Drones understood to be heading towards Israel as Biden returned from Delaware on Saturday to meet with national security team

Iran said it launched dozens of drones and ballistic missiles towards Israel on Saturday in a major attack following days of acute tension building up in the region and warnings from the US and elsewhere about a wider conflict erupting.

Air attack warning sirens began wailing over Jerusalem just before 2am local time on Sunday after the weapons were fired a few hours earlier from Iran with US and Jordanian military assisting Israel’s air defenses in intercepting the first incoming barrage.

With weapons believed to be still in the air en route to Israel, Iran’s mission to the United Nations posted on X: “Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus. The matter can be deemed concluded.”

However, it threatened more severe action in the face of further Israeli aggression and warned the US and Jordan specifically not to assist Israel.

MBFC
Archive

Edit: here are links to the NYT and BBC live feeds.

Edit 2: updated summary and archive to reflect article changes.

  • anticurrentEnglish
    658·
    9 months ago

    Western media hypocrisy made it seem mike an ordinary thing to target embassies, which have a very particular status akin to targeting the homeland territory , some mainstream media barely touched upon the news or dismissed it completely, if it were any other country like Russia targeting an EU embassy in asia or Africa it would have been non-stop news and escalation. they manufacture the outrage on small issues and keep the people ignorant on more important ones.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      527·
      9 months ago

      My local news straight up called these air attacks “Iranian aggression”. No, you fuckers, Israel went first this time. Usually it’s a slight slant but that’s just lies.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        9·
        9 months ago

        “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war!”

        William Randolph Hearsts, the lot of them.

      • zenitsuEnglish
        819·
        9 months ago

        “went first”? Are we just sweeping under the rug Iran’s role on the 7th of October?

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          82·
          9 months ago

          How far back do you want to go, lol? It’s easy to skip back to the last “tat” in a series of “tit-for-tat” that stretches back to the 40’s at least. The hardliners on both sides like to go back all the way to mythology, and while that’s obviously backwards it at least is intellectually honest.

          • zenitsuEnglish
            34·
            9 months ago

            On the 6th there was a ceasefire, then what Hamas did on the 7th changed that. People going further back are apologists looking to justify the unjustifiable.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.worldEnglish
          27·
          9 months ago

          Silliness to try and justify the taking of human life. No matter, “who started it.”

          • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            9 months ago

            But that’s an awfully simplistic take too. I’m not defending Israel’s actions, but if these officers have been involved in either “starting it” or even the continued war, taking of human lives, they are valid targets. Having them run and hide in a diplomatic building while continuing to participate in the war, continuing to take human lives, is surely frustrating. To the country whose lives they are taking.

            I’m not trying to take Israel’s side here, just saying that you can’t just take this attack out of context

    • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      9 months ago

      I’ve seen the media careful to make a distinction between the embassy and “a consular building adjacent to the embassy”. I did a quick search expecting the to be the defense.

      But international law is the real wtf. According to the Wikipedia entry

      is the obligation of the country in which an embassy is located to protect the embassy, but 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, although a claim of self-defense cannot usually justify an attack on the territory of a country not participating in hostilities.

      So, it’s Syria’s fault for not protecting diplomatic buildings? Plus Syria probably has a claim against Israel, whereas Iran doesn’t?

      I’m sure Israel will attempt to argue self defense based on the targeted officers and however they may have participated in the original attack and involvement of Yemen, but that’s a pretty big stretch.