There were plenty of other alternatives, starting with sanctions against Israel and followed with military action. The boomer generation's support for Israel created a very odd relationship that was entirely one way. Younger generations will certainly reverse this.

You also have the large number of countries that sign treaties, then just ignore them. Iran is an example of a nation that signs UN treaties, then openly boast about violating them.

Iran signed the human rights treaties ... and openly executes gays and minors. They boast about this publicly.

> are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.

No such country exists. So long as enemies are likely to put boots, wheels, or tracks on the ground in your country, landmines are extremely useful, extremely cheap, and extremely effective.

I consider Iran to be led and inhabited by indigenous people and not foreign colonizers.

Is the implication that someone can't dislike both?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...

They've attacked everyone they possibly could with ZERO regard for anything. They attacked Cyprus! They've attacked Turkey. They've attacked Afghanistan (are you seriously going to claim Afghanistan is harboring the US army?) They've attacked everyone they possibly could attack, zero exceptions.

Next time all the gulf countries will know: get America and everyone else to launch attacks against Iran from your soil. Make sure to participate. Why? Iran will attack everyone regardless of alliances, who attacks, whether anyone attacks at all, what bases exist, whether or not they participate, or whether they avoid hostilities. So obviously, it's better to be part of the hostilities against Iran, to have an army on your soil that will protect at least some of your territory.

> The logic seems very straight forward imho. Attack the US army bases and pester the nations that allows those bases in hopes that they might ask the us to get bend

If only they attacked the American bases as opposed to also attacking civilian infrastructure such as oil facilities and residential neighborhoods

If only they had skipped gulf countries who had pushed the US not to strike and refused to let the US use their bases to attack Iran (all of them)

If only they hadn't attacked countries without any bases such as Azerbaijan

Then I think your arguments would have had more merit

[flagged]

You seriously believe Israel has conducted good-faith diplomatic endeavors for decades? A history of terrorattacks and extrajudicial killings in neighboring countries and even European[1] countries tell a different story.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair

Since its inception, Israel has waged war and acts of terror on all of its neighbors (and much of the rest of the world).

Do you honestly believe they did?

> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations

I am certainly not defending Iran, but one of their gripes had merit. Israel’s illegal annexation and settling of land that wasn’t theirs.

And their policy of overlooking violence against the previous inhabitants. Genocide slow burn.

So I don’t know what good any diplomacy could have been in that context.

Israel killed Irans negotiators just last year. How can you be this deluded.

Next door? No. In the neighborhood? Undoubetly.

Diplomacy did work, they stopped and had regular IAEA inspections.