I get that the paper is trying to thread carefully. But Iran doesn't just "view" the attack as equivalent to an attack on its own territory. Internat law does.
World News
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
I'm curious about that.
Could you point to the law, section and paragraph saying that? That's a good argument for me to use in conversations
This blog says that an embassy is the property of the sending nation, and enjoys diplomatic immunity, but that it is still part of the host's territory. They cite articles 21-25 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Internet law?
Lol nice, yeah international law, obviously. I'm leaving it!
I mean it's an embassy, it literally is equivalent to an attack on Iranian soil. No viewpoint necessary, that is a fact. Israel committed an act of war against Iran and they are entirely within their right to retaliate.
Haven't Israel attacked Iran many times before anyway?
Could you post some reports/sources on this? I'm interested about it
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2022/aug/11/timeline-israeli-attacks-iran
I seem to remember lots of attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities over the years.
Thanks
Also frequently assassinated their scientists.
Yup. And Ecuador just raided a Mexican embassy last week. It sure seems like the international order is breaking down. Thanks, Biden
squinting at post title
Embassies are universally treated as the territory of the embassy’s nation. That’s why ppl can jump into the embassy of some country without an extradition treaty and say “lol you can’t get me now, coppers!”
Iran doesn’t view the attack as on its territory, the attack was on its territory.
This is how actual wars begin. An attack on an embassy, then a retaliatory attack, then a huge attack in retaliation of the first retaliatory attack, and then war.