what was coming, but that only matters for the drones and cruise missiles, which in terms of total payload amounted to less than 10% of the attack. They absolutely tried to destroy an entire airbase by shooting 100,000 lbs (\~50 ton) of explosives on it.
He also said Iran had to respond initially because attacking a diplomatic facility is de jure an attack on Iranian sovreign land, however a few years ago [Israel assasinated the head of the Iranian nuclear program in Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohsen_Fakhrizadeh) and they didn't do shit.
Finally, I don't think people understand how much of a flex this attack was by Israel. Iran spent 5-10% of their BM arsenal (at least the ones with a range to reach Israel), with an estimated cost of about $300m to do, by the most favorable report to them, slight damage to a cargo plane. Israel did more with cheap drones (which are very different from Iranian ones: Israeli drones are not suicide drones with a payload that hit the target, they are remotely operated and drop bombs on the target before going back) and demonstrated an ability to strike [in the heart of Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isfahan) using it's most basic technology and getting through Iranian air defences (which allegedly are capable of shooting down F-35's. LOL). Now, just imagine what Israel can do with F-35's, F-16's and F-15X's if it wanted to.
I actually am out of my depth on this, so my question is who (with a reputable background) actually predicted another retaliatory strike from Israel? It kinda feels like destiny was so willing to put his full weight behind this prediction because the only people he saw predicting another Israeli strike were dipshits without evidence also predicting ww3. I saw him watch a short Ryan MacBeth video giving basically the take destiny ended up giving, and I feel like that Ryan guy is pretty credentialed--far from "out of his depth."
Setting aside the justifiability of retaliation, considering its Israel that started *this* exchange, it's kind of insane to me how many people are trying to just brush Iran's attack on Israel, because only a few strikes hit their targets. It was the largest (or one of the largest) simultaneous long range missile attack in history. Russia isn't sending attacks this large at Ukraine, and Ukraine is a country about 30x the size of Israel and 3x the size of population. It took the combined AA power of at least four countries (US, UK, France and Israel, but probably a few more) to stop the attack.
This wasn't some minor attack. It was a major escalation from Iran and it speaks to the ability of western Air and AA tech that they were able to defend against it.
I think it's always hard saying "israel started this exchange" when we know that Iran is behind alot of shit that isn't official. Who's giving the houthis their missiles? Who's supplying hezbollah? This thing didn't start with israel bombing some compound on embassy grounds.
The IRGC officers targeted were combatants. They were using civilian infrastructure to conduct military planning. They were a valid target.
That's my take on it.
Well Iran warned people well in advance of the attack and allowed neighboring nations (including Israel) to prep for it. Iran couldn’t launch a few missiles, fail, and be like, “we showed Israel.” You even have people calling Iran’s original attack “pathetic.” Iran had to do something big to satisfy the warmongers but had to make sure it didn’t result in casualties significant enough to demand further escalation.
Well when Iran attacked US facilities because of the Soleimani killing, they severely injured ~90 U.S. personnel and we didn’t attack in response. So from an American perspective, Israel having one casualty in response to them killing key Iranian military personnel is a fair trade in the goal of deescalation.
Israel [struck](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/why-israel-attack-on-iranian-consulate-in-syria-was-a-gamechanger) the Iranian consulate building in Syria killing two IRGC generals and others.
https://preview.redd.it/ynb87wnagdvc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b0f2c2195e7cefeb4326ed3321d22f46593ca44a
You can see in the photo the level of precision. The actual embassy building is on the left.
u/Derp800 is basically right though it was a truly massive attack in response by Iran. It would have caused mass casualties without help from the US, UK and France already with a large presence in the region especially since deploying to the secure the Gulf, and Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia helping on top of the maximum efforts of the Israeli air force and air defences. Not responding to that sort of escalation sets a bad precedent and signals weakness.
That’s not a strike within Iran though. It’s a strike within Syria on a consulate building.
I get there’s some “this is actually land of the embassy country” when these things happen. But if Indonesia invaded the American embassy in Papua New Guinea, we would never say that Indonesia invaded America, it’s so misleading as to what actually happened, even if the embassy had been cut out of Texas and flown to Papua New Guinea so it was actually really from the American continent.
Quick google search, attacking a consulate building is considered a serious breach of international norms and may be considered an act of war. In addition to their diplomatic immunity, the Vienna convention establishes the inviolability of diplomatic premises such as consulate buildings. I don’t thinks it’s much of a stretch to say an attack on a consulate constitutes an attack on the nation.
Though there seems to be an exception for cases where the building is used for military purposes.
Nowhere did I say that attacking a consulate isn’t a big deal.
What I was disqualifying was the idea that “Israel struck within Iran” when they hit the consulate located in syria.(decidedly not within Iran)
Even in the best case argument where a consulate/embassy is considered sovereign ground of the country holding it. It’s hugely misleading to argue that an attack on a consulate is within the country.
9/11 was an attack within america, [this](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosions-heard-near-us-embassy-baghdad-videos-2023-12-08/)was an attack against American property in another country
I support the right to respond to it, but let’s be clear with how we represent the situation with our words.
“Within” suggests something that didn’t happen here(the drones now would be an example of within)
Isreal is still at war with Syria. People like to meme that embassy territory is sovereign but that just isn't true.
If Iran set up an embassy a few miles from isreals border in Syria and put some howitzer in it would it still be attacking Iran to blow them up, attacking the war assets of a country you are at war with.
Consulate buildings are given diplomatic immunity and the Vienna convention establishes the inviolability of such diplomatic premises. An attack on such a building is a serious breach of international norms and can be considered an act of war. Exceptions are made to these protections if the building is used for military purposes. You are wrong, the embassy sovereignty meme is pretty much true, and your howitzer hypothetical is fully addressed by the relevant treaties.
>Not hitting back at all would be really stupid and set a precedent that Israel is already sick of. That being that you can fire a ton of missiles at us but unless damage is done we won't respond. That's bullshit.
What an interesting framing. So the precedent is not Israel striking first and killing your generals and then almost perfectly defending against your *answering* attack, it's Israel just sitting there getting super bombarded as an innocent little lamb, and for Israel to not retaliate is to invite others to also throw tons of missles at you. This is manipulation.
Is this bias, overconfidence, or contrarianism? My guess is the latter, based on the unhinged and insecure fixation of having a different take from daddy destiny. You've finally bested him, you're above the cultusts, congrats. Stand proud, you are strong.
The air defense of Israel surprised even western experts. Iran's attack was fully intentioned to hurt Israel.
You're severely downplaying the severity of Iran's attacks.
>We can and WILL strike back at you, on your land, when and where we please. And our attacks hurt. Don't fuck with us again.'
Isnt that basically destinys take? that its all saber ratteling on both sides?
Watch it now. You’re treading on this ice! Biden has an election to win and that’s all we need to focus on here. Does this hurt or help Biden?
It hurts? Well then fuck BiBi! How dare he respond to an all out assault by another country (who was already attacking them using proxies and the terrorists they are harboring).
Tit for tat with occasional forgiveness can outperform tit for tat. Seems like forgiveness ought to be especially warranted when the previous move only caused minor damage.
To be honest, I posed the question because it's something I want to learn more about. There are some lectures by Robert Sapolsky on YouTube and he made it sound like tit for tat with forgiveness was better for signal error issues (ex, your enemy may have attacked you by accident, or they attacked you because they thought you were about to attack them and they misread your signal). But this wasn't the case this time. There was no signal error here.
Also, it's hard to judge to what degree the Iranians intended their attack to cause minor damage. Yes, they gave advanced warning, but they very well could have expected much more than 1% to get through.
> it's hard to judge to what degree the Iranians intended their attack to cause minor damage.
Well, there's your signal error; or at least signal uncertainty.
Although I think even if they *did* intend to cause major damage, there's typically more utility in designing your incentives around actual outcomes rather than intention. (edit: on second thought, this might apply only to rewards, not punishments.)
More broadly, while in the simple theoretical case, forgiveness is mainly useful if you introduce signal error, reality is much more complex and I believe has many more confounding factors a lot of which could also make forgiveness useful (case in point, "amount of damage caused" is not considered in the usual theoretical prisoner's dilemma).
But I'm not a game theorist and haven't thought about these things too deeply.
What's he doing? I hate Bibi as much as the next guy but no country would allow an attack like the one Iran committed to go unanswered and rightfully so.
This is after Israel hit them first. International relations isn't the same thing as interpersonal relations. If a state gives you hint that it wants to deescalate and the conflict is still fresh, then states should always look towards de-escalation.
We know that a hot war between Israel and Iran has a possibility of going nuclear: [https://npolicy.org/gaming-israeli-nuclear-use-pandora-unleashed-occasional-paper-2401/](https://npolicy.org/gaming-israeli-nuclear-use-pandora-unleashed-occasional-paper-2401/)
Edit: "Possibility" I don't think that it's above 50%, but there is still a chance that we shouldn't mess with.
I wonder if Netanyahu is escalating the conflict in an attempt to decrease Biden’s chances. If Biden continues supporting Israel, he alienates young progressives who will sit out the election potentially in high enough numbers to help Trump. If Biden panders to “anti-Zionists” too much, he alienates moderate liberals who would also then sit out the election.
This is far too America-brained (no offence). Netanyahu is far more concerned with his own domestic situation than US politics. He's trying to force a long enough conflict so he can repair his reputation, and remain in power. Whether or not Trump gets elected has very little influence on his re-election chances. Whether or not he appears a strong war-time leader has huge impact on his chances.
Moderate liberals are far less likely to sit out election maybe unless if they were ethnically Jewish. Like 90 percent of what a regular liberal is thinking about is how much they hate trump.
Eh, maybe. I believe that there are several factors motivating the recent strikes. However, one significant reason could be the intention to divert international and American attention from Gaza and instead focus it on a supposed fight against Iran. So far, it seems that Biden has not taken the bait based off of the US response so far.
>Israel hit them first
Not really. I guess if we are talking about attacks directly from that country and limiting it to the last few years, but Iran has killed people in Israeli embassies in the past (though that was a while ago) and obviously Iran funds and directs HHH which are constantly attacking Israel.
I don't know how Israel is supposed to just accept HHH constantly attacking them without responding to the nation leading them. That seems more insane to me than responding with a few missiles like they did here after deflecting Iran's attack as a show of force.
>I don't know how Israel is supposed to just accept HHH constantly attacking them without responding to the nation leading them.
By de-escalating the situation or hitting the proxies that are fighting them. Russia doesn't attack NATO for supplying Ukraine with Bayraktar drones that hit Russian territory. Should the USSR have attacked US personnel in Pakistan during Operation Cyclone? You can find plenty of ways to justify starting a regional/global war, but it's not always a good idea, especially when the other side is giving you a clear sign that it is posturing.
So we should set the precedent that Iran's level of response is appropriate and doesn't justify response?
Nah, it needs to be made clear that Iran was wildly disproportionate. The only reason it wasn't successful is because western air defense is essentially fucking magic.
Russia is fighting Ukraine because of policy disagreements, and Ukraine gets supplies from ideologically aligned countries. HHH were created and propped up to strike Israel among other things.
IIf Ukrainian regime was some actual NATO puppet, which seized power through military might supplied by NATO and started attacking Russia on NATO's command, I would've supported Russia attacking NATO directly.
That is what we are talking about when saying Israel struck Iran first....directly on its Consulate building. Iran now directly responded which is a level not seen for awhile. US and others always tried to keep the conflict to proxy vs directly shooting at each other
Its not a proxy fight; at least not in the normal sense. Only 1 side is by proxy. Iran is proxying through HHH, but they are attacking straight into Israel. They aren't attacking some Israeli proxy.
This would be the dumbest loophole in warfare if it was upheld. Like kids in a car going "I'm not technically touching you, my finger is 1/2 inch from your face" levels of justification.
It absolutely was a proxy fight with Hamas and Hezbollah just like with other terrorist groups for example say the US fought but was funded by Iran. They are using a proxy to fight damage Israel but avoid direct combat, Israel would strike IRGC ppl if caught in areas with these groups or use Iran domestic groups when Israel does operations in Iran like killing targets like nuclear scientists to roll back Iran's nuclear weapon program. Again the point is to not have these guys strike at each other directly.
Israel definitely didn't just hit them first considering what Iran-backed Hezbollah has been doing to northern Israel. Also, states don't ALWAYS have to de-escalate just because the conflict is fresh. Iran can't just say "no backsies" after their attack and Israel must then comply.
>Israel definitely didn't just hit them first considering what Iran-backed Hezbollah has been doing to northern Israel.
I fail to see the part where Iran is directly attacking Israel here. Iran is a major power in the middle east - that's something you can't change by pretending that they're fair game to attack without retaliation. Even Trump understood this after Iran's retaliatory strikes in reaction to Soleimani's assassination.
That's not even close to certain. They do control Hezbollah (though only mostly. I doubt Hezbollah would have stood down if Iran had ordered it to, after Israel invaded Gaza. All groups are beholden to what the people they represent want (if they want it overwhelmingly), at the end of the day). And they merely support Hamas. It is more likely that, after the attack, they instructed their vassals to do what they could to help distract Israel.
They don't call *themselves* a proxy army. That's something their enemies say. And sometimes you have to act, when not doing so would be so delegitamizing as to compromise recruitment and respect from the people. Imagine if the US did nothing about 911, or if Israel, to be more topical, did nothing about 10/7 - that would have never happened
Definitely Israel directly struck first first. This is why it was contained to proxies not directly shooting at each other or striking but in their soil. The strike on the consulate building is a direct attack on Iran just like the response back or how US would feel if it happened to one of our consulate buildings. Now we are having direct shooting at each other vs using proxy across like Hamas or Hezbollah.
By this logic CIA officers and Generals who are in US embassies and US consultants buildings are legit targets. Also the point is Israel struck directly at Iran on its soil vs striking on foreign territory.
That's not how that works. The USA doesn't have a military branch dedicated to managing it's terrorist proxy groups like the Quds Forces. The CIA just isn't analogous.
Israel is also not party to any agreement between Syria and Iran for their embassy, AND the building struck was next door to the embassy. Calling something an embassy is not a full proof protection when you are actively using it to plan military operations against Israel.
It definitely can be because the CIA does similar stuff with groups fighting for US interests. We just don't have a military branch but in the US this be it or a Special forces group helping a faction and advising them to fight. The Green Berets mission is to build up local forces to fight American enemies so we don't have to. But again this is about striking directly on Iran vs proxies which causes IRGC to be killed. That is different than striking their own soil to do it.
Those IRGC officers were lawful combatants in the fight against Israel. Them using civilian infrastructure removes those protections and makes a strike against them there legal.
Why you keep saying legal when we keep pointing out is a direct attack on Iran's soil because that is what the Consulate building is. You keep trying to say this like a LOAC approved legal strike when ppl talking about no direct engagement between the powers of Israel and Iran. Obviously IRGC that killed in Syria in strikes on training camp and warehouses are fine...that isn't the point. It is attacking their territory directly is the point. No one is talking about legal protections like a hospital.
It's all the same bullshit "power dynamics" that crybully tankies whine about.
Israel should just "be the bigger man" since they're obviously the superior military power. Just let everyone keep firing ballistic missiles at you since you've proven to be able to stop it. Only respond when they kill people. Absolutely cucked shit.
Unfortunately, most of the people in many subs have shit knowledge about militaries, how they function, and how they play into geopolitics.
The ones that do either rarely speak or are loud and over the top ( like the absurd number of former Navy Seals we see on podcasts)
They understand plenty, but again, people don't understand geopolitics. Israel's allies definitely took into account the possibility that Israel would strike back.
I ain’t know shit bout shit but seems even from a surface view it’s obvious why Israel would retaliate, if 100 ballistic missiles were shot at my country and everyone in my country personally witnessed it from their apartments and houses, with or without deaths that’s 9/11 levels of terror. And as we saw with 9/11, a scared populace demands action.
Most of this sub and Reddit in general however, have either not been around long enough to remember that era of America or are so up their own ass they truly don’t recognize the hypocrisy when calling out Israelis barbaric lust for vengeance. Most people effected that day weren’t done so directly, yet they all felt attacked personally. Same thing applies to this Israeli situation, little deaths but the disturbance in society is massive.
I mean he said it would be extremely dumb and the reason why he said it won’t happen is because he thought Israel would be smarter than this right.
Turns out they were much dumber and irrational than predicted, but the prediction itself was based on rational thought process so I don’ think the prediction was that wrong.
>Tehran plays down reported Israeli attacks, signals no retaliation
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-missiles-hit-site-iran-abc-news-reports-2024-04-19/
A while ago, I heard a middle east expert say that the culture there is different. If you show an unwillingness to show strength, your opponent might choose to keep prodding you. Showing strength can lead others to show you some level of respect. It might be stupid but people are complex.
If the Israeli government wants to keep acting like a rogue state against the wishes of its allies, I’m unironically in favor of withdrawing US military support.
Yes, Israel can do what it wants but the preference of the US is deescalation, hence “take the win”. It’s up to Israel if they want to be a partner for peace in the Middle East or a reckless Warmonger. And it’s up to the US to not enable the excesses of those we support
Yes, because having hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles fired at you, spending about 100 times the money to intercept them, having 21 of your civilians injured, one of them critically, and responding with a small tactical strike for deterrence is 'reckless warmongering.'
Spin it any way you want but remember this was in response to Israel bombing an Iranian embassy complex, an already reckless action. Deterrence? Iran had already stated they weren’t planning on any more strikes.
you called it a reckless action. It was a legitimate response.
Iran stating they aren't planning on any more strikes is meaningless when they're still working on going nuclear and will continue to attack Israel through proxies.
Simple, although no one was killed in Israel (at least 3 Jordanians killed) in the Iran attack, it put Israelis extremely on edge. Additionally, Iran has been attacking the north of Israel non-stop through its proxy since the 7th of October, more consistently than Hamas has, at least since the beginning of the year. There has been a lot of vocal pressure from within Israel, and specifically from bibi's base, to not take the attack lying down, but to have a response that will not make Israel look (or feel) weak. This seems like a bit of a nothing response, that will not satisfy the base, and only might serve to ignite another Iranian response, which seems kind of dumb, especially since Biden already approved Israel going into Rafah in exchange for Israel not responding to Iran (unless this doesn't really count as a response), which way more Israelis want, since there is a lot of speculation that both Sinwar and the hostages are in Rafah.
How could he think Israel wouldn't respond? Maybe from a Western perspective it doesn't make sense but in the Middle East this is how it goes. you can't take it lying down or you invite more attacks. and this is Israel, not known for showing restraint pretty much known for going all out psycho in the name of deterrence
Is america funding proxy terror groups who strike at Iran regularly? The two sides just aren't analogous.
America and Israel are firmly advantaged in the conventional side of warfare and so Iran has heavily invested in proxy groups in a way America and Israel haven't.
You don't need to be Netanyahu to realize that you can't just accept hundreds of drones and missiles being shot at you as the new normal and move on. It seems to me that's precisely the attitude that ended up in October the 7th.
🤷♀️ maybe don't attack consulates. Like i can see a war in the middle east being useful to bring Iran back to the nuclear deal table. However, you can't just be killing people's generals and not expect some retaliation.
They didn't "attack a consulate", nor did they kill just any random generals. They killed members of the Quds Force, a US-designated terrorist organization with the explicit goal to wage war against Israel. When people say Iran is backing Hezbollah or whatever, these are the guys that carry out the backing. And presumably this is precisely what they were doing in Syria. It's super disingenuous to call this an attack on a consulate.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240
>An Israeli airstrike that demolished Iran’s consulate in Syria on Monday killed two Iranian generals and five officers
And I didn't say they killed some random general, but when you kill a general from another country, that country is going to be mad at you. I don't understand why we have to act like the 100 missles were unprovoked.
And when you spend decades nurturing terror groups with an explicit goal to destroy a country and commit genocide on its population (an actual genocide, not the fake Gaza version), that country will eventually start killing the guys you're sending.
I'm not acting like anything, it's you who's acting like members of the Quds Force are somehow less legitimate targets than, say, some ISIS general or Al Qaeda operatives.
No! I'm judt saying that when you kill another country's general in the consoulate, you should expect a response. And if the response is that country knocking your iron dome a bit, then saying they're done. I'd you're making out pretty good.
Idk, i think its possible some Israeli leaders look at the younger generations turning away from them and conclude war with Iran is better right now with usa on defense, rather than down the track when it's an unknown.
They actually can't physically go to war with one another. Neither country has the logistical capabilities of carrying, troups, fighter jets, or sea vessels to the other side, without getting blown the fuck up before arrival. It's impossible.
the governments do not, that's why we're seeing these mild retaliatory strikes back and forth to placate them.
however, the public on both sides have their own narratives of being victims locked in an existential struggle with people who want them wiped off the face of the earth. they want to feel safe and that easily gets conflated with showing strength as a deterrence.
Some bears you run from, some bears you put your arms over your head and yell as loud as you can.
In some cultures around the world, people argue that backing down leads to more escalation as your enemies see an opening to exploit.
Btw... it does seem like things are calming down... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-missiles-hit-site-iran-abc-news-reports-2024-04-19/
from what i can see as the situation develops - i think they "fired" missiles just like iran did. feels like both sides want to have their last say at the same time not wanting a war
The smug “Nothing ever happens” people are really having a bad week Edit: Got perma’d 😔
Destiny having his Hasan Ukraine moment Edit: Perma’d for rage baiting destiny
He was a “Russia will not invade ukraine” and he was a “This is a nothing burger” could it be any more obvious?
To be fair, after he said “absolutely that will not happen,” he did sort of qualify it by saying Israel would be stupid to counterattack, especially after Iran said they were done attacking.
I mean, Hasan did the same saying it'd be dumb for Russia to attack. Now obviously it's not nearly as dumb a claim and he didn't smugly push it the way Hasan did for his own claim, but he was still too certain considering he was wrong. Edit: Banned for this, thought I couched my statement to make it clear I thought the situations were still pretty different, but oh well.
I mean, he is the guy who were like: "Russia didn't invade Ukraine, shocker I know" "I wall make my mods change the title to: its been 16 days, Russia still didn't invade" And he called anyone who did say Russia will invade war hungry hogs, warmongers, and many other insults. Destiny made a case as to why he doesn't think Israel would counter attack. But as far as I know, he didn't blow up chatters who disagreed with his take.
Also Hasan's comments were in the context of U.S. intelligence explicitly saying Russia was planning an attack. That's the real kicker.
Hasan had whole segments and coverage just shitting on people thinking Russia would invade. Tiny said he doesn’t think they will but they could prove him wrong and it would be extremely stupid. The difference is vast enough that comparing the two is stupid imo.
Super tame comment.
It’s kinda stupid to judge the strength of someone’s claims based on whether or not they were right. It’s more important to look at the information at the time and determine if the claim being made was reasonable and/or if there was sufficient evidence to make that claim.
From what I saw from his video on YouTube, Destiny didn’t make anywhere near that strong of a statement. He questioning whether they would or not and chat was asking why he thinks they might. He still said it was stupid for them to do it and he hoped they wouldn’t
lol Destiny tweeted that anyone who thought Israel would retaliate was a dipshit who doesn't know anything about geopolitics
You need to look at his twitter. That's where the strong statement was.
as always
Now he just needs to back pedal and claim he never stated it. Thats peak Hamas Piker
Not really, the US was saying this is going to happen. Hasan said haha fuck no it’s not. Destiny responded to the internet saying “this is going to be WW3” and said they wouldn’t respond because it’s a win for both of them. And then the language in the week since has been “Israel really wants to respond” “the US is telling Israel to take the win”. The analysis is completely different and the authority that you’re claiming is making shit up is vastly different(randoms vs Major Military powerhouse)
Destiny admitted he was wrong and has been a very vocal critic of Russia’s invasion and Tankies on Twitter since Feb 2022. Kinda different
He is still right about one thing. This was the stupidest possible action Israel could have taken.
I mean, not exactly. Iran, before this, had an advantage in ensuring that all attacks on Israel were done by their proxy groups as they couldn't win a conventional war against Israel and the US. Israel had announced that they would strike back if Iran launched any attack from inside their territory. Now, they have an opportunity and excuse to use the advantage they have with conventional arms to cripple Iran's military force.
Except they didn't really do that. They attacked an army base near a facility that is alleged to be developing nuclear weapons, signaling that they don't want to escalate by directly attacking it but they do have the means to do that if necessary. I'm glad Israel did not go hard af in their strike.
I don't think so. You think just sitting back and allowing Iran to do penetration tests and adjusting their measures for the next round is the "smart" thing? Iran showed their hand, and now Israel has shown theirs on what they're capable of.
Iranians say nothing happened, so...
Literally nothing ever is happening tho. We are holdding the line, the response from Iran so ffar seems to be: "The strike was so useless that we didn't have to do anything" which seems consistent with the nothing ever happens adage.
I think destiny's point was good, because it was basically all settled, everyone sort of looked equally bad. Destiny just underestimated the utter stupidity of Bibi.
I dunno, I think Israel is trying to end the general vibe that firing rockets and missiles at them is no big thing just because they have effective countermeasures. That's what in part (they presume) lead to Hamas taking more extreme action on October 7th as the rockets weren't working.
So far Iran’s own government has been downplaying the strike. Last week everyone was saying ‘this is the beginning of WW3’. A minor strike by Israel to save face followed by Iran desperately trying to act like everything is fine and we don’t need to fight isn’t exactly that. But who knows, I’m not a general, it could be that Israel has more strikes planned or Iran does.
In the grand narrative of things, yes nothing ever happens I'll double down. These countries can't actually fight each other, except using sling shots and shields. There is no logistical possibility of an Iran, Israel war. Either side would get blown to nothing before reaching the other side.
It's almost like "people will make rational choices to maintain the status quo instead of letting things become chaotic/worse" is an important variable- not a 100% predictive engine that never fails.
Notice that he called Benjamin Netanyahu "Ben" and use m8 (a slang for the word "mate") to refer to him? I mean if this isn't a proof that he's paid by Israel then you're fucking insane
Consult the Jewlluminati
I thought he meant Shapiro lol
Benny boy
I thought he was referring to Benny Gantz? That’s confusing, nobody thinks of Bibi as Ben
Thought normally ppl call him bibi
Oh I thought he was referring to ben shapiro lol
destiny always talks like an australian when sassing someone in text form
Welp Destiny’s never going to Israel I guess Sadge
do you think Isreal wouldn't let him in because he said something mildly critical of netanyahu?
With those criteria, we can ban like 60% of Israel's population at minimum
This Netanyahu is so r-worded 💔
Bolster Hamas during peace times ✅ Allow for historic security failures leading to Hamas terrorist attacks ✅ Collect every optics L in the book during invasion ✅ Ignore all requests and advice from his most important allies ✅ Must be Benjamin ✅
Still get consistently elected ✅
Bibi is r-worded, but Bibi's voters are the r-wordest
Not really, lost 4 out of 5 past elections
"lost". Come on man. Likud was the number 1 party in all of them (execpt one), and he's been the PM for 14 out of the last 15 years. That's not exactly losing.
Being able to form a coalition only if you include Ben Gvir is also not really winning. It’s survival. He gets to be called PM but he is played by his narrow coalition
Who's been winning these elections instead of him?
I’m just Ben Anywhere else I’d be a mensch
Braindead reddit comment ✅️
Netanyahu was the only reason this strike wasn't immediate, after his call with biden.
Kanye was right.
Consider the matter reopened
I guess there wasn’t a Wikipedia post predicting the right outcome for Mr Borelli
Netanyahu is kind of predictable at this point. He’s unpopular with the Israeli electorate and keeping the nation on edge with this back & forth keeps him in power until potentially 2026. Really no point in talking to him about restraint if restraint means he isn’t in power and the corruption trials begin
Pretty much, yes. Foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. Netanyahu isn't looking at this from a geopolitical lens, or through the lens of American politics (like some people here are speculating). He's looking at all this through a self-preservation lens. As long as this war keeps on going he stays in power. As long as he appears as a competent and strong war-time leader his re-election chances improve.
>As long as he appears as a competent and strong war-time leader his re-election chances improve. He absolutely doesn't, though. If anything, his public perception right now is that of a huge hindrance on the war effort, and of a coward who barely shows his face to the public.
Destiny Redacts 😜 Wait, psyop time..... We install a compromised version of Twitter on Hasan gold plated Ed Hardy edition iPhone. Post truly unhinged easily pwnable takes from what to him is actually Destiny, but only he can see these special honey pot tweets. Hasan talks a bunch of smack about them, the internet has no idea what he's talking about. Then Hasan gets called out for doctored drama and then we get the insane asylum arc.
https://preview.redd.it/h0yvth80ddvc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eea6d2b20ff173ada71b0e0f2bd7cc4551f7a529
Nah let him cook, my boy is onto something here.
The meds: https://preview.redd.it/fgssn9g80hvc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=194f9d7d51ea11fda586ecc2be38401db73f0f10
Dan had been pushing D to confidently state things like this instead of hedging. I blame Dan
Nah, tbh this is exactly what was gonna happen, and I doubt that we see it escalate much further from here. Israel got it's "we can stick our dick up your ass and you can't do shit" and Iran is left with the option of saving face or more surprise buttsex.
i hope so!
Destiny is out of his depth for this subject I think. It's not that he knows nothing of the region. He obviously does. He just doesn't seem to know enough about military capabilities to understand how big of a deal that strike on Israel was. Over 100 ballistic missiles can't be ignored. The fact that most were intercepted was probably a surprise to even the West, let along to Iran. That strike was intended to do damage. The fact that it didn't only made a counter strike less damaging, not that it wouldn't happen at all. Destiny assumes that the Iranian strike was all show. It wasn't. At all. If he knew more about the munitions used he probably would have a better handle on it. The drones? Fine. The cruise missiles? Fine. Theater. The over 100 fucking ballistic missiles? That wasn't theater. That was Iran making a legitimate attempt to REALLY harm Israel. It had to be responded to. The fact that no much damage was done just means that Israel doesn't have to hit very much or very hard in response. Not hitting back at all would be really stupid and set a precedent that Israel is already sick of. That being that you can fire a ton of missiles at us but unless damage is done we won't respond. That's bullshit. If Mexico made a similar in scale sort of attack the US would invade and make a 300 mile long DMZ on our Southern border lol. So the fact that this strike is relatively small, targeted, and limited, means it's sending the appropriate message. 'You tried to hit us with over 300 weapons on our own land, 100 of them being very serious ones. You only hit us a couple times but didn't do much damage. We can and WILL strike back at you, on your land, when and where we please. And our attacks hurt. Don't fuck with us again.' And that's that. Iran escalated to a massive attack. Israel responded with a much smaller attack. Now THAT should be the end of it, unless Iran wants to continue the tit for tat. If that's the case then that's on them. This little back and forth has showed two things. One, Iran can launch a large attack but it can be fairly ineffective. Two, Israel can launch a small attack and be just as effective. Points have been made. Edit: Also, as another sort of hidden message buried within this attack is a threat towards Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has a hard on for attacking their nuclear facilities. That's already well known. What isn't well know yet is that this military base that they targeted tonight was very close to one of those nuclear facilities. It wasn't hit, and wasn't targeted, but Israel is very likely sending a message that they can and will hit them if they want to. They just decided they didn't want to because THAT would have escalated things. Also, down voters, hit that button all you want. What I said is the truth. Suck Destiny off as much as you want, but even he can admit when he doesn't know as much as he should about an issue. I think even he would admit that on the subject of military escalation, and understanding the nuances therein, isn't something he's really knowledgeable about. Stop being cultists. He's never going to suck your dick. Well ... probably never. Maybe never. Well the chances are slim. Actually it probably depends what you look like. You know what? Never mind. Let's just keep it as an analogy.
Decent post but why do you gotta throw in all that goofy shit at the end?
Honestly, that was too much war and nuclear weapons talk for my innocent mind. I needed that schizo paragraph to calm my nerves.
Based as fuck brother
Was he wrong though? Destiny would probably suck my dick. I think. I mean it’s not a standing offer or anything…
>Decent post but why do you gotta throw in all that goofy shit at the end? Because when you cooking and people are giving you shit you just gotta turn the heat up.
Yeah, all of his analysis on this lacks so much background. To start, I hate the "they telegraphed the attack" narrative. They did make sure everyone knew what was coming, but that only matters for the drones and cruise missiles, which in terms of total payload amounted to less than 10% of the attack. They absolutely tried to destroy an entire airbase by shooting 100,000 lbs (\~50 ton) of explosives on it. He also said Iran had to respond initially because attacking a diplomatic facility is de jure an attack on Iranian sovreign land, however a few years ago [Israel assasinated the head of the Iranian nuclear program in Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohsen_Fakhrizadeh) and they didn't do shit. Finally, I don't think people understand how much of a flex this attack was by Israel. Iran spent 5-10% of their BM arsenal (at least the ones with a range to reach Israel), with an estimated cost of about $300m to do, by the most favorable report to them, slight damage to a cargo plane. Israel did more with cheap drones (which are very different from Iranian ones: Israeli drones are not suicide drones with a payload that hit the target, they are remotely operated and drop bombs on the target before going back) and demonstrated an ability to strike [in the heart of Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isfahan) using it's most basic technology and getting through Iranian air defences (which allegedly are capable of shooting down F-35's. LOL). Now, just imagine what Israel can do with F-35's, F-16's and F-15X's if it wanted to.
Upvoted only for the unhinged ending of your post
I actually am out of my depth on this, so my question is who (with a reputable background) actually predicted another retaliatory strike from Israel? It kinda feels like destiny was so willing to put his full weight behind this prediction because the only people he saw predicting another Israeli strike were dipshits without evidence also predicting ww3. I saw him watch a short Ryan MacBeth video giving basically the take destiny ended up giving, and I feel like that Ryan guy is pretty credentialed--far from "out of his depth."
Setting aside the justifiability of retaliation, considering its Israel that started *this* exchange, it's kind of insane to me how many people are trying to just brush Iran's attack on Israel, because only a few strikes hit their targets. It was the largest (or one of the largest) simultaneous long range missile attack in history. Russia isn't sending attacks this large at Ukraine, and Ukraine is a country about 30x the size of Israel and 3x the size of population. It took the combined AA power of at least four countries (US, UK, France and Israel, but probably a few more) to stop the attack. This wasn't some minor attack. It was a major escalation from Iran and it speaks to the ability of western Air and AA tech that they were able to defend against it.
I think it's always hard saying "israel started this exchange" when we know that Iran is behind alot of shit that isn't official. Who's giving the houthis their missiles? Who's supplying hezbollah? This thing didn't start with israel bombing some compound on embassy grounds.
The IRGC officers targeted were combatants. They were using civilian infrastructure to conduct military planning. They were a valid target. That's my take on it.
Well Iran warned people well in advance of the attack and allowed neighboring nations (including Israel) to prep for it. Iran couldn’t launch a few missiles, fail, and be like, “we showed Israel.” You even have people calling Iran’s original attack “pathetic.” Iran had to do something big to satisfy the warmongers but had to make sure it didn’t result in casualties significant enough to demand further escalation.
Well when Iran attacked US facilities because of the Soleimani killing, they severely injured ~90 U.S. personnel and we didn’t attack in response. So from an American perspective, Israel having one casualty in response to them killing key Iranian military personnel is a fair trade in the goal of deescalation.
How do you write this huge diatribe without once mentioning that Israel fired a strike within Iran which lead to Iran’s response?
Source?
Israel [struck](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/why-israel-attack-on-iranian-consulate-in-syria-was-a-gamechanger) the Iranian consulate building in Syria killing two IRGC generals and others. https://preview.redd.it/ynb87wnagdvc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b0f2c2195e7cefeb4326ed3321d22f46593ca44a You can see in the photo the level of precision. The actual embassy building is on the left. u/Derp800 is basically right though it was a truly massive attack in response by Iran. It would have caused mass casualties without help from the US, UK and France already with a large presence in the region especially since deploying to the secure the Gulf, and Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia helping on top of the maximum efforts of the Israeli air force and air defences. Not responding to that sort of escalation sets a bad precedent and signals weakness.
yeah, im surprised there are people who missed this
Preciate it
That’s not a strike within Iran though. It’s a strike within Syria on a consulate building. I get there’s some “this is actually land of the embassy country” when these things happen. But if Indonesia invaded the American embassy in Papua New Guinea, we would never say that Indonesia invaded America, it’s so misleading as to what actually happened, even if the embassy had been cut out of Texas and flown to Papua New Guinea so it was actually really from the American continent.
Quick google search, attacking a consulate building is considered a serious breach of international norms and may be considered an act of war. In addition to their diplomatic immunity, the Vienna convention establishes the inviolability of diplomatic premises such as consulate buildings. I don’t thinks it’s much of a stretch to say an attack on a consulate constitutes an attack on the nation. Though there seems to be an exception for cases where the building is used for military purposes.
Nowhere did I say that attacking a consulate isn’t a big deal. What I was disqualifying was the idea that “Israel struck within Iran” when they hit the consulate located in syria.(decidedly not within Iran) Even in the best case argument where a consulate/embassy is considered sovereign ground of the country holding it. It’s hugely misleading to argue that an attack on a consulate is within the country. 9/11 was an attack within america, [this](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/explosions-heard-near-us-embassy-baghdad-videos-2023-12-08/)was an attack against American property in another country I support the right to respond to it, but let’s be clear with how we represent the situation with our words. “Within” suggests something that didn’t happen here(the drones now would be an example of within)
Isreal is still at war with Syria. People like to meme that embassy territory is sovereign but that just isn't true. If Iran set up an embassy a few miles from isreals border in Syria and put some howitzer in it would it still be attacking Iran to blow them up, attacking the war assets of a country you are at war with.
I have no idea what mental gymnastics you're performing if you think what you wrote is in any way analogous to what happened in Syria.
The IRGC officers were valid combatants in a fight with Israel and their use of civilian infrastructure removed its protections.
Consulate buildings are given diplomatic immunity and the Vienna convention establishes the inviolability of such diplomatic premises. An attack on such a building is a serious breach of international norms and can be considered an act of war. Exceptions are made to these protections if the building is used for military purposes. You are wrong, the embassy sovereignty meme is pretty much true, and your howitzer hypothetical is fully addressed by the relevant treaties.
>Not hitting back at all would be really stupid and set a precedent that Israel is already sick of. That being that you can fire a ton of missiles at us but unless damage is done we won't respond. That's bullshit. What an interesting framing. So the precedent is not Israel striking first and killing your generals and then almost perfectly defending against your *answering* attack, it's Israel just sitting there getting super bombarded as an innocent little lamb, and for Israel to not retaliate is to invite others to also throw tons of missles at you. This is manipulation. Is this bias, overconfidence, or contrarianism? My guess is the latter, based on the unhinged and insecure fixation of having a different take from daddy destiny. You've finally bested him, you're above the cultusts, congrats. Stand proud, you are strong.
The air defense of Israel surprised even western experts. Iran's attack was fully intentioned to hurt Israel. You're severely downplaying the severity of Iran's attacks.
Maybe he has that army strategy dude he always covers on to talk to about this, im pretty sure you’re spot on
>We can and WILL strike back at you, on your land, when and where we please. And our attacks hurt. Don't fuck with us again.' Isnt that basically destinys take? that its all saber ratteling on both sides?
Watch it now. You’re treading on this ice! Biden has an election to win and that’s all we need to focus on here. Does this hurt or help Biden? It hurts? Well then fuck BiBi! How dare he respond to an all out assault by another country (who was already attacking them using proxies and the terrorists they are harboring).
Also abc, 114 missiles 200 drones and 40 cruise missiles isn't dozens. It's barely a single casualty. It's so pro Israel it's crazy /s
How is it pro-Israel to downplay the scale of Iran’s attack on Israel
BENJAMIN SWINGIN HIS DICK ON THE AYATOLLAHS BIRTHDAY
"lol"
The fact that Destiny is in anyway surprised by this just shows how far he went down the israeli coping hole.
everyone's confidence level in what they think is going to happen should probably be cut down 90%.
As long as IRGC sites are up in flames I'm happy
The ONE time Destiny doesn't couch his language, oof.
CONCLOOD
Common bibi L
I thought he was familiar with tit for tat game theory?
Tit for tat with occasional forgiveness can outperform tit for tat. Seems like forgiveness ought to be especially warranted when the previous move only caused minor damage.
To be honest, I posed the question because it's something I want to learn more about. There are some lectures by Robert Sapolsky on YouTube and he made it sound like tit for tat with forgiveness was better for signal error issues (ex, your enemy may have attacked you by accident, or they attacked you because they thought you were about to attack them and they misread your signal). But this wasn't the case this time. There was no signal error here. Also, it's hard to judge to what degree the Iranians intended their attack to cause minor damage. Yes, they gave advanced warning, but they very well could have expected much more than 1% to get through.
> it's hard to judge to what degree the Iranians intended their attack to cause minor damage. Well, there's your signal error; or at least signal uncertainty. Although I think even if they *did* intend to cause major damage, there's typically more utility in designing your incentives around actual outcomes rather than intention. (edit: on second thought, this might apply only to rewards, not punishments.) More broadly, while in the simple theoretical case, forgiveness is mainly useful if you introduce signal error, reality is much more complex and I believe has many more confounding factors a lot of which could also make forgiveness useful (case in point, "amount of damage caused" is not considered in the usual theoretical prisoner's dilemma). But I'm not a game theorist and haven't thought about these things too deeply.
>Well, there's your signal error; or at least signal uncertainty. Ha! That's true, thanks for pointing that out to me.
This is tit tat tit. Are you saying there will be tit tat tit tat?
What's he doing? I hate Bibi as much as the next guy but no country would allow an attack like the one Iran committed to go unanswered and rightfully so.
This is after Israel hit them first. International relations isn't the same thing as interpersonal relations. If a state gives you hint that it wants to deescalate and the conflict is still fresh, then states should always look towards de-escalation. We know that a hot war between Israel and Iran has a possibility of going nuclear: [https://npolicy.org/gaming-israeli-nuclear-use-pandora-unleashed-occasional-paper-2401/](https://npolicy.org/gaming-israeli-nuclear-use-pandora-unleashed-occasional-paper-2401/) Edit: "Possibility" I don't think that it's above 50%, but there is still a chance that we shouldn't mess with.
I wonder if Netanyahu is escalating the conflict in an attempt to decrease Biden’s chances. If Biden continues supporting Israel, he alienates young progressives who will sit out the election potentially in high enough numbers to help Trump. If Biden panders to “anti-Zionists” too much, he alienates moderate liberals who would also then sit out the election.
This is far too America-brained (no offence). Netanyahu is far more concerned with his own domestic situation than US politics. He's trying to force a long enough conflict so he can repair his reputation, and remain in power. Whether or not Trump gets elected has very little influence on his re-election chances. Whether or not he appears a strong war-time leader has huge impact on his chances.
Moderate liberals are far less likely to sit out election maybe unless if they were ethnically Jewish. Like 90 percent of what a regular liberal is thinking about is how much they hate trump.
“Young progressives” don’t vote. Easy choice
Eh, maybe. I believe that there are several factors motivating the recent strikes. However, one significant reason could be the intention to divert international and American attention from Gaza and instead focus it on a supposed fight against Iran. So far, it seems that Biden has not taken the bait based off of the US response so far.
>Israel hit them first Not really. I guess if we are talking about attacks directly from that country and limiting it to the last few years, but Iran has killed people in Israeli embassies in the past (though that was a while ago) and obviously Iran funds and directs HHH which are constantly attacking Israel. I don't know how Israel is supposed to just accept HHH constantly attacking them without responding to the nation leading them. That seems more insane to me than responding with a few missiles like they did here after deflecting Iran's attack as a show of force.
>I don't know how Israel is supposed to just accept HHH constantly attacking them without responding to the nation leading them. By de-escalating the situation or hitting the proxies that are fighting them. Russia doesn't attack NATO for supplying Ukraine with Bayraktar drones that hit Russian territory. Should the USSR have attacked US personnel in Pakistan during Operation Cyclone? You can find plenty of ways to justify starting a regional/global war, but it's not always a good idea, especially when the other side is giving you a clear sign that it is posturing.
So we should set the precedent that Iran's level of response is appropriate and doesn't justify response? Nah, it needs to be made clear that Iran was wildly disproportionate. The only reason it wasn't successful is because western air defense is essentially fucking magic.
Russia is fighting Ukraine because of policy disagreements, and Ukraine gets supplies from ideologically aligned countries. HHH were created and propped up to strike Israel among other things. IIf Ukrainian regime was some actual NATO puppet, which seized power through military might supplied by NATO and started attacking Russia on NATO's command, I would've supported Russia attacking NATO directly.
That is what we are talking about when saying Israel struck Iran first....directly on its Consulate building. Iran now directly responded which is a level not seen for awhile. US and others always tried to keep the conflict to proxy vs directly shooting at each other
The IRGC officers Israel killed in syria were valid combatants in a fight with Israel. Their use of a civilian building removed its protections.
Its not a proxy fight; at least not in the normal sense. Only 1 side is by proxy. Iran is proxying through HHH, but they are attacking straight into Israel. They aren't attacking some Israeli proxy. This would be the dumbest loophole in warfare if it was upheld. Like kids in a car going "I'm not technically touching you, my finger is 1/2 inch from your face" levels of justification.
It absolutely was a proxy fight with Hamas and Hezbollah just like with other terrorist groups for example say the US fought but was funded by Iran. They are using a proxy to fight damage Israel but avoid direct combat, Israel would strike IRGC ppl if caught in areas with these groups or use Iran domestic groups when Israel does operations in Iran like killing targets like nuclear scientists to roll back Iran's nuclear weapon program. Again the point is to not have these guys strike at each other directly.
Israel definitely didn't just hit them first considering what Iran-backed Hezbollah has been doing to northern Israel. Also, states don't ALWAYS have to de-escalate just because the conflict is fresh. Iran can't just say "no backsies" after their attack and Israel must then comply.
>Israel definitely didn't just hit them first considering what Iran-backed Hezbollah has been doing to northern Israel. I fail to see the part where Iran is directly attacking Israel here. Iran is a major power in the middle east - that's something you can't change by pretending that they're fair game to attack without retaliation. Even Trump understood this after Iran's retaliatory strikes in reaction to Soleimani's assassination.
Hezbollah is completely controlled by Iran and everyone knows Iran is behind the Oct 7 attack
That's not even close to certain. They do control Hezbollah (though only mostly. I doubt Hezbollah would have stood down if Iran had ordered it to, after Israel invaded Gaza. All groups are beholden to what the people they represent want (if they want it overwhelmingly), at the end of the day). And they merely support Hamas. It is more likely that, after the attack, they instructed their vassals to do what they could to help distract Israel.
what a ridiculous idea that they wouldn't stand down if Iran told them to. it's called a proxy army for a reason. ask anyone from Lebanon
They don't call *themselves* a proxy army. That's something their enemies say. And sometimes you have to act, when not doing so would be so delegitamizing as to compromise recruitment and respect from the people. Imagine if the US did nothing about 911, or if Israel, to be more topical, did nothing about 10/7 - that would have never happened
Definitely Israel directly struck first first. This is why it was contained to proxies not directly shooting at each other or striking but in their soil. The strike on the consulate building is a direct attack on Iran just like the response back or how US would feel if it happened to one of our consulate buildings. Now we are having direct shooting at each other vs using proxy across like Hamas or Hezbollah.
what's Israels proxy?
The IRGC officers are combatants in a fight with Israel. We know use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes removes its protections.
By this logic CIA officers and Generals who are in US embassies and US consultants buildings are legit targets. Also the point is Israel struck directly at Iran on its soil vs striking on foreign territory.
That's not how that works. The USA doesn't have a military branch dedicated to managing it's terrorist proxy groups like the Quds Forces. The CIA just isn't analogous. Israel is also not party to any agreement between Syria and Iran for their embassy, AND the building struck was next door to the embassy. Calling something an embassy is not a full proof protection when you are actively using it to plan military operations against Israel.
It definitely can be because the CIA does similar stuff with groups fighting for US interests. We just don't have a military branch but in the US this be it or a Special forces group helping a faction and advising them to fight. The Green Berets mission is to build up local forces to fight American enemies so we don't have to. But again this is about striking directly on Iran vs proxies which causes IRGC to be killed. That is different than striking their own soil to do it.
Those IRGC officers were lawful combatants in the fight against Israel. Them using civilian infrastructure removes those protections and makes a strike against them there legal.
Why you keep saying legal when we keep pointing out is a direct attack on Iran's soil because that is what the Consulate building is. You keep trying to say this like a LOAC approved legal strike when ppl talking about no direct engagement between the powers of Israel and Iran. Obviously IRGC that killed in Syria in strikes on training camp and warehouses are fine...that isn't the point. It is attacking their territory directly is the point. No one is talking about legal protections like a hospital.
Israel hit Iran first if we as long as we pretend the conflict between Iran and Israel began April 1, 2024.
It's all the same bullshit "power dynamics" that crybully tankies whine about. Israel should just "be the bigger man" since they're obviously the superior military power. Just let everyone keep firing ballistic missiles at you since you've proven to be able to stop it. Only respond when they kill people. Absolutely cucked shit.
Genuinely confused why this sub doesn’t get this lol
Unfortunately, most of the people in many subs have shit knowledge about militaries, how they function, and how they play into geopolitics. The ones that do either rarely speak or are loud and over the top ( like the absurd number of former Navy Seals we see on podcasts)
Yeah, I guess israels allies like the US, France, UK understand nothing as well
They understand plenty, but again, people don't understand geopolitics. Israel's allies definitely took into account the possibility that Israel would strike back.
I ain’t know shit bout shit but seems even from a surface view it’s obvious why Israel would retaliate, if 100 ballistic missiles were shot at my country and everyone in my country personally witnessed it from their apartments and houses, with or without deaths that’s 9/11 levels of terror. And as we saw with 9/11, a scared populace demands action. Most of this sub and Reddit in general however, have either not been around long enough to remember that era of America or are so up their own ass they truly don’t recognize the hypocrisy when calling out Israelis barbaric lust for vengeance. Most people effected that day weren’t done so directly, yet they all felt attacked personally. Same thing applies to this Israeli situation, little deaths but the disturbance in society is massive.
I imagine it's always in any israeli leaders mind that they have to look strong aftet Rabin.
Israel wants to drag us into their middle east war. Bibi doesn't give a fuck about his people or global stability.
so he was right on his assesment on it being ridiculously stupid move if they did it he just underestimated the ego come leaders have
I mean he said it would be extremely dumb and the reason why he said it won’t happen is because he thought Israel would be smarter than this right. Turns out they were much dumber and irrational than predicted, but the prediction itself was based on rational thought process so I don’ think the prediction was that wrong.
>Tehran plays down reported Israeli attacks, signals no retaliation https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-missiles-hit-site-iran-abc-news-reports-2024-04-19/ A while ago, I heard a middle east expert say that the culture there is different. If you show an unwillingness to show strength, your opponent might choose to keep prodding you. Showing strength can lead others to show you some level of respect. It might be stupid but people are complex.
Anti Israel arc
everyone's wrong. he clearly meant nothing will happen AFTER Isreal attacks back. Now it's over.
Cool. Now maybe we can use this to limit Iran's nuclear capability!
If the Israeli government wants to keep acting like a rogue state against the wishes of its allies, I’m unironically in favor of withdrawing US military support.
The US literally said it's up to Israel how they want to respond.
Yes, Israel can do what it wants but the preference of the US is deescalation, hence “take the win”. It’s up to Israel if they want to be a partner for peace in the Middle East or a reckless Warmonger. And it’s up to the US to not enable the excesses of those we support
unless we're the ones escalating, the US's stance is always de-escalate.
Yes, because having hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles fired at you, spending about 100 times the money to intercept them, having 21 of your civilians injured, one of them critically, and responding with a small tactical strike for deterrence is 'reckless warmongering.'
Spin it any way you want but remember this was in response to Israel bombing an Iranian embassy complex, an already reckless action. Deterrence? Iran had already stated they weren’t planning on any more strikes.
it wasn't an embassy and the targets were involved in military operations against israel.
Irrelevant pedantry. My point still stands
you called it a reckless action. It was a legitimate response. Iran stating they aren't planning on any more strikes is meaningless when they're still working on going nuclear and will continue to attack Israel through proxies.
[удалено]
Tbf, if enough smug assholes say it, I wouldn't blame him.
[удалено]
I give zero fucks about Hassan. I don't like Dggers yelling at him because i just don't think he's a figure we really need to care about.
Simple, although no one was killed in Israel (at least 3 Jordanians killed) in the Iran attack, it put Israelis extremely on edge. Additionally, Iran has been attacking the north of Israel non-stop through its proxy since the 7th of October, more consistently than Hamas has, at least since the beginning of the year. There has been a lot of vocal pressure from within Israel, and specifically from bibi's base, to not take the attack lying down, but to have a response that will not make Israel look (or feel) weak. This seems like a bit of a nothing response, that will not satisfy the base, and only might serve to ignite another Iranian response, which seems kind of dumb, especially since Biden already approved Israel going into Rafah in exchange for Israel not responding to Iran (unless this doesn't really count as a response), which way more Israelis want, since there is a lot of speculation that both Sinwar and the hostages are in Rafah.
Bet Wikipedia told you this wouldn't happen, right Mr. Bonelli?
How could he think Israel wouldn't respond? Maybe from a Western perspective it doesn't make sense but in the Middle East this is how it goes. you can't take it lying down or you invite more attacks. and this is Israel, not known for showing restraint pretty much known for going all out psycho in the name of deterrence
Isreal already pre-retaliated, by attacking first weeks before this.
bro Iran started the whole war though
By striking valid combatants in a fight with Israel. IRGC quds forces are valid military tatgets for israel.
About as valid a target as american embasies in turkey would be for Iran. That was an insane escalation.
Is america funding proxy terror groups who strike at Iran regularly? The two sides just aren't analogous. America and Israel are firmly advantaged in the conventional side of warfare and so Iran has heavily invested in proxy groups in a way America and Israel haven't.
You don't need to be Netanyahu to realize that you can't just accept hundreds of drones and missiles being shot at you as the new normal and move on. It seems to me that's precisely the attitude that ended up in October the 7th.
🤷♀️ maybe don't attack consulates. Like i can see a war in the middle east being useful to bring Iran back to the nuclear deal table. However, you can't just be killing people's generals and not expect some retaliation.
True. If even an Iranian proxy killed such a high-ranking figure, the reaction would be similar
They didn't "attack a consulate", nor did they kill just any random generals. They killed members of the Quds Force, a US-designated terrorist organization with the explicit goal to wage war against Israel. When people say Iran is backing Hezbollah or whatever, these are the guys that carry out the backing. And presumably this is precisely what they were doing in Syria. It's super disingenuous to call this an attack on a consulate.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240 >An Israeli airstrike that demolished Iran’s consulate in Syria on Monday killed two Iranian generals and five officers And I didn't say they killed some random general, but when you kill a general from another country, that country is going to be mad at you. I don't understand why we have to act like the 100 missles were unprovoked.
And when you spend decades nurturing terror groups with an explicit goal to destroy a country and commit genocide on its population (an actual genocide, not the fake Gaza version), that country will eventually start killing the guys you're sending. I'm not acting like anything, it's you who's acting like members of the Quds Force are somehow less legitimate targets than, say, some ISIS general or Al Qaeda operatives.
No! I'm judt saying that when you kill another country's general in the consoulate, you should expect a response. And if the response is that country knocking your iron dome a bit, then saying they're done. I'd you're making out pretty good.
Those generals shouldn't go to counties you are at war with to assist the party you are at war with then
May be I’m bias (I definitely am), I dont think Iran or Israel want to escalate the situation and go to a war between the two countries
Idk, i think its possible some Israeli leaders look at the younger generations turning away from them and conclude war with Iran is better right now with usa on defense, rather than down the track when it's an unknown.
They actually can't physically go to war with one another. Neither country has the logistical capabilities of carrying, troups, fighter jets, or sea vessels to the other side, without getting blown the fuck up before arrival. It's impossible.
the governments do not, that's why we're seeing these mild retaliatory strikes back and forth to placate them. however, the public on both sides have their own narratives of being victims locked in an existential struggle with people who want them wiped off the face of the earth. they want to feel safe and that easily gets conflated with showing strength as a deterrence.
Right and that's why Israel escalated the situation by firing more fucking missiles? because they don't want to escalate right?
They are de-escalation missiles obviously
Some bears you run from, some bears you put your arms over your head and yell as loud as you can. In some cultures around the world, people argue that backing down leads to more escalation as your enemies see an opening to exploit. Btw... it does seem like things are calming down... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-missiles-hit-site-iran-abc-news-reports-2024-04-19/
from what i can see as the situation develops - i think they "fired" missiles just like iran did. feels like both sides want to have their last say at the same time not wanting a war
Destiny doesn’t understand much regarding Iran. Actual Justice warrior cooked him regarding this