No. of Recommendations: 1
So they invade Lebanon (they claim a limited, targeted, operation). Iran responds with 100 ballistic missiles.
Live updates:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/01/world/isra...Iran was in a bit of a quandary. The killing of the Hezbollah leader, plus the pager operation, really pressured them for a strong response, but at the same time they didn't want full-scale war with Israel. They were -apparently- weighing their response, trying not to look weak but also not have a regional war. Then Israel invades Lebanon. I think that pushed them to have to respond more strongly.
I also read that Hezbollah was their "crown jewel" of proxy groups, and apparently Israel effectively neutralized them -at least temporarily-.
I also read that the munitions used to get the Hezbollah leader was US-made, as if that was a revelation. Most of their stuff -to the best of my knowledge- is provided by us. Perhaps Israel wasn't supposed to use it against other countries (sort of like Ukraine using US munitions on Russian soil). Doesn't really make sense to me. We give them munitions in order to defend themselves. Sometimes the best way to defend yourself is to attack your enemy at home, as they are attacking you at home. Otherwise your enemy just hides behind their border, safe in the knowledge that you can't attack them even as they blast your towns into rubble.
I'm wondering if this is going to escalate further. Just thinking out-loud, maybe it should. The status quo was already a "warm" war with no end in sight. Rip of the bandage...it will probably hurt less than pulling it off 1mm at a time. Get it over with. A lot of innocent people will be caught in the cross-fire, but isn't that always true. Maybe Iran will be less casual if they are attacked directly, instead of via proxies. As of my posting, Israel hasn't countered. But they may not tolerate missiles from Iran raining down on them without returning the favor.
