Try the political quiz
 @P0litic4lPlatform…NewsIsraelDaily DiscussionIranBidenBiden AdministrationDrones•••2yrs ago

Iran warns U.S. to stay out of fight with Israel or face attack on troops

Iran sent a message to the Biden administration through several Arab countries earlier this week: if the U.S. gets involved in the fighting between Israel and Iran.

The Iranian supreme leader has threatened "punishment" for Israel but through private channels Iran has signaled it would be limited.

Israel and the U.S. think an Iranian attack would include the launch of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and attack drones from Iran to Israeli territory.

U.S. officials say the Biden administration asked Israel to notify the U.S. and for the U.S. to have a say before decisions are made about any retaliation by Israel.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Biden Administration?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

20 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

Do you think it's fair for a country to ask another not to intervene in its disputes, even if the conflict could impact global peace?

 @9LJ478L from Wisconsin  answered…2yrs2Y

There will always be those threatening countries that don't understand what we tell them. They are always being unfair in their own ways especially if it impacts global peace.

 @9LJ7PRV from Washington  agreed…2yrs2Y

Wether or not it's fair is a pointless question. Even if we wanted to get involved we don't have jurisdiction most of the time and we cannot operate out of country without proper jurisdiction or express permission from the country in question.

 @9LJ45TY from Utah  answered…2yrs2Y

What goes on in the middle east is their problem. The US needs to pull back on its foreign policy and start focusing more in-country.

 @9LJ4SC6Democrat from Arizona  answered…2yrs2Y

It's not fair for a country to ask another country to intervene because if they don't intervene, there could be a impact on global peace.

 @9LJ3X6C from Wisconsin  answered…2yrs2Y

I think their trying to tell us that they can possibly be a big threat towards the us and think that we might not win if we started a war...idk

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

How would you feel if your country was asked to stay out of a conflict between two other nations but faced threats if it got involved?

 @9LJ75YJ from Nevada  answered…2yrs2Y

While this could be empty threats it is to be taken seriously, while America does have air and sea anti-missile defenses if the threat is taken a war will start which we don't need.

 @9LJ43WL from Tennessee  answered…2yrs2Y

Iran warns U.S. to stay out of fight with Israel or face attack on troops ... The leaders of America's largest banks are convinced that AI will transfor

 @9LJ3X6C from Wisconsin  answered…2yrs2Y

I would be kind of threatened and I would listen to them and not fight against the country...I think

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

Should a country always come to the defense of its allies, regardless of the consequences?

 @9LJ3BWK from Oregon  answered…2yrs2Y

I think countries should always defend their allied regardless of the outcome, since they are ALLIES.

 @9L88VD3  from North Carolina  commented…2yrs2Y

I think it depends on the situation entirely. If it's a bad ally like Israel, then no the US should not defend them. Also if a country's economy is suffering and it is heavily in debt I think that's a consideration. The US has already gone far and beyond what we were morally obligated to do with Ukraine. On TV there were ads with celebrities begging people to donate to the victims of the Maui fires. That is completely backwards of the way it should be. The Maui victims are US citizens who pay taxes, they should get government aid first. Then let people donate their own money to Ukraine or Israel if they want to help those countries.

 @9LJ2S5S from Iowa  answered…2yrs2Y

The US needs to be stop being in conflict for a while

 @9LJ2NTY from Utah  answered…2yrs2Y

No different situations call for different responses.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

How would you react if your country received a direct threat from another nation for potentially involving itself in an international conflict?

 @9LJ2S5S from Iowa  answered…2yrs2Y

I would protect the country itself from being attacked.

 @9LJ3BWK from Oregon  answered…2yrs2Y

Honestly pray because at that point there'd be nothing we could do about it

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

Is it more important for a country to prioritize its own safety or to stand up for its allies and principles in international conflicts?

 @9LHZG57 from Iowa  commented…2yrs2Y

it is more important for a country to prioritize its own safety

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this general discussion.

@P0litic4lPlatform…

Last activeActivity1 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias100%Active in
News  1 Drones  1 Biden  1 Iran  1 Biden Administration  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies