Tensions are high over the possibility Iran will retaliate for an air strike that killed senior Iranian commanders nearly two weeks ago.

US officials had told CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, that a major attack on Israel could happen imminently.

Israel has said it is ready “defensively and offensively”.

“I can’t speak to the size, scale, scope of what that attack might look like,” US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said on Friday. But he added that the Iranian threat was “viable,” saying Washington was “watching this very, very closely”.

He said: “We are in constant communication with our Israeli counterparts about making sure that they can defend themselves against those kinds of attacks”.

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Well, countries have the right to defend themselves, as Israel likes to repeat often. Even Iran.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well if Iran retaliates tomorrow let us remember that history starts on April 13th and as always israel definitely didn’t do anything to provoke it.

    • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      7 months ago

      Once again Linkerbaan is okay with deaths, as long as they’re on his preferred side.

      • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        I mean, at least everyone agrees that the Iranian strike will probably be a non-civilian strike.

        We cannot say the fucking same for Israel at all, like not even a little fucking bit

        • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          7 months ago

          Oh really? Everyone agrees on that? Does Iran? I’ll remind you that they fund several terrorist organizations that strike at civilians regularly

          • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            OK, I was vague enough to invite a little bit of assholery there.

            The intelligence services of the United States and Israel agree that it will not be a strike against the civilian target.

            This information was good from about five hours ago. I haven’t looked into it since then.

      • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Pointing out it’s Israels fault for bombing an embassy means they’re pro death? What???

      • eardon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s how war works?

        I’m sure you’re okay with deaths as long as they’re Russian.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Likud has caused this, Isreal. I hope this doesn’t materialize but you need to change fucking course.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Probably just pushing the envelope at this point since no major Western powers have done much to stop them regarding Gaza.

        • girlfreddyOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Don’t forget Netanyahu is in the middle of a corruption trial right now. Guaranteed that has something to do with him stalling a cease fire.

  • Sal@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    The wording is something else.

    Ensuring they can defend themselves… against another state defending itself from them?

    Whatever. It’s a mess that’s gonna get worse and worse.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Escalation seems unlikely. I’m not sure that there would really be anyone having Iran’s back in this.

  • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Honestly, at this point, if I was around, I wouldn’t do shit.

    Make them look like they were crying wolf, we can bring back 2003.

  • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    So just to be clear…

    Fundamentalist government sends financial aid to fundamentalist government’s militia, fundamentalist militia attacks fundamentalist government’s civilians, fundamentalist government’s military invades and attacks fundamentalist government’s civilians, so fundamentalist government sends financial, intelligence, and lethal aid to fundamentalist government’s militia and gives access to fundamentalist government’s compounds for their leaders, so fundamentalist government attacks fundamentalist government’s compounds and therefore fundamentalist government says they’re going to attack the fundamentalist government.

  • Adderbox76
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    Good. A period of prosperity usually follows a global conflict (Roaring twenties, 1950s American Dream, etc…)

    We’ve been heading down this road for a few years already, all over the world nothing but hatred and bigotry and selfishness seemingly on the rise. Mini conflicts all over the place, and the only super power literally on the verge of electing a fucking dictator. If the eventual result is a global conflict (it is), then let’s just get it the fuck over with so the political systems that remain afterwards can recover like they did post-ww2.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      If you want to make seeping, bold, and wrong predictions about the future based on incomplete knowledge of the past, you should try economics.

      • Adderbox76
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I was quite literally an Archaeology major with a minor in History. Care to try again?