Vice President Joe Biden meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, March 9, 2010. By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu…
Except it isn’t. USA does not preemptively attack countries which plan to attack USA, since nobody is doing that. USA wrecks and coups countries because they are either trying to leave the US hegemonic control or the ones that are simply appealing targets for imperialism.
The problem (aside from international relations nonsense) is that Iran’s air force and missiles won’t be able to inflict significant damage on Israel, which aside from the Iron dome has the strongest air force in the region.
They already proven twice it is not the case, they hit what they wanted to hit. Why do you people always have to take the US wars modus operandi as a standard, where an attack needs to wreck everything and kill as many civilians as possible? When is the attack “damaging”, when it’s doubletapping the rescuers?
They hit (some of) what they wanted to hit, but didn’t inflect significant damage. Which is why a preemptive strike would be meaningless; those only matter when they can seriously reduce the enemy’s ability to wage war. Iran simply doesn’t have anything that can seriously reduce Israel’s ability to wage war in one attack.
We already saw that the dome cannot intercept Iranian missiles just days ago. Also, the math doesn’t work in favor of the dome given that they need 2 interceptors per missile. There’s also the issue of production capacity. Once it runs through the existing stockpiles of interceptors, making new ones at the rate they’re being consumed is not possible. For example, from 2008 to present, Lockheed Martin was able to produce 800 missiles, around 50 a year. https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2023/lockheed-martin-announces-delivery-of-800th-thaad-interceptor-missile-system
To counter the 180 missiles Iran reportedly launched, requiring up to 2 interceptors each, would have exhausted nearly HALF of all THAAD missiles ever produced. And that’s assuming there are enough launchers to even fire that many interceptors at once. The US is completely unprepared for the scale of war it is provoking around the globe.
Iran can absolutely cripple Israel by destroying its energy infrastructure.
Iran really should be preemptively striking Israel; I mean Israel is literally drawing up invasion plans.
First ever actual preemptive strike.
It’s called deescalation through escalation.
America supports it when Israel does it, that means it’s okay.
Iran, go right ahead. Lebanon, go right ahead. Hamas, go right ahead.
Israel and America have already stated this is a perfectly valid reasoning. The rules of war go both ways.
Again: If America is the world ethics, these actions are perfectly valid. This is what America does.
Except it isn’t. USA does not preemptively attack countries which plan to attack USA, since nobody is doing that. USA wrecks and coups countries because they are either trying to leave the US hegemonic control or the ones that are simply appealing targets for imperialism.
The problem (aside from international relations nonsense) is that Iran’s air force and missiles won’t be able to inflict significant damage on Israel, which aside from the Iron dome has the strongest air force in the region.
They already proven twice it is not the case, they hit what they wanted to hit. Why do you people always have to take the US wars modus operandi as a standard, where an attack needs to wreck everything and kill as many civilians as possible? When is the attack “damaging”, when it’s doubletapping the rescuers?
They hit (some of) what they wanted to hit, but didn’t inflect significant damage. Which is why a preemptive strike would be meaningless; those only matter when they can seriously reduce the enemy’s ability to wage war. Iran simply doesn’t have anything that can seriously reduce Israel’s ability to wage war in one attack.
We already saw that the dome cannot intercept Iranian missiles just days ago. Also, the math doesn’t work in favor of the dome given that they need 2 interceptors per missile. There’s also the issue of production capacity. Once it runs through the existing stockpiles of interceptors, making new ones at the rate they’re being consumed is not possible. For example, from 2008 to present, Lockheed Martin was able to produce 800 missiles, around 50 a year. https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2023/lockheed-martin-announces-delivery-of-800th-thaad-interceptor-missile-system
To counter the 180 missiles Iran reportedly launched, requiring up to 2 interceptors each, would have exhausted nearly HALF of all THAAD missiles ever produced. And that’s assuming there are enough launchers to even fire that many interceptors at once. The US is completely unprepared for the scale of war it is provoking around the globe.
Iran can absolutely cripple Israel by destroying its energy infrastructure.
I see. I assumed they could be intercepted by the iron dome as usual, but if not that changes things.
Yemen has proven this is not worth a hill of beans.