The IDF said the raids were “limited, localized, and targeted,” and aimed at destroying Hezbollah targets and pushing fighters away from the Israeli border.
And who doesn’t pass by Israel’s Mediterranean territorial waters when shipping to many other countries, such as [checks notes] Turkiye, Syria, or Israel?
Right, because countries can only really exert control and influence over their immediate surroundings. Especially when those countries have a willingness and motivation to use their significant intelligence/military funding, which is useful only to the immediate territorial boundaries of that area and not any further. I see no usefulness for, hypothetically, restricting Iranian diplomatic and militarization activities by having a nuclear superpower and counterintelligence capabilities with western ties and assets in the region.
Certainly not. Especially a nation whose aggression could be spun sympathetically as defensive against islamic/arabic [scary] antisemitism, if it were ever to occur, as opposed to a nation who may not have a compelling narrative of oppression, or isn’t ideologically set in judeo-christian providence.
Get real. If Egypt clamped down on the suez canal they’d be thrown out of the UN and sanctioned so fast their economy would collapse before the first flood gate closed.
Get real. If Egypt clamped down on the suez canal they’d be thrown out of the UN and sanctioned so fast their economy would collapse before the first flood gate closed.
What is 1967-1975?
I find it amusing, as well, that you find Israel’s military capacity to disrupt trade as important here. But I suppose that reflects your generally low level of education on the history and geopolitics of the region.
I find it amusing that your perspective is apparently that the region just isnt important, and our continued involvement and presence there (at great cost) is just some unexplainable enigma that boils down to personal grievances between leaders
It exists solely to suppress democratic electoral turnout i guess lmao
Right, because countries can only really exert control and influence over their immediate surroundings. Especially when those countries have a willingness and motivation to use their significant intelligence/military funding, which is useful only to the immediate territorial boundaries of that area and not any further. I see no usefulness for, hypothetically, restricting Iranian diplomatic and militarization activities by having a nuclear superpower and counterintelligence capabilities with western ties and assets in the region.
Certainly not. Especially a nation whose aggression could be spun sympathetically as defensive against islamic/arabic [scary] antisemitism, if it were ever to occur, as opposed to a nation who may not have a compelling narrative of oppression, or isn’t ideologically set in judeo-christian providence.
Get real. If Egypt clamped down on the suez canal they’d be thrown out of the UN and sanctioned so fast their economy would collapse before the first flood gate closed.
What is 1967-1975?
I find it amusing, as well, that you find Israel’s military capacity to disrupt trade as important here. But I suppose that reflects your generally low level of education on the history and geopolitics of the region.
I find it amusing that your perspective is apparently that the region just isnt important, and our continued involvement and presence there (at great cost) is just some unexplainable enigma that boils down to personal grievances between leaders
It exists solely to suppress democratic electoral turnout i guess lmao
That’s about the reading comprehension I expected of you as well.
And this is about the level of baseline antagonism i expected from you.