Iran has come out of the shadows and attacked Israel directly. **Read OP before posting**

The Canadian embassy thats not in use and had a few windows blown out? It was not "also attacked" by Israel, implying it was targeted for attack. It was damaged in the blast from the attack on the actual target. Where is your proof it was targeted for attack?

Do you think the Iranian consulate was hosting a meeting to discuss a joint order for stationary?

Where was the chapter and verse for your claim about their protected status? So what convention are you basing your claim on?

Its behind a paywall but according to this Economist article:

There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/04/09/why-are-embassies-supposed-to-be-inviolable

Exactly. They gave almost a weeks notice that they were going to respond by striking Israel, and even warned civilian aviation in the region & warned their neighbours in advance of the action.

Nothing more than a "look what we can do", not an attempt to actually hit anything. The fact that 7 missiles got through despite all that warning and intervention from US, UK, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia et al is worrying though for Israel. The public's idea that they are untouchable because of the dome and other defences has been diminished.

Hamas, Isis and Israel's IDF all criminals.

That's exactly what he thinks.

And who trained the Savak death squads? A crowd very good at murdering ….. Mossad.

so instead of citing the conventions themselves you’re going off some US article. Biased source under the circumstance.

“Targeted” or not Canadas embassy was attacked and damage and is sovereign Canadian territory.

it’s not an either or, and if you were being honest, you entirely know that.

Bibi’s government was under deep scrutiny and he was under criminal investigation a year ago. Nothing to wonder about why he wants to plunge Israel into breathless warfare, or why he chose to attack a consulate immediately following critical losses of international and domestic support. Sure attacking the Embassy and provoking Iran to respond was great craic for getting the Israeli election protests out of the news cycle.

What about when those Republican sympathisers in dublin attacked and burnt the British embassy

The question is directly related to the original claim made.

I've cited two reputable news outlets, you have no real response to the content of the articles except in one case to say it is an American source.

And you aren't citing the convention either. You haven't even said which convention you are basing your claim on. So it is an entirely reasonable question to ask what the 'convention' you are basing your claim on says about their use for military purposes?

At this stage, you've provided exactly nothing of substance to support either your claim or refute the content of the two cited news articles. Your claims have no credibility, and you demand a level of proof from other posters you yourself does not even attempt to provide.

Iran is a constant threat to Israel. Iran are behind Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah. They deserve plenty more smacks in the mouth. I have zero sympathy for Iran.

This may seem like a small thing to choose as being odd but it has bothered since the wires and News networks starting reporting it. The total number of weapons launched by Iran, versus the Israeli claim that less than 1% made it through.

Now, this really is pedantry on my part but, Israel has said 331 weapons were launched by Iran, multiple sources claim that 7 missiles evaded air defences and hit Israel, is a touch over 2.1% it's such an immediately apparent error, yet no news network has queried it.

Regardless of my pedantic musing, Israel would have gained a great degree of confidence in their layered AD last night. Granted the volume of targets that entered the Israeli ADZ was whittled down by US, UK & French shooting down Drones and Cruise Missiles over Iraq and Syria, as well as any taken care of by Jordanian forces and/or Israeli aircraft operating over Jordan. The volume of targets that came danger close was certainly reduced by western action.

It paints a stark picture of what more air defence units sent to Ukraine could provide there. Its easy to preach from our neutral corner of the world but, the west really does need to afford Ukrainian (& Palestinian) lives the same value it places upon Israeli ones

Then clearly you understand why they are less than useful to be cited here for their conjecture on what is and isn’t allowed under international law. Thanks.