Biden pledges G7 response, U.S. support for Israel after Iran attacks

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

April 14, 2024 12:30 AM EDT Updated 6 hours ago


WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden on Saturday condemned Iranian attacks on military facilities in Israel, pledged a coordinated G7 diplomatic response and said the United States had helped Israel take down "nearly all" of the attacking drones and missiles.

Biden, who cut short a trip to Delaware and returned to Washington earlier on Saturday to meet with advisers about the attack, said U.S. forces and facilities had not been hit. The president said he reiterated the ironclad U.S. support for Israel's security in a call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he has had strained relations over Israel's handling of the war in Gaza.

"I told him that Israel demonstrated a remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks – sending a clear message to its foes that they cannot effectively threaten the security of Israel," Biden said in a statement released by the White House.

"Tomorrow, I will convene my fellow G7 leaders to coordinate a united diplomatic response to Iran's brazen attack," he said. Iran launched explosive drones and fired missiles at Israel late on Saturday in its first direct attack on Israeli territory, a retaliatory strike that raised the threat of a wider regional conflict,

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-return-washington-amid-iran-threats-against-israel-2024-04-13/

[prodigitalson]

1. didn't israel attack iran first?

[EX500rider]

2. No, they bombed a building next door to the Iranian Embassy in Syria

Iran has been attacking Israel for decades via proxy.

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its support for terrorist-related activity in 2021, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various terrorist and militant groups in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, and elsewhere throughout the Middle East.
https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2021/iran/


The Iranian attack included 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles and 110 ballistic missiles.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68811273

Pretty stupid IMO, gives Israel the green light to go after Iran's nuclear bomb facilities and their oil infrastructure where they get 40%+ of their govt budget.

[moniss]

3. Under no circumstances

in international conduct is it "OK" for one country to target another countries diplomatic compounds or personnel. It does happen but it is a violation each and every time. Those buildings and grounds are considered as sovereign to the particular country despite being located in another country. The US consistently throughout the '70's and into the '90's supported terrorist factions in Central American countries with weapons and training. Should it have been OK if one of those countries had bombed our embassy in London for example and killed some of our people?

[EX500rider]

4. "one of those countries had bombed our embassy in London for example"

Except the IDF did not bomb anybody's embassy, it was next door & undamaged.

Planning & supporting terror attacks out of a consulate pretty much negates any protection that building has, which not being a embassy is not much.

[moniss]

7. It was part of the diplomatic consulate there.

Your assumption about what negates protection under international laws and treaties is incorrect. If it were the case there would hardly be an embassy on the planet left standing. Everybody gets the claim that Israel gets to go anyplace in the world and do anything at any time in the name of defending itself. But the claim doesn't match international law. Extrajudicial killings, kidnappings etc. may end up with being able to run behind the skirts of Uncle Sam for protection but it doesn't make them legal. We don't like it or accept it when someone does it to us but it's cool and groovy if you march with a particular uniform and flag? I don't buy it.

[EX500rider]

8. International treaties do not expressly prohibit a third country to target diplomatic premises if they host combatants.

..and are targeted in an act of self-defense

[moniss]

9. Yes they do.

[moniss]

10. Since others could make a case that

attacks are planned/facilitated by Israeli diplomats and properties then I guess you're OK with attacks against them too.

[paleotn]

11. And what exactly is your opinion of Ecuador's recent raid on the Mexican embassy in Quito?

I've looked far and wide for outrage but can't seem to find any. Strange. You'd expect some consistency, but alas, I guess not. Maybe consulates belonging to the greatest source of state sponsored terrorism on earth are special in some way. Please advise on how that works.

[moniss]

12. My point exactly about how

embassies do get attacked and the response is selective outrage. Shouldn't be but it is. Way back in my OP this A.M. about how the media covers, or doesn't, these incidents and responses combined with the US actions and response is viewed differently abroad or at home and gives us problems when we hold ourselves out as "even handed". The purpose of my OP talking about it was that we need to be keenly aware that how our domestic media portrays it as "let's move on from here" is not how others may see it and our words and actions need to match if we are going to try and claim the "even handed" label. We're already way down in the hole in that regard with many countries. It does matter if we want to see those countries retain stable governments that are at least not at our throat. Some regimes could change personnel and we could find our situation in the Middle East even more difficult than it already is. So my thoughts were that we need to keep drones and missiles from flying in either direction as a start to claiming credibility about "even handedness". Will we? I'm not hopeful because we still are operating on the reliance of our military might to always get people to "submit".

[LeftInTX]

13. The Mexican Embassy in Ecuador?

[moniss]

16. Given the recency

between these two events one would think the news would be filled with it but there were only a few mentions and then not much more. So imagine if Mexico now responded with a military attack on Ecuador. The person who raised this point has an excellent grasp of the responses. Both violations of treaties protecting diplomatic compounds yet the action in Ecuador is met with a seemingly more muted response than the Middle East response. So examining that difference makes us ask questions like "Is the greater response due to the negative perception of the one attacked? Is one more covered because of the surrounding conflict in the region being more visible in the media? Goings on in South America have been very disturbing for a long time now but do not generate the media coverage like the Middle East. Is the coverage in US media less because we feel a "buffer" between South America and the US by way of Central America and Mexico?

Certainly what happens in Latin America is vitally important to the US but, like the problem of massive immigration from Central America for example, the US media doesn't do much more than report it's existence as opposed to really digging deep into our own conduct over the many, many decades in meddling in the governments of those countries and supporting oligarchs and massive international companies. The Middle East has always been at least more visible in coverage, still lacking depth, perhaps mainly due to the importance of the oil and our support of Israel. In any event that lack of important context about seeing the disparity in how things are covered/portrayed and the lack of our words matching our actions was the main thrust of what I spoke about in my OP from early this morning.

[LeftInTX]

17. I knew about and I don't even have TV

Mexico wants the UN to suspend Ecuador from the UN. (Doubt if it will happen)
Mexico doesn't have a fighting military, so they aren't capable of attacking Ecuador.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. "And what exactly is your opinion of Ecuador's recent raid on the Mexican embassy in Quito?"

Mexico ended up severing diplomatic ties with Ecuador after that happened, which is a pretty significant move.

Mexico severs diplomatic ties with Ecuador after police storm its embassy to arrest politician


By REGINA GARCIA CANO and GABRIELA MOLINA
Updated 6:08 AM EDT, April 7, 2024


QUITO, Ecuador (AP) — Mexico’s government severed diplomatic ties with Ecuador after police broke into the Mexican Embassy to arrest a former Ecuadorian vice president, an extraordinary use of force that shocked and mystified regional leaders and diplomats.

Ecuadorian police late Friday broke through the external doors of the embassy in the capital, Quito, to arrest Jorge Glas, who had been residing there since December. Glas sought political asylum at the embassy after being indicted on corruption charges.

The raid prompted Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to announce the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Ecuador on Friday evening, while his government’s foreign relations secretary said the move will be challenged at the World Court in The Hague.

“This is not possible. It cannot be. This is crazy,” Roberto Canseco, head of the Mexican consular section in Quito, told local press while standing outside the embassy right after the raid. “I am very worried because they could kill him. There is no basis to do this. This is totally outside the norm.”

(snip)

https://apnews.com/article/mexico-ecuador-diplomatic-crisis-de5aa3a638b54fdfa3474c8ee25ca57e

I'm not sure why people have been distinguishing an "Embassy" from a "Consulate" as they peform the same functions but the "Embassy" is usually located in capital city of a country and hosts the Ambassador while the "Consulates" are usually located with or near that Embassy as well as in other major cities around a country. Since they are smaller satellites, they will usually have an assigned "Consul General" there to oversee diplomatic services (e.g., visas, etc) in those locations (vs needing an actual Ambassador to do that).

I remember back in the late '80s when I was about to travel to Mexico for vacation, I worked right near the Mexican Consulate here in Philly and I actually stopped in there to pick up some literature and other dos/don'ts for Mexico. The "primary" Mexican Embassy is in D.C.

[wnylib]

5. Israel's target inside Syria was the

military leaders of Iran's Islamic National Guard Corps (a special ops militia that sponsors terrorist groups), who were responsible for aiding Hezbollah's current attacks on Israel. It was a self-defensive move. Israel's attack killed two senior Iranian Guard generals and other Iranian Guard leaders.

[moniss]

6. It doesn't mean a thing when talking about bombing

diplomatic quarters. The end doesn't justify the means and besides it's against international law and treaties to target those buildings.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. Biden tells Netanyahu US will not participate in any counter-strike against Iran

President Joe Biden and senior members of his national security team, seeking to contain the risk of a wider regional war following a barrage of Iranian missiles and drones directed toward Israel, have told their counterparts the US will not participate in any offensive action against Iran, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

In a conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late Saturday, Biden sought to frame Israel’s successful interception of the Iranian onslaught as a major victory — with the suggestion that further Israeli response was unnecessary.

Biden told the Israeli prime minister in his phone call that he should consider Saturday a win because Iran’s attacks had been largely unsuccessful and demonstrated Israel’s superior military capability, a senior administration official said. The US assessed that there was “no significant damage within Israel itself,” according to a senior US military official.

John Kirby, the White House national security spokesman, said Sunday the ability to prevent widespread damage was a demonstration of Israel’s “military superiority” and proof that Iran was not the “military power that they claim to be.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-tells-netanyahu-us-will-not-participate-in-any-counter-strike-against-iran/ar-BB1lB3l0