Iranian military chief says overnight attack ‘achieved all its goals’, adding that US bases are under threat if it backs Israeli retaliation.

Iran has warned Israel of a larger attack on its territory should it retaliate against Tehran’s overnight drone and missile attacks, adding that the United States should not back an Israeli military action.

“If the Zionist regime [Israel] or its supporters demonstrate reckless behaviour, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response,” Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said in a statement on Sunday. ⠀

However, in a signal that Iran’s response was calculated in an attempt to avoid any major escalation, the Iranian foreign minister Amir Abdollahian said that Tehran had informed the US of the planned attack 72 hours in advance, and said that the strikes would be “limited” and for self-defence.

That did not stop more aggressive language from other officials, with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, warning that Tehran would retaliate against any Israeli attacks on its interests, officials or citizens.

“From now on, whenever Israel attacks Iranian interests… we will attack from Iran.” ⠀

“The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe,” said a statement.

It added that the US should “stay away” from the conflict, as it is an issue between Iran and Israel.

Archive link

  • mindlight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    If WWIII is knocking on the door it started with Russia trying to invade Ukraine.

      • mindlight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        It depends on what you define as the endgame.

        If Kiev is the end game, then Russia haven’t succeeded. If Kiev isn’t the endgame, the Russian 64km long column on its way to Kiev just becomes more than the pathetic failure of Russian military strategy it was at the time.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Capturing Kiev requires invading Ukraine first. Russia has invaded Ukraine. It has demonstrated absolutely zero intent so far to march troops into Kiev.

          • mindlight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            A 64km long column moving towards Kiev is pretty much “marching troops into Kiev”.

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Serious question, have you been able to find ANY Western reporting about any Russian feints during the first week of the invasion? I haven’t been able to. Which is strange, because we have West Point saying that during some counter-offensives there were Russian feints, appearing to earnestly be asking the question of whether deception is still a major part of war. If you read the Wikipedia article about that 64km convoy, it’s pretty much relying entirely on Western reporting, and the reports are pretty silly. Soldiers captured from that convoy only had 3 days of rations? Does that sound like a viable approach to capturing and holding a capital city? I don’t think so. Just read that article and the sources critically - it doesn’t look like a serious maneuver. It looks a lot like a feint.

              So if Russia is known to use feints, but NONE of the initial maneuvers were reported as feints, then we are left with either A) Russia launched zero feints, or B) we haven’t labeled which maneuvers were feints. That convoy looks A LOT like a feint to me. And how would a successful feint be reported by Western propaganda rags? As a victory for the West for having defeated such a great maneuver that also demonstrates the silliness of the opponent. That opponent, by the way, has destroyed Ukraine and there is no chance of Ukrainian victory at this point. So, do we trust the analysis that the convoy was an earnest maneuver, or do we see the evidence and think “perhaps this was a feint”?

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah well considering how Russia and Iran are buddy buddy, that makes sense. But I would say Russia vs Ukraine is the oil, and Israel was the spark as soon as they deliberately hit the Iranian embassy in Syria.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Na, that’s just a large interstate.

      Throw in Chinese expansionist policy, Trumps divisive attitude and a healthy dose of resource shortages… now were looking at world conflicts