Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian warns Israel could suffer ‘huge earthquake’ if fighting continues

Iran has told Israel through the UN that it will intervene if the country’s operations against Hamas in Gaza continue, a report has claimed.

Israel has warned 1.1 million people living in the north of the enclave to evacuate ahead of an expected ground operation in Gaza with the IDF planning to strike the territory from land, sea and air.

Iran’s involvement could be through a militant group from Syria or by backing Hezbollah to join the conflict, diplomatic sources told Axios.

Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said that Israel’s operations could cause fighting to expand to other areas of the Middle East which would cause Israel to suffer “a huge earthquake”, reported the Associated Press.

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      Probably not all that much, to be honest. Look at India and Pakistan. That would be the closest example here.

      Nuclear weapons’ most important role today is preventing an all out invasion of the country. Israel is already a nuclear power. They could launch a nuclear attack on Iran at any time. They don’t, for obvious reasons. Russia could launch a nuclear attack on Ukraine. They don’t, for equally obvious reasons.

      I started my career in Soviet analysis, and ended up knowing quite a bit about the role of nuclear weapons in foreign and military policies. In the early days (50s), we thought it would be possible to fight and win a nuclear war. I don’t think anyone thinks that anymore.

      There is no scenario which includes Russia using a nuclear weapon against Ukraine that does not end with the end of the Putin government if not the end of Russia as we know it. It wouldn’t even need to be a global nuclear war for that to happen.

      The same holds true for India and Pakistan, which like I said is the best analogy. Implacable enemies with religious and territorial disputes, screwed over by colonialism, and ongoing low level violence.

      Israel-Iran is the same, only more so. The I-P conflict doesn’t have the US as an unquestioning ally, unlike Israel. I-P have about 150 weapons each. Israel is estimated to have 100. Iran has 0, and even if and when they start production, they’ll have 5-10. And then you have to factor in the delivery of the weapon, which would be the opposition between the Iranian and Israeli (and US) air forces, with predictable results.

      • Spzi@lemm.eeEnglish
        41·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for your insights! I think I learned one or two things here. Please comment more on topics like these, if you like.

        India and Pakistan, which like I said is the best analogy. Implacable enemies with religious and territorial disputes, screwed over by colonialism, and ongoing low level violence.

        Sounds good indeed. I spotted another parallel between the two conflicts: Both can use the same abbreviation. At first I was confused when you started talking about “The I-P conflict”.