Iranian military chief says overnight attack ‘achieved all its goals’, adding that US bases are under threat if it backs Israeli retaliation.

Iran has warned Israel of a larger attack on its territory should it retaliate against Tehran’s overnight drone and missile attacks, adding that the United States should not back an Israeli military action.

“If the Zionist regime [Israel] or its supporters demonstrate reckless behaviour, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response,” Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said in a statement on Sunday. ⠀

However, in a signal that Iran’s response was calculated in an attempt to avoid any major escalation, the Iranian foreign minister Amir Abdollahian said that Tehran had informed the US of the planned attack 72 hours in advance, and said that the strikes would be “limited” and for self-defence.

That did not stop more aggressive language from other officials, with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, warning that Tehran would retaliate against any Israeli attacks on its interests, officials or citizens.

“From now on, whenever Israel attacks Iranian interests… we will attack from Iran.” ⠀

“The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe,” said a statement.

It added that the US should “stay away” from the conflict, as it is an issue between Iran and Israel.

Archive link

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    … the US should “stay away” from the conflict, as it is an issue between Iran and Israel.

    Yeah no shit, we should stay away from any country that’s mass killing children and other civilians. Fuck Israel, bunch of goose stepping nazis.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m thankful we don’t have Bush and Cheney in the whitehouse right now. Cheney had the biggest hard on for an Iran war.

      • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Going to guess you mean John Bolton, the infamous warmonger who loudly started calling for immediate, “far stronger” US response yesterday. He’s a draft dodger who has admitted he joined the National Guard and then went to law school just to avoid going to Vietnam. “I wasn’t going to waste time on a futile struggle,” he has written, adding “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy… I considered the war in Vietnam already lost”. Yet the whole time he advocated for keeping other US soldiers fighting in the war. He didn’t fight in the war of his time, he won’t ever go to war now that he’s old, but by damn is he ever sure that the US should send people to fight everywhere from Iran to Cuba.

        In 2019, Democrat Seth Moulton, who actually served 4 tours in Iraq, called both Bolton and Trump “chickenhawks” because they’re hawkish for war but completely unwilling to fight it themselves. (Trump reportedly “avoided service in the Vietnam War after his father called in a favor with a doctor, who wrote a note saying that Trump had bone spurs on his feet, making him ineligible for the draft.”) To use the popular Franklin D. Roosevelt quote - “War is young men dying and old men talking.”

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        John Bolton, warhawk whispering (and often yelling) nothing but “WAR WAR WAR” for decades. Trump sacked him in 2019 when US was already 5 minutes from attacking Iran, but Iran shown that it wasn’t easy target and are determined to defend itself, so US did U turn from war in like 2 days, Bolton was pretty slow with realigning there, so got sacrificed. He then wrote very salty book accusing Trump of things like having tiny bit of common sense left, not being absolute berserker and even being able to notice an ocean on map. Pretty funny and ironic actually.

        Of course the rep warhawks needed to be appeased after such a serious setback and to have last word US assassinated general Soleimani short time after.

  • athairmor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    Isn’t it Iran’s MO, when attacked by superior enemies, to make some kind of response that’s not very damaging, make a threat and hope it all goes away?

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yes. This was classic “we need to do something to save face domestically, but are going to be as ineffective as possible to avoid actually getting caught up in the conflict.”

      They straight up said afterwards “we consider this matter concluded” (i.e. even stevens).

      I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there was even backchannel communication with ‘Western’ intelligence as it was occurring to ensure it didn’t get out of control.

      I really can’t think of a response from Iran that was more tepid.

      People need to remember that a lot of the Middle Eastern governments are much more afraid of radicalized domestic threats than foreign nations and need to do a song and dance to not appear too weak or ineffective against the West to those interests.

      Iran didn’t realistically have the option of doing nothing, and it’s amazing they did as little as they ended up doing (which I think reflects just how fucking nuts they think Bibi is right now, something that should scare the shit out of his allies).

  • Roopappy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    I got an idea.

    Aggressively develop and move everything to non-fossil fuel technology. Share that technology with the rest of the world. Then, boom: Iran loses 70% of it’s GDP, and everyone wins without any shots fired.

  • Rascabin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    We’re all being played. It’s just a chess game for them and for us to drink the Kool aid. Just like the fake rap beef these days. Skeletor out…

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Iran isn’t a credible threat to Israel or the US. I hate US Foreign policy as much as any good leftist, but Iran isn’t the anti-US champion I’m backing. The enemy of my enemy isn’t a friend I have principals and they don’t involve theocracies.

    • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Iran isn’t a credible threat to Israel or the US

      This is just false. US war games in the past have shown Iran is fully capable of thwarting a US invasion. And is that really even surprising? Vietnam and Afganistan have done it, and Iran is on a different level.

      Iran isn’t the anti-US champion I’m backing

      Iran is funding anti-imperialist organizations/governments like Hezbollah, Ansarallah, Hamas, and is a close ally of the Syrian government. They are not socialist like the USSR-backed South Yemen, PFLP etc, but they are anti-imperialist governments that any socialist with “principals” should critically support.

      The utopian perfection you desire does not exist in the world right now; by not supporting the actually existing anti-imperialists, you are doing the imperialists’ job for them.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think there is a pretty big difference between being impervious to US invasion (afterall the US hasn’t successfully invaded anything since 1863) and being a credible threat.