425

Iran launches drone attack against Israel as Biden rushes to White House (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

259 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Iran said it launched dozens of drones and ballistic missiles towards Israel on Saturday in a major attack following days of acute tension building up in the region and warnings from the US and elsewhere about a wider conflict erupting.

Air attack warning sirens began wailing over Jerusalem just before 2am local time on Sunday after the weapons were fired a few hours earlier from Iran with US and Jordanian military assisting Israel’s air defenses in intercepting the first incoming barrage.

With weapons believed to be still in the air en route to Israel, Iran’s mission to the United Nations posted on X: “Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus. The matter can be deemed concluded.”

However, it threatened more severe action in the face of further Israeli aggression and warned the US and Jordan specifically not to assist Israel.

MBFC
Archive

Edit: here are links to the NYT and BBC live feeds.

Edit 2: updated summary and archive to reflect article changes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 32 points 7 months ago

It's the Middle East. It has a huge amount of a particularly important strategic resource. Additionally, the countries there generally have, at best, a cold relationship with the US. If not outright adversarial.

Israel is smack dab in the middle of it with access to the sea. It holds a massively important strategic military and geopolitical position for the US.

So, sure, what the other poster says is definitely part of it, but I think what primarily drives US support to be seemingly unequivocal is that the US/Israel alliance is also very important to US geopolitical influence as well.

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 3 points 7 months ago

As for that natural resource, we have quite a bit of it here in the United States itself. So we wouldn't have to rely on them to get that resource. That, and if the US really wanted to break away, they could very seriously incentivize the purchase of electric mobility devices, such as electric bikes and scooters and cars.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago

The US is 10th on the list of oil reserves

6 of those above the US are in the middle east (or northern Africa, depending on how you draw your boundaries). 5 of those have more than twice the amount of the US. One has probably around 5x. The US is burning through reserves right now, which is strategically a bad long term idea, IMO.

I agree with you that certain dependance can go away if we shift to electric. However, militarily speaking, oil is going to be king probably for a long time. And that's what this is about. Not just making sure civilians can drive down the road cheaply, although that certainly plays a role.

[-] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago

The US is a net exporter of oil. They don't have a hard dependency on the list and it doesn't matter if they're 6th or 60th - they have more than they need.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

For now. They aren't just thinking this very second.

[-] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

Oil is crucial for agriculture and the production of vital chemicals and materials. We really shouldn’t be burning it.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip -1 points 7 months ago

Gotta tell Ya'll Qaeda that they'll have to give up their trucks but they can keep plastic straws.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Israel is #91 on that same list. Israel consistently increases tensions with our trade partners in the region. They are a liability to our trade negotiations, not an asset.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It has a huge amount of a particularly important strategic resource.

This is not accurate. There are multiple nearby allied/NATO countries in the area as well as carrier groups in the Med that more than cover what Israel offers us.

Israel does not offer us a unique strategic advantage in any scenario. They only increase tensions with our existing trade partners in the region and threaten to bring us into wars that they start. They are very much using us, and have been for decades. We allow/justify it because of religious and traditional reasons. Nothing more.

Biden is backing Israel because some of the U.S.'s biggest political donors (AIPAC) will shift their support back to the Republicans in the upcoming election if he doesn't. Mark my words: Biden will back off Israel support the instant it becomes too late for certain donors to negatively affect the upcoming election.

this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024

425 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39112 readers

886 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.