Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Zipgun

(184 posts)

8. This was serious, they didn't want a war, but they did want to signal their displeasure and ability to mount a response.

Reply to Enquiring_Mind (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2024, 09:26 AM

Apr 14

This was very costly for Israel, the US and England. I bet the missiles used in the defense cost a lot more than the drones and missiles used in the attack. Does this deserve a response from Israel? Yes. Does it deserve an escalation? No, and this is the danger. The US will be there to help defend Israel from further attacks. But I don't want us dragged into a war.

Israel needs to look at a response OUTSIDE of Iranian soil. And something proportional. Take out some Iranian proxies. Especially ones active against Israel now. Something of that nature. A proportional response that does not demand a response in return.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Iran's inability or unwillingness to retaliate in a serious way [View all] Enquiring_Mind Apr 14 OP

I guess it's more of a tickle fight. Omnipresent Apr 14 #1

It's an interesting thought: "It was rash in the decision, I'll do a symbolic missile attack" ... marble falls Apr 14 #2

I don't think they cared if it worked underpants Apr 14 #3

To be clear, Israel started this with the consulate bombing Enquiring_Mind Apr 14 #6

Oh I know. Not exactly a winning strategy underpants Apr 14 #9

To be clear, Iran funds and trains Hamas terrorists mcar Apr 14 #12

Didn't Iran poke first by having Hezbollah aim missiles Nixie Apr 14 #14

This SARose Apr 14 #11

I don't see it that way. pwb Apr 14 #4

Indeed. Despite all the noise, this was a minimal Voltaire2 Apr 14 #5

Iran HAS hypersonic missiles womanofthehills Apr 14 #15

They had to answer Israel's attack on the consulate as a hit on sovereign territory but... dutch777 Apr 14 #7

This was serious, they didn't want a war, but they did want to signal their displeasure and ability to mount a response. Zipgun Apr 14 #8

I heard cost mentioned this morning Enquiring_Mind Apr 14 #17

Drones can cost $400 to $6,000 each womanofthehills Apr 14 #19

They are afraid to take on Israel or the USA in any serious way, that doc03 Apr 14 #10

Not sure the US would consider 110 ballistic missiles fired at us as a not serious attack EX500rider Apr 14 #13

moped drones included? WarGamer Apr 14 #21

The attack included 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles and 110 ballistic missiles. EX500rider Apr 14 #25

Iran remains a serious threat to Israel DFW Apr 14 #16

Back channel communications were very possible Enquiring_Mind Apr 14 #18

Does Israel have endless interceptor missiles? womanofthehills Apr 14 #22

unwillingness, not inability. WarGamer Apr 14 #20

Some underestimate ForgedCrank Apr 14 #23

Reading some the threads today BannonsLiver Apr 14 #24

Poisoning the blood of the Democratic Party. Frasier Balzov Apr 14 #28

What if one of the US neighbors 1,000 miles away decided to launch a similar attack? LeftInTX Apr 14 #26

Inability isn't the word I would choose Tetrachloride Apr 14 #27