Comments:Iran launches missiles and drones at Israel

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

The recent attack by Iran on Israel marks a significant escalation, but from my perspective, Israel had this coming. For years, Israel has engaged in aggressive actions across the region, often targeting Iranian interests and allies with little regard for the consequences. The strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria, which resulted in significant casualties including high-ranking officials, was a blatant act of provocation. It's no surprise that Iran felt compelled to respond.

Iran's launch of over 300 projectiles, including missiles and drones, was a dramatic and forceful response, but it can be seen as a necessary act of self-defense. When a nation feels continuously threatened and its sovereignty violated, it reaches a point where it must stand up and retaliate. This attack was Iran's way of saying "enough is enough."

The international community often turns a blind eye to Israel's actions, or at best, offers muted criticism. Israeli strikes in Syria and elsewhere rarely draw the same level of condemnation that Iranian responses do. This double standard is frustrating and undermines the principles of fairness and justice in international relations. If Israel can carry out strikes with impunity, why should Iran not defend itself with equal force?

Iran's recent advancements in military technology, including drones and ballistic missiles, have shifted the power dynamics in the region. By showcasing its capabilities, Iran is not only defending itself but also sending a message that it will not be pushed around. This response was a calculated move to deter further aggression and assert Iran's position in the region.

On a domestic level, this strong response likely serves to rally support within Iran. Demonstrating a willingness to stand up to external threats can unify the nation and bolster the government's legitimacy. It shows that Iran is serious about defending its sovereignty and interests.

Finally, while the escalation is unfortunate and dangerous, Israel's continuous provocations and aggressive policies made such a response inevitable. This attack should serve as a wake-up call for all involved to reconsider their actions and strive for diplomatic solutions. The cycle of violence and retaliation must end, and a fair and balanced approach to international relations is essential for peace. Israel deserved this shot as a consequence of its actions, and it's time for a reevaluation of how these conflicts are addressed on the global stage.

"Israel has engaged in aggressive actions across the region, often targeting Iranian interests" - Because Iranian interests (and that of they're allies) is global terrorism, as well as specific terrorism against Israel, or the supporting of terrorism. Who do you think funds Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL, etc? Who do you think trains their terrorists, gives them they're weapons, they're military plan? Iran. "The strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria, which resulted in significant casualties including high-ranking officials, was a blatant act of provocation" - Another blatant act of provocation was the escalation called October 7, at the direction of Iran. "When a nation feels continuously threatened and its sovereignty violated, it reaches a point where it must stand up and retaliate" - I have a question. What if Israel did this to Iran. Would you call that justified. Sending hundreds of projectiles at civilians? No, you probably wouldn't. Iran has attacked Israel, through Hamas and Hezbollah, far more than Israel has defended itself from Iran. Also, you know the Gaza war. Part of it that Israel reached "a point where it must stand up and retaliate" and then did so, but only targetting terrorists, not civilians. And you have a problem with that, though. "The international community often turns a blind eye to Israel's actions" - That's news to me. To you know how many times the international community has made frankly insane resolutions against Israel, including things such as deciding "Hey, you know this place that's your capital. Well, I say it's not, and I say this other place is your capital, so guess what, it's your capital now." "Israeli strikes in Syria and elsewhere rarely draw the same level of condemnation that Iranian responses do" - First, they actually draw about the same level, if not more. But also, striking a terorrist in a targetted strike is different than attacking random Bedouin girls. "This double standard is frustrating and undermines the principles of fairness and justice in international relations" - Yes, the standard that Israel's the only country that can't defend itself from terrorists. Double standard indeed. "why should Iran not defend itself with equal force" - Killing a terrorist trying to attack you is defense. Killing a terrorist who has said we will kill everyone in your country is defense. Attacking a nation for killing terrorirists is called offense. See the difference. "Iran is not only defending itself but also sending a message that it will not be pushed around" - It's not defense, and frankly with how much this failed the only message they sent was that Hamas is probably stronger than them. When Hamas shoots 300 rockets, normally at least 1 person dies. "This response was a calculated move to deter further aggression" - The way to stop all agression is for Iran to stop igniting wars. "this strong response likely serves to rally support within Iran" - I would agree, this was partly a propoganda move. "It shows that Iran is serious about defending its sovereignty and interests" - No, it shows that Iran is serious about attacking Israel and supporting terrorists. "Israel's continuous provocations and aggressive policies made such a response inevitable" - Defense from terorrists in no way makes an attack of 300 missiles on Bedouin girls inevitable. "This attack should serve as a wake-up call for all involved to reconsider their actions and strive for diplomatic solutions" - There's 2 solutions. The better one is that the Iranian (and Gazans and Lebanese, etc.) people revolt and overthrow the terrorist so everyone can live in peace. The worse one, but likely the one that will need to happen, is that foriegn powers liberate these areas and restore power to the people that way. "The cycle of violence and retaliation must end" - The best way to do this is not do violence provoking retaliation, ex. October 7. "Israel deserved this shot as a consequence of its actions" - Let's recall that "Israel" wasn't harmed by this, neither government nor military, and Iran knew that. You know who was harmed? 2 young Bedouin girls trying to live their life. @004bvan: