tantavisiteler
Player Valuation: £5m
Proxy yeah but not directly by Iran. Unlike Israel's strike on Apr 1.
Current Affairs Iran
- Thread starter Spadge Vernacular
- Start date
- Status
Lol - That’s okay then as long as they get their mates to do their dirty work for them.
Hezbollah are Iran. They train them, they arm them, they fund them and they plan for them
Also there was the US embassy bombing in Beirut in 83. Again Hezbollah / Iran 63 dead this time
1983 United States embassy bombing | Description, Death Toll, & Responsibility | Britannica
1983 United States embassy bombing, terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, on April 18, 1983.www.britannica.com
Ming the merciless
Player Valuation: £950k
If our government was so keen on maintaining peace in the Middle East why weren’t the RAF shooting down the missile or missiles that destroyed the Iranian consulate in Syria. We’re one eyed in this matter and being one eyed rarely gets you anywhere in life.
tantavisiteler
Player Valuation: £5m
You can't find anything in last 10 years directly done by Iran?
Why do you appease to Israel so much mate?
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
This is not really how Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis operate. They are supported by Iran, but are not its proxies - all of them exist because of local grievances, the primary focus is on resolving those grievances rather than Iranian geostrategy.
This is why the worlds focus, and especially the countries whose elites are pro-Israel, have to push for those issues to be dealt with if they want Israel to be safer.
Eh! What’s time got to do with it?
FWIW Im not appeasing Israel -merely pointing out the fact that Iran is just as guilty and as evil as they are.
I’d agree on your points about the Houthis and Hamas however I disagree completely about your views on the relationship between Hez and Iran
Here’s a quote
Today, Hezbollah is no longer merely a subsidiary or proxy of Iran but rather an almost equal partner, serving as Iran’s vanguard in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while training local militias and terrorist groups. The conviction of three Hezbollah fighters by a U.N.-backed tribunal for the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri also demonstrates Hezbollah’s role as guns-for-hire assassins for Syria and Iran.
Source:
On Hezbollah, Lebanon, and the risk of escalation | Brookings
In its attempts to show solidarity with the Palestinians, Hezbollah may miscalculate. The risks of a full-scale Israel-Lebanon war are high.
www.brookings.edu
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
I’d agree on your points about the Houthis and Hamas however I disagree completely about your views on the relationship between Hez and Iran
Here’s a quote
Today, Hezbollah is no longer merely a subsidiary or proxy of Iran but rather an almost equal partner, serving as Iran’s vanguard in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while training local militias and terrorist groups. The conviction of three Hezbollah fighters by a U.N.-backed tribunal for the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri also demonstrates Hezbollah’s role as guns-for-hire assassins for Syria and Iran.
Source:
On Hezbollah, Lebanon, and the risk of escalation | Brookings
In its attempts to show solidarity with the Palestinians, Hezbollah may miscalculate. The risks of a full-scale Israel-Lebanon war are high.
TBF that quote makes it clear Hezbollah are not a proxy group for Iran. They have a lot of common interests, share a lot of ideology and goals but it’s the local issues that drive them.
In their case too it’s probably the one most easily solved by Western assistance - restore and empower the Lebanese government, improve the standard of living amongst the Lebanese people and Hezbollah would be negatively affected. That the country has effectively been abandoned since they kicked the Syrians out is one more in a long line of complete disasters of recent Western foreign policy.
We're going off on a tangent here.
The gist of the original debate being that Israel are bad for attacking the Iranian embassy in Damascus, whilst disregarding the fact than Iran are just as bad as they've also been involved in attacking other nations embassies.
The high court in Argentina only 2 days ago put the blame for the Israeli embassy bombing on Iran and declared it a terrorist state. Now they didn't come to that decision overnight - it took them decades of painstaking forensic work and sifting through intel to arrive at that decision - hopefully now the families of the victims can sue Iran through international courts for the loss of their loved ones.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Quite a damning indictment of Iran as a terrorist state, and as you say makes their excuse to fire off hundreds of drones/missiles look a bit hypocritical….
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Who is most responsible, the ones who pull the trigger or those who give the order to do so ?…….
Absolutely. They’re a bunch of bad teds.
Not only that - Argentina has proof that the explosives were smuggled into Argentina via a senior Iranian diplomat using diplomatic transport. There is an interpol warrant for his arrest but Iran won’t hand him over.
So it’s not simply a question of Iran giving an order - they actually facilitated the attack on the embassy.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
There is a massive difference between being involved in an attack carried out by a third party on an embassy, a diplomat or the territory of another state and the military forces of a country carrying the attack out themselves.
The latter is unequivocally an act of war against the target state if that state wants to see it as such; the former only rarely is depending on the level of involvement. It should also be pointed out that the Argentina attacks didn’t take place in a vacuum; there were attacks on Israeli embassies and diplomats throughout the 1970s 80s and 90s (including two in London), not all of which involved Iran so there was a lot of plausible deniability (which the Israelis also used in their attacks within Iran and other places).
In short it is really rare for a state to openly and deliberately attack another countries embassy or consulates even in wartime. It was a considerable escalation carried out by the Israeli government and any state with the ability to respond to being attacked would have done so.
As I said earlier, such an act really should have been condemned by every state because it puts every diplomatic premises at great risk.
There can be no distinction. If a country provides funding, planning support and smuggles the explosives into a 3rd party nation to facilitate the attack on an embassy then they are as guilty as lobbing a smart bomb at the embassy themselves.
So the high court in Argentina ruled - so if you know better than them take up your argument with them.
The rest of your post I agree with.
- Status