“U.S. troops being deployed to Israel in this matter is seismic,” Malekafzali added. “The U.S. military is now inextricably involved in this war, directly, without any illusions of barriers. Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish: making the U.S. fight Iran on Israel’s behalf.”

Israel’s cabinet met Thursday to discuss a potential response to Iran’s October 1 missile barrage. One unnamed Israeli source told The Times of Israel that “no big decisions” were made at the cabinet meeting. Speaking to reporters earlier this month, Biden said that U.S. and Israeli officials were “discussing” the possibility of an attack on Iranian oil infrastructure.

Iran has warned of a “crushing” response to any Israeli attack.

    • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      First off, as with every time domestic terrorism is discussed, US armed forces cannot carry out hostilities on domestic soil.

      Second off, it’s 100 personnel. Barely a blip on the total number of deployable personnel, and it’s an air defense group without offensive capabilities.

      Clickbait is clickbait.

      • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        If the Taliban deployed 100 personnel to the US, would that be an aggressive act?

        Let’s not forget the US is widely seen as a terrorist state assisting in a genocide here lol

        • Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 month ago

          Massive non sequitur there. Taliban does not have military bases on US soil to fortify with 100 personnel.

          I’m not disagreeing that the US is assisting in genocide. Has been for a while, and the top two projected candidates for US presidency will further perpetuate this.

          But this 100 troop movement is insignificant and is being played up for drama and clicks.

      • small44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t want a single soldier of my country to die for another country that is occupying somebody else

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The US has troops on the ground aiding a genocidal regime. There is no loophole here, the US are scumbags.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        I disagree. If we sent 100 personnel with an air defense group to Ukraine, shit would get pretty real pretty fast. Sending people is a whole different commitment to sending weapons.

        I had an old instructor who liked to say “when it comes to breakfast, what’s the difference between the chicken and the pig? The chicken made a contribution, the pig made a commitment.”

        Sending our own troops stops being a contribution and starts being a commitment.

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The US sent ships to the region immediately after oct ‘23. So I’d say the’ commitment’ to put military personnel directly in harms’ way was already there

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I don’t think it would get that real. I think Russia would get big mad, and its few allies would condemn it, but they can barely wage war against Ukraine. There’s no way they could take on the US too.

          They could use nukes, but I don’t think they’re desperate enough to start a nuclear war. That would be suicide.

    • vortic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      I agree that we shouldn’t be sending troops to Israel right now but 100 troops is hardly “all the troops” and isn’t a large change in the number of troops in the region.

      Again, I don’t think we should be sending troops or weapons to Israel right now, but this does seem like a proportional response to Iran’s attack. They launched missiles at Israel. The US sent an anti-missile battery and 100 troops to support it. It seems like kind of a token force to say “we’re supporting Israel in this, but we’re also not going to go crazy”.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s definitely not token. The US is filling a very real hole in Israeli missile defense that they’re neglected over the years.

  • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Gotta love that I go to work everyday so my government can take my money to fund a foreign genocide while my neighbors starve, struggle, and die. Fuck Israel and fuck my government.

  • JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I guess when these new troops going there are fired upon, US will have the “justifiable right” to attack Iran.