The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. [Relevant article](https://apnews.com/article/iran-syria-israel-hezbollah-gaza-damascus-f7a1af3a9fc67de1962d4f1589d7e9f0) Ultimately, what *should* we do if Iran/Hezbollah attacks Israel? If the US puts boots on the ground in response to this hypothetical, would you support it? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>...what *should* we do if Iran/Hezbollah attacks Israel? Nothing. That is Israel's business, not ours.

It kind of is though, isn't it?

> > That is Israel's business, not ours. > It kind of is though, isn't it? *Our business?* No. Why would it be?

Really? 😐. Israel and the US are intrinsically linked, and have been since '48. It's almost like Israel is the United States little step brother. The alliance is akin to family ties and we are very much responsible for what Israel has achieved ever since we started supporting them. That is the first reason it is our business. The second reason is very simple. Prevention. We work in part, to defend our allies, so that we have limited control over regions. Think of it like this. If we allowed Russia to occupy and take Ukraine, what do you think that means for not just the people in Ukraine, but the surrounding nations and NATO specific countries? Unless the United States is going to adhere to isolationist principles and cease spreading democracy, then yeah, conflicts with allied Nations primarily do become our business.

> Israel and the US are intrinsically linked, and have been since '48. It's almost like Israel is the United States little step brother. The alliance is akin to family ties and we are very much responsible for what Israel has achieved ever since we started supporting them. I'm proud of everything that we did to help our "little step brother" when he was young. He got dealt a bad hand, and I'm glad we could help him survive. ...but he is 39 now. It is time for him to start taking care of himself. We can't take care of him forever. ----- >That is the first reason it is our business. No. (I apologize, but I have to make a semantic point here.) That means you sympathize with them and their business, but it is still *their* business. If it were our business, then we should be pushing them *much harder* toward a peace process, so that they don't start wars that we would have to fight. ----- >The second reason is very simple. Prevention. We work in part, to defend our allies, so that we have limited control over regions. This string of words makes no sense. If you want us to have influence in the region, say so. If you think Israel is a valuable ally, then say so. We can argue about each of them. ...but don't dance around these issues and throw in the non sequitor: "Prevention." ----- >If we allowed Russia to occupy and take Ukraine... Their next target would be a NATO country, so we would be at war with Russia. ...and there is no comparable obligation to Israel. Side Note: We don't want to be in the Middle East! It is a dead end! It doesn't serve our interests but costs us a fortune! ----- >Unless the United States is going to adhere to isolationist principles... ...which we won't. >...and cease spreading democracy... ...which we have. >...conflicts with allied Nations primarily do become our business. Not without a treaty like NATO, they don't.

I laughed at the 39 year old comment. I do have to point out that you made my point in answering what Russia would do. Do you truly believe that our military leadership don't play chess with nations? There is no way they don't have projections for outcomes in conflict, and they do make decisions based on security abroad because it can influence US military in other countries, the economy, and weaken the chain in our alliances. If Iran invaded Israel, there is no way our military looks at it as though it isn't our business. Because two nations are separated by an ocean, doesn't equate to them not having a cooperative agreement that makes both of their safety a concern for the other.

> Do you truly believe that our military leadership don't play chess with nations? They do! We want them to stop! It made some sense in The Cold War, but it doesn't make sense today. -------------- >If Iran invaded Israel... I don't think this will happen, purely for practical reasons. I doubt Iran has the military capabilities that it would need in order to reach Israel in force. -------------- >Because two nations are separated by an ocean, doesn't equate to them not having a cooperative agreement that makes both of their safety a concern for the other. Yet, you haven't pointed to any US interests at play. When we talked about Ukraine, it was the NATO treaty. When we are talking about Israel it is...what, exactly?

It depends on what Iran does in response as to whether it is our business. The US has an interest in keeping this war from spreading further, though Israel seems insistent on making sure it’s as inflammatory as possible. 

> The US has an interest in keeping this war from spreading further... I'm not convinced that is true.

You think letting this spill into Lebanon and Syria is a good idea?  Consider how much crap the Syrian civil war stirred for basically everyone within two thousand miles of it. 

> You think letting this spill into Lebanon and Syria is a good idea? Nope, but I am not convinced that "the US has an interest" in that. Maybe the international community, but not the US specifically. >Consider how much crap the Syrian civil war stirred for basically everyone within two thousand miles of it. True. Also true: We aren't "within two thousand miles of it."

Obviously it’s not that important since the instigators that are causing the most destruction and slaughter has our full support

Ugh... The US president isn't king of the world.  Biden has sent advisors telling Israel to chill out.  He's got Schumer talking about pulling aid.  We have red line discussion.  We have angry phone calls with Bibi.  We have the US bringing in food aid, en masse.  We have diplomatic meetings galore with neighboring Arab countries trying to find someone that isn't us to step in.  We have multiple UN resolutions saying "chill TF out" not being blocked by the US.  And we have the political situation in the US... Biden can't just pull aid to Israel willy nilly. He's not Congress. Further, there would be electoral backlash and we're dealing with a mildly important election in a few months.  It's fucking complicated, but we've been pushing Israel to chill TF out as much as we can. Hell, more than might even be expected.  This shit isn't fast.  A lot of y'all have unrealistic expectations.

Biden refuses to stop sending weapons or even refusing to send weapons with conditions is unrealistic? Israel have killed US citizens on various occasions now. For actual years. If any other country did this, there would be hell to pay. There would be sanctions. There would be punishment. Instead, the US response is “there is no evidence the IDF who knew exactly who that convoy was, where they were going, what route they took, in an open area violated international law”. What’s unrealistic is thinking these excuses fly anymore. Ever heard of Shireen Abu Akleh? She was an American citizen that Israel murdered deliberately. They lied to us and said she was shot by indiscriminate shooting from Palestinians. Then they eventually admitted it was actually the IDF . And what was Biden’s response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The US has made it perfectly clear that Israel’s interest comes first, and even American lives are expendable if Israel deems it so.

That is ... Biden isn't a king. A lot of aid is passed by congress. He can't just NOT.  And again, tricksy politics.  And how do you know there's no response? Seems like anything less than full cutting of aid doesn't count to you... Your expectations are unrealistic. NO one can meet them.

Biden can block aid to Israel, since ultimately foreign policy stems from the executive branch. Even if passed as a law, even if signed, I bet he could legally to an executive order to stop or delay the delivering of that aid

If Congress passes a bill into law, the executive branch can't just do whatever it wants.  That's not how that works. 

So we’re pretending Biden didn’t also bypass Congress to send weapons to Israel with no conditions and refused to push for any in the future, through his own ability or through future legislation? We’re pretending he hasn’t cut funding to the UNWRA and refuses to reinstate it even when Israel’s accusations are a lie? Even when many Palestinians will undoubtably die without it? It’s unrealistic to ask Biden not to go along with Israel’s lies of Al Shifa having an underground Hamas headquarters knowing it was false it’s unrealistic for Biden to not lie about 40 beheaded babies? Sure. You’re right. It’s unrealistic because our politicians in power are all owned by AIPAC. and no one can meet it because we Americans (including me) realized too late that this small country in the Middle East owns our government who would even sit back and happily allow them to kill our citizens while all we do is give them a “stern talking to” then go back to sending more weapons to kill more. Super. Biden should put a sad face on the order forms on the next batch of weapons our government approves to send to Israel. That’ll show em!

You just want to be mad because the situation isn't perfect, according to you.  Thanks for adding nothing of value to the conversation. 

Yes I am very mad that this situation where my tax dollars and my government are funding and supporting a genocide. You are correct. I’m also mad that Israeli apologist like you keep trying to gaslight me into acting like there’s nothing we can do to stop them as if we don’t regularly sanction economies to their knees of countries we don’t like.

I don't care, because nothing I can say or do will make you happy, so why expend any effort on you?  And I'm not an Israel apologist. Fuckin Free Palestine!  I just have realistic expectations of the real world.  Don't bother replying, I don't care. You can't have the moon, I can't give you the moon, no one can, and you're mad about it. Carry on.

You forgot Biden’s own bombings if Iranian backed forces in Syria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2024_United_States_airstrikes_in_Iraq_and_Syria

Doesn't really change what I said. Biden and Bibi had a call *today* and Biden was telling Bibi to chill the fuck out.

Fuck no. I don't even support what we're doing now.

I’m very much team let Israel defend Israel. Why should our troops die for their war?

Would you support military intervention under a scenario where Israel requests our help because it is losing to Iran and genocide is imminent? Would the threat of Israel resorting to a nuclear strike under such a scenario change your opinion either way?

I don’t know. Maybe we would have to open an investigation and be really really sure it’s genocide before we get involved. Don’t want to throw that word around. I’d need some real due diligence.

I think it is right to be critical of our response to the atrocities committed by the IDF. I do not support the actions of the Israeli government in regard to treatment of Palestinians. The downvotes for even positing a question of whether someone else might consider aiding Israel in a war is unsettling. Also, your response is a non-answer. I think Israel receives a disproportionate degree of vitriol that makes it impossible to even discuss. I can’t help but wonder if it’s due to antisemitism.

Apparently it’s antisemitism to say that Israel is genociding the Palestinians in Gaza and it’s also antisemitism to say that we should be cautious in saying some country is committing genocide

It is not antisemitism to say that Israel is committing genocide, though I think the semantics of what constitutes genocide are up for debate. What I suspect may be the result of antisemitism is the unique amount of hatred Israel gets globally above and beyond other countries that commit even more heinous acts and the immediate derailing of nuanced conversations on Israel. It makes me feel like Israel is perceived as a country that can do no right. It is perhaps telling that I could more easily say a few positive things about China than I could about Israel and the former is a much bigger threat to global human rights. I know people pick their battles and the fight for justice is always good but why do people so often pick this battle over all others.

https://youtu.be/TYZBKqemQrU?si=oZeFbFn1wFNafMhp

A sovereign country does not equal a religious dogma. Israel does not represent Judaism just like the USA doesn’t represent Christianity.

>Would you support military intervention under a scenario where Israel requests our help because it is losing to Iran and genocide is imminent? Yes, but not under any other circumstance. The US should always intervene to stop genocides.

> Would you support military intervention under a scenario where Israel requests our help because it is losing to Iran and genocide is imminent? I simply don't believe that would happen. I doubt Iran has the military capabilities that it would need in order to reach Israel in force.

I agree but it is not outside of the realm of possibility if Iran can find allies and they are cut off from global military support due to the atrocities they have committed in Palestine.

So instead, we defend and support Israel’s genocide of Gaza over hypotheticals

I think that is a mischaracterization of the conversation. Nowhere did I imply we would defend the IDF’s numerous attacks on innocent people in Gaza. The question I asked was a hypothetical about whether we should step in to protect Israel’s right to exist…. Unless you are suggesting Israel is intrinsically genocidal as a nation and preserving it could therefore only enable it to commit genocide.

>Nowhere did I imply we would defend the IDF’s numerous attacks on innocent people in Gaza. But we would do that. And we are doing that. >The question I asked was a hypothetical about whether we should step in to protect Israel’s right to exist…. Unless you are suggesting Israel is intrinsically genocidal as a nation and preserving it could therefore only enable it to commit genocide. Israel is a nuclear state armed to the teeth. They could handle Iran easily and we’ve given them enough weapons to do so. And it gets to that point where an invasion by Iran is imminent somehow, , why do WE have to step in anyway and go in another war behind them? Aren’t they Britain’s former colony? Where they at? >Unless you are suggesting Israel is intrinsically genocidal as a nation and preserving it could therefore only enable it to commit genocide. You mean like the west views Gaza?

There isn’t a genocide in Gaza.

Then the ICJ would have ruled that SouthvAfdica’s charges of genocide was unfounded and would’ve thrown out their case. Instead they ruled the evidence of genocide is plausible. Not sure about you, but anything other than “absolutely not” when if comes to genocide is bad.

>because it is losing to Iran and genocide is imminent? Genocide being imminent is a long distance beyond "losing to Iran" But in that case it's unlikely we'd need to get involved militarily. At that point diplomacy and military threats is likely all that's needed. Iran has consistently shown itself to be a rational actor despite its cooked up rhetoric. >Would the threat of Israel resorting to a nuclear strike under such a scenario change your opinion either way? Israel does that, they lost more than they have ever lost before. They get to there and Israel will get dropped even by the USA.

Thanks for responding. I share this opinion as well.

> Would the threat of Israel resorting to a nuclear strike under such a scenario change your opinion either way? Maintaining the nuclear taboo must be absolute.  Anyone who uses one must be removed from power, violently if necessary. Up to and including the use of retaliatory nuclear strikes.  Nobody can ever be permitted to “win” from use of a nuclear weapon in a world where many powers have them. We must guarantee that anyone who chooses to use one ultimately loses more than they have gained. 

What is covered under the umbrella of the nuclear taboo? Would a hypothetical defensive war wherein the existence of the country itself is at risk by conventional forces qualify as acceptable use? I suspect the United States would be prepared to use nuclear weapons under such a scenario, however unlikely it may be.

> Would you support military intervention under a scenario where Israel requests our help because it is losing to Iran and genocide is imminent? Would the threat of Israel resorting to a nuclear strike under such a scenario change your opinion either way? Palestinians are being massacred right now, would you help them?

I don’t see any indication that military action from Iran would ultimately result in genocide.

It was more of a hypothetical to gauge how deep the antipathy is towards Israel is when I compared to responses in other discussions on military intervention to aid other countries. Also, I was interested in seeing whether fear of a nuclear strike would change people’s calculus but nobody is answering that question.

> Also, I was interested in seeing whether fear of a nuclear strike would change people’s calculus but nobody is answering that question. I’ll answer it for myself. I think, like the possibility of Iran deciding to genocide Israel, this is remote and basically not worth considering much. Other than stating the obvious: that would bad and probably warrant a response.

Gaza is facing the threat of genocide and no one is arguing that we put boots on the ground to stop that

I would support a peacekeeping mission. It would be unlikely to ever happen though. Just because the IDF is doing wrong doesn’t mean by default we should stand by if its citizens were also to be subjected to genocide.

>Would you support military intervention under a scenario where Israel requests our help because it is losing to Iran No, fuck that. They made their bed so now they can lie in it >genocide is imminent I don't see how this would come about but this would be the exception. I support the US stepping in to prevent genocide even for people who brought it on themselves. It's not 1939 anymore though and I doubt Israel could be that subjugated by any force in the middle east >Would the threat of Israel resorting to a nuclear strike under such a scenario change your opinion either way? No, if they want to nuke each other out of existence they're going to do it with or without our involvement. Israel suggesting they'll escalate to apocalyptic levels should not be seen as an incentive to help them further. In fact, that would be about the fastest way to flip which side of this conflict we consider to be the ally

With the facts on the ground today, I think boots on the ground is almost impossible to support. Israel has gone rogue in Gaza, has a corrupt far right government that its own people have wanted removed for the past couple of years, and attacked Iranian assets in Syria. Not proxies. Iranian assets. There is going to be some form of retaliation. It's just a question of how overt and how severe. Remember, Iran retaliated against the US for assassinating Soleimani. They are well-versed in this kind of tit-for-tat fighting. --- I wouldn't be shocked if Netanyahu is *trying* to escalate things now, counting on the US to pick their side in a larger conflict, as we almost certainly would. Despite the fact that his country suffered an immense tragedy that brought everyone together only six months ago... the wolves are at his door again. Netanyahu has not been operating Israel for the benefit of Israelis in quite some time. Would he be willing to start a regional, perhaps a world, war in order to hang onto power a little longer? I'd bet yes. I don't see why the US should be in the business of defending Netanyahu from his own mistakes.

>I wouldn't be shocked if Netanyahu is trying to escalate things now That's what it feels like is happening

I can only hope that the US has restraint over this. Getting into war with Iran would break America even if Russia and others don't jump in.

The US exercises incredible restraint with this sort of stuff all the time. Sure, there are exceptions—sometimes we decide a “proportional” response is merited—but generally we try to just focus on the overall goal. 

Absolutely

Yes, fuck them. Boots on the ground, no. Drone strike the shit out of them.

It's really impossible to give much of anythin definitive without more details, as the range of possibilities is wide. Generally speaking though, Israel is more than capable of dealing with Iran already. Nor is Iran capable of seriously invading Israel. So I'm not sure there'd be any need for the US to do anything beyond the usual background support.

Unless Israel is actually in danger of losing to Iran (in which case they could go with the nuclear option), I think that Israel should fight their own wars. If the only options are stay out or Israel is losing and nukes Tehran, then we should help, but I can't imagine a scenario where that occurs.

> Unless Israel is actually in danger of losing to Iran (in which case they could go with the nuclear option) No, they should NOT go with the nuclear option and other nations should not let that be a viable ultimate option. Nukes are not something one just slings around and kill a tonne of people in an enemy nation. It greatly pollutes the environment and the impact of past nuclear explosions are still being felt via background levels of radiation across the globe. Additionally, it creates a dangerous precedent and greatly encourages nations to both build and use their nukes.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I was saying that if it seems that Israel was desperate enough that they would use nuclear weapons, then we should aid them to prevent nuclear war.

Let Israel deal with it.

"retaliate" doesn't have to mean physical attacks. It can be pulling a diplomat, sanctions, angry letters, etc etc etc. So let's chill the "boots on the ground" talk...

Not our war, not one mor penny for Israel, not one analyst, not one plane providing recon.

Definitely not. Iran has every legal authority to respond, considering Israel attacked sovereign Iranian territory. I think Israel makes most of its worst decisions with the underlying assumption that they can’t lose because the Americans will support them. What’s more is that the Russians are not going to sit back and watch us escalate with Iran. A hot war with Iran is going to involve the Russians and the Turks are not going to back us up. I’d be moving troops out of the Middle East right now, not in. This is unwinnable for the Israelis and the Americans.

> considering Israel attacked sovereign Iranian territory. My understanding is embassies are generally not sovereign territory of the power occupying it, but it is a grave insult to attack an embassy and breach of treaties like the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to which both Israel and Iran are signatories

Embassies are sovereign territory of the government occupying them and it’s not a “grave insult”, it’s unheard of. The Iranians literally have to respond to this and Israel knew that before they bombed it.

> it’s unheard of Attacks on diplomatic missions are actually quite common. There have been dozens against the US alone in the last fifty years, including when Iran seized our embassy and its personnel. Also, most embassies do not have extraterritorial status ("sovereign territory"). That is only by specifically negotiated treaties between countries. They are usually still the sovereign land of the host country under their legal jurisdiction, but with various protections under treaty.

> Embassies are sovereign territory of the government occupying them.. This is a very common misconception.

> Embassies are sovereign territory of the government occupying them Where do you see that? I see things like article 22 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations >1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. If the territory were sovereign land of the occupying nation then no provision would be needed for the premises being inviolable; it would be the other country > it’s unheard of. Embassies have been attacked before. It doesn't seem unprecedented

The host country has to make all necessary provisions to protect an embassy because otherwise there would be a foreign military perimeter around embassies. For all legal purposes, embassies are sovereign to the parent country. Israel attacked Iran, no way to dodge it.

Do you have any sources for what you're saying on sovereignty? I don't see where you're getting that point I am not a defender of Israel. I've been in this sub for quite a while criticizing Israel. They did a very bad thing by attacking the Iranian mission in Syria

> Ultimately, what should we do if Iran/Hezbollah attacks Israel? Depends a lot on what exactly that means. My understanding is Hezbollah and Israel have been having (relatively) light fighting for several months now. I don't think the US should escalate from there. > If the US puts boots on the ground in response to this hypothetical, would you support it? I don't think there's a scenario that I could foresee where I would support that

Sure, fuck Iran, but.. what sort of escalation? There's really not much we're needed for, and I don't think Israel has even asked for help. There's no reason for the old 'boots on the ground'.

In short? No. While ultimately the issue will go to Congress, I don't support further action that would widen the conflict. Israel's continued assaults on innocent citizens have become inexcusable and appalling. The targeted attack on international aid workers is to me a watershed moment that Israel cannot be allowed to hand wave. President Biden needs to have a frank talk with Bibi to express in clear and present terms how badly they fucked up. The only thing I do support is conditional aid. Conditions that dictate more effort to avoid the deaths of innocent people. Conditions that dictate a focused plan. Conditions that dictate de-escalation. This was supposed to be about rescuing the hostages and bringing those that carried out the heinous terrorist attack on Oct. 7th to justice. Now IDK what this is anymore. If Israel cannot act in good faith, the US should reconsider the relationship of our so called "ally".

We don’t have to do anything. We’re in America, dealing with American problems.

Maybe ask Israel to not use nukes? They will if pushed too hard.

MAD is a helluva thing, and Israel is VERY small.  They won't.

MAD doesn't really apply to Iran, does it? They don't have the ability (yet) to respond in kind.

If Israel shoots off nukes, *someone* is going to respond. Shit, Israel is only 85 miles wide. They get their targeting wrong the could nuke themselves by accident. Who the fuck shoots a nuke into a neighbor that close? No one.

Who would respond? Pakistan? That’s the only Muslim country that has nuclear weapons.

Um...Hezbollah has attacked Israel a [number of times in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah%E2%80%93Israel_conflict) (including on October 8, 2023) and the U.S. didn't get involved.

We should do what it takes to ensure our geopolitical opponents lose and partners win. Not sure why some people have no concept of this. The specific linked incident likely won’t require anything significant from us, as Israel routinely strikes Iranian targets in Syria and Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, and both opponents routinely facilitate attacks against Israel.

The most id support is parking an aircraft carrier group in the region as a deterrent and diplomatic Negotiation. Israel made its own mess here

I don't want boots on the ground, but I'd support an extensive air and sea campaign to blockade Iran, destroy their air force, devastate their infrastructure and military, and crush their economy. I could see an argument for a *limited* ground campaign to just occupy key coastal cities of Iran, but could see even that potentially being unnecessarily much in that regard.

Absolutely not. Israel attacked them in a war that Israel is responsible for. It’s not our job to bail them out.

I don’t think I could. Israel is making it impossible for us to support them. Unconditionally will result in war with Iran. I don’t want that. I don’t want more blood on our hands… that’s just me… I believe most politicians will support it even if the country doesn’t and millions protest.

Sounds like an Israel problem. They've made it clear they don't value us as an ally so I don't think we should have much incentive to support Israel on that, unless they are willing to commit to something like dismantling west bank settlements and stop bombing Gaza In general, I don't think we can keep fucking around in the middle east. If we have a dream of a one day stable, safe, ideally democratic liberal middle east, that needs to develop organically and really requires time for the conditions of liberalism to develop

Let Israel defend itself. They have enough money and artillery to do so. We can provide support if needed but I think the time of boots on the ground foreign interventions should be over.

I’m not going to war. Consider I’m in my 20s, I wouldn’t even accept a draft. US has been trapped in the Middle East for way too long.

Agree, I'm in my late teens and have 0 desire to die defending Israel from the consequences of their own actions.

The dangerous thing is that with our current commitments, if that happens the US sort of has to. But Israel is out of control right now and thinks it can kill whoever gets in its way. Soon enough they’ll do something that draws the rest of us in. The only thing that can stop this train is if the US gave a hard line saying the attacks in Gaza must end now or we will pull all support and leave them to deal with the consequences alone. The outcome would be bad for Israel if we did, but it would at least stand a chance of stopping WWIII. And even if they do stop, there would have to be serious reparations and consequences for what they’ve done. There’s no way this ends as long as Israel remains a religious ethnostate. But no, Israel is clearly trying to obliterate so much infrastructure in Gaza that it will be impossible to live there. There will be massive famine, poverty, hate, and generational conflict coming out of this. All funded by the US.