The purpose of the Drone Swarm attack on Israel was to generate data for Irans’ Drone industry.
Behind the front men and propagandists there is an educated, skilled team of Iranian technologists. They are in the Drone business. The raid demonstrated the range and depth of penetration that could be achieved by inexpensive drones. It produced information on the timing and nature of the targets’ response. I believe the raid was very successful.
The cost of the Drone swarm was insignificant compared to the cost of the response. Future swarms can easily exhaust the resources of any defense system. Last night there were ~325 missiles that tested various levels of ordnance. Had Iran been serious there would have been 3500 Drones followed by 200 missiles. I assume strategists on both sides are working out the numbers. Last nights’ raid gives them a few new numbers to crunch.
The Iranian government has considerable control over their internal audience but I’m not sure they could lie about an attack that never happened at all. Doing it this way military members could give first-hand accounts of firing missiles and drones, and then what’s on the TV could be spun hard to favor the party line.
Russia is no more likely to sell a nuke to Iran than the US is to sell a nuke to, oh, Spain. Nuclear powers do not sell nuclear weapons to anyone. (Although if any did my money would be on ever-desperate-for-cash North Korea…)
Russia has not sold, given, or traded nuclear weapons to Iran.
Nuclear technology, sure that’s possible, but that’s not the same as selling atomic bombs.
And where did you get all of this from?
Also, are you aware that in the initial days of the Israeli-Hamas war, Hamas and allies fired off something between 2500-5000 missiles and failed to overcome the Israeli defenses? Your post seems to be made up out of nothing at all.
Was it a consulate or an embassy? I think there is a notable difference there. Do consulates have the same diplomatic immunity an embassy does? I do not think so but I do not know.
The main issue is, if it was an embassy that was hit, that is a big deal. Of all the norms in international politics that fall by the wayside the inviolate nature of embassies is one that persists. All countries have them and all want them off-limits so they all play by that rule (or should). And of course that makes them spy central for everyone. The Russian embassy in Washington is almost certainly working against US interests and running spies in the US. Should we bomb them knowing the US embassy in Moscow is doing the same?
People (and in particular, select members of the diplomatic staff) customarily enjoy diplomatic immunity, which gives them freedom of movement and protection against petty criminal complaints and lawsuits. It is not, despite how it is portrayed in many films and television, an blanket protection against any crime committed or prevents local law officials from investigating or detaining diplomatic staff who are in obvious commission of a crime. Facilities (embassies or otherwise) do not have diplomatic immunity by the basic fact that they are not people and cannot be arrested, indicted, or convicted of a crime.
An embassy is the permanent diplomatic mission in country; it is the workplace and sometimes the home of the ambassador to that nation and their key staff. A consulate is a local arm of the diplomatic mission, offering services and representation without having to go to the embassy. The consul is the head of a consulate and is subordinate to the ambassador. Both an embassy and its consulates are considered ‘foreign soil’ of their respective nation for legal purposes. Bombing or attacking either and embassy or a consulate is equivalent to an attack upon that nation. A “consulate annex” is an ambiguous term which may or may not have any official standing depending on whether or not the host country regards it as part of the consulate (or embassy); however, attacking any official diplomatic facilities, including residences, schools, hospitals, et cetera is generally regarded as a violation of sovereign protection. On the other hand, while embassies are frequently used for intelligence gathering and hosting espionage services (i.e. the “cultural attaché” or similarly ambiguous positions), they are absolutely not supposed to be used for military or covert action purposes (save for the security and defensive force that is typically military; for US diplomatic missions this is the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security).
Whether the general(s) and staff officers (in addition to Zahedi, who was known to be coordinating with Hamas and Hezbollah) who were killed in Syria were engaged in covert activity has been asserted but not established but it was reported that at least one “Hezbollah fighter” was also killed, so it would seem that the “consulate annex” was at least permitting and possibly housing members of Hezbollah, which Israel and other nations have identified as a terrorist organization. So, regardless of the status of the facility, there is good reason to be argue that it was being used for illicit purposes in opposition to customary law. Whether Israel was justified in attacking the facility (and incidentally damaging the adjacent Canadian embassy, which was thankfully unoccupied), and whether Iran is justified in its response can be argued ad infinitum but regardless of your conclusion it obviously beckons to a wider conflict between two nations that have had long animosity toward one another.
Netanyahu is far less concerned about what the US leadership thinks about current actions than he is about hard right elements pushing for more aggresive action in Gaza, official support for resettlement in the occupied West Bank, and taking the fight to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nor is Biden going to “threaten to withdraw [US] protection” for Israel in the face of potential Iranian hostilities; to do so would be political suicide and the loss of campaign money, plus Joe Biden has been an advocate for Israel throughout his entire political career. It took a massive amount of pressure *and Israeli attacks on an independent aid convoy *for Biden to just render vague warnings about the massive civilian casualties and deliberate famine in Gaza, and he certainly isn’t going to go out of his way to restrain Israel with regard to Iran.
You might be right that Biden won’t use it, but the leverage is obviously there. This was a massively good thing the US (and allies) did for Israel, and I suspect most Israelis know it.
No, it isn’t ‘obviously there’, and in fact it has been made pretty clear that Netanyahu is going to do whatever the conservative elements want him to do regardless of US or other international opinion.
Netanyahu has already given in several times. If it weren’t for Biden, Gaza would be in even worse shape. Netanyahu is terrible, but he’s also weak and hanging by a thread.
I never really understood the conflict between Iran and Israel. They don’t share a border, they don’t have any disputed territory, the Persians are a completely different culture than the Levantine Arabs, and their religion is Shia Islam, unlike the Palestinians. Why are these two countries interfering with each other at all? There’s no resource or land that’s contested between the two of them. What’s the point?
It is in the interest of regimes like Iran to tell their people that all their problems stem from “that guy over there.” Then, the populace doesn’t blame their government for shitty conditions, it is someone else’s fault. That fault is laid on Israel and the US. If only those guys were gone we’d have paradise.
To be fair, politicians in the US do this too. All your problems are the result of that other guy (immigrants, Jews, Asians, African-Americans…take your pick).
Solving problems is hard. Blaming others for your problems is easy.
Hamas alone has already overwhelmed Iron Dome with rocket attacks.
Drone swarms are the emerging weapon of the near future. Consider the fact that in a real attack most of the drones can be cheap decoy duds. The Iron Dome has to fire very expensive rounds at all of them.