- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
On 5 March, a post appeared on the X account of Iran’s late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, managed by his staff after he was killed in an Israeli airstrike on 28 February. The tweet featured a stark piece of propaganda: a gleaming, oversized missile arcing across the sky as a city below is engulfed in flames. The caption read: “Khorramshahr moments are on the horizon.”
The Khorramshahr missile, Iran’s most advanced ballistic missile, is believed to be capable of carrying a cluster warhead dispersing up to 80 submunitions. Since that post, it has come to loom large in Israeli threat assessments, a persistent concern for a country equipped with a multi-layered missile defence system that is widely regarded as the world’s most sophisticated.
The latest attack using cluster munitions occurred on Sunday, when an Iranian ballistic missile struck central Israel, injuring 15 people.
According to the Israel Defense Forces, roughly half of the missiles launched from Iran since the escalation have carried cluster warheads.
The Guardian, which reviewed the impact of dozens of Iranian strikes alongside statements from Israeli officials, has identified at least 19 ballistic missiles carrying cluster warheads that penetrated Israeli airspace and struck urban areas since the beginning of the war with Iran on 28 February. Those attacks have killed at least nine people and wounded dozens, reflecting a broader shift in Iran’s tactics that appears to have exposed a vulnerability in Israel’s air defences. Since the start of the war, Iran’s cluster munitions – which disperse dozens of bomblets mid-air – have tested Israel’s highly advanced, multi-tier missile defence network, including Iron Dome, which is designed to counter threats across ranges, altitudes and speeds, exposing gaps that interception alone has struggled to close.
You must log in or register to comment.
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Gaza, Beiruit, Tehran, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Irans strategy seemed to be to degrade air defenses in Israel, then use their newer munitions when ammo supplies dropped.
My question is how the fuck did anyone in Israel and the US become so fucking stupid that they wouldn’t assume what is essentially counter-battery, and why didn’t they stockpile munitions for the counter attacks? Like, I’m not surprised that both parties had the hubris to believe Iran would fold after 5 days of fighting. But how did professional men at arms not consider this scenario?
OP mentions Iran MIRV missile (cluster bomb is a completely different artillery shell that is banned by international convention), but Iran also has hypersonic missiles. MIRVs outnumber air defenses, and hypersonics are too fast for them. There is also apparently less than unlimited exquisite defensive missiles that need to be rationed. For Israel, degrading Iran is the priority. Confident that the US will pay for all important repairs afterwards, and whining about death (none happen) or damage is illegal.
Trump pulled a Stalin and purged all his competent generals. He surrounds himself with yes men. It’s the fatal flaw of all authoritarian governments. Turns out it’s a really bad idea to give one person absolute power and to never question their decisions.
Who would have thought that ignoring international law, treaties, and conventions would encourage your enemies to do the same? It’s almost as if limiting yourself to limit those who would do the same to you makes sense. Pesky laws.
It’s also noteworthy that neither country, to my knowledge, agreed not to use cluster munitions.
Even if Iran would have agreed to it, after having the US and Israel bomb civil infrastructure, as well as committing other war crimes, they have a right to defend themselves. And so far every answer has been proportional, maybe even less than it could have been.
I thought the right to defend was reserved for attackers, based on usa and israel claims.
Iran War: Special Edition, where it’s been crappily edited to show Iran shot first. “Maclunkey.”
Defense = preventive attack, unless it’s the “bad guys”
after having the US and Israel bomb civil infrastructure, as well as committing other war crimes
That was the point of my first paragraph. Israel not participating in the CCM was just a bonus. I was aware there were international agreements not use to cluster munitions and I looked into it because I was curious.
It’s fascinating (in a horrific kind of way) that literally all participants in this war are monstrous. Seriously, there are no good guys. This is turning into WWIII, but I always figured that when it happened, there would be clearly identifiable victims and aggressors.
How naive of me. Everyone involved is victim and aggressor simultaneously.
America/Israel attacked Iran unprovoked using diplomatic negotiations as cover, negotiations in which Iran apparently agreed to every demand. If this isn’t a war of aggression, I don’t know what is. Your opinion of the Iranian government doesn’t change that.
Citizens are generally more victim than aggressors. Maybe given the genocidal rhetoric common in Israel currently that is not so much the case as one would expect, and USA citizens have an oceanic buffer.
I don’t see how the US is anything other than the aggressor. Both Iran and Israel suck and they have no concern for human life, but I can see how they can claim to be victims. Not the US.
How can Israel claim to be the victim in this war against Iran?
Israeli people are victims, Israel isn’t.
Victims in what way? They’re only taking an infinitesimally fraction of what they’re dishing out. A serial killing getting scratched every now and then isn’t my idea of victimhood.
No yours, but it is theirs.
Well Iran has been attacking them for decades through Hezbollah and Hamas. It’s not like they’ve been keeping to themselves playing Rummikub in this conflict
Zionazi complaints for justifying Iran destruction must be dismissed, and certainly dismissed from world consideration of siding with Israel. Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to US/Israel hegemony over decades is justifiable independent resistance, and Iran support for any of it is irrelevant. That US/Israel are innocent loving victims of Iran must be exterminated from policy relevance. Let he who never supports political groups internationally cast the first stone.
Most relevant, the US has been negotiating a peace deal with Iran for over a year. Such a deal, if earnest would forgive the past on both sides. That Israel will always prevent peace, and controls the US means it is not earnest. In this week’s negotiations, all US zionazi political stooges are all talking as though the negotiations are for Iran’s surrender with no budget to compensate Iran. Zionazi media doesn’t even ask the questions.
Iran has been arming resistance to Israeli colonialism for decades, but that does not in any way make Israel a victim. Palestinians and Lebanese have the right to defend themselves, and Iran has the right (and, like the rest of the world, moral duty) to help them defend themselves.
Can you explain how the Lebanese are defending themselves when they’re firing rockets over the border into Israel?
Do… do you know why Hezbollah was even founded? For a hint, here’s a literal former Israeli PM on the topic:
In 2006, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak stated, “When we entered Lebanon … there was no Hezbollah. We were accepted with perfumed rice and flowers by the Shia in the south. It was our presence there that created Hezbollah.”
Yeah, two reasons actually:
1: beat back the Israeli’s (who invaded because the PLO was attacking them from Lebanon)
2: to tilt the Lebanese civil war in favour of the Shia sect
But neither seems like a valid reason to keep attacking Israel today
You’re actually a Hamas apologist. Wow.
Just what is it that you find so appealing about genocide, fasicsm, and pedophilia? It boggles the mind.
TF do you mean “apologist?” Hamas being a (and, in fact, by far the biggest) Palestinian armed resistance organization and the fact they do a lot of evil shit are two facts that can be true at the same time. That doesn’t mean supporting Hamas is victimizing Israel.
It kinda does tho. Hamas, in one form or another, has been attacking Isreal for many decades. Isreal has been attacking Gaza and Lebanon and other Arab countries for decades too. They’re all victims of each other and a product of an unfortunate history. There have even been some serious attempts at peaceful resolution, which always get fucked up by one side or the other, or usually both. Yes I 100% agree that isreal’s actions are unacceptable and horrific. But they are also victims. Just like the people of Gaza could have voted for a government that strived for a peaceful solution, but chose a violent one - but they are still victims of the result.
And Israel have been attacking them…
Uh, yeah. Thats the point. They’ve been attacking each other for decades.
Yes so then how is them attacking Israel
Fair point.
How is this turning into WW3?
It still seems like a relatively small scale war. There’s no big allies for Iran. There’s no attacks on the US beyond military bases and ships really. There’s a global economic impact, but that doesn’t constitute a global war imo.
Could this change? of course, but so could the ukraine war.
I can’t imagine the Iran war’s death count is even remotely close to the genocide in gaza that is still ongoing.
People seemed to think Iran was Iraq/Afghanistan.
It ain’t and it took us 20 years to get out of there.
Finally, some good news.
Cluster bombs hitting civilians is good news to you, I guess?
Removed by mod
You can make that case for adult Israelis who are in favour of this war, but there are children in every country who are innocent. If you’re hoping for their deaths, you’re no better than the IDF who kill and torture children.
yes but most of the grown children would’ve taken on their parents ideologies, not saying to murder children but still think about it
Doesn’t bombing civilians just make it more likely that the survivors will take up extremist stances, though? From a long term standpoint, attacking civilians is always a bad move if your goal is peace/stability. I feel like the last hundred years has been a lesson in this
Maybe I’m missing context, though, since the comment you replied to was removed by mod.
Removed by mod
