frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Open in hackernews

Israel is running critically low on interceptors, US officials say

https://www.semafor.com/article/03/14/2026/israel-is-running-critically-low-on-interceptors-us-officials-say
39•inaros•1h ago

Comments

thisislife2•1h ago
Interesting that Iran has started using cluster munition missiles to strike Israel. Apparently Iran, Israel and US are some of the few countries that haven't signed the international convention banning cluster munitions. Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
XorNot•50m ago
Countries tend to sign munition restrictions when they don't use those munitions or are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.

The map of countries which sign the convention against landmines is extremely obvious in that context.

markdown•40m ago
> 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.

cpgxiii•33m ago
The point is that almost all of the signatories considered themselves to be immune to a "real war" in their futures at the time they signed. E.g. basically all of the European signatories assumed that the end of the cold war and existence of NATO would ensure the end of any possible threat. Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
breppp•22m ago
which is exactly why european countries threatened by russia are starting to withdraw from the treaty, five had recently announced so
spwa4•19m ago
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.

Qem•46m ago
> Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.

Estimated around 4 million of them against south Lebanon:

https://imeu.org/resources/key-issues/quick-facts-israels-il...

https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/02/16/flooding-south-lebanon...

coldtea•54m ago
Nothing that saying they're sorry for being offensive and seeking a peace deal can't fix...
themafia•53m ago
Then it was a very strange choice to go to war with a neighbor that's known to have massive stockpiles of missiles.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first. In fact, I would make it my mission to be the world recognized leader in diplomacy.

mohsen1•49m ago
Neighbor?!
themafia•46m ago
Next door? No. In the neighborhood? Undoubetly.
spwa4•42m ago
Do you honestly believe Israel hasn't done that for decades?
Nevermark•38m ago
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.

hersko•34m ago
> Genocide slow burn.

So slow it's going backwards.

UltraSane•32m ago
Iran severely persecutes Baha'is with bans on higher education, employment, and imprisonment. The Iranian government often labels unrecognized religious minorities as "heretics" or "apostates," subjecting them to harassment and violence.
saint_yossarian•35m ago
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

breppp•19m ago
that's untrue by the way, Israel sold weapons to Iran and supported it with intelligence against Iraq after 1979
dr00tb•35m ago
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

UltraSane•31m ago
I think Israel is fighting for its survival against enemies that would absolutely destroy it if they could.
tastyface•20m ago
Is continuing to apply extreme violence against these enemies likely to lead to a good result? What is the end state?

I think we are fast approaching an era where weapons of mass destruction, by way of cheap killbot swarms, are trivially accessible to any government. Without radical diplomacy, I fear the entire Middle East -- Israel included -- is on a path to annihilation.

steve-atx-7600•10m ago
I think it can be as simple as if you defeat your enemy first, they can’t defeat you or continue to threaten you.
tastyface•6m ago
Defeating an enemy to the extent that they can't drive a truck full of AI killbots into a busy city center is an impossible task, barring de facto genocide. And if genocide is on the table, then Israel seals its fate regardless.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.

gravisultra•4m ago
Just like Nazi Germany.
spwa4•25m ago
So wait ... you're going to use terror attacks and extrajudicial killings in foreign countries as an argument to defend Iran? Iran is responsible for the civil war in Lebanon, and thus for at least hundred thousand dead in extrajudicial killings. So your argument, even if we accept everything as 100% true ... Iran is at least 1000x more guilty than Israel. Or just take [1] ...

So it seems strange to use this as an argument to defend Iran. Bad faith, even.

As for diplomacy: Iran signs treaties ... then just refuses to uphold them. For example, Iran signed, then pretty openly violated it's nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations [2], same with the famous nuclear deal.

But, even where it comes to pretty basic things: Iran signed the human rights treaties, including the Geneva convention, and hangs gays and minors as a matter of course (according to amnesty #1 worldwide with hundreds of minors executed, and actually increasing the rate over time), attacks religious minorities, women, the government has a side business in kidnapping foreignors ...

Or other treaties. Iran signed freedom of navigation treaties, and has for decades violated them. Hell, Iran violates the international telecommunications union treaty.

The problem: Iran cannot be negotiated with, for the simple reason that they do not respect deals they make. There's no point in negotiating since their behavior does not change when they make deals. They make promises, and ignore them. They sign treaties, and boast openly about violating them.

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

[2] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...

Hikikomori•13m ago
You failed to mention that Iran violated the deal only after Trump withdrew the US from it...

Its hard to negotiate with Iran when Israel keeps killing their negotiators.

Hikikomori•18m ago
Israel killed Irans negotiators just last year. How can you be this deluded.
spaghetdefects•5m ago
Since its inception, Israel has waged war and acts of terror on all of its neighbors (and much of the rest of the world).
Spooky23•42m ago
Arrogance, and using war to avoid consequences for personal bad behavior of the leader.
glob_roman•29m ago
"Iran is close to nuclear device, diplomacy doesn't work, should we attack?" -"no, we don't have enough interceptors. let them become nuclear."

That's what your logic sounds like

jazzpush2•50m ago
I.e. time American tax dollars to save the day!
Drupon•46m ago
Good. Perhaps they will pay the ultimate price and face irreversible consequences that are decades overdue.
mcs5280•40m ago
Sounds like they only went into this with concepts of a plan
Zaheer•35m ago
Keep in mind who pays for the replacements - U.S. Citizens to the tune of $317.9 billion over the last 70 years [1].

https://taxpayersforpeace.org/

alephnerd•2m ago
Because the alternative was Israel working with the PRC in the 2000s to build a competitor of what became the F35.

The US and Israel were not aligned until the end of the Clinton administration, and in the 1980s-90s, Israel's IAI began working with the Deng administration to build [0] what became the J-10 and the JF-17 project by selling the IAI Lavi.

[0] - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-28-mn-13774-...

Qem•34m ago
I hope they have their Cuito Cuanavale[1] moment and follow the steps of South Africa in replacing their own version of the apartheid regime with democracy.

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

UltraSane•29m ago
If you think Israel is "apartheid" what do you consider Iran to be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Iran#Re...

richbell•8m ago
Is the implication that someone can't dislike both?
spaghetdefects•6m ago
I consider Iran to be led and inhabited by indigenous people and not foreign colonizers.
breppp•29m ago
On the other side, iran's launch capability had fallen by 95% since the start of the war

Iran is actually attacking their former close friends at the gulf uninvolved civilian population centers more often than it attacks Israel

wodenokoto•21m ago
They are attacking close friends who literally harbor the armies attacking Iran.

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.

breppp•16m ago
> 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

gravisultra•3m ago
They've attacked many US bases. They've also retaliated against US/Israeli business interests when the US/Israel did the same to Iran. Iran is waging a very strategic war and quite a moral one I might add. They even gave evacuation orders to Tel Aviv neighborhoods they were targeting military installations in.
spwa4•14m ago
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.

spaghetdefects•8m ago
They're attacking US/Israel assets in all of those countries. It's effective too, the US is pulling out and showing that they are not a reliable ally. Just today the US told all US citizens to leave Iraq.
spaghetdefects•10m ago
Where are you getting that 95% number from? Given that Trump has announced multiple times that the US has "won the war", I don't see how that could possibly be credible. Iran continues to launch successful attacks against Israel and Israel/US assets across the entire region.
excalibur•15m ago
Let's send them thousands of tiny violins.