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.

  • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Can you explain how the Lebanese are defending themselves when they’re firing rockets over the border into Israel?

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.”

      • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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

        • GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Israel has been bombing and occupying part of Lebanon since the “ceasefire”, so your argument is ridiculous on the face of it. Hezbollah is also acting in accordance with internetional law with respect to the prevention of genocide. Finally, it does not count as “aggression” if you enter a defensive war against an aggressor - Britain and France were not aggressors in WW2 just because they declared war on Germany, since Germany had already started the war.

          • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Copying my other reply:

            Part of the ceasefire deal was Hezbollah disarming and staying north of the Litani river. Instead, they rearmed and rebuilt. Why would you only focus on the Israeli side of the ceasefire?

            • GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              No deal with Israel can be relied upon. They only understand force. I wish them a great many “difficult security situations”.

              • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                38 minutes ago

                If your base premise is that Hezbollah should just be allowed to break a ceasefire deal, why would you bring it up? Can’t you see the irony?

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Your attempt to whitewash the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (brutal enough that even Reagan told them to dial it down) was not missed.

          But neither seems like a valid reason to keep attacking Israel today

          Are Israel’s near-daily ceasefire violations and its occupation of Lebanese territory reason enough?

          • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Part of the ceasefire deal was Hezbollah disarming and staying north of the Litani river. Instead, they rearmed and rebuilt. Why would you only focus on the Israeli side of the ceasefire?