50
Israel Attack on Iran Is What World War III Looks Like
(theintercept.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
50 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
22 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So you're saying that people fighting with nail-studded sticks, or secretly assassinating internal political opponents in the other's territory, is a similar level of conflict as flattening an embassy with a laser-guided bomb, or firing 300 drones and ballistic missiles, and then having a retaliatory strike on the location of another country's nuclear program?
This strains my credulity, that you are suggesting this.
If China bombed a US embassy in Japan, the US fired 300 missiles at targets on China's eastern seaboard (which were intercepted), and China retaliated by striking targets in San Diego... no one on earth would be denying that they were at war.
All of the above are cases of one nations government killing a handful of another’s people for minor political posturing, and are all far more similar in scale to each other than say the US-Vietnam, Ukrainian, or even the undeclared Falklands war.
If the ultimate goal of a war is to force one nation
or group to surrender to another through military might, then I don’t think anyone in Israel expected Iran to surrender to them after they ‘accidentally’ blew up an embassy, nor do I expect anyone in Iran to have expected Israel to send an offer of surrender after they launched a single wave of largely outdated missiles against a handful of airfields.
In practice there are of course secondary effects, but the primary political motivation is internal, not external. Iran doesn’t expect Israel to surrender, but primarily wishes to reassure its public and keys to power that it can respond to military aggression. Israel does not wish Iran to surrender and end the ‘war’, it wishes to commit the US to giving it more resources while finding a situation in which it can play the victim.
So yes, I would say it is far more similar in scale, scope, and goal to assassinating a foreign citizen or sending a bunch of soldiers to beat another off ‘your’ land with nail studded sticks than it is sending tens of thousands of soldiers to occupy territory and replace the local government with your own.
I don't think it is the ultimate goal of war, that's overly restricting the definition based on, as I said, this conception of war as only being these wide-ranging conflicts (really, what "total war" refers to). Many wars have been fought purely over control of land or resources, where surrender or government toppling was never the goal.
Merriam-Webster
Surrender of or the replacement of the government on that land or resources through military might either directly or indirectly is however the way control over those resources is achieved, and no, I am not just taking about total war, as one of my examples there was the Falkland’s war, which was not even close to a total war for either side.
Moreover your definition would seem not to apply to the current Iran- Israel conflict, as it is being discussed and decided on a case by case basis for both sides instead of an open and declared conflict.