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

      • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, when it comes to WWIII I’m more worried about what NATO/EU is going to do if Ukraine starts collapsing than Israel vs. Iran. If Russia takes Ukraine and starts eyeing other Eastern European countries, or strongly anti-Putin EU countries decide they are willing to go to war to stop him then things could get messy FAST. That’s why it’s so important that the US doesn’t stop funding for Ukraine (like a some politicians, especially Republicans, seem to want). Ukraine is legitimately the bulwark against Russian aggression that could bloom into something much worse.

        Israel vs. Iran would be bad, but I don’t think enough countries would join in on Iran’s side to make this a world war. I’d expect more of a new Gulf/Iraq/Afghanistan War than WWIII.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Agreed. The lifetime KGB agent turned president is actively destabilizing all non-NATO nations on his border, while pushing his way through Ukraine. If he’s successful in taking Ukraine, with the allegiance of Belarus, he’ll have Poland on two borders.

          • foofiepie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Poland will go absolutely fucking postal if Russia starts something. There’s some deep down, righteous grievance there.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              As there should be. That didn’t stop Putin from suggesting Russia’s rightful ownership of Poland during the Tucker Carlson interview.

        • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          All Iran needs to do is hit an American target for supporting Israel and that would be it. Then everybody’s gonna get involved.

    • 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”?

                • Highalectical@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Ah, but with my superior westoid brain I know that there were no feints because ruzzzzzzzzzins are le orcs from mordor and the slavic brainpan is incapable of coming up with tactics other than human waves. /s

      • 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

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      No. Civil war in the US is how it starts.

      Russia backs the right, Europe the left and the US becomes the setting for a proxy war that quickly escalates and gets completely out of control when state vs state conflict begins to involve nuclear posturing.

      • Arcturus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Lmfao this is the funniest thing I’ve read all week. What alternate universe are libs living in?

        When/if a civil war or working-class revolution ever reaches the heart of the imperial core — the US — it will be after most of the world has overthrown capitalism to become socialist (assuming capitalism doesn’t kill us all by climate change or a nuclear war by then), not at the start of a hypothetical major war.

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not that way. War takes a heavy toll on the environment and we can’t afford to fuck it up any further right now.

        • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It does, but if a catastrophic war, including one with nuclear weapons, brought us down to 2 billion from 9, those nukes wouldn’t even touch the current course of heavy industry of 9 billion that we recklessly became without a thought in the world about whether our only habitat could support it.

          Because shooting wars end, even if through attrition. Industry just keeps metastizing if you let it, and pretty lies like “but we planted trees! That evens out all the shit we’re pumping in the air and water!” are just pretty lies.

          If we cared about our species having a future, heavy industry would be scaled back to food/medicine, we could sow our own clothes, go back to horses, breed less, communaly build our own structures, and whittle our own shelf crap, and we could perhaps still provide a future to subsequent generations. We do not.

          • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Sure, let’s go back to the middle ages and ride horses and whittle our spoons and forks and knives. 🙄

            I mean you’re right about the world population being too big. But birth rates are already decreasing all over the globe. The problem is this capitalism that’s always trying to produce more and keep this continuous growth.

            But we can still find balance with the environment with the technology we have. We just don’t have the will power from our governments because of their attachment to capitalism.

            • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              The fact that making significant sacrifices in abandoning many of the decadent comforts of this period at our only habitat’s irreparable (on a human timescale) damage expense is met with ridicule shows how determined we are to wreck this place.

              Imagine mass famines and frequent catastrophic weather events a couple generations from now. I’m guessing they’ll look at us being above living with our once kind, nurturing habitat with disdain and bewilderment when they’re steeped in the fruits of our lifestyles.

              Im not saying going back to the dark ages, im not advocating rejecting knowledge, only the rushing around and consumerism. There’s no more reasonable room for growth, growth is killing us, and robbing us of meaning.

              If we can’t live with this paradise, the idea of us spreading to hostile, unforgiving worlds within reach like Mars or Titan is a bad joke. Unlike the infinite mistakes we get to keep making here without instant death, one major mistake out there where we didn’t evolve, and poof everybody dead instantly thanks for playing space faring civilization. That isn’t a game humans can pull off. Maybe some small crew of exceptional people, but certainly not a colony of regular people.

              This is what we got. So yeah, maybe spending our time whittling stuff we need and moving at the speed of horse would be better for humanity long term than racing to grow our GDP into extinction.

              Whats the endgame of all this growth and “innovation” if it wasn’t killing us as it is? To have Google ad AI generated amalgums of our dead relatives transmitted directly into our brains to convince us to buy more crap?

      • PoopDelivery@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Killing a bunch of poor people in war isn’t going to save the planet. And countless animals die and have their habitats destroyed. Earth would benefit from a lot less wealthy humans.