Just a moment...
www.axios.com
  • Sundial@lemm.eeEnglish
    371·
    5 days ago

    If they’re attacking from Iraq that means they’re trying to hit them before Israel/US can even react. I don’t know how Israel and the US would react to something like this. I can’t imagine it being anything good.

    Then again, this is coming from the Israeli intelligence so they may be using this as a pretext to bomb certain locations in Iraq. There are Iraqi militants firing rockets and drones into Israel regularly.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caEnglish
      9·
      5 days ago

      I don’t know why would Iran attack before the election since that could boost Trump’s chances and Trump would be worse for them. Perhaps this is an attempt by Israel to nudge the election towards him?

      • philpo@feddit.orgEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        I don’t think Trump would be worse for them. It might actually part of their strategy.

        • While Trump was worse for them back then when he wanted to play “hardass”, it’s a different situation now. He is far more isolationist than before.

        • Harris has always backed both Israel and Ukraine. Both things are bad from a Iranian regime POV. For them it is much more desirable if Trump stops aid to Ukraine and Putin wins the war - which will keep Europe occupied for decades, out of their way in the middle east and very likely is favourable in a lot of ways to them. If Putin looses it will very likely mean a regime change in Russia - and the chances that Iran looses their last relevant ally are fairly big.

        • The same goes for Israel itself. Trump might have played “nice” with Bibi the last time,but it’s another situation now. If shit hits the fan even more than it does now, Trump will do whatever his base back home likes most. And while most of them are surely deeply against Muslims, they are also/maybe even more antisemitic. And if Trump will do nothing in a situation like that, he wins in the eyes of his powerbase (while Israel and the middle east as a whole looses). The only thing risky for Iran in that situation is the fact that Trump would be far less likely to restrain Bibi. But Bibi is on the way out anyway.

        • It might also simply be an “suggestion” from the Iranian “friends” in Moscow to influence things a little. Someone asks for a favour because a second crisis area puts the focus away from ones own front yard. And having an old friend/employee in the oval office surely helps.

        • Let’s not forget the perversion of regimes like Iran: A conflict with an old enemy can be a very stabilising factor for a dwindling regime. The lack of restraint Israel showed in Gaza and Libanon put even the more moderate forces in the middle east but also within Iran back on the “Israel is the arch-enemey” line. This is the point where the regime now can unite more moderate parts of their internal as well as external stakeholders behind a common cause with a slight “we told you so!”. That is sadly very much a benefit from a prolonged conflict for them.(Which Trump is far more likely to enable them to sustain)

        Anyway: Iran would be surely worse off with Harris - so they might have a lot of incentive to do what they can to get Trump into office.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.todayEnglish
        83·
        5 days ago

        Or maybe the entire god damned world doesn’t make every god damned decision based on the US Election? Just sayin’…

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caEnglish
          101·
          5 days ago

          Most of the world yes. But in this one where the quantities, types and prices of the bombs used literally depend on the American election, it probably influences decision-making.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.todayEnglish
            46·
            5 days ago

            American isn’t buying Iran’s bombs and there’s no amount of hysterical hand waving you can do to get over that fact.

        • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          4 days ago

          I would love to see how you defend the argument that Iran doesn’t care about the US election results. That’d be a fascinating exercise to see done.

    • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.comEnglish
      2·
      4 days ago

      I’m not doubting the efficacy of their intel, but I am doubting the accuracy of what they release to the public. They push a ridiculous amount of propaganda and straight-up misinformation.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.comEnglish
    2·
    4 days ago

    This would seem to suggest that Israel’s attack was neither minor as Iran had claimed but not devastating either as Israel had claimed.

    If it was minor, Iran may just ignore it to de-escalate. If it was devastating, Iran would probably not want another exchange. Then again, my assessment may be completely off base.

    • 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      31·
      4 days ago

      IMO, Iran was expecting an Israeli response on par with what Iran actually hit in Israel and not what Iran targeted. Iran expected Israel to hit some rocks in the desert. Israel hit actual military targets and Iran is outraged. Iran cannot win this game.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldBEnglish
    311·
    5 days ago
    Axios - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Axios:

    Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.

    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/israel-iran-planning-attack-iraq

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support