On 5 March, a post appeared on the X account of Iran’s late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, managed by his staff after he was killed in an Israeli airstrike on 28 February. The tweet featured a stark piece of propaganda: a gleaming, oversized missile arcing across the sky as a city below is engulfed in flames. The caption read: “Khorramshahr moments are on the horizon.”

The Khorramshahr missile, Iran’s most advanced ballistic missile, is believed to be capable of carrying a cluster warhead dispersing up to 80 submunitions. Since that post, it has come to loom large in Israeli threat assessments, a persistent concern for a country equipped with a multi-layered missile defence system that is widely regarded as the world’s most sophisticated.

The latest attack using cluster munitions occurred on Sunday, when an Iranian ballistic missile struck central Israel, injuring 15 people.

According to the Israel Defense Forces, roughly half of the missiles launched from Iran since the escalation have carried cluster warheads.

The Guardian, which reviewed the impact of dozens of Iranian strikes alongside statements from Israeli officials, has identified at least 19 ballistic missiles carrying cluster warheads that penetrated Israeli airspace and struck urban areas since the beginning of the war with Iran on 28 February. Those attacks have killed at least nine people and wounded dozens, reflecting a broader shift in Iran’s tactics that appears to have exposed a vulnerability in Israel’s air defences. Since the start of the war, Iran’s cluster munitions – which disperse dozens of bomblets mid-air – have tested Israel’s highly advanced, multi-tier missile defence network, including Iron Dome, which is designed to counter threats across ranges, altitudes and speeds, exposing gaps that interception alone has struggled to close.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    “then looking to create their own state”

    By stealing land beyond what Balfour had outlined. Yes. Can you tell us what the nakba even was?

    Also, Balfour ‘specifically promised to protect the “civil and religious rights” of the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.’ Which was immediately violated. and its been 8- years of solid violation since then.

    • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The Balfour declaration was a statement from the British government, not some legal document sent down from god. The UN partition plan comes a lot closer, and also tried to outline a ‘clean’ 2-state solution (well, 3-state actually). But the muslims publicly (and the jews secretly) denounced it. It’s pretty ridiculous to go waving those documents in the face of just one of those parties.

      And I’m not disputing that they tried to get as much territory as possible and tried to expulse those with the wrong religion. Or that they were less than friendly in doing so. But then again: so did the other side.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        But the muslims publicly (and the jews secretly) denounced it.

        And why did the locals population (you refer to them simply as “muslims”) who owned the land being taken denounce it? Were they wrong in their complaints? even a little?

        No. They denounced injustice. And the zionists mass murdered them for that and stole their lands.

        • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          The local muslims were mostly unhappy, the local jews were mostly happy.

          They weren’t ‘wrong’ in their complaints, but so were all the other people that didn’t get what they want when all the other countries were formed after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

          Some of those countries came out reasonably ‘clean’, and others came out fighting internally and externally. Mostly because of ethnic and religious disputes over borders and autonomy.

          • kreskin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Thats just not accurate at all, and your framing it that way is deceptive to the point of trying to whitewash what actually happened… It wasnt some sort of deal that some people were happy about and some werent. It was the murderous displacement of 700,000 people out of their homes and villages. It was the same thing they are doing now only worse. Its the precise cause of the last 80 years of conflict.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

            • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              I’m not whitewashing anything. It was horrible.

              What I’m saying is that the other side was planning to do the same, had they won. It’s what was going on at that time.

              I mean, the muslims in Turkey put a genocide on more than 1,000,000 people with the wrong religion. Gave women and children the choice to convert or be genocided. In comparison the Nakba was a walk in the park