Iran’s Revolutionary Guards vowed on Sunday to target ‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the war with ‘Israel’ and the United States continues.
“If this child-killing criminal is alive, we will continue to pursue and kill him with full force,” said the Guards on their website Sepah News.
Even if your super neutral about this:
Israel killed their head of state, so wouldn’t this be fair game?
Is anyone claiming that this isn’t a reasonable stance for them to take?
Like, plenty of people I’m sure don’t want them to succeed, but I don’t think anyone is a shocked Pikachu that they want to.
Iran hasn’t been historically shy about calling for people’s deaths, and as you say, their head of state was just killed. Of course they want to retaliate. That is the natural and expected thing for them to want.
It may or may not be a good thing if they’re able to succeed, depending on your perspective. But I don’t think anyone thinks it would be an “unfair” thing of them to do.
Why don’t you want them to succeed with killing Netanyahu? Steven Universe reasons?
I didn’t say that, for one. For two, I have no idea what “Stephen Universe reasons” means.
In general, I don’t cheer for escalation in the Middle East. I think bombing Iran was bad. I think bombing Israel would also be bad. I can agree that Netanyahu is bad without championing for more bombs.
The ideal would be that he is removed from office and tried for war crimes. Not that we have a continuing and escalating war.
I think bombing Israel would also be bad.
Why?
Bombings are always the result of failure. Violence is the final refuge of the incompetent. Sometimes necessary certainly, but never correct with appropriate foresight.
And revenge being the reason behind any action is foolish. It’s like making the focus of prison punishment instead of rehabilitation. When you drop bombs, it should be with particular policy goals in mind.
I also think that it would be preferable if things in the Middle East got calmer, not more escalated. If I had the choice between less violence there and more, I will certainly chose the less.
So, we then have to define what we mean by “bombing Israel.” Wanton bombing I can see no argument for that isn’t simply punitive, which is clearly bad under the aforementioned criteria.
There may be an argument for a targeted strike to just target Netanyahu. You have to ask yourself what the goals and effects of such a strike would be. I think it is unlikely to greatly change Israel’s posture. Netanyahu is unpopular domestically, as is this war, but the nation of Israel has a history of rallying around martyrs that would probably overwhelm any gains by having Netanyahu out of the picture. This would also likely lead towards an even greater retaliatory strike against Iran (which, again, would also be bad.)
So what’s the benefit of bombing Israel other than “it makes me feel good to hurt a bad guy”? Why is it actually good?
Bombings are always the result of failure
Famously, bombings did not bring down Nazi Germany and imperial japan. Of course! Every intelligent person understands this!
I didn’t say bombings were always a failure. I said they were always the result of failure.
Or is your argument that there was literally zero chance to stop the fascist decline of Germany at any point prior to full scale war?
