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.
Iran isn’t a credible threat to Israel or the US. I hate US Foreign policy as much as any good leftist, but Iran isn’t the anti-US champion I’m backing. The enemy of my enemy isn’t a friend I have principals and they don’t involve theocracies.
This is just false. US war games in the past have shown Iran is fully capable of thwarting a US invasion. And is that really even surprising? Vietnam and Afganistan have done it, and Iran is on a different level.
Iran is funding anti-imperialist organizations/governments like Hezbollah, Ansarallah, Hamas, and is a close ally of the Syrian government. They are not socialist like the USSR-backed South Yemen, PFLP etc, but they are anti-imperialist governments that any socialist with “principals” should critically support.
The utopian perfection you desire does not exist in the world right now; by not supporting the actually existing anti-imperialists, you are doing the imperialists’ job for them.
Removed by mod
Clearly not. You wouldn’t specify “foreign policy” if you did.
Nah. If you are compromising on the immortal science, you are just as shitty as Kissinger. Fuck off.
Lmfao
Based on what? Iran has been successfully waging a proxy war for the better part of 20 years against the US across Iraq and Syria. The US’s own war games have exposed the threat posed by Iran to the US Navy as well.
“The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such ‘desperate’ democrats and ‘Socialists,’ ‘revolutionaries’ and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British ‘Labour’ Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are ‘for’ socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.” — The Foundations of Leninism
deleted by creator
I think there is a pretty big difference between being impervious to US invasion (afterall the US hasn’t successfully invaded anything since 1863) and being a credible threat.