Israel strikes Iran

[Soloist]

On the surface you are right. Irans typical M.O. is to run their attacks through proxy militias like Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis so they can remain unscathed of being blamed for a direct attack. All have been firing rockets frequently via the supply of Iran. We don't hear much about it because its so frequent and Iran tends to be in the shadows while the militias get the glory. Also, with the Iron dome its decreased the casualties which in turn means less newsworthy.

That’s why it’s called a proxy war. I hazard a guess most powers are doing exactly this.

[Ken]

JohnH asked when was the last time Iran engaged in a first strike against Israel (comparable to what Israel did yesterday). And I provided the correct answer. About 9 months ago in October 2024. A strike against Hezbollah HQ in Lebanon when Hezbollah was engaged in war against Israel does not constitute a first strike against Iran.

It should be pointed out that was a token response (no casualties), and Iran also gave plenty of advance warning. They basically burned off a bunch of obsolete missiles.

I would disagree it was a first strike though. America would never tolerate air striking one of our top officials meeting with a foreign ally. Nor would we consider it a “first strike”.

On the surface you are right. Irans typical M.O. is to run their attacks through proxy militias like Hamas or Hezbollah so they can remain unscathed of being blamed for a direct attack. Both have been firing rockets frequently via the supply of Iran. We don't hear much about it because its so frequent and Iran tends to be in the shadows while the militias get the glory. Also, with the Iron dome its decreased the casualties which in turn means less newsworthy.

Exactly. Why has Iran picked Hezbollah and Hamas as "allies?" Not for any strategic reason. One reason only. Because both are weapons that Iran can deploy against Israel. That very week in question, their Hezbollah proxies had launched over a thousand missiles and rockets against civilian towns in Northern Israel. Many supplied by Iran. So the notion that in the middle of a war between Hezbollah and Israel (in this case launched by Hezbollah in support of their Hamas allies) that the Hezbollah HQ would be off limits for Israel simply because an Iranian general was in the house is laughable.

Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas all have as part of their foundational ideology the destruction of Israel. This is in contrast to other middle eastern states like Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia who all more or less have some form of cold peace and cooperation with Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah both wanted war with Israel and they got it. Iran's governing ideology since the 1979 revolution has been the destruction of Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructi ... ian_policy

Now that doesn't mean that Israel is blameless. Israel has always had a suicidally belligerent right wing that has always acted provocatively towards neighbors and lands under its control such as the Palestinian territories. And that has never seen a peace agreement they weren't willing to torpedo. And frankly that thread of Judaism goes back to ancient times such as the suicidally stupid Jewish revolts against Roman rule during the 1st Century. Which Jesus warned them against endlessly.

And so here we are.

[Nomad]

On the surface you are right. Irans typical M.O. is to run their attacks through proxy militias like Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis so they can remain unscathed of being blamed for a direct attack. All have been firing rockets frequently via the supply of Iran. We don't hear much about it because its so frequent and Iran tends to be in the shadows while the militias get the glory. Also, with the Iron dome its decreased the casualties which in turn means less newsworthy.

That’s why it’s called a proxy war. I hazard a guess most powers are doing exactly this.

True. And no doubt Israel has done their own share of behind the scenes deals as well...

[Heirbyadoption]

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

[Soloist]

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

Well the story circulating right now is about pre-staging assets for attack.
We will know when we know.

[Ken]

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

Doesn't need to be against American soil.

There are so many American military bases and installations scattered all over that region, take your pick.

[Heirbyadoption]

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

Doesn't need to be against American soil. There are so many American military bases and installations scattered all over that region, take your pick.

True, but a hit on US soil itself would be significantly more effective in drawing the US into said conflict, I would think. Certainly I don't wish it to happen, but just imagine if Seattle or San Fran or LA were hit - how quickly we might (temporarily) overcome a good bit of our raging US partisanship.

[Szdfan]

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

Doesn't need to be against American soil. There are so many American military bases and installations scattered all over that region, take your pick.

True, but a hit on US soil itself would be significantly more effective in drawing the US into said conflict, I would think. Certainly I don't wish it to happen, but just imagine if Seattle or San Fran or LA were hit - how quickly we might (temporarily) overcome a good bit of our raging US partisanship.

May not actually need an attack against the US to get involved. Israel is asking for help. Trump says it’s possible, though the US is not currently involved.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/tru ... =122865561

President Donald Trump said Sunday the United States is not involved in Israel's military strikes against Iran, but "it's possible we could get involved."

That comes after reports that Israel had urged the U.S. to join the conflict with Iran to eliminate its nuclear program.

[Ken]

So at what point in all this should we expect some sort of false flag operation against American soil to properly and fully usher the US into the conflict...?

Doesn't need to be against American soil. There are so many American military bases and installations scattered all over that region, take your pick.

True, but a hit on US soil itself would be significantly more effective in drawing the US into said conflict, I would think. Certainly I don't wish it to happen, but just imagine if Seattle or San Fran or LA were hit - how quickly we might (temporarily) overcome a good bit of our raging US partisanship.

But if you are talking about some false flag operation to create a casus belli it is vastly easier to gin up some terrorist strike against a US military installation in Syria or Iraq or someplace like that that an attack on a major American city.

Remember the last time Trump attacked Iran directly? That was in January 2020 when Trump ordered drone strikes against Iranian general Qasem Soleimani: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassina ... _Soleimani That was in response to rocket attacks against an American air base in Iraq that were blamed on an Iranian-controlled militia force. I'm not saying that was a false flag attack. No evidence that it was. But it would be vastly easier to fake up such an attack compared to a fake terrorist attack on Seattle or Los Angeles.

[Szdfan]

Why does everything have to be a “false flag” operation or a conspiracy theory?