Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves.
What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all.
I suspect that after their nuclear program was discovered and set back they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy and convinced themselves they could repurpose it as leverage. But they are a theocratic regime and their messaging (whether genuine or not) made that a non-viable option in reality.
This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent and you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you? Theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first if you can't destroy their capability by other means. What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects. You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
> What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
This is the key. People talk some crazy stories about Iran being a theocratic state whose life mission is destroying Israel but the fact is they don't want to end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat.
And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US. So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.
> end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat.
You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not.
Syria was embroiled and toppled by Islamic Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham backed by Turkey. Libya was due to civil war. Several of these conflicts were funded by Iran as well.
You can go down the list. Please study at least some basics on the region.
> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.
One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation? Theocracies can be unpredictable. Also they could provide dirty bombs to their proxies in the region.
Now every country that has the capacity to get a strategic deterrent will race to get one. So much for Biden's escalation management. Too bad Trump likes Russia so much he does everything not to step on their toes. With a heftier backing from the US the Russo-Ukrainian war would be over by now.
Biden took the approach of keeping 10 pairs of gloves on when dealing with Russia. Don't help too little not to make it too easy for the russians, don't help to much to avoid escalation.
> This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent and you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you?
Religious government or not, Iran has plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts working for their foreign policy and war effort. Your underestimating this betrays prejudice.
But clearly all these smart people are not involved in the decision making, considering how Iran’s foreign policy has looked like, exactly how parent described.
Compare military spending by Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the United States (only Middle East related) with Iranian military spending, over the four decades of Iran's shadow wars with these countries and isolation by much of the rest of the world.
And yet Iranian proxies have repeatedly challenged these powers across the Middle East, in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Sinai, etc. And a lot of Iran's actions have broad support in many other Middle Eastern countries, including strong US allies, those where there are no natural ethnic, religious or linguistic ties to Iran, and where there is prosperity based on peace and the American world order.
Whatever else the Iranian govt are, they are not foreign policy under-hitters or flawed tacticians blinded by dogmatism.
> Religious government or not, Iran has plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts working for their foreign policy and war effort. Your underestimating this betrays prejudice
America also has lots of brilliant people. Then we have Hegseth, Noem and the other fuck.
The problem is the timeline... MIC takes over and it becomes about building, selling, and dropping bombs instead of rebuilding and GTFO.
During Iraq the US military deployed some insanely creative strategies with the deployment of concrete- yet nothing meaningful was actually built for the people of Iraq...
You hear and read about it, but it’s still surreal to see the effects of propaganda in real life. I’m glad I’m old enough to have seen this show before live.
how does this do anything except strengthen the resolve of those thugs in power? even those against the regime will want retribution for an attack on their home land.
regime change has never worked, not with actual boots on the ground, let alone targeted air strikes.
how much did it cost to rebuild germany? and how many trillions did we flush down the drain attempting to put together a functioning government in iraq and afghanistan?
I know a similar precedent from Belarus, an Eastern European country. The population is way smaller, and their main problem is Moscow in the east, but it's the same sentiment -- please bomb us as we cannot throw out this regime ourselves, yes.
Internet used to joke about US "freedom bombs", but it's taken quite seriously and positively there.
My wife is from Belarus and I have been there many times. What you say in so ridiculous it’s hard to even respond with a serious answer. Just want to point out that they suffered the most under Nazis and would do anything to prevent being in another war.
US-aligned IT specialists are uniquely propagandized (they're one of the main targets of Western propaganda for good reason - they have outsized influence!), so don't expect many reality-compatible takes on this website.
Imagine a terrorist attack against the Trump admin in the following weeks, and someone coming in to say "you'd be surprised, but the people of the USA have been waiting for this moment for months. There are 100 million people who want an end to Trump".
People never, ever, under any circumstances, want to be attacked and bombed by another country. Not even the biggest dissidents rotting in regime jails would welcome this. Not even a little bit.
Even most children or partners of abusive people feel defensive when an outsider intervenes. Nevermind getting your country bombed by strangers. Spending days reading news that hide people behind symbols make some forget that we're dealing with human relationship.
If the attack was specifically targeting the US to encourage the downfall of Trump, I am sure there are millions of Americans that would be celebrating. Spend some time on Bluesky – they'd love it over there if the attacks didn't literally hit them. They can't seem to see much further than that.
North Korea is a Chinese client state. As a general rule, client states are treated as extensions of the countries that control them. Iran is not a client state.
> Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.
I don't know if you noticed, but what you are arguing for is in fact for mindlessly accepting unverified claims and extrapolate them to an optimal outcome. This is the opposite of critical thinking, and goes well beyond wishful thinking.
Meanwhile, if you pay attention to OP's point, you'll understand that Iran's nuclear sites have been continuously designed and developed for decades, while subjected to an almost evolutionary pressure, to continue operations even after withstanding direct attacks in scenarios matching exactly Trump's attacks.
In the very least, you must assess the effect of those strikes before making any sort of claim.
Another factor which it seems you somehow missed was the fact that Russia, another nuclear-capable totalitarian regime, is nowadays heavily dependent on Iran to conduct it's imperialist agenda. If Russia was negotiating handing over nuclear capabilities to North Korea in exchange for supporting it's war effort, do you believe Russia now has no interest to speed up Iran's nuclear weapons programmes?
Weird that Iran, an oil exporter with huge potential for solar, would expend so much energy on protecting a purportedly civilian nuclear program. I'm sure it's nothing.
This isn't really relevant but I'm only making one comment in this post so I'll say it here: young folks don't remember decades of Iranian state sponsored terrorism and do not understand the context of conflict in the middle east.
This would be a really risky strategy as it will push the Iranians into a corner with potentially large impacts on the oil price (which will change US public opinion).
That sounds to me like the US seriously needs to promote non-petroleum sources of energy. If not for the environment, for their own national sovereignity.
The thing is, the United States is self sufficient in petroleum. But domestic prices will go up to reflect the effect on world supply.
Arguably the same could happen given widespread use of non petroleum sources of energy. Prices will go up to reflect the marginal cost of hydrocarbon based energy, even if that use is minimal, until the point where the energy network is completely decoupled from those markets.
This happened in the United Kingdom after the invasion of Ukraine. More wind was used as gas became more expensive. But the price of electricity from wind also went up.
I don't know that it can be confirmed, but Iran is claiming that the US tipped them off. This is a fairly standard tactic, and it makes more sense here. This is something that would satisfy both the pro-war crowd and the group that is pro-Israel or anti-Iran, but not necessarily pro-war. We get to show our strength and support for our allies without really committing.
The layout of Fordow from what we’ve seen is not a single site. Depending on how many runs they did maybe it is all but destroyed or maybe it’s 1/3 destroyed. I’m sure Israel’s intelligence on it is pretty accurate (probably not public at this point)
The US, Israel and possibly Britain will install a no-fly zone over Iran. Israel is going to be entirely unwilling to allow Iran to go right back to building again what just got destroyed. This was a once in decades shot for Israel to take against Iran, in its very weakened state (with its proxies out of commission, Syria knocked over, and Russia very preoccupied). They'll attempt the post Gulf War I approach against Iraq (as an invasion will never be on the table). Sanctions and no-fly zone. They'll retain control over Iran's sky and in doing so will be free to bomb as they see fit if Iran attempts to build or re-start something like Fordow. If they attempt to install new air defenses, they'll simply bomb them. Whether that one bombing took care of Fordow is going to be moot, they'll hit it ten more times if that's what it takes, and destroy anything that attempts to move in or out of there. Israel can't maintain a no-fly zone over Iran so the US will be enlisted to do the heavy lifting on that.
aiding regime change would be much easier, and would solve all these problems better. At some point in the next few days, the regime will be so weakened that the Iranian people will overthrow it themselves
The US negotiators in Iraq in ‘91 stupidly didn’t enforce a total no-fly zone, allowing the use of helicopters by the regime. Saddam used helicopter gunships to mow down the would-be revolutionaries attempting regime change. Israel won’t make the same mistake.
91 also happened in a brief period where Russia was holding back from supplying end-of-line military hardware to anyone who wanted to take a shot at the United States and its clients.
The IRGC is unlikely to let the regime fall so easily. They'll kill a lot of Iranians to stop that from happening. The Iranian people have limited means to fight at present. The no-fly zone and sanctions approach will be used to attempt to strangle the regime over the coming years. It'll take a small miracle for the regime to fall anytime soon, it's not that weak yet (imo) despite what the propaganda is claiming.
Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state, and at least 50% of members of current governing parties in parliament are from religious parties and zionist parties.
That would mean the USA are a theocracy too, given most senators are Christian. That doesn’t make too much sense.
Theocracy is a form of government in which religious leaders rule in the name of a deity, and religious law is the basis for all legal and political decisions.
The USA is not a theocracy, though. The majority-Christian senators are not generally enacting theocratic laws and regulations (though there are some tendencies and influences, as seen with the recent repeal of Roe v Wade, for example).
However, Israel does have highly theocratic tendencies. Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. They have even more religious influence on public life than the USA does (which is already somewhat high by European standards), with businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays (not selling risen bread during Passover, making elevators stop automatically on every floor during days of rest, observing kosher restrictions on food etc). Many of their foreign policy decisions are explicitly influenced by religious tenets, such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god (which includes modern day Israel, the Occupied Territories, and several parts of modern day Syria, Lebanon, and others).
They're nowhere near the level of religous rule and/or fanaticism as Saudi Arabia, but they have much more religious influence and control of public life then a modern European/US-style democracy.
> Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too.
OP referred to democratic votes, whereas you talk about "popular uprising". Can you explain in your own words why you believe these are even comparable?
Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine after a popular uprising in 2014 was somehow democratic. That should show that depending on who is being ousted and your opinion on them, yes the two things can be comparable.
> Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (...)
You should seriously learn about Yanukovych before making any sort of claim regarding him. He was elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU and pro-western programme, only to turn out to be a Russian puppet that not only enforced policies completely contrary to his programme but also pushed Ukraine into a dictatorship.
The "popular uprising" you glance over was actually months of demonstrations protesting Yanukovych unilateral rejection of the EU–Ukraine association agreement as ordered by Russia, which he campaigned and was elected for and contrary to Ukraine's parliament overwhelming approval.
You're talking about the same Yanukovych who felt compelled to exile in Russia.
> That should show that depending on who is being ousted (...)
Those who favour freedom under democracies are indeed partial against dictators who try to destroy democratic states and deny people's rights, specially if it to serve the interests of other totalitarian regimes.
And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual.
But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.
But the GP is not saying the election wasn't valid, they're saying the guy was misrepresenting himself. I hate the US meddling as much as the next guy, but why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"?
That is an awful retelling of history. There was no revolution in Ukraine, but protests and demonstrations that were brutally crushed by government forces. The people persevered though and the president fled the country, leading to a formal and correct process of electing a new government after. The US didn’t have anything more to do with this.
Yes it was. Democracy is not only about casting your vote once every few years and then shutting up and staying put, it’s also about holding your elected representatives accountable.
Because both are representations of the rule and self-determination of the people. Popular uprisings are comparable to direct voting in terms of expressing the power of the people (though of course have other major differences in terms of violence, rule of law, etc).
> Because both are representations of the rule and self-determination of the people.
No, not really. Having a radical group remove another totalitarian ruler doesn't automatically grant them legitimacy or any arguments involving "self determination of people".
I find this very disingenuous because the person you replied to was talking only about Iran, and stating that Iran is a theocracy in their opinion. They never mentioned anything about Iran, let alone stating that Israel isn't a theocracy.
So asking this question, this way, is quite strange in my opinion.
Who cares if they are? They're not out here calling for the destruction of all the Islamic states. Well, at least not the ones not already actively bombing them.
Israel's legal definition is "Jewish and Democratic state", which explicitly ensures "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex".
The Basic Law (their Constitution) of Israel defines it as a Jewish state. Its first page says:
The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was established.
(b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
(c) The realization of the right to national self- determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People.
Not irrespective of religion, exclusive to the Jewish People.
It's not so much them being a theocracy IMHO. It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.
Put those Israeli shoes on. There's a state armed with ballistic missiles in easy range of you, they have the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium, recently acquired more advanced centrifuges, they have the uranium already enriched far beyond what's necessary for civilian use, they have far more of it than they credibly need for such civilian use, and they believe god has ordered them to destroy you.
> It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.
And the US is full of Christo-fascists who believe they have a religious duty to "defend" Israel by any means necessary.
It absolutely blows my mind that in this day and age people are taking sides on a religious war. Stay out. Stay far out. There is no winning. There is no stopping the conflict. Every side has an ordained right to blow the others off the face of the planet. The only thing to see is human atrocities as far as the eye in the name of <your god of choice>.
> There's a state ... [that has] ... the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium
Do they? It's oft repeated. But I vaguely remember this country being sold on an Iraq invasion due to nukes. Nukes that never existed and never were close to existing. This wasn't a simple miscalculation. The nukes were entirely and knowingly fictional. And that's just one example of a bullshit made-up reason this nation has started a war to waste lives.
How do you think Palestinians sleep at night? With the threat of Israel, funded by the largest military in the world, looming over them every night?
Why should I believe my country today? Why is today the day of all days that the truth is finally being told? Why is today the day that god is real and I should jump in on the bloodshed?
Your masters are lying to you, to their benefit. They didn't wake up today and decide to be honest.
1. You have to define 'Israel' quite carefully to make it work. Palestinians in East Jerusalem cannot vote in Israeli elections. Is East Jerusalem part of Israel or not?
2. There are several other democracies in the Middle East, for example Iraq and Lebanon.
3. Some of the countries which aren't democratic, would be democratic, except that representative governments were overthrown by the United States, in part to enforce cooperation with Israel, against the wishes of most of the people in the country. For example, Egypt.
Whose fault is that? The US and Russia have propped and warred every angle to extract as much oil as possible. The instability maintains a heavy flow of refugees into Europe, destabilising the freedoms they have there and pushing the politics further right.
The sudden switch yesterday from "they can't make nukes" to "they're a fortnight away from ICBMs" felt a little too reminiscent of Iraq twenty years ago.
If we want a stable Middle East, we have to stop bombing the shit out of it, and invest. Negotiate fairly for resources. Offer them a future. And demand Israel stop committing war crimes.
It's not about democracy. If it were, we wouldn't have overthrown countless democratically elected leaders throughout South America during the 20th Century.
Our elected leaders constantly attempt to expand their own power. To maximally punish whistleblowers. Our election system is ran by a duopoly who exerts extreme power over those voicing alternative views and opinions.
About democracy, it is not.
Let's say it was though. What gives us the right to blow other countries off the face of the planet? Are we somehow so much better than everyone else because we believe we're democratic? We don't even rank in the top 10 most democratic countries. We throw more people in jail than China. Per capita AND total overall. We throw more kids in jail than any other first world country [0].
Surely, democracy does not automagically lend to treating people fairly. We have enough problems in our own damn democracy to worry about. Crazy to be starting wars to "help" someone who never asked for it. Forcing violence upon those who never consented is absolutely abhorrent.
You seem to believe “democracy” is some kind of magic spell or something? This “democracy” just perpetrated and are continuing to perpetrate the worst kind of wanton and sadistic genocide in full view of the world and are doing it in high definition and with impunity. America is supposedly also a democracy and we just in fact bombed a place objectively without any provocation, in violation of our own supreme law, and being utterly counter to American interests, because an alien and foreign interest group has a stranglehold on America.
Democracy is not some magic word that justifies things
Israel, the democratic country whose prime minister appears to be deliberately prolonging the current conflict in Gaza and starting a new war with Iran to avoid facing corruption charges?
Hamas has started in on the 7th of october 2023, effectively rolling back years of negotiations done by Yasser Arafat. Where do you think they've got the weapons from? Netanyahu is no better, but they offered him the perfect motive for a response.
All this talk about nuclear weapons is purposefully misleading. Iran had agreements in place to keep its nuclear program under strict and thorough international checks, and was currently negotiating a new one. The original deal was scrapped on Netanyahu's request, and the bombing was started by Netanyahu to prevent a new one.
Israel doesn't fear Iran's nukes. Israel fears an economically functional Iran and uses the wmd excuse to sabotage it as much as possible. The worst possible outcome for them is Iran proving it has no nuclear weapons at all and having its sanctions lifted.
Realistically, a secular Iran would be the only real ally of Israel in the region. This is how it was under the shah, until 1979.
Israel is set to benefit enormously from an economically functional Iran, with sanctions lifted, and a sane, non-fanatical, non-oppressive government. Iran used to be a pretty cool and developed country in 1960s, and could be now.
Cubans kept massively supporting Fidel for quite some time, and quite explicitly, even through the disastrous Communist economic policies.
Iranians keep protesting; last few years have seen several large protests, involving hundreds of thousands, and continuing for months. The popularity just isn't there.
Regarding revolutions, it's quite often that a relatively small group of like-minded people capture the control, and the majority is weakly supporting them, or is even weakly opposed but complies. The French revolution was mostly about some nobility wanting to remove the monarchy that oppressed them, along with the rest; most of the population wasn't overtly anti-monarchy, and not even covertly so, but it did not like the monarchy's pressure either. The Russian revolution was "communist" and "proletarian", but even by their own Marxist accounting, proletarians were less than 10% of Russian population, and communists, much fewer still. Nevertheless, they subdued most of the Russian empire.
The Iranian revolution was also done by a group of highly religious people who were fed up with the shah's secularization reforms. The shah, AFAICT, was a guy a bit like Putin, or Saudi kings: efficient and geared towards prosperity of the country, but quite authoritarian. The fact that e.g. the educated urban population in Iran wasn't happy about authoritarianism does not imply that the same people were (or are) huge fans of theocracy. Actually, the theocracy ended up even more oppressive.
Not "happy", but Iran was quite a bit more sober, not hostile towards Israel, and relatively secular.
(Similarly, China under Deng Xiaoping was not a paragon of political freedom at all, but it was quite a bit more sober than under Mao Zedong. The US administration had tons of shortcomings under president Biden, but it was in quite a bit less of disarray than under president Trump.)
> ? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't
Is this some reality distortion field? This never happened. Instead the ICJ issued multiple explicit orders to Israel that Israel has violated and the genocide case is still ongoing.
Who cares about ICJ or any International Law these days anymore?
Yeah, I mean we can still use it (or it's slowness and uselessness) to hide behind it but the facts are on the table. Gaza looks like post-war Germany at this point. People ARE starving. Meanwhile Israel expands to the east. Also illegally.
Iran has violated the NPT so many times at this stage that no good faith observer can say what you've said here with a straight face. This is just using words to persuade for political purposes, it is not analysis.
> The worst possible outcome for them is Iran proving it has no nuclear weapons at all and having its sanctions lifted.
Circumstantial evidence seems to be that Iran indeed was enriching Uranium beyond what was necessary for electricity. Why would they build enrichment facility deep underground? It is not that Iran is having energy crisis. The claim that Iran is thinking of green energy and climate change effects is a bit weak.
Remember all that evidence about iraq? Remember the british guy who worked at the ministry and went to the news saying there was no evidence and then suicided without leaving his own fingerprints on the weapon?
Iran opposition to Israel's occupation of Muslim lands and territories, predates the current government of Iran. All rational non-racists, non-Zionistic people oppose Israel's occupation including the vast majority of UN member states.
Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though.
I can oppose IRA violence and British imperialism at the same time but if we're having a reasonable conversation we have to recognise that British colonial force in Ireland is what drove people to form the IRA.
Iran is stupid trying to covertly get to a nuclear bomb, Israel is very stupid with those illegal settlements. It’s costing them both a lot of sympathy.
My understanding is that most countries support a two nation solution. I have not seen any Iranian statement that accepts this. On the other hand I have seen them consistently calling for outright destruction of Israel. Given their declared intend of destruction, no one in right mind would allow them the capability of destruction.
Your "terrorists" militias predate formation of Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1979. Yasser Arafat, and all other Palestinian liberators were also labeled as terrorists.
Can you name one Palestinian who has fought against Israel's occupation and is not considered a terrorist by you?
Can you name a single Palestinian who has actually moved the needle on a functioning democratic Palestinian state? Every single current and former Palestinian leader has been heavily theocratic, has pledged to kill Jews wherever they are and has never considered sharing any of whatever power he’s gotten with anyone else.
I've never understood the argument of Muslim Land or Arab Land. If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that?
Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]. How does that become suddenly Muslim Land?
> Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]
(Links a page that shows the exact opposite)
> If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that?
Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleanse 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades?
This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read sources. All the censuses in the decades before the fall of the Ottoman empire show a Jewish majority. And for the century preceding that, the censuses flipped back and forth.
> Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleans 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades?
No. The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes Israeli (not Jewish) and the majority of the rest Arab (not Muslim, not Palestinian, and not Egyptian or Jordanian). The Arab states rejected this, and opened a war with the newly formed Israel. Many Israeli leaders pleaded with the Arab residents not to heed the Arab states' calls to evacuate. The situation in Haifa is well documented, I know this from living with Arabs in Haifa two decades ago. They tell how the Haifa mayor pleaded with their families to remain in 1948.
> This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read sources.
Exactly. The Ottoman rule of Palestine spans 400 years, and the graph at the top of the page you linked shows that Jews became a majority in Jerusalem only at the very end of it, following zionist immigration at the end of the 19th century.
> The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes Israeli (not Jewish)
The problem is that this isn't reddit and people actually read the sources. This is the text of the Partition Plan:
"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence..."
> The First Aliyah, also known as the agriculture Aliyah, was a major wave of Jewish immigration (aliyah) to Ottoman Palestine between 1881 and 1903 ... An estimated 25,000 Jews immigrated.
Jerusalem was already Jewish majority before 1881. And the large waves of the movement were towards the end, not towards the beginning.
Yes, as we said, zionist immigration to Palestine began at the end of the 19th century. Nothing to do with the small historical Jewish population of Palestine or Jerusalem.
Why do you have such a problem with Zionist immigration that made Jerusalem a Jewish-majority city? It was legal immigration allowed by Ottoman Empire. Do you see Muslims immigrating to Europe in the same light? Many previously "white" cities in Europe are now Muslim. Should Europeans call it "Muslim occupation of white land"? That sounds pretty racist. Why double standard?
Ah no, I have no problem with it, as much as Palestinians had little problem with the tens, and then hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants to their land.
Of course if the UN were suddenly to declare that half of my country is now assigned to them only to build their, say, Arab state- then I would be quite pissed. Wouldn't you?
Yes indeed, if white British people were expelled from their lands and their homes confiscated by anyone, Norse, Germanic or Russian, it'd be considered ethnic cleansing and a war crime.
The jews of Ottoman era were Sephardic and Mizrahi jews of N. Africa, not the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazis of Germany, France and Russia.
After the UN divided the holy land into an Israeli and an Arab state, the Arabs began their ethnic cleaning campaign. That is why there were zero Jews left in Gaza or the West Bank after the war. The war that was started with the stated goal of eliminating the Jews.
And note that despite Arab calls for the Arabs to evacuate the holy land, it remained 20% Arab. And let's not get started on the Jews in the other 20 plus Arab states. What at happened to them?
Like how the Arab countries expelled Jews after Israel was founded? The double standard about Israel and Arab colonization and ethnic cleansing is absurd.
I actually do know the "Muslim lands" reference. Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. It's a conquest tactic. It gets slightly reframed to be tolerable for westerners by invoking the idea that they're "indigenous", when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples.
> Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever.
What are you basing this on? Are "religious" Muslims some kind of True Scots Muslims? I'm willing to bet that if I speak to any of my Muslim neighbours none of them will agree with this.
The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula. After they accepted Islam in the 7th century, they turned to conquest other areas.
This is all well documented in Arab sources, they are very proud of this.
Oh i didn't realize we're going back more than a millennia. Well, in that case every modern nation state is the product of one form of genocide or another - the USA being the worst genocidal state, going back just 500 years.
>The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula
Seems silly to me to claim a land that "your people" inhabited centuries and millennia ago, as it honestly seems silly to me talk about "racial features" when talking about humans. Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim, christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by virtue of being of the same "race"?
> Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim, christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by virtue of being of the same "race"?
Not by virtue of being the same race, but by virtue of being the offspring of parents who are proud of their heritage and teach their children.
Denying the existence of Arab culture, of which the Arabs are (rightly, in my opinion) very proud of, is racism. Not everybody has the same values and customs as you do.
"Whilst there are a great number of perspectives that can be taken on the subject, it is impossible to form a single, all-embracing concept of European culture."
Wrong. They were given the authority by general consensus after WW2. Maybe a poor choice, but it's not at all the responsibility of current Israelis to think about what their grandparents did. For a Gen Z Israeli, there's only one country.
If they don't control it, it's not the "other people's" land either.
Land belongs to whoever controls it. That's it. That is all it will ever be.
If there is not some higher power (e.g. the UN, who you say does not have authority), you have no recourse.
No matter what land it is or who they are: nobody currently living was there first. The only claim is always "I was the last to control it". But none of us are the first.
The censuses were always flip-flopping back and forth, until the 1880s. You cherry picked one nice one, but I could check pick over half a dozen censuses that show Jewish majority during the 19th century - no less than the amount of censuses that promote the other competing narrative. And all the later censuses, after 1880, show Jewish majority. That was over three decades before the fall of the Ottoman empire.
Source for census data:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem
From wikipedia's article on the history of Palestine:
> "Most of Palestine's population, estimated to be around 200,000 in the early years of Ottoman rule, lived in villages. The largest cities were Gaza, Safad and Jerusalem, each with a population of around 5,000–6,000."
OP's point was "Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities."
What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then?
> Almost no Jews at that time either.
What a wild claim: almost no Jews in places like Jerusalem? Please cite whatever source you have to make such an extraordinary claim.
> What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then
Exactly the part that you left out: that the Jewish presence (before zionist immigration began) was of any relevance in the demography of the region.
So why was it called Palestine Partition Plan, and not Israeli partition plan:
"Palestine Partition Plan" is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on November 29, 1947. This resolution, officially titled "Future Government of Palestine," recommended the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem and its environs to be placed under a special international regime."
Exactly. Ill intended actors (Soviets, competing European interests, Islamists etc.) even propped up the propaganda fiction about the "evil" Crusaders, while in fact the Crusaders fought against colonization.
The entire north of Africa, as well as the Levante and Asia Minor was still 80-90% Christian when Crusaders came.
It's more than opposition to occupation of West Bank and Gaza. They oppose existence of Israel as they believe whole Palestine should be an Islamic state.
Israel occupies lands belonging to the Biblical patriarch Jacob. That was something like 1800 BCE, two and a half millennia before Mohammed. Islam refers to Jacob, as does the Torah/Old Testament as "Israel".
I find the repeated suggestion that those are Muslim lands because Israel is a new territory to be strange -- it can't be a Quranic position. It doesn't appear consistent with history either.
Assuming this claim were true, which it isn't, the modern Israelis have genetically nothing in common with the Jews of the old testament. They don't have the same culture, religion, language or genetics.
That's a ridiculous position. We can't organize today's world based on who was where 4 millennia ago. (If we did, most if not all countries would immediately cease to exist, starting of course with the US but not limited to them.)
I find historical claims like this not very convincing. 1800 BCE looked very different from today and if people from old civilizations start claiming their land, we would not see any end of wars. Should Italy claim most of Europe because Romans had it under their control?
You make it sound like the dispute is about who has some ancient religious right to the land. It's true that both sides claim that but it's totally disingenuous to pretend that is the reason for so much Arab anger.
People still have a living memory of specific properties in specific locations that they were forced out of and are now occupied by other families, often with some of their relatives killed in the process That applies both to places in Israel proper (displaced in 1940s to 1960s) and to Gaza and the West Bank (in the time since then). Even before the most recent war in Gaza, any Palestinian could be forced out of their home at any moment by an Israeli settler with no recourse.
Last time I checked history books said Britain donated land to Jews. At the time Britain took house land there were no state and no nation called Palestinians, just tribes. Since then Palestinians formed as a nation.
So what do you want Israel to do, disappear? Or negotiate, but with whom? The only power there is hamas which is non-negotiable. I really interested in seeing any realistic solution to the problem, however far fetched it is.
Well, considering that Israeli's are occupying land that rightfully belongs to someone else, I'd say not very well indeed. It's the final major European colonial outpost, and its fighting hard not to go the way of Algeria, Kenya, Malaya and a long long list of others.
The trouble with a regime like Iran is that they are a death cult. The price the put on human life (their own people as much as anyone else) is low, and they're all for martyrdom. With Iran, you cannot assume it's a just a deterrent in a cold war. You have to assume an increased likelihood that they will actually use them.
People are just fear mongering to suggest Iran would use them or give them to those who would. The real issue here is that once you have them, you basically entrench yourself as a regional power. If the regime started falling out of favor, all their neighbors would be obliged to come to their aid to protect the nukes. Also, you would be far more limited in how you fight your proxy war. These are the things the involved parties are considering, not Armageddon fantasies.
I don't think you realise how ignorant and racist is this idea that an entire religion and country of 90 million doesn't behave like normal human beings.
Have you lived in Iran? It's not a whole country of 90 million people who will shout "Push the button!". Most of them are unwillingly imprisoned under a regime lead by the religious zealots who will push that button, even if it means destruction of themselves and their population. Or at least, that's the assumption that the west must make, based their religious views and their past rhetoric.
There was a very interesting "street walk video" by a somewhat-famous travelling-blogger, he visited Afghanistan, talked to a lot of people, created a lot of footage of their daily life, asking about the regime etc.
This video got blocked after publishing by a political action group / NGO, it came back online only after dozens of other YouTube channels reported that.
And yes - this video depicted life of people in a theocracy ;-)
Isn't christianity the one that has martyrdom at its core? Jesus was martyred for our sins after all. Christians can’t really be trusted not to sacrifice themselves at the drop of a roman helmet.
Or not. Perhaps, we understand the nuances of that because we were raised in a christian culture, but don’t understand the nuances of martyrdom in islam because we weren’t raised in a muslim culture? I know that’s true for me, i assume that’s true for any non-muslim who claims stuff about the core of islam.
You are wrong. Muslims don't wake up trying to get martydom asap. Protecting life (own included) is top-most goal, so much that even harming your body (tattoos etc) is strictly prohibited.
> They woke up and started bombing Israel for no apparent reason or they are responding to Israeli attacks ?
You failed to answer my question. Why?
Check out YouTube and see the high rate of ballistic missiles thrown at Israel. Those existed for years, and were developed for this exact purpose. It just so happened they didn't have the nuclear warhead yet.
I repeat the question: are you really asking why a country would be afraid of a regime which is literally raining ballistic missiles over them?
Reducing the Middle East conflict so much makes the entire discussion useless. If you want to point at someone guilty, look at the British who fucked up Palestine big time. Everything since then is a spiral of revenge and spite.
Would they? How would they deliver it? If they were caught trying to do it, what would happen?
Why is an Iranian weapon somehow different do one held by any other country? Countries with them usually don’t use them, and the one that has is attacking Iran.
The first thing I would want to do after wearing Israeli shoes would be to find a way to flee immediately and disassociate myself from being complicit with the ongoing genocide (or to resist it if I were in such a position), Iran's hostility be damned.
In which case, I suppose that any resistance I might do would have the state call me an anti-Semite.
Anybody who would throw a nuke at Israel would be incinerated a minute later. To suggest Iran would do it anyway is equivalent to saying that they're completely, crazy, fanatical, genocidal and stupid, which is a deeply racist, dehumanising statement.
The dehumanising thing is to steadfastly believe that deep down everyone holds secular liberal values, regardless of their words and actions.
Secular discussion about conflict in the Middle East frequently discounts the possibility that self-professed religious fundamentalists are in fact religious fundamentalists. A lot of Israeli settlers really do believe that they are fulfilling a sacred duty. A lot of Palestinians really do believe that becoming a martyr for al-Aqsa guarantees them an eternity in paradise. A lot of American Evangelicals really do believe that conflict in the Middle East will bring about the day of judgement.
I might believe that we live in a godless and meaningless universe in which death is final, but that puts me in a very small minority. Most people -throughout history and across the world - frequently act in ways that are totally irrational from a secular perspective, but are perfectly logical within a framework of faith.
You’d need to make a distinction between the Iranian regime, a corrupt band of thieves in charge of the government, infused by religion, and the Iranian people, who have been suffering through this for almost half a century. Any criticism is directed against the former, and fully valid: These people are fanatical idiots, albeit dangerous.
That is why they formed the Axis of Resistance. They will act through their proxies. And imagine if Hezbollah or the Houthis got nuclear weapons, the whole world would be threatened.
> To suggest Iran would do it anyway is equivalent to saying that they're completely, crazy, fanatical, genocidal and stupid
It's the Iranian government saying they'd do it, not westerners. And you seem to have some sort of culture complex. Their culture is different than yours (not better, not worse, but different) and for them dying to liberate land from infidels is not crazy, it is the highest honour their society bestows.
There is nothing racist or dehumanising about acknowledging cultures different from your own. In fact, I would say that assuming everybody adheres to your cultural values is the racist position.
No, Israel is not using religious norms or holy scriptures as the law, and establishes no state religion. Iran's constitution directly says that the norms of the Sharia law are its foundation, and makes Shia Islam the state religion.
"Jewish State" literally means religious norms and holy scriptures are considered a law. Rabbinical courts are part of the Israeli legal system, which operates religious courts in parallel to the civil court system.
The rabbinical courts exist for sorting out religious issues, such as religious marriages and divorces of Jewish citizens. Judaism is not even special-cased: «Such courts exist for the recognized religious communities in Israel, including Muslim courts, Christian courts, and Jewish Rabbinical courts.» (Wikipedia).
The Basic Laws, which sort of comprise the makeshift constitution of Israel, don't seem to make any religious references, but rather refer to the founding UN principles like human rights.
I would say the US is too at this point, given continued references to god by its leaders. A country where a senator can say he supports a certain foreign policy because it's written in the Bible?
They might be fanatical, but to the point of desiring the destruction of themselves, their loved ones, their country, their culture, their literature, their history.. just to inflict genocide on others? This is a dehumanising thought.
Besides, the fanatical leader of that country has said in clear terms that they consider nuclear weapons forbidden by their religion. They have also said in clear terms that oppose the "Israeli regime" and the existence of Israel as a political entity- that's what they mean by "destruction of Israel", not nuking it.
In 1930s and early 1940s, emperor Hirohito of Japan approved of a number of terrible things done by the Japanese imperial armed forces to people of China and Korea, and warred bitterly with the US. But once he realized that he's losing the war, and Japan can be just destroyed by nuclear bombs, he decided to surrender, in order to avoid the complete destruction of his country and senseless deaths of Japanese people. (This is somehow documented.) He cared about the Japanese and Japan more than he cared about his majesty, or honor, or abstract ideas; he agreed to abdicate of all his powers.
Sadly, I highly doubt that the regime of the ayatollahs is going to act like that, instead of fighting fanatically to the bitter end and the last drop of Iranian blood if need be. (A bitter end is very far from the current situation though.)
yes I think so, if they believe that they are stopping another genocide then they'd conceivably be willing to risk their own genocide to help do what's right.
You make it sound like it's some natural law that they have to destroy the state of Israel. I mean, did you even think about this when you heard it for the first time? Do you think your common Iranian citizen wake up in the morning and feels the natural urge to destroy Israel? What is this?
Be serious.
This is no justification to ignore international law. But that's dead now. Nobody will ever care again until we're done with the next big war or something. Bomb away...
The word “and” can be used to delineate two linked ideas. Sometimes they’re closely linked ideas like bombing someone AND accusing them of being two weeks away from nukes for decades. Sometimes they’re less closely linked ideas, like bombing someone AND committing genocide against someone else.
Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel.
The whole “preemptive strike” stuff is BS and not a serious argument.
What are you pointing at there? Their position from 1979 which is 12 years after 1967?
Also, let’s leave rhetoric aside. What is the actual record of violence between Israel and anyone else? It’s not even close https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties
Israel here is the aggressor. Not acknowledging that makes no sense and doesn’t leave grounds for any meaningful discussion.
In 2015, former Basij chief and senior RIGC officer, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, stated in an interview that the destruction of Israel is "nonnegotiable". In addition, according to the Times of Israel, Naqdi said that during the summer Gaza conflict with Israel, a significant portion of Hamas’s weaponry, training, and technical expertise was provided by Iran.[27][28] In 2019, Naqdi made a direct call for the destruction of Israel during a televised interview. Naqdi asserted that the Zionist regime must be "annihilated and destroyed," asserting "This will definitely happen." He declared his intention to one day raise the flag of the Islamic Revolution over Jerusalem.
Rhetoric aside. What was the actual record of violence when Hitler published „My Struggle“ in 1925, laying out his ideas of solving the „Jewish question“? Why should one believe the evil of it lays out its plans way in advance?
> Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel.
Even by your own logic, do you believe that having a country threaten your existence is not reason enough to want them destroyed?
> they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.
Do they? What is this based on? My understanding was that they were reacting to a pattern of imperialism of which Israel was the crown jewel. Is there actually something inherent about the Shi'ite religion which says Israel must fall?
Iran was one of the first countries in the Middle East to recognize Israel. But it all changed since Islamic Revolution. Their official position since than have been that Israel cannot exist. They don't even refer to it as Israel but as "Zionist Regime". It's their official public position and what they say on their (government controlled) TV. They've been fighting proxy war with Israel since 80s.
I'm not sure that answers my question. They could have a political belief that Israel must fall but you haven't shown a reason to believe it's based on their religious beliefs. Obviously the two things are tied up together but I don't believe that if a Jewish homeland state had been created in Western Europe or in Antarctica that Iran would have an issue with it. Their problem is surely that Israel represents an historical and continuing power play by Western forces, a springboard from which the US and it's allies can encourage coups, wage wars and dominate the trade of the natural resources in the region. It seems like a very practical concern more than a religious one.
It doesn't matter for Israel weather it's based on religious belief or not. But Iran does frame their opposition in Islamic context in its communication to Iranian people. E.g. Khamenei says things like "fighting Israel to liberate Palestine is an obligation and an Islamic jihad."
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-supreme-leader-israel-cancerous...
It might not matter for Israel but it matters for me as an Irishman watching the rest of the world getting sucked into a conflict.
Framing it as a religious opposition paints Iran as an irrational actor which can't be reasoned with, when it appears to me that it's behaving the way it's been pushed to behave by encroaching colonial forces.
I don't believe in Islam or in Judaism but I do believe in radical discourse and trying to understand the position of the other. Saying "it's their religion to be bloody violent and destructive, what can we do?" throws any space for understanding out of the window.
In my view, religion is the set of ideologies that plays the children’s game of one-upping each other’s numbers until one of the children says “infinity” and sticks fingers in ears, sayin the game is over.
By this I mean the religious ideological move is eternal punishment for what they deem unsatisfactory or eternal bliss for compliance, no other branch.
Other ideologies invoke similar (infinite growth in capitalism, e.g.) but those are hyperbole for proselytization. An ideology that attempts to persuade with either the most egregious stick possible or the most delicious carrot possible makes religion the least palatable of ideologies.
> What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all.
You're misunderstanding their position and that's why it seems idiotic to you: they stopped working on building nukes back in 2003, after that date all they did was using the ability to get nukes as a negotiation leverage, that's how they got JPCoA in 2015 and since the US unilaterally left it in 2018 and the rest of the Western world failed to keep it working (that would have required courage to anger the US), Iran was seeking to force a new deal by raising the bar a bit: they announced back in 2022 that they'd enrich up to 60% in order to increase their negotiation leverage, but they didn't go past that stage nor did they work on the militarization tech in the meantime, because they weren't aiming to get the bomb at all.
May as well get on the record here and now I'm against it, I guess. Not that anyone's asking my opinion, I'm from among the social classes whose job it is to go get killed in these things so the wealthy have something to be erect and/or lachrymose about. But this way at least when I'm old and facing kidney failure I can tell some smug young snot I espoused their politics before they learned the word "cool."
This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction.
Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases.
This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing and showing the world they won’t defend themselves is worse.
The US will again bankroll another big, more expensive war to the tune of trillions more in debt. Another decade of war ahead with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. The cycle repeats.
I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either.
Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.
The lack of appetite in the US didn’t stop this. And the lack of appetite among normal Iranians won’t matter much.
War is better for regime survival than peace. This is a country ruled by a very scared elite that isn’t held accountable for anything and whose only means of survival is creating continuous distractions from domestic failures. And it’s similar in Iran.
The Iranian regime has gone through serious military blows in the past and survived. Their best course of action is de-escalation and regaining domestic control.
Not when your adversary has air superiority and they can just kill at will the leaders and elite and not the schmucks. Israel's tactics is to kill important people and links.
Do you think there will be boots on the ground? It seems more likely to me that Trump will escalate only through air attacks, fail to achieve much, and then either end the war by walking away, or throwing nukes.
Dubious proof?! Iran has been blatantly pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and the west (along with much of the rest of the world and the middle east) has been working to counter it the whole time.
Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.
If it wanted nuclear weapons, it would just buy some from Pakistan.
Their actions do not follow the conclusion you state.
What is clear now though to any Iranian is that they should get nuclear weapons asap.
Diplomacy is just a tool used by the west to string you along while they get ready to bomb you
It is very likely false that Iran had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them. This was also the position of US intelligence, until they were forced by higher-ups to speak different words.
Of course, Iran very much wanted the ability to make a nuke, and they probably could have had one ready in 1 or 2 years. But the proof put forward in defense of this strike is claiming Iran was weeks away from nukes. That proof is dubious.
(Also interesting to consider how US retreat from the nuclear deal under Trump 1 has affected and shaped the current situation)
Yes, dubious proof. A quick Google search can reveal this claim has been bs for decades, consistently evaluated by the US’ own intelligence, up until a day ago [0]
I think Netanyahu belongs in prison, and Trump, the less said the better, but: couldn't have happened to a nicer unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility dug into the side of a mountain hours outside of population centers.
If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they can make a bomb, not with explosives but just with mass. They should have shaped it like a giant piano.
It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know.
In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.
recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe.
Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.
> Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.
They always immediately stop their conflicts once the building opposite of the one with the nuclear command center blows up. So... it seems to work for them
both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). the countries not having nukes are still in much worse situation
I mean israel gets attacked even though they have nukes, but some rockets are not the same as a regime-changing war
> both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt).
Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis.
You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make.
It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
> It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments.
I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
Except that police exists. We willingly relinquish the monopoly of violence to the state that protects us. The world nation stage is anarchic instead, there is no world police, and the strong dominate
It's an interesting analogy. I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people. There, we allow gun use, but under stricter conditions. The majority agrees that this is right, so the system works.
What is "the police" on the level of countries? There is no majority that agrees that, e. g., the NATO can serve as the police. It feels like on this level, we live in an anarchy with only very few actors who don't really want to live together. So maybe nukes are an option, although I don't like it.
In properly safe countries this is of course not true. But sadly the world stage still seems to be on the development level of ”lawless neighborhood” so there’s some merit to the idea (not that it is necessarily the best way forward though).
North Korea wasn't attacked because they have rocket artillery trained on Seoul. That's why nobody stopped them from developing nukes in the first place. Kim doesn't need nuclear weapons to cause nuclear-scale damage.
I think GP is right, sadly. The logical conclusion from Ukraine, Iran and North Korea is, get nukes. UN designations of illegal wars turned out to be BS, the only thing that may work is nukes.
Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon.
We all hooray (well, some of us) the "good" countries having nukes, to bring peace and stability. But it only takes one funky election to get a crazy person in charge of such "good" nukes. And if you 10x the number of nuclear powers, that's 10x more shots at that.
Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon.
I don't intend this as a drive-by zinger, far from it, but I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. Every country with the science and engineering muscle to make it happen will be pursuing a nuclear program. NATO, former Warsaw Pact, some assholes who managed to cobble together a broadly recognized country by virtue of force of will, you name it. They're all going to be seeking to create nuclear weapons.
GP is missing one very relevant example of Libya.
Gaddafi was persuaded by the west to abandon his nuclear programme, and 8 years later he was dead in a ditch.
It's the prisoners dilemma: best scenario is nobody has nukes. But if your enemy get nukes, you better get them ASAP. A Nash equilibrium is set where everybody should either have nukes or be strongly allied with someone with nukes.
Regarding guns: if you have easy access to weapons, everyone also has access, so the Nash equilibrium is "get a weapon". If weapons circulation is restricted, the Nash equilibrium is "don't waste your money on weapons".
Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless.
Invasion of Afghanistan only happened after diplomatic efforts to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden. Iraq invasion was pushed through UN. Likewise, the Balkan war in 1990s was UN-sanctioned.
This? I mean, never mind the question of nukes, I don't think anyone declared war. Iran is a buffet of pick-your-own-target, in the middle of a negotiation that was supposed to end the nuclear program peacefully. I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. It's a step back from a world, where at least in theory we were supposed to stay within the frameworks of principle-based laws.
You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. Maybe. But I'd like to think it set a limit to how far they can bend it. Now? I'm not so sure.
> I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it.
Well, Iran has been funding armies to the tune of millions (billions?) of dollars to attack Israel, as well as funding multiple terror attacks against Jews and against the US for many years.
So, alternative view - the fact that Iran has been allowed to do this, while the entire time stating quite clearly that they intend to destroy another sovereign country, while at the same time develop most of what they need for nukes - the fact that they've been allowed to do all this is actually proof that countries can do whatever they want and get away with it. And stopping their program is actually a way to show that countries can't just get away with it.
Israel isn't even close to the most recent country that got nukes (and they never signed the non-proliferation treaty) so I'm not sure why you have beef with them in particular.
I'm not saying I have beef with it. I would be happier with a world where fewer countries, including Iran and Israel, have nukes. I'm saying legality of nukes seems 100% derived from a calculus of power, not first principles - that includes US, UK, Russia, China, everyone.
If a mafia boss defines anything he gets away with as legal, that's not aligned with what we commonly think of as legal justice and thus a pointless distinction.
There is no justice nor glory to be had in nuclear weapons, but they exist, and need to be contained to as few entities that can use them as possible. Like seriously, the ideal number of nuclear warheads in the world is 0, but that is not the world we were born into.
So I've made peace with mafia boss power politics keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons on the low end of the spectrum, and for that matter I'd support a much more aggressive approach to that end than we have seen these last 30 years.
Everyone will agree with that. It's pretty obvious NK got nukes because they had an ally strong enough to shield them. "Unauthorized" referred to precisely the lack of credible support from a strong ally.
Didn't Netanyahu perjure himself to congress about iraq's wmds two decades? Isn't that grounds for arrest? It's amazing how our media never mentions that netanyahu is a habitual liar when they push netanyahu's iran's wmds spiel.
At this point our media companies are israel's PR department. Fox news should be banned like RT for being a foreign mouthpiece.
Maybe, but worth saying the ICC have issued a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes. The reason he hasn't been arrested is:
- The ICC is just a court, not a police department. Only countries have those, and while Netanyahu is in Israel, his own police probably won't arrest him.
- Authoritarian governments like Trump, Orban, Putin are actively undermining the ICC, which makes enforcement even less likely.
I believe no US administration ever acknowledged the ICC. By the way, the German chancellor just said he wouldn't arrest Netanyahu if he came to Germany.
If there is a nation that cannot be expected to act with equanimity in regards to Israel, that's Germany. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ICC, that Germany has always recognised.
We're going to start dropping some freedom munitions on every nation that wants to export a looneytunes religious viewpoint? Physician, heal thyself...
Seriously, though. There are thousands of tin-pot dictators who would love to remake the world in their image. None of them have the ability to do so, including Iran. What makes this one special? Other than it being a very convenient target in a news cycle with some very inconvenient stories?
Be the cause of the terrorism, then talk of how you're the "tip of the spear" in preventing terrorism. You'd need to be special to be that kind of deluded.
With these strikes, it seems more like Israel has ample intelligence on the US government than it has on the Middle East, since even DNI concurred that there was no proof of WMDs.
I don't know what Netanyahu said so he may have perjured himself, but Iraq technically had WMD. They weren't nukes, but the chemical variety and most of them weren't stored properly.
It was ginned up BS that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.
Sure glad we spent a generation of lives and treasure, and maybe the golden years of the American hegemony on that boondoggle to take care of a few crappy chemical weapons in some dusty sand pit of a country.
If you read up on Iraq's history of WMDs, the relevance of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons was that Saddam's regime had already a long history of developing and using these types of weapons both against neighbors and its own civilians. When Saddam decided to invade and annex Kuwait, half the world united to act, drive him out, and eliminate Iraq's WMD programmes. After the first gulf war, the UN was in charge of verifying that Saddam's regime destroyed it's existing stockpile and WMD programmes, but Saddam not only actively prevented the UN from doing any form of verificarion but also outright antagonized the UN.
It was with this backdrop that the "Iraq has WMDs" campaign managed to get traction. If you learn history and pay attention to the events, you'll quickly understand that Saddam's antagonism and mockery of the whole UN institution, specially when they self-isolated, was an easy sell even with weak evidence.
Making this out to be a simple matter exclusively and bounded to the existence of WMDs is naive and outright ignorant.
> Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:
The article says an awful lot more, such as pointing out the fact that Saddam's regime not only ran WMD development programmes for decades but also had a long and verified track record of using them in military engagements and even against civilians.
The article also points out the fact that once Saddam's regime was defeated in it's botched attempt at invading and annexing Kuwait, it rejected and outright antagonized the UN's programme that foresaw terminating Saddam's WMD programmes.
Trying to spin the issue as a simplistic "they had no WMDs" is ignorant to the point of being nearly disingenuous. You need to ignore everything and the whole history to make such a simplistic and superficial observation.
> The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".
It's not s problem at all. It's actually the whole point.
Following Saddam's botched invasion of Kuwait, the regime was ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile. The UN was mandated to foresee Saddam's WMD programmes were destroyed. Saddam spent the following years outright preventing the UN to do any form of verification, and went to the extent of outright antagonizing them.
So you reach a point where a totalitarian regime with a long and proven track record of developing and using WMDs refuses to show it got rid of it's WMDs. How can you tell if they still have it if they actively prevent the UN from checking?
You instead receive intel that suggests Saddam is indeed not only stockpiling WMDs but also actively developing them.
Do you think it's unreasonable to enforce the decision?
It's tempting to look back and take the simplistic and ignorant path of saying "there were no WMDs". This however denies all facts and state of affairs. In fact, the whole WMD talk is a red herring.
"Yes, we did lie. But in hindsight, our lie did not affect anyone's decision making. The truthful part by itself was enough to convince everyone who was convinced."
Let’s hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran. otherwise it may have just given a brief pause and further escalation.
If the regime survives, now Iranian people have a very good reasons to ignore its shortcomings and tyranny and Do a proper sacrifice. It’s a natural resources rich nation of 90 million people. If they want to get serious, they can get serious.
Well the mass destruction and death in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya came with regime change but what followed was more death and chaos that none have fully recovered from. I'm sorry but that "we'll just bomb the country and hope that helps" attitude is utterly stupid and has been repeatedly proven to be deeply ineffective
I don't think we have a historical precedence to what is happening here. The closest would be Israel's attack on Hezbollah which literally collapsed and led to the collapse of the Syrian regime as well.
The Iranian regime is very centralized and with Israel and the USA having air superiority and having penetrated it completely from an intelligence perspective (see Israel's perfect knowledge of the whereabouts of the previous chief of staff and the newly appointed chief of staff) it's going to be very hard for it to survive if a decision is made to remove it. There are a handful of key people that once gone there is not going to be any continuity.
The current regime is allowed to continue because of fear of chaos if it is removed, not because there isn't a capability to remove it.
First footage from the area doesn't appear to show any extended damage, so maybe it was all a show.
Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. This, IMHO, can have very bad outcomes for the peace worldwide since it means that anybody who can bomb someone can just go ahead and do it. No more international order.
What's next then? Bomb Brussels because EU doesn't buy chicken from USA? This stuff isn't OK.
The regime change in Iran can be a silver lining if it changes with something more cooperative. But yes, I agree that this is unlikely.
> Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can.
The dictatorial nature of Trump's order to attack a nation is far more concerning. Supposedly the US requires an act of Congress to authorize this sort of operation. Sidestepping congress underlines US's descent into totalitarianism and one of the very first acts crystalizing a dictatorship.
According to my Iranian friends (even the most hardline Ayatollah haters), most Iranians hate the regime, but they'll rally behind them if boots land on the ground.
Many of them still look at the Iran-Iraq war with a shade of Iranian patriotism (not sure there's a word to capture that actual feeling of sad memories of losing family members, coupled with a patriotic sense of duty).
The younger generation, not so much, since they didn't have to live through that hell.
Not necessarily but this is also not the end of the campaign. If Israel and US take out their ultimate bargaining chip and have air supremacy then the room to maneuver for the ayatollah is quite small. What happens next inside Iran is anyone’s guess. There have been multiple waves of very large protests in the past five years. What’s stopping mossad from delivering rifles to them from Syria or an airdrop at this point of escalation
Even if the regime doesn't survive, what's our track record in Iranian regime change like? What are the chances people there swallow their pride and roll over? If anything, Khomeini is probably a moderate compared to a lot of what we could end up with after 'regime change' (lol)
What are the chances that the peaceful, think it through, be reasonable crowd is ready to organize the next regime. Or maybe the hotheads with guns are ready to shoot first aim later.
Perhaps forcing regime changes on other countries shouldn't be a quick decision.
He is asking a valid question. Experts on the issue also warn that there is no guarantee that what replaces the current regime would be any more amenable.
I guess it’s all about how it’s handled afterwards. Germany and Japan have become huge US allies after some proper bombings.
Just recently Trump tried to troll the Germany’s leader for it and only got a “Thank you for defeating us”.
The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one and a lot of people have grievances with it but the problem is, this is about Israel and they are not any better and didn’t stand at a higher moral ground with their illegal occupation and actions that many consider genocidal.
1939, Nazi Germany starts fucking around and nobody does anything about it and then we have WWII on our hands.
You've totally missed the point. It's precisely because we didn't "properly" bomb Germany to stop that first invasion of Poland, that WWII happened and we lost 400,000 Americans, 6 million Jews etc.
The only thing this parent got wrong is the dates. Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime would have collapsed if the West had stood up to:
* The militarization of the Rhineland in 1936
* The Anschluss with Austria in March 1938
* The annexation of the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia) in October 1938
The German army was weak in the 1930s and his generals very hesitant. Hitler's "reckless" successes gave him credibility and power.
Apparently Hitler was genuinely surprised when the west declared war after the invasion of Poland. He expected the cowardly West to roll over again.
I recommend Childers' "World War II: A Military and Social History" if you're into this kind of thing.
I get this a lot from a guy I do trust, and his old man is an Iranian immigrant, but I also recognize my sources are very biased against the regime.
Is there any good reporting out there or sentiment analysis that can show this? Or is it all word of mouth on the Internet? It's okay if there is nothing, but I'd feel a lot better if there was something substantial to back this up too.
The US has no desire or intent to occupy Iran. It would take a year just to move enough forces to even contemplate it. Iran is mountainous which makes this a lot harder than Iraq.
It is also completely unnecessary. There are two options. Either the current regime makes a "deal" or it's going to get crippled to the point of irrelevance or removed.
Iran and Iraq are very different. Different culture, people and history. It's also worth remembering Iran is not homogeneous, only 61% of the population are Persians. There are Azeri, there are Kurds and various other ethnic/region minorities.
Iran is extremely vulnerable. It has internal issues, constantly oppressing/suppressing its people. Its economy is in terrible shape. Most of its economic engine can be easily taken out (its main oil terminals). The bulk of its military can be destroyed from the air, it has little defensive or offensive capability. They know it.
I think what you are missing is how vulnerable the United States and its allies are in the region.
There are much much softer targets than Tel Aviv, many of which Iran has successfully attacked in the past.
The argument that the Iranian people hate their autocratic government might be correct. But a symmetric argument can be made about many of the regimes which work with the United States. No one in those countries is going to war with Iran to defend the US right to have military bases in the Middle East.
Then wouldn’t it be best to prop up groups on the inside? Start with providing restricted airspaces to groups who hate the regime, and let them be autonomous regions. That wouldn’t need any boots on the ground.
Say you give the Kurds their own part of Iran and help protect their area could weaken the rest. I think there is already such a deal in in Iraq afaik.
Don’t think the current guy in the white house is much into nation building. Also after Iraq and 20 years wasted in Afghanistan - Americans are less likely to care about rebuilding a country.
Well, its done now. All we can do is to hope for the better outcome and ever more powerful ideological regime is not the better outcome. Trump might just guaranteed that though. He isn’t good at this international relations and peacemakings stuff.
60%? Serious citation needed. The largest Christian population in Iran are Armenians. There are far fewer than 1 million Armenians in Iran. So unless you have evidence for the claim that there are 50+ million atheists in Iran, the number just defies belief.
I would be shocked if there were 50 million atheists in America. Maybe if you included people who are spiritual but do not believe directly in a god. Maybe I could accept it then, but at that point, you are stretching the definition of 'atheist' to its breaking point.
Trump thinks regime change will happen instantly and easily. Maybe he has secret source front NSA and CIA, who track private messages of Iranians! 60% of Iranians are secret christians. 38% are closeted gays!
A few bombs, everyone comes out of closet, unconditional surrender, democracy, live happily ever after... Sounds like American movie...
It's like there's an echo from every other stupid poll-raising middle east adventure we've ever gotten into.
This is a stupid war being waged by idiots against idiots . Unfortunately none of those idiots calling the shots will die, it'll be a bunch of kids who just made the mistake of not being rich and powerful enough.
America allies, Saudi head chop more than Iran. And there are 100K Jews in Iran and they get into parliament too. Show me that in Israel. You got confused with Saudi and Pakistan. Dont think 60% there Christian or atheist there. Westrrn media is always BS. They got so many wrongs since 2 deacdes ago, I read way less western stuff these days. Otherwise my whole world view looks like Marvel MCU and Tom Cruise with Arnie running around with guns.
It is ending a bit like Ming dynasty and Rome towards the end. Corruptions rife everywhere. Leaders try to be competent and yet ended making more mess. You can already see China is doing 5nm. Best camera phone is Huawei. Best EV in both variants models and quality and total volume sales, BYD. Tesla get decimated. Even AI China is on par. In terms of talents, you can see how well Americans read and count. In 30 years time, you need to learn Chinese and maybe Russian. I dont see America will be much viable pass the next 30 years. If you get a Dem prez, the country will be saturated with illegals. If you get JD, debrs will spiral out of control while opening a warfront in the middle east with Iran and China. This is basically empire ending scenario.
In 30 years time there will be fewer Mandarin speakers than there are today, and far fewer Russian speakers. This has nothing to do with Americans; four out of five English speakers live in other countries. It's the consequence of Metcalf's Law in age of internet communication, combined with obvious demographic trends.
>If you get a Dem prez, the country will be saturated with illegals
Is this, in your mind, how empires end? I'm not sure if you've cracked a history book in a while, but immigrants built this country. We are a country of immigrants. We win when we get the hardest working, most entrepreneurial, boldest and smartest people to come here. Immigrants are no couch potatoes - on average they work harder than American born citizens do by an order of magnitude for way less pay.
No matter what. America getting them self into this, so fast is going to lead to a lot of worldwide drama distracting from the disastrous financial situation of the US.
If the regime survives, it is also going to target (and murder) a whole hell of a lot of innocent civilians that it suspects aided Israel (and many/most will almost certainly be innocent). Due process is not a thing with IRGC.
My conclusion from the last 30 years of regime changes in ME is, be careful what you wish for. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt - they all had their regimes "improved" by well-meaning (?) external powers, and they all went pretty badly.
That's not to endorse any of these regimes, including the current Iranian one, just saying the variance is enormous around these events.
They don’t care about the regime, they only want it to be aligned with the US and Israel. The Saudi absolute monarchy regime (something that is way worst than the Iranian one) that is directly coming from middle ages, doesn’t get the same journalistic treatment in the US. Women rights in Iran are lightyears ahead of what is happening in Saudi Arabia. But who cares? Talking about Iran regime change only is pure hypocrisy when your best friend in the region can kill anyone by just deciding it.
Actually, Saudi Arabia doesn't beat woman to death for not wearing a hijab (although they're not great either). Saudi is ranked 56 on the Gender Inequality Index, whereas Iran is 113. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
Israel hasn't really engaged in regime change. If anything the opposite. There was a single failed attempt to get the Christians into power in Lebanon. But mostly sort of the devil I know. We have Hussein in Jordan. We had Assad in Syria. Egypt had its own turmoils but not much Israeli involvement. The PA and Hamas were also viewed as a stabler alternative to chaos. Saudi and the emirates pretty stable. Turkey (not quite middle east but whatever) also have their internal turmoil. Iran has been stable as well.
Why there is regime change there? You are watching fake news projected by your own government for your bubble. The regime now is way stronger. Their economy now is also significantly bigger and stronger (hint: China). A fresh grad there can find job in less than 2 weeks. Try that in UK or NY...even 6mths would be atough endevour.
Iran has smaller gdp than israel and 12 times it's population. They are a delusional dwarf, and they beat and blind women that refuse to wear headscarf. So I wouldn't mind some dead and crippled clergy and IRGC as long as there are no boots on the ground. Just kill the elites until the population sorts the thing themselves.
Exactly. Libya is non threatening and doesn't sponsor terrorism as of late. That the Libyans decided to fuck things up internally doesn't change the fact that externally it was a success.
Let’s hope whatever intel that says Iran really does have nukes is true, given its propensity as a scapegoat for previous wars. Don’t forget that less than 2 months ago, senior intelligence officials said conclusively Iran was not close to having nuclear weapons.
Another source, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[0]
On that page you can download an unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment [pdf] where on page 26 it states:
>> We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
I also think there is more reading in there that may interest people here.
Leaving aside the accuracy of this claim, "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".
The nuclear physicists got the glory for the Manhattan Project, but the enrichment was the vast majority of the time and cost[1]. Similar ratios apply today. There is zero question that Iran's government is spending a significant fraction of its GDP on enrichment activity that would be economically absurd except as a step towards nuclear weapons--they acknowledge it proudly!
That doesn't mean these strikes were necessarily a good idea. There's no question that Iran was working actively towards a bomb though, even if "building a weapon" gets redefined narrowly to exclude almost all the actual effort.
> "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".
Agreed. However, taking into account the full statement (provided by the collective U.S. Intelligence Services) to include the parts about: Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003 and that he has final say in the matter, says they were not working actively towards a bomb.
But there was growing advocation for doing so. Now they have been emboldened further and been given fuel to advocate restarting the program. If Khamenei had so far kept the pro-nuke elements of the regime at bay, this strike may force the very thing that foreign Intelligence roped us into "stopping".
I am not saying they did not have the means; they will rebuild the means, and now they will have the motivation as well as know-how in a way that will be more difficult to stop.
So it seems that due to imprecise language people disagree on the exact place of the red line the US (and Israel) were drawing. The post you responded to was indicating that the red line was, as a sibling comment mentioned, the breakout time from political decision to working nuclear weapon. Many other people, yourself included, seem to consider the red line to be the political decision itself. This red line now may be crossed in response to our first strike after their violation of the breakout time red line. If we were successful it seems as though the message is clear, we will use overwhelming military force to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. So even if the political decision gets made to build one, any attempt to restart the process - which isn't exactly stealthy - will be met with similar force. If we failed though, then we might get to see a nuclear weapon being used in modern times.
I think this becomes a definitions game again. I'd consider a country to be "working actively towards a bomb" when it's taking costly steps that provide no commensurate benefit except towards a nuclear weapons program. At that point, there's no rational explanation for their actions except that they're working towards the bomb.
So e.g. enrichment of uranium to <3.67% (as permitted by the JCPOA) is not such a step, since that's also economically useful for civilian nuclear power. Enrichment to 60% is such a step--the only conceivable civilian uses are niches for which the cost would far exceed any benefit.
It seems you agree they're enriching in the latter way, but you don't count that as "working actively towards a bomb". So what definition are you using for that phrase? We obviously can't just let the Iranian government decide, or they'll define everything short of a successful test as part of their "peaceful explosive lenses program" or whatever.
My general sense is that the JCPOA was working reasonably well, and it's unfortunate that Trump exited. To the extent these strikes were a necessary solution, they might be to a problem of his own making. I agree that Iran could be emboldened and merely delayed here. That may imply an inevitable endgame of either regime change or near-total destruction of Iran's economic capacity, big escalations and risks.
Sure, but so can foreign Intelligence that the America First Trump team decided was way better than US Intelligence that tax payers are paying obscene amounts for. So, I guess we just pick which ever one fits what we find more important to listen to.
This stinks of Iraq & WMD. Which the U.S. Intelligence made drastic changes to prevent happening again.
Only now we were on the side of saying there is no proof it was actively being worked on, and the person/state with "proof" also happens to be the state that has been bitterly opposed to Iran and started launching unprovoked missiles. That state also knows how to get what it wants from this administration and suddenly we go from, there is no proof they are doing nefarious things with their program, to they are about nuke us all if we don't do something; all in a matter of weeks.
The alternative was to do nothing , let them continue the obvious nuclear weapon nation program. I am surprised we hadn’t attacked them earlier given what they did to our troops in Iraq with EFPs or Ukraine with the Shahed drones.
Yes & No. Thats what I understood the Trump campaign promised, to stop military meddling in other countries religious (or otherwise) conflicts.
Diplomacy is not nothing, and has kept the Iran program from restarting (going by US reports that it was stopped). Now it is all but sure to start up again. Unless the goal was for the US to be suckered into forcing a regime change, and we all know how well those attempts have gone.
> I am surprised we hadn’t attacked them earlier given what they did to our troops in Iraq with EFPs
If it happened at that time with proof and congressional approval then okay, but thats not an excuse for now. Thats how states end up in a war that lasts for a couple or more millennia
I think a good way of explaining what the Iranian government has been doing, is actively working on reducing breakout time without actually making the breakout decision
"Breakout time" is how long it takes a country between the political decision to build a nuclear weapon, and actually having one which is militarily usable
Israel has also been sabotaging their program and murdering scientists for the same time. Maybe it's an instance of the prevention paradox? Together with the fact that things sometimes naturally need MUCH more time than anticipated?
Presumably if Saddam had built a large reinforced concrete bunker deep in the side of a mountain hours from the nearest city, that might be a place fairly high on your checklist?
What is the term for political leaders who fill their speeches with a Boogeyman rather than doing their job? I feel there should be a term for it. Ideally one that describes them in pairs. Like a boogey marriage.
Why bring him up? No one cares about him. He's been lying about it all those years until it became true, that doesn't mean it's still false. I can say the universe will be destroyed in a year, I'll eventually be right.
"Will be done in 'x' months" vs "Could be ready within 'x' months" are distinct statements.
My project managers often ask how long a project would take. I might say something like "two weeks after we're approved to start".
The PMs will wait a few months, approve the project, and then look flabbergasted when it is not instantaneously completed! "But you had all this time! Months ago you said it would take weeks!"
You would have thought folks would have learned from the Iraq War that the US lies. I'm no fan of Khomeini's sabre-rattling, but if people are really buying into the narrative that we did this because they had nukes, idk what to tell you besides go read your history.
It isn't just the US that lies, its politicians and leaders. People in charge want to keep power, and the only ones willing to fight their way to the top don't deserve the power of office.
Folks do know. Folks knew before the Iraq war too.
But what does this generic knowledge have to do with anything, when the military action is already decided for geo-political reasons? The only decision to make is what pretext to use.
In a way, the 'iraq wmd' justification has proven it's value as a pretext - so why not tweak it and use it again?
If they thought Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be attacking them. Nobody thinks Iran had a nuclear weapon, or that they are even trying that hard to get one.
I don't understand this argument; why would you have a large, acknowledged, underground nuclear purification unit if it wasn't for bombs?
Why wouldn't you cooperate with their regular IAEA inspection if it wasn't for bombs?
They might be making the bombs, but once they are made (and the delivery mechanism exists), then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation.
The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
> then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation
Even supposing Iran developed a nuclear weapon, their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation depends on (a) the number of warheads, (b) the available delivery mechanisms
An Iran which had only a handful of warheads, and rather limited delivery mechanisms (few or no ICBMs, no SLBMs, no long-range bomber capability) might find its ability to engage in nuclear retaliation against the US extremely limited
Even attempting to use nuclear weapons against Israel or regional US allies, there would be a massive attempt by Israel/US/allies to intercept any nuclear armed missile before it reached its destination
People argued missile defence (as in Reagan's "Star Wars") would never work against the Soviets because they could always just overwhelm it given the superabundance of warheads and delivery systems they had. The same logic does not apply to Iran, because even if it did build a nuke, initially it would only have a handful. Only if they were allowed to build out their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems without intervention, over an extended period, might that eventually come true.
This was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)
Unfortunately MAD in the classic sense doesn't apply here. Yes if Iran launched a nuke at Israel, or vice versa, and the other had nuclear capabilities, they would destroy each other, but the MAD scenario between the USSR and the United States doesn't really play out here.
The biggest global risk in this case would be that tactical nukes would be back on the menu which would immediately change the face of modern warfare.
So the reason to make an exception to the Non-Proliferation Treaty just for the giant tyrannical fundamentalist state is, what, because otherwise they might get insecure and anxious?
Ted Cruz is explicitly advocating that Christians are biblically commanded to defend the modern day state of Israel, and that this alone justifies our attack on Iran.
Ted Cruz can blather whatever he wants (and he also footnoted it to say it was only HIS belief), but only Iran has holy-text justification for the destruction of all Jews, mentioned numerous times in authenticated Hadiths (just search them for "The last hour will not come")
In the past 24 hours alone, all 3 parties in this conflict have attributed their success to God. You genuinely, honestly have to be more specific in your comment because not a single involved participant is a fully secular country.
So, with that being said - which nuclear-obsessive theocracy do you support?
The reason there is a conflict at all is that the Iranian regime believes it is their religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. This is why they arm any group willing and able to attack Israel, and will continue to do so, and they cannot be negotiated with on this because they see it as a religious imperative.
Conversely there is no religious reason for anyone in Israel or the US to attack Iran, independently of the belief that they should defend Israel.
one of the scariest parts of the current US administration is that there is a fairly strong evangelical Christian belief that a massive (possibly nuclear) war in Israel is a necessary precursor to the 2nd coming.
Add to that, its "deterrence" arsenal of intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) are credible militarily only as nuclear delivery systems. For example, the "Khaybar Breaker" rocket (English meaning), referring to a destruction of an historic Jewish stronghold, leaving little to imagination, when equiped with conventional warheads are simply an expensive way to ruin hospital wings. But, when you merge heavy rockets with diligent production of precursors of nuclear weapons, not only is that work toward military use of a nuclear weapon-- it creates a powerful inertia toward actually completing that work, from two directions, lest your very expensive work prove pointless. The current war is vividly demonstrating that IRBM's are not deterrent unless (a) impossibly numerous or (b) unconventionally armed. A threshold IRBM threat makes it more, not less, likely to provoke a first strike against it, as has occurred.
Also note that Iran does have an ICBM of sorts. They have a space launch vehicle, capable of putting maybe 600kg in orbit. Anything that can achieve orbit can also be used as an ICBM. The US tends to operate on the assumption that it can bomb abroad without return fire. That may have just changed. The US has never attacked anybody with significant missile capability before.
The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable. Washington, D.C. has some drone and missile defenses. But the rest of the east coast is not protected much.
Iran could also attack the US with drones launched from a small ship off the US east coast. Roughly the same technique Ukraine just used on Russia, using some small expendable ship instead of a trailer.
>The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable.
This would mean complete suicide for Iran. The US military basically exists to inflict unimaginable hurt on anyone who does this. Not to mention, an attack on the US is an attack on NATO.
There are loads of NATO countries that will not assist the US in this case because NATO is a defensive alliance not a "this country responded my armed aggression, let's strike them" alliance.
The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable
Iran would definitely possess nuclear weapons after doing something like that. The only question is whether they're armed to explode in the air or when they hit the ground.
for people who don't follow news. last year Iran strikes on Israel with IRBM (two times, 150 missiles each time) weren't particularly effective (either intercepted or falling in empty fields). On the other side Israel attempt on taking our Iranian AD was success.
It led Iran to make 2 decisions
- Accelerate production of IRBM in order to have 10000 in stock and to build 1000 launchers in order to execute massive launches that will not possible to defend against
- Apparently the did decide to mate their IRBM with nukes as recently there was meeting between whoever managed iranian missiles problem and heads of nuclear project (there is economist article about it).
This comes against backdrop of hamas and hezbollah been wiped. especially hezbollah which was supposed to be strike force against israel with estimated 100k-200k missiles and rockets.
PS. to those who write that jordan/usa intercepted most/a lot. they (together with saudi arabia, uk and france intercepted drones and cruise missiles. out of all IRBM only 6 were intercepted with SM3 missiles from USA ship)
Do they have much in the way of military capability right now? They could have a full two million committed members, and that might be a serious long term strategic issue for Israel, but the actual immediate threat might be nominal.
some yes. left over weapon. they can booby trap buildings, attach explosives to apc/tanks. maybe some rpg. Occasional rocket info Israel. A bunch of undiscovered tunnels
but now after their command was wiped out and they can't sell aid, they have serious financial problems (they need to pay their fighters. it's very transactional).
but in case idf will leave gaza, they will have enough power to dominate the strip.
> for people who don't follow news. last year Iran strikes on Israel with IRBM (two times, 150 missiles each time) weren't particularly effective (either intercepted or falling in empty fields).
For clarification, those interception efforts last year required massive assistance from the US and Jordan, and required a hugely disproportionate and unsustainable investment of munitions to pull off. What we've seen in the last week is that Israeli air defenses are much more brittle than they want anyone to believe.
EDIT: For the down-voters, here's Bloomberg citing Israeli media that defending against Operation True Promise cost ~$1 billion USD: https://archive.is/WHDvG
They were putting together advanced parts towards a nuclear weapon and IAEA says they weren't cooperating. Everyone knew what this meant. Even themselves, why did they need JCPOA otherwise? Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.
"Not close" doesn't mean they're not working on it. I think it's reasonable to expect that unspoken bit is "... but their current avenue of work is going to eventually succeed".
I'm tired of the US playing puppetmaster (poorly) around the world, getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with us (or rather, creating conflicts when it has to do with access to oil or something). And it's not like we haven't messed up Iran enough already.
But I do not want a nuclear-armed Iran to be a thing. If they were working on it and had a solid program that was likely to bear fruit, I hate to say it, but this was probably the right move. But this is a big "if"; I don't trust this administration to tell the truth about any of this, no more than I trusted Bush Jr when he said Iraq had nukes.
The photos of the facilities are literally all over the internet. The IAEA knew about it and knew Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium. This isn't Iraq 2.
Flies in the face of the US intelligence community’s report at the end of March [0], but, I am not floored if true. Do you have any sources?
Edit: If you mean "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)" [1], that report explicitly mentions up to 60% which is not weapons grade.
This stuff gets grammar-hacked a million different ways.
Yes, 60% enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade, but it can be made weapons grade very quickly. Once you've gotten to 60%, you've done 99% of the work - U-235 starts as such a small percentage of natural Uranium that most of the process is spent at very low concentrations.
It can simultaneously be true that Iran isn't "imminently creating a bomb" and also that they're actively working towards a breakout point where they could build a dozen bombs in very quick succession once they did decide to go forwards with the process.
I don't personally think they were rushing towards a bomb at this moment, but Israel isn't really in the mood to wait around until they decide to do so.
60% enrichment may not be weapons grade, but it takes only days or weeks to go from 60% to 90%. It is much easier than going from natural uranium to 60%.
But maybe a little harshly: Who cares? Does it somehow raise the moral foundation of the operation if they had nukes? Would the attack suddenly be unethical if it was only against a military target with the public, accepted purpose to, one day, be able to develop precursors to nuclear weapons? Why?
Wikipedia points to a source that says it is used for parts of a multi-stage fusion bomb:
> Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage
Just to be clear, this isn't "useful [to make] a bomb" - it's useful in a thermonuclear warhead that already has a primary fission stage using the originally-mentioned highly enriched weapons grade uranium, plus a second fusion stage that (as far as I'm aware) Iran is not working to develop.
edit: phrasing. it feels like we're going around in circles nitpicking based on a poor framing and the tendency for innuendo on this topic
Fuel grade is like 3%. It's exponentially harder to go from 3%-60% (months-years) than 60%-90%(days-weeks). So no, the only reason to enrich that high is to keep your breakout time threateningly short.
Yes brother you are technically correct about that substring of that comment. “Weapons-grade” was indeed not 100% accurate and therefore, technically , inaccurate. That is true, you are right.
That same comment also said, even led with “flies in the face of”. That was the most important part of the comment: ‘saying that Iran is enriching weapons-grade uranium “flies in the face of” intelligence reports which reported no weapons-grade uranium.’ But that part was not correct: the difference between Iran’s uranium (60% enriched) and weapons-grade uranium, while >0, is not large enough to characterize that assessment “flying in the face of”.
So yes if you focus on that substring of the comment you are right. But why would you? It’s not the point of the comment.
Which makes it nit picking. Which is why you’re getting so much pushback.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.
It was a pre-emptive strike based on the behaviors of a state sponsor of terrorism. It’s not like the US and its allies have not tried to stop this before - see StuxNet
Sure, but is a kinetic pre-emptive strike in this context legal?
Because this is what underlies all of this -- is the premise that Iran is behaving in an unacceptable and illegal fashion and therefore a legal response with violence is justified.
This all presupposes that Iran is breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons. Are they breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons?
What does "legal" even really mean between states at war. The consequences typically come down to a popularity contest and Iran is one of the few states with fewer friends than Israel.
Was Iran's activities funding militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which launched attacks against Israel and US forces "legal"? Which of the US' activities were "legal"? It's all mostly a bad joke.
It's tricky. Arming a country or group than then launches an attack, or uses those weapons in a war, doesn't make you a participant in that conflict. This is why Europe and the US can supply weapons to Ukraine without being participants in a conflict with Russia.
However Iran has the stated intention of destroying the state of Israel, and actively incites it's proxies to attack Israel, and this could be seen as a valid justification for taking action. Not a lawyer though.
This is between nation states. Concepts like laws and legality really don’t apply at this level of abstraction. Agreements are a matter of convenience and convention because there is no higher authority that can enforce them.
Geopolitics operates in an explicitly anarchic arena.
Countries can attack others. There is not like a superset of a country over all countries that says what is and isn’t legal. All we have are agreements and treaties.
Not that we would or should but the US could attack any number of countries today and only if one or more countries stopped the US would the victor be able to say it’s illegal.
No one in the US government was claiming that Iran had nuclear weapons. The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons based on the current rate of uranium enrichment, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. Of course we may never know whether that's really true.
> The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons
No the US was claiming: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." in it's 2025 Threat Assessment. The reports believes they were not working on them and Khamenei has the final authority to restart the program which he had not done. However, they believe there was growing pressured to do so.
Trump just gave the guy reason to green light a weapons project he had so far not wanted.
It doesn't matter if it's true at this point. The US can not involve themself in every fucking war for their own motives, just by calling "Bombs" they did this a few times to often. I really hope this is going to have consequences for orange man.
It's not like for like, but if you have a rabid population with low education being told to say stuff like this, they will, just because of social pressure and brainwashing.
Related, example of that brainwashing at scale:
- Killing people bad, but patriotic as a soldier.
- Killing people fine on TV, procreational entertainment bad.
- People told what to wear bad, but telling people they must be clothed, good.
- Religion says no killing, or protect those not of the same religion. People still kill, seen as no conflict of interest at all.
- Hording wealth seen as successful, yet society and the world has people suffering and illegal immigration as a consequence of not having it.
- People who don't work are grifters, but most people secretly want to quit their job and not work. Told to see the non workers as people sponging off society.
- Forced to work until your health fails, seen as acceptable.
Point being, no moral high ground because we're all brainwashed.
The predicate that Iran has them but would show restraint is the same that same that they don't have them but will show restraint and not use desperate measures like blowing up the entire Middle Eastern oil production and distribution network and ports and not use dirty bombs.
Which shows how much of BS the pro-war argument was to begin with.
From what I read, they likely still couldn't penetrate the halls at Fordow, which are about 260 feet underground and encased in 30000psi concrete. Did we even do anything there?
Which is precisely what makes the calculus of this so dangerous, something I don't think many people understand.
Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests and on any given Sunday, are not particularly interested in starting a nuclear conflict. At the same time, understandably, their adversaries are not particularly interested in them having that option.
The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense. In this case, if you bomb Fordow and can completely eradicate the nuclear weapons, you do eliminate the immediate nuclear risk (though not without creating a slew of new problems to deal with). But, if you fail you have now backed them into a corner where this might become an increasingly reasonable option.
Either way the events of today are very likely to unfold in ways that forever change not only the dynamics of the middle east but global politics as a whole.
> Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests
Exactly. I do my best to consider them an "adversary", not an "enemy" for just that reason.
> The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense.
I'd argue there are two risks: one is that this puts Iran in a position where, if the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them.
It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions.
I don't think we have a better option, sadly, but it is a consequence of this action.
Also, I don't think this makes a rational case for use. For possession, yes. For threatening to use them under certain conditions, yes - but the only rational use case for deploying nuclear weapons is if your opponent has already done the same. This became the case when the thermonuclear bomb was invented.
Ukraine, and now Iran, have made one thing abundantly clear to the world: if you want to have any actual sovereignty on the world stage, you must have nuclear weapons. Otherwise you are merely waiting for another nation to find an excuse to violate your borders.
Every country in the world with well organized military is right now working on plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal either by proxy or by way of a domestic nuclear program. That is the legacy of this strike. It puts the point at the end of the exclamation that was Ukraine.
The seeds of a new era of proliferation have been sown, and our children will reap the rewards.
There are now ways to purify uranium much more cost effectively and in better secrecy that centrifuges. Small labs can do it effectively now, and a massively distributed effort would not only make it possible to achieve without needing to buy restricted equipment, it also would make it nearly impossible to disrupt militarily.
You could just open source a design and let the market do the work. It’s of course a terrible idea, which would lead to explosive proliferation and lots of cancer, but it would work. The technical part is challenging but not outside of the reach of serious hobby level efforts.
I will be surprised if we don’t start to see something along these lines cropping up all over the place soon. It’s a natural progression of several technologies that have become vastly more economical and accessible as time goes on.
The main problem is the Iranian regime's view that it is their religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. This is why they supply weapons to Hamas, Hizbullah, the Houthis, and anyone who will attack Israel, and incite them to do so.
They will not stop, and they can't be negotiated with on this, again because they see it as a religious duty.
> It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions.
We've already seen that with North Korea and Libya. NK got to having them before we could stop them. Libya gave up its nuclear program (which is how we learned about Iran's), and we staged a revolution there and regime change.
Do you think Iran will have nukes in the near (20 years, just to put a number) term? Your position really only makes sense if that's not the case. By whatever means, the goal now seems to be to prevent that.
> Do you think Iran will have nukes in the near (20 years, just to put a number) term?
If they managed to get enough of their HEU and any reactor spent fuel out of Fordo and elsewhere into locations we don't know about where they happen to have previously built backup facilities then they could have them very quickly. Hopefully a) they didn't build backup facilities, and b) didn't get a change to spirit away the materials w/o us noticing.
If we fail, there's still the hope that other commenters here are right, and Iran isn't intent on using them offensively. If so, then Iran itself will be safe from this sort of attack.
... but it will also be clear to every other that the only way to be secure from Western military intervention is to possess nuclear weapons. There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving. This will lead to a world where proliferation is rampant, but not necessarily one where their use is no longer taboo as it is today.
KSA has been slowly coming around for the past decade or so. Trump's recent visit -- domestic optics aside -- confirmed and strengthened that.
Turkey/Türkiye has been going the other direction. They're not totally off the reservation, but Erdogan isn't exactly in NATO's inner circle personally.
260ft is around 79m. The bombs can penetrate around 60m of concrete. So one bomb, probably not, but they are able to follow each other in quick succession meaning 2 or three should be able to do the job quite easily, with accurate GPS positioning.
They can penetrate 60m of soil. They cannot penetrate 60m of concrete. Reinforced concrete at about 5000psi would only get penetration of 8-15m.
The facility is beneath 80m of limestone which in the Qom formation is roughly equivalent to about 5000psi concrete.
Beneath the limestone, sits the facility itself which is encased in high performance concrete. So these bombs need to pen 80m of 5000psi material and then a unknown depth of high performance concrete.
There is no public information about what kind of material 60m refers to, and the best guesses of reinforced concrete are 18m. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP While a single bomb would be insufficient, you don't need that many to get to 80m.
And US military assets are often much more powerful than publicly advertised...
A bomb penetrating 18m of reinforced concrete doesn't excavate 18m of concrete. It would weaken it by some percentage through fractures and overpressure but you'll need to pen it again with the second bomb.
Also, surely – I have no expertise – but you don't need to totally destroy the bunker to render the operation basically dead, right?
The land, roads, ingress points, elevators, security, everything around here is now FUBAR. Okay so you didn't "destroy the bunker", but how many years until it's functional again?
The point is not to dig a hole. Penetration depth is a function of compression strength of the medium. Every bomb leaves a path of debris in its wake with negligible compression strength that subsequent bombs can pass through before expending their energy.
you don't actually need to completely destroy all the underground levels in Fordow. It is enough to cause enough damage so that the stored uranium contaminates the site, while being sealed from the outside world under the collapsed site.
You wouldn't expect significant radiological contamination from bombing an HEU facility deep underground? This isn't like exposed reactor core material.
They do have reactors though, do they not? Hitting the spent fuel pools and/or the reactors would produce detectable radioactive contamination. The HEU? Not so much as its half-life is 700 million years, and the stuff is dense and will quickly settle down.
With a half-life between 700 million years (for U-235) and 4 billion years (for U-238). And it's dense stuff that will immediately settle on the ground. You're not going to detect it from afar.
Unauthorized in the sense of a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Whether Iran is actually violating the treaty is a matter of some dispute.
It's literally an anvil they drop out of the sky hoping to punch through structures like an aerial drilling platform. I guess it's dope, but it seems like cartoon armament to me.
"According to an anecdote, the idea arose after a group of Royal Navy officers saw a similar, but fictional, bomb depicted in the 1943 Walt Disney animated propaganda film Victory Through Air Power,[Note 10] and the name Disney was consequently given to the weapon."
There are 3 lead characters in this tragedy of a play. And what they have in common is that all 3 try to cling to power because the alternative is prison (at best).
I'm a little surprised too. Even at the speed of sound in granite (6km/s) where you can start to consider crater-forming dynamics you only get an impact depth of 200ft. Treating it as a Newtonian impactor you get a depth of 60ft. I'd wager the cone shape pushing material to the side is hugely important to the outcome.
The relief of sanctions enabled Iran to fund their other activities in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. It also enable the regime to invest in other weapons programs including weapons Iran has been supplying to Russia and those it and its proxies are launching against Israel.
I'm not sure Trump withdrawal from that deal was the best idea but the deal wasn't great either.
The deal did address – quite precisely and successfully – the core issue. It didn't address some other side issues.
"The thing that prevented them from achieving a nuclear weapon didn't also prevent them from funding x y z other far less problematic things that can be far more easily handled through conventional diplomacy and military action"
The factual's don't matter in Politics, not when mad men are at the helm. Funny how Trump closed his address with thanking god, and the Iranians start theirs in the name of god. So different, yet the same.
The US posturing against Iran dates back to the Cold War era when Iran was tagged as “northern tier” state, and any nationalist moves inside looked like a Soviet opening, and a threat to the Anglo stronghold of Iran's Oil.
All it did was prove to Iran they need nuclear weapons. There’s one thing every country knows and it’s that the only way you don’t become the target of Russia, the US, or Israel is to maintain a nuclear arsenal.
We couldn’t stop North Korea with threats of violence but we did manage to stop Iran for almost 50 years through diplomacy. That’s all pissed down the drain now.
Oh we stopped them? They’ve steadily advanced towards being a nuclear state regardless of all the diplomacy deployed. How many countries don’t have nukes that aren’t being invaded. Canada, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica etc. they don’t have nukes and I don’t think they’re about to be invaded because they’ve joined the international community and are not sponsoring hezbollah or houthis etc.
Thinking that doing something like that will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is naive. It's not a technical challenge for them, it's a political decision, only a political decision. If they really wanted to, they would already have it. Enriched material was transported from these centers some time ago, as news outlets have already reported.
As for the facts, and not just the narrative: 60% enrichment is not considered weapons-grade enrichment, and it is not illegal under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Therefore, today's attack is an illegal act of aggression against another country, violating international law. Those are the facts.
Just curious where the enrichment fact you are claiming comes from. I see the NPT outlined 3% max while watchdogs detected over 80%. I didn’t think there were debates about them breaking the NPT
I would like to see the confirmation as well. At the same time, it does sound plausible. Why keep the highly enriched uranium at the centrifuge site after you're done doing all the centrifuging.
The challenge for Israel is there's always a small chance your intelligence has a blind spot or is wrong. You can't prove a negative.
This is why I think the most likely scenario is that Israel will commit to regime change. Israel can't trust the current regime to not race to a nuclear weapon at this stage, and Israel can never be over 99% certain that a clandestine effort isn't being done outside of the current understanding of intelligence. "Assume the worst" seems to be a doctrine they adhere to.
I am not sure how its only a political decision when they don't have control of their own airspace. How exactly do they rebuild when as soon as they start they get bombed. I think its more accurate to say it WAS a political decision. They had the capability but did not pursue it due to the fallout of doing so. The question its do they still retain the capability and will they ever be allowed to reclaim that capability if they lost it.
There isn't anything special about Iran. It's anyone's political decision to use a nuke. So you make diplomatic decisions, war inclusive, to increase chances that you will not be nuked.
Sorry, but this is a hopelessly naive take. They were undoubtedly content to abide by the terms of the JCPOA, but they have also done significantly more than would be required for a purely civilian nuclear program, notwithstanding their prolific ballistic missile program.
All obviously true, but what I don’t understand is how anyone could possibly believe that this strike could push Iran toward signing and abiding by the terms of an agreement more stringent than JCPOA. I’d be very happy to be wrong but it’s hard for me to see how this isn’t a big step backward.
I don't think anyone believes that, it's just a matter of giving up on a diplomatic solution and resorting to the use of force. It might only be a short-term solution, but it is what it is.
There is saying might is right. Since he is the new American president, that is might. So he is righteous. I dont think prisons fit a "righteous" person.
moral of the story: if you don’t make the nuke to wipe everyone out fast enough, you will eventually get bombed and no amount of diplomacy will save you from game theory.
I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government.
The Iranian government has frequently reference a goal of destroying Israel, a sovereign nation, and referred to the US in very disparaging (and biblical) terms. That doesn't justify direct attack, but it also isn't diplomatic.
I'm sure the decades of CIA meddling in the Middle East and endless wars had no effect on raising generations of US hatred. To hit someone, then call them dangerous when they say "I hate you" is real hero stuff
Iran has actually been quite willing to negotiate. It has not withdrawn from the talks, it was the US that did it the last time under Trump.
Are you aware that Iran approved of US invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War? It even allowed the use of it's air space.
Are you aware that Iran was the only country excluded from the Madrid peace talks of 1991 between Israel and Palestine? To counter this exclusion, Iran strengthened it's ties with Hamas and Hizbollah.
Iran is not some insane theocracy seeking of everyone's destruction. The regime is bad for the people, but self-interested just as any other, and benefits very little from full exclusion.
I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government.
That's completely unfair to Iran. They had IAEA inspectors in their country and they were negotiating with the US (a nation who has put crippling sanctions on them).
Then a country that doesn't have IAEA inspectors bombed them, killing the people that very people who were negotiating with the US. Their message since than has been reasonable; "we won't negotiate while Israel is attacking us".
How much more diplomatic would you like them to be? They can't just roll over and take it, or they'll be finished.
india/pakistan whitter on about it all the time. As did the french/english.
But, if you were near to a country that was busily invading neighbours, run by religious zealots, a huge military had a history of using allies to attack you and is obviously illegally playing with nuclear bombs what would you do?
The problem is, that describes both iran and israel.
That is a massive oversimplification of the diplomatic failures on many sides here.
You could just as easily say that doing regime change in a country will make them hate you, or that backing out of deals will make things worse, or that Israel can shape US policy at their own whims.
Yes, Iran had a stupid nuclear strategy. But that is only a minor part of this story.
I wonder if the bunker buster was used. It has a somewhat indirect lineage to the ww2 grand slam designed by Barnes Wallis.
Iran has massive earthquake risks. For reasons unassociated with nuclear bunkers they do a lot of research into (fibre, and other) strengthened cement construction. With obvious applications to their nuclear industry of course.
Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
> Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
Iran does not have the same degree of sexist restrictions as eg Saudi Arabia. It's a very different climate from places where salafism is more common. Female education in particular is highly supported eg: https://x.com/khamenei_ir/status/1869369086142296490
> Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
I thought it was generally known that richer societies with me equal treatment - where people are generally more able to choose jobs they like rather than needing to take whatever's a ticket to a decent life - are the places with higher disparities in well-paying occupations?
As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion. An earthquake bomb would disrupt both. You wouldn't be starting the feed cycle up rapidly, but since we're told Iran has stockpiles, this goes to sustainable delivery of materials more than specific short term risk.
As a strategy, I see this as flawed. A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials.
(This does not mean to imply I support either bombing or production of weapons grade materiel. It's a comment to outcome, not wisdom)
> A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials.
A dirty bomb is basically Hollywood nonsense, and wouldn't use uranium to begin with because it isn't very radioactive.
The premise is that you put radioactive materials into a conventional explosive to spread it around. But spreading a kilogram of something over a small area is boring because you can fully vaporize a small area using conventional explosives, spreading a kilogram of something over a large area is useless because you'd be diluting it so much it wouldn't matter, and spreading several tons of something over a large area is back to "you could do more damage by just using several tons of far cheaper conventional explosives".
Also anything that is dangerous enough to actually be scary in dirty bomb form, like Cobalt-60, would be impossible to handle without providing a lethal dose of radiation to anyone working with he material within minutes if not seconds (presumably a reasonablely large & dangerous amount of this material is involved). At least, not without incredibly expensive equipment. And by the time you factor in those prerequisites it's just not worth it.
And has the same issue with dilution, and is even more boring because there are much cheaper things with more chemical toxicity than uranium too, like lead.
Uranium, especially highly enriched uranium, is not very radioactive. That's one of the reasons its useful for weapons. UF6 is chemically really nasty, but it's heavy and also you have criticality issues that limit how much you can pack into a confined space before it explosively disassembles. That is to say, it would make an extremely poor dirty bomb that would do very little. It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that.
Far more concerning is the possibility that they give it away to someone else. Enrichment is nonlinear, going from 60% to the 90% needed for weapons is a fairly trivial amount of work.
> It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that.
I wouldn't discount it, though. Remember, feelings matter more than facts. Magnitudes more people die on the road than in the air, but we know how well that translates to fear and action.
I mean heck, how about 9/11 compared to COVID? Wearing a mask for a while: heinous assault on freedom, Apple pie, and the American way. Meanwhile, the post-9/11 security and surveillance apparatus: totally justified to keep America safe
Yeah, my point is there are much better options that would also induce fear and actually be effective. Fentanyl strapped to an explosive, or any of a ton of other chemical agents. Iran would do far more damage -- and create a deep source of fear that would likely have lingering consequences for decades -- by giving their HEU away rather than making an ineffective dirty bomb. There is no way anybody who knows what they had would use it that way. Even the most fanatical member of the Iranian regime understands what to do with the material better than that.
While true, the problem is it wouldn't meaningfully change the security situation for Iran.
Deliverable nuclear weapons make you invasion proof - nobody wants to risk it. A "dirty bomb" isn't something that can come flying in on an ICBM and eliminate large chunks of your nation - the threat of it is more likely to enhance aggression rather then deter it.
Can anyone explain the science behind this statement? To be clear: I believe it, and I have seen multiple reputable sources say that Iran can enrich to 90% within a few months. I was surprised that it is so quick.
You start with natural uranium, which has .72% U-235. Getting from that to 20% is _hard_. You need large cascades of centrifuges to do this because it's only .72%, so each stage gets you just a wee bit more enriched. You do this over and over and over again until you get to higher enrichment. Once you have HEU enriching further is very easy for the same reason that it was hard when it was unenriched: now the stuff you don't want (U-238) is much less. To get from 80% HEU to 96% is trivial using the same centrifuge cascades, and how long it takes really depends on a) how much 80% HEU you have, and b) how much 96% HEU you want. If you have 100lbs of 80% HEU then to get to 10lbs of 96% HEU might really only take weeks if not less when it might have taken years to get from .72% to 80%.
China is estimated to have approximately 600 nuclear warheads. China is rapidly expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal and is projected to reach at least 1,000 operational warheads by 2030.
Israel is widely believed to possess around 90 nuclear warheads.
Israel never acknowledged that. It is claimed that the US president at the time demanded that Israel kept this a secret to avoid embarrassment to the US.
Iran repeatedly calls for death to Israel and the USA. Israel never did that.
Iran is prone to earthquakes, would an earthquake bomb do more damage than that?
Even if it just damages the centrifuges, as far as I see it, it would just delay their enrichment process, severely less than total destruction of their underground base.
Yes that's basically my point. They recalibrate, tighten the pipes, and flush the contamination back out of the chain. 6 to 8 weeks/days/whatever later it's back in cycle.
> As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion.
Centrifuges. They got them via the A. Q. Khan network. We learned about if circa 2005 from Qaddaffi who gave up his to secure peace and his safety (and it didn't turn out well for him because Obama did not respect the gentleman's deal Qaddaffi had with Bush).
The kinetics matter here. The B2 flies much higher than the C-130 which would aid the GBU-57 MOP (almost certainly used here) in it's ability to penetrate to maximum depth. 80% of the 15 ton weight of that bomb is just heavy metal to give it maximum energy as it borrows into the ground.
Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs making it a better platform than a C-130, and that isn't even taking the stealth of the platform into account
Don't think the C-130s can fly high enough with a single 30,000lb bomb. The graphic at bbc site show it would be dropped from about 12km (~40,000 ft) in order to gain the speed needed to drive it some 60m underground.
The MOP isn't particularly 'advanced', it's basically refined version of the Korean-vintage Tarzon guided earthquake bombs. It's just too heavy for most military aircraft to carry.
The IDF has the F-15I which has a centerline hard point rated for 5,000lb load. That's immense for a fighter but a magnitude too low for the MOP.
There are a variety of smaller US penetrating bombs that the F-15 can handle, but they don't have the mass and structure to penetrate as deeply.
According to Israel they fly freely in West/central Iran and use all the plains including F15/16. Initially they relied on the F-35's stealth but as of last week they claim air superiority.
they might be right, but that's why the attack failed and why there's a risk what I said might still come true
i was listening to Al Jazeera, one of the DC flaks they interviewed gave an upper estimate of the facility depth as 1000 ft. The conventional device can go to something like 60m or 200 ft. 6 devices were dropped, they would have to have everything, including geology with repeated strikes on the same point, be perfect to get past 1000 feet, and then they probably would not destroy the whole facility. As far as I know, they don't even have a good map of the layout.
hence, the only real option is a nuclear weapon. this is absolutely being considered inside the pentagon. our government is psychotic. a 1 kt nuclear weapon (laughably small, hiroshima was 15 kt) is 73x more powerful than a 30,000 lb bomb. they would be like, well, it's an underground explosion! The world will forgive us. it's so crafty and smart to use a nuke to stop a nuke (that doesn't exist).
"The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is located."
Bunker buster is not necessarily a solution for this. It was created for normal bunkers, WW2 style of construction. What they have in Iran are construction sites very deep in the mountains. I wouldn't be surprised if this type of bombs can't do more than superficial damage to the sites.
GBU-57 reaches 200ft depth, Fordow is 300ft. The seismic wave of explosion at 200ft of several tons of TNT would reach 300ft with pretty damaging energy.
And, if it weren't enough, you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one.
To the commenters below:
- nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
- I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
- jugding by, for example, the precise drone strikes on the top military commanders, Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them (the public statement of 300ft may be a lie, yet the point is that US and Israel know the depth and thus weapons to use)
The equipment in the facility isn't bolted into the limestone though. The facility is inside ultra high performance concrete and if the Iranian engineers had two braincells, dampening layers. They were building it for this moment after all.
> you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one
This is tremendously difficult. There is nothing unclassified to suggest we can do this. (There is also no evidence it didn’t occur. Just clarifying the borders of the fog of war here.)
"At 04:30 on the morning of 13 February, two F-117 stealth bombers each dropped a 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) GBU-27 laser-guided bomb on the shelter. The first bomb cut through 3 metres (10 ft) of reinforced concrete before a time-delayed fuse exploded. Minutes later, the second bomb followed the path cut by the first bomb."
Supposedly we dropped six, but I'm interested in any information that comes out about the final damage to see if this was sufficient. Ideally this would be the beginning and end of our direct engagements in this conflict.
EDIT: I kind of wish you had broken your "commenters below" piece into separate replies, but I assume this one was directed at me:
> - I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
I didn't even consider a no-fly zone, and perhaps. I mean at this point, the current Iranian regime is in the most precarious situation it has ever been in whether they go for the kill against Ali Khamenei or just keep picking out the people below him and the IRGC's ability to fight. But if we do this, then we, and I guess I mean we now that we've actually bombed them, then we're committing to more than just taking out their nuclear capabilities, but we're committing to seeing a full regime change come to fruition.
To be blunt, given our most recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm still very much of the opinion that the least amount of American involvement, the better. If our bombs help curtail Iran's nuclear weapon R&D and we didn't lose a single B-2 in the process, then great, we've done some good for the world[1], but our track record on seeing regime changes through to the end has been less than fabulous.
[1] Still waiting to see how successful the mission was towards this goal by the way.
They had pinpoint accurate information about a lot of senior leaders, that seems a lot harder to know than a stationary facility's location and layout.
Yes, bunker buster was used. Per a different source:
> It included a strike on the heavily-fortified Fordo nuclear site, according to Trump, which is located roughly 300 feet under a mountain about 100 miles south of Tehran. It's a move that Israel has been lobbying the U.S. to carry out, given that only the U.S. has the kind of powerful "bunker buster" bomb capable of reaching the site. Known as the GBU-57 MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), the bomb can only be transported by one specific U.S. warplane, the B-2 stealth bomber, due to its immense 30,000 pound weight.
I read the article in full. There is no confirmation of using GBU-57 in the strike. Re-read your quoted section.
The English is a bit convoluted, but does do not confirm usage.
Tin foil hat engaged: For all we know special forces detonated plastic explosives deep on site after doors were blown off.
More seriously: Nothing has been confirmed except a Truth Social post.
Thanks for trying to make this into a technical discussion.
I just realised that this bomb is not the same as the so called Mother of all bombs, which by the way has so far only been used once also by trump. That's the gbu 43. Why did they find
it necessary to build an even bigger bomb? I wonder if they anticipated strikes on the me.
As to your other point iran seems to have a decent level of education. Building an entire home grown nuclear program under sanctions is impressive.
The MOP is meant for a different use than the MOAB, it isn't about size. The MOAB is meant for surface destruction, the MOP is a penetrating ordinance meant to go deep through rock before eventually exploding.
Different outcomes. Moab is fuel air explosion and causes massive pressure wave disruption, it's usable against tunnels but operates on a different principle. Bunker buster is an earth penetration weapon to make a camouflet happen and destroy structural integrity.
> A camouflet, in military science, is an artificial cavern created by an explosion; if the resulting structure is open to the surface it is called a crater.[1]
The GBU-57 used here is an outgrowth of the demonstrated inadequacy of traditional bunker busters bombs used in the Middle East after 9/11. They needed something more specialized for deep penetration than the old bunker busters. This was kind of a stopgap weapon that works pretty well but the size limits the practicality.
US is developing a new generation of purpose-built deep penetration bombs that are a fraction of the size of the GBU-57.
Case hardening. Making something which if propelled fast enough (secondary issue) and with a G force resisting detonator (secondary issue) which has sufficient integrity and inertia to penetrate as deeply as possible before exploding. Materials science in making aerodynamic rigid, shock tolerant materials to fling at the ground.
I am sure the materials science aspects have come along since ww2, as has delivery technology, but I'd say how it goes fast, hits accurately and explodes is secondary to making a case survive impact and penetrate.
I would posit shaped charges could be amazing in this, if you could make big ones to send very high energy plasma out. I'm less sure depleted uranium would bring much to the table.
(Not in weapons engineering, happy to be corrected)
I'm not sure you would want a shaped charge unless you guarantee it was pointing in the right directionatthe right time. Modern bunker design usually includes deflection tactics.
I was guessing either tungsten or depleted uranium, as for APDS, but the bomb's average density is only about 5 g/cc (14 tonnes in 3.1 m³). Length of 6.2 m times 5 tonnes per cubic meter gives a sectional density of 31 tonnes per square meter, which is about 15 meters of dirt. So Newton's impact depth approximation would predict a penetration depth one fourth of the reported 60-meter depth.
I don't know how to resolve the discrepancy. The plane wouldn't fly if the bomb weighed four times as much. Maybe most of the bomb's mass is in a small, dense shaft in the middle of the bomb, which detaches on impact?
> Length of 6.2 m times 5 tonnes per cubic meter gives a sectional density of 31 tonnes per square meter, which is about 15 meters of dirt. So Newton's impact depth approximation would predict a penetration depth one fourth of the reported 60-meter depth.
This seems to assume that the weapon would penetrate until it displaced an equal amount of dirt by mass, which seems like nonsense. Why would that be the case?
Shape can change it to be arbitrarily bad; 14 tonnes of 5-micron-thick Eglin steel foil spread over a ten-block area wouldn't penetrate anything, just gently waft down, although it could give you some paper cuts. I suspect it can't make it much better, except in the sense of increasing sectional density by making the bomb longer and thinner, which we already know the results of.
Velocity doesn't enter into Newton's impact depth approximation at all. It does affect things in real life, but you can see from meteor craters that it, too, has its limits.
Target characteristics, no idea, but in a fast enough impact, everything acts like a gas. It's only at near-subsonic time scales that condensed-matter phenomena like elasticity come into play. Even at longer time scales the impact can melt things. This of course comes into conflict with the design objective of the bomb acting solid, so that it penetrates the soil instead of just mixing into it, and can still detonate when it comes to rest. I feel like buried plates of the same metal would have to be able to deflect it? And there are plenty of other high-strength alloys.
A system described in the 2003 United States Air Force report called Hypervelocity Rod Bundles[10] was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods that are satellite-controlled and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.[11][12][13]
The bomb would naturally contain large kinetic energy because it moves at orbital velocities, around 8 kilometres per second (26,000 ft/s; Mach 24) in orbit and 3 kilometres per second (9,800 ft/s; Mach 8.8) at impact. As the rod reenters Earth's atmosphere, it would lose most of its velocity, but the remaining energy would cause considerable damage. Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[13] These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.[12][14] As the name suggests, the 'bunker buster' is powerful enough to destroy a nuclear bunker.
I did some quick calculations: The energy of the impact from the stored kinetic energy gained by falling fro 15,000m is about the same as half a kiloton of TNT going off. That's focused into a circle just 80cm in diameter.
Yet setting off half a tonne of TNT on the ground, or even just under it, won't penetrate 60 meters deep, or even 15; it will just blast open a shallow crater. A shaped charge will do only a little better.
No real secret sauce, the weapon weighs almost 30,000lbs and most of it is just hardened metal to make it heavy. The warhead is only ~5,300lbs of explosive
It's not entirely home grown if they were part of the NPT is it? Signing the NPT (a pinky promise not to develop weapons) means other countries then help you develop nuclear energy, which of course has a lot of overlap to weapons tech...
- MOP: High penetration; most of its payload is not explosive. (Something heavy). Designed so its body, fuse, explosives etc remain intact after penetrating deep.
- MOAB: Fuel air explosive for massive blast effect.
I doubt anyone here works in defence materials sciences and like the rest of the world would be 49/51 regarding voting intention. I've never voted for a pro war party fwiw but if I'd been of an age, I would have called ww2 a just cause war.
This isn't a just cause and it's not even a war. It's state sanctioned terror. I don't know it has ism in it.
Australian legal opinion says it's unlikely a credible defence in international law exists for this attack. It may redefine the norms for (un)lawful acts by the state, other states, weak and powerful will undoubtedly reflect on this.
It's also being claimed a success. Words like "obliterated" used. Time tends to tell a story there. I think it's a little too soon to say how successful these strikes were, tactically or strategically.
Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is? What's special about a GBU-57 isn't its explosive force. It's that the bomb casing is made out of special high-density ultra-heavy steel; it's deliberately just a super heavy bomb with a delayed fuse. It is literally like them dropping cartoon anvils out of the sky.
From what I've read, the idea is that they keep dropping bombs into the same bomb-hole that previous sorties left, each round of bombs drilling deeper into the structure.
>Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is?
If it is silly and it works, then it is not silly. If I remember correctly you have good cryptography skills. Rectothermal/rubber hose cryptoanalysis is quite silly too, but breaks AES,RSA,ECC and post quantum crypto schemes in 30 seconds.
So many armchair quarterbacks in this thread. You haven’t defined how silly this is beyond your feelings. Are you a munition expert? If you were an AF general given this order, what tactic would you choose excluding a nuke?
The same bomb hole tactic is an untested theory (which may be ineffective but not silly) but we’ll know more later this week once MAXAR surveillance and other independent or IAEA analysis rolls in.
I'm not an expert. I just think dropping giant anvils from the sky is Loony Toons tactics. Maybe it works great! I don't know! But it's worth knowing how these things work, and how they work is: they're just super super heavy.
So facts are thin on the ground currently. More will become clear in the coming days. I've heard different accounts all the way from 12 bunker busters were used on Fordo to none were used and the entrance was bombed after Iran was warne, kinda like a warning shot, to say "we can get you".
What Iran does next depends on the extent of the damage. It could be nothing. It could be a token response. It could be escalation.
But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.
When Israel tried to previously escalate the conflict with Iran and drag the US into war with Iran, Iran just didn't take the bait. And this is despite Israel assassinating government officials, bombing Iranian embassies and bombing Iran for absolutely no reason.
> But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.
Either I'm misunderstanding (or misreading) something, or at least one of these sentences accidentallied a negation.
When I was doing a postdoc in Germany I shared an office with a woman from Morocco so my office was a meeting point for many islamic woman including one from Iran who complained bitterly about how women were treated in her country but who did get the opportunity to get an advanced education.
The parent post was about Iranian women jobs getting jobs in engineering. Whatever restrictions are on them, they don't seem to have trouble getting STEM education.
I took the contradiction as the point: that they are oppressed and yet, surprisingly, not with respect to educational opportunity
> including one from Iran who complained bitterly about how women were treated in her country but who did get the opportunity to get an advanced education
As someone who absolutely hates American bullying of a hegemony. This is one case where I believe people of Iran might come out beneficial of it. In the long term? I am not so sure.
But will that happen? I doubt it. A country like America likes authoritarian regimes that like to listen to America. So Iranian things in the best interest of America would be the same theocracy but docile to America at least in the near future (or worse a full fledged military dictatorship which they anyway installed once).
However I just hope/dream (and it's too much of a hope) for the sake of Iranian people - it ends up getting a democracy after all (maybe).
However there is one thing clear - there is no rule based foreign relations, business, diplomacy anymore in this post truth world of ours. It's plain simple - you look after your own hind lest you find someone is at the door wanting to take it; might be an ally just as well.
A side note: I can't thank four of my country's ex PMs [0] enough that they ensured we had nukes inspite of stringent sanctions from other nations which ironically, among them, almost all already had nukes :D
The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon.
[0] esp. Indira Ghandhi; also, probably the only head of sate that actually succeeded in "selling freedom" thing. Something America specialises in and uses as a premise to routinely reduce various parts of the world to rubble. A positive outcome of such endeavours - its defence industry getting push from it and of course it goes about trying to re-build it, giving push to other of its industries, half or quarter way and then finds other sundry places to subject to this routine.
But wasn't Iran already docile to America? Sure, it wasn't a crystal clear ally like Saudi or the Gulf states, but behind the anti-Zionist propaganda and "evil US" blabbering, there were decades of backchannel negotiations, regional pragmatism, and even moments of cooperation — especially when mutual interests aligned, like in post-Taliban Afghanistan or the fight against ISIS.
America and the broader west (and even much of the not-west) has been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. A nuclear armed Iran means much the middle east, which considers Iran a dire enemy, would feel compelled to immediately launch their own nuclear weapons programs.
They could if they wanted to acquire nuclear weapons though. The Saudis explicitly funded the Pakistani nuclear programme with the option of access to nukes if required.
No. Iran vehemently wanted nukes and the West (and its strong/rich local vassal states) vehemently didn't want Iran to have the nukes and Iran knew that and the West knew that Iran knew that. So no. (In fact SA has quite some money into Pakistani nukes; not sure what's the "access" agreements :P)
Trump will declare that his BIG BEAUTIFUL BOMBS won the war, nuclear facilities are no more. Israel cannot claim otherwise, because that would be against big brother. Iran will continue covertly making nuclear bomb, but that will take more years, and will continue peace talks for now. Trump will get Nobel peace prize for peaceful bombing and will be happy.
There's a whole escalation you are forgetting. Iran will retaliate, to which the US wilk respond. That yields a situation where neither side can back out, but neither is putting enough pressure in the other to force them to stop.
The way through seems limited to:
- ground invasion
- nuclear annihilation
- regime change (no guarantee of success)
If the regime change doesn't work, the options are horrible. And remember that the current Iran regime is the result of a US backed regime change, which allowed radical elements to mobilize hatred against the US.
As if Israel has been giving two flying fracks about what big brother would think. Besides Israel as a nation is too cunning to not be able to subdue someone as dumb and facetious as Trump with flattery alone.
Trump getting Nobel - yes, knowing who all the Swedes have given it to I won't be surprised at all.
> The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon.
Exactly my thoughts. We were absolutely blessed to have been developing our own nuclear capabilities at a time of intense international scrutiny. We were sanctioned to oblivion by the West for that until they realized (after Pakistan too developed their nukes, comfortably) that you can't simply ignore the elephant in the room. And we paid for it dearly too (with the assassinations of leaders in our nuclear programme).
At this point, it should be expected of any rational self-serving sovereign nation that they should develop nukes, especially if they have a record of historical non-aggression. South Korea, modern Japan, the EU (especially those in direct threat of Russia like Poland)... I don't expect Germany to grow a pair to not rely on the US, any time in the near future.
That's an all around bad move for the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war and probably having to carry the can for the next few years alone after getting into a mess not of our own making (well directly anyway).
This is going to hit gas prices, the markets and US security considerations all in order to help keep the current Israeli leadership out of Israeli prisons. Bad move.
and people like Greta Thunberg are labelled self-serving narcisists who deserve getting more scorn than our political leaders who we accept as being "just so".
As usual, the people who like war are the people who've never gone to war.
They cower behind their the comfort of their home, AC, keyboards, western paycheck and standards of living while trying to be (seen) as "rational" and "stoic".
They talk like there is good sides and bad sides in war, right sides and wrong sides.
Most of them are these small powerless men who dream of power fantasy.
I wonder, will today's children who is seeing this spectacles of war in 4K, all gore and guts and destruction, will grow up to be better leaders for all?
Or are they going to grow up just like their parents, small powerless trigger-happy men filled with mid-life crisis.
Huh? As GDP per capita goes up the likeliness your country will be in a war decreases dramatically. The people with western paychecks and western standards of living are the most peaceful the world has ever seen.
Your comment is the problem with NOT being “rational” and seeing the world through stories and emotions.
While it might make you feel morally superior to tell these false narratives as if you’re the only rich westerner who cares about the downtrodden (you don’t), you’re not understanding the comfort you enjoy was only made possible by previous generations of what you call “evil trigger happy men.”
You’re free to leave your country and wealth for a “morally superior” poor one, so put your money where your mouth is. I think you might be surprised the role overt violence plays in much of the developing world. Humans will human, we are all the same.
Resource scarcity is what causes war, not western people with keyboards. Wealth (abundance) is the only thing keeping us from killing each other.
counter argument GDP of Baltic states has gone up by hundreds percents since 1990. But we are now closer to war thanks to our "great" neighbor (russia) than ever before. By the way GDP going up has not saved Ukraine from war either. So i would not discard moral superiority so fast.
It just a counterexample that helps me point out that your simplistic and unsupported claim should not be taken at face value.
There is a lot to be said about the practice of overusing the GDP metric, but in this case reminding everyone that the burden of proof is on you should be enough.
I don’t appreciate your analogy, and it strikes me as false.
You know Iran has been financing and spreading jihadism for decades right? We have been at war with Iran all this time, just trying to pretend we are not.
I find it incredibly sad. It tugs at a lot of old memories, as we've been talking about an Iran war since I was in college. Plenty of friends on both sides.
Bloodlust is one thing, but the dehumanization is just far worse. Maybe they go hand in hand - you can't want to see someone die unless you think of them as inhuman.
There's something about social media where it has been amplifying this dehumanization as well. So another layer of sadness where it feels like we could have, should have prevented this. Like an asteroid strike or a global pandemic, it feels like one of those things that should never happen until it does. I remember looking at 80000hours and thinking, nah... nuclear warfare will never happen, let's focus on AI.
But have you seen how cool the bunker buster bombs are? Like, how, incredible the engineering there is? It's going to be so awesome see those in action!
The same people would have drooled over the engineering of concentration camps. "Yeah it's sad there's some human casualties, but you have to appreciate the thought that went into it, and imagine doing that at that scale!"
>extremist Muslims or familiarity with what the Quran and hadiths
You can easily find stuff in the Bible and the Torah or Talmud that would shock you. And Israel even acts on the latter. But conveniently it's just the Muslim world, one beset with colonial extraction for centuries, that you care about. Not the people in the US who supported wars killings hundreds of thousands over the last few decades for religious reasons. Hmm.
> the Muslim world, one beset with colonial extraction for centuries
Surely you mean on the side of extractors? The Ottoman Empire practiced mass movement of people (sürgün), basically settler colonialism; earlier Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates are among the largest empires in history, and their population was mass converted to Islam.
It feels disingenuous to talk of extremist muslims when we have extremist jews bombing 4 countries in 2 years, and committing a genocide.
Iran has killed a lot less civilians than Israel and it isn't even close. I'm much less worried about them getting the bomb than I am about the fact Israel already has it.
Empathy for the Iranian people, whose budding democratic movement was crushed by the United States, for oil. The ones who are trying to fight for their own freedom from a repressive government, in the middle of this whole mess.
All these events risk spiraling the whole region into chaos, and creating another ISIS-like militancy, the brutality of which is going to be felt by the Iranians first and foremost.
Internally theocratic countries can also be diplomatically reasonable when it comes to the use of arms. The measured retaliation against the unprovoked bombing of its Iranian consulate in Syria leads me to see that it is quite reasonable in its actions.
If (if) this destroyed a nuclear weapons program, that is good for the world.
No one can predict the downstream consequences of today, but I fail to see an argument for why the world benefits from another nation getting the bomb.
I think the attacks aren't just about a nuclear weapons program. First, the program, according to US intelligence, does not exist. I'm inclined to believe them. [1] Second, unrelated infrastructure has been attacked, including energy infrastructure, hospitals, and state media.
All of that points not to the destruction of a nuclear weapons program, but of a country. The Israeli government claims to want regime change now... but that claim only came some time after the attacks started and there's no reason in that case to bomb hospitals. The Israeli government claimed the hospitals were "hiding" missle sites, but haven't presented any evidence of that, and have used that excuse many times before now, and were clearly lying.
Ah, plus the countries involved are engaged in a separate act of bloodlust at the moment. Which doesn't directly mean that the attacks against Iran are the same, but it certainly colors the picture.
The only nation in the middle east with a nuclear weapons program is Israel. Why not destroy that one? It's objectively more of a threat to the region than Iran's.
> only nation in the middle east with a nuclear weapons program is Israel. Why not destroy that one?
Put simply: they have it.
One of the unfair truths of nuclear geopolitics is the power asymmetry between nuclear and non-nuclear states. (And the collective interest of the former in nuclear NIMBYism.)
> No increase in radiation levels have been detected, the UN's nuclear watchdog says
If true they failed to destroy the material (just like last time when the US brought chaos over the world by creating a war out of "they have bombs" lies)
If not true, did they actually try to make the world a more poisonous place?
Not true. Caverns can collapse without leaking enough into atmosphere to trigger detection. The simple answer is we don’t really know; we may not be able to know.
I'm all for a collective change there, so every foreign movie just ends in the same deus ex machina moment: every protagonist gets bombed out of existence. Might get repetitive after a while, but I guess that's the idea.
Any reasonable understanding of the term "war" obviously includes bombing a country's strategic military sites.
Today Congressmen's main job is soliciting bribes. I expect they want their name on as few pieces of paper connecting them to a conflict as possible. They are not in charge of the government.
Obama bombed a lot of countries with no act of congress: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, etc. I don’t know the legality but plenty of precedent besides him.
Bombing government military infrastructure (not terrorist cells or similar) is as clear as it gets.
If this isn’t an act of war then nothing is. And that’s a terrifying thought because that means a single person can start a war without congressional approval. Even impeachment doesn’t help prevent war since it’s after the fact.
What happens if a president orders strikes on a friendly country? It could be due to dementia, narcissistic personality disorder, personal vendettas (hypothetically, in real life I trust the US wouldnt elect that kind of person).
Use of military force requires congressional approval.
Well, in principle. In practice, the US executive does not observe this restriction, or at most - makes a flimsy connection the 2001 AUMF following the twin towers attack. The courts do not enjoin it from using military force pretty much arbitraly; and congress does not impeach nor even adopt declarative denunciations of this behavior.
George Washington was the first president to take military action without congressional approval, so on the sense of precedent providing legality, it's quite an old concept.
No. The president is the commander in chief. I can't remember the president or the situation but a long time ago a president attacked and said "I'm sending the troops" then senate/congress had to approve it or troops would be stranded.
Intelligent, rational, empathetic people need to realize that when they are doing theory of mind for others (and especially groups) they are projecting their own qualities where they do not exist.
I don't think it's going to end here. US wants to control Iran , to starve China of its oil. US+Israel already have set up rich middle east countries as bulwarks. The whole middle east is setting up the stage for future proxy wars between US & china/russia
I think because China has very high growth momentum that surpasses american living standards soon, and not long before it will surpass american security standards too. China purchasing power is probably more comfortable than most west countries, with extensive housing and high speed rail and electric cars etc. When a country becomes rich, inevitably other countries ask for their help. That's why china's growth must be curbed, fast.
This is the biggest leopards ate my face moment. After decades of outsourcing to china and pandering to the chinese market for a quick buck, we are now surprised that they have become rich and decide their growth must be curbed. Honestly we in the west deserve everything that is coming to us
The military industrial complex always wins in the US, even if the whole reason why you get elected is because you were against it. A majestic mockery of democracy.
It's really hard to say, but probably not good (there was an Atlantic article about this last week). Part of the dynamic here is the idea that the SL can't back down without losing so much domestic credibility that he puts the regime at risk; being in a shooting war with the West probably reinforces the regime's position. The flip side of this is that I don't think there were many signs that the opposition was in position to challenge the SL any time soon.
They lack the capability to do much aside from disrupt shipping with SRBMs. They've taken down only one drone, which is one less than the Houthis. Their ballistic capability is heavily degraded. Their military leadership is gone. Their airforce is gone. Their air defense is gone. They're a paper tiger and I don't understand why people still think there's the prospect of some kind of grand retaliation. They're not holding back, they just can't do anything.
A tactital victory does not translate to a strategic victory. I'd like to remind you the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco by George W, that was followed by more than 10 years of war and hundreds of thousands dead.
Well. Some guys with a tiny fraction of the funding Iran has managed to fly a few airliners into some buildings a few years back.
So, I imagine there are perhaps unconventional options available to a country which is fully willing to fund terrorist groups for decades against a country with a very large amount of largely unprotected infrastructure.
But who knows? It just seems a bit premature to argue Iran's defeat. Feels a bit... mission accomplished.
They were already doing that in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Iraq and Bahrain. They weren't holding back before, and they won't hold back after. But their ability to do that is now severely degraded. The officials overseeing these programs are now gone. The weapons they were sending to these groups are now reduced.
From your link:
"However, despite the public opposition of Pakistani officials, multiple former Prime Ministers gave covert permission to the United States to carry out these attacks."
Makes sense, they were in the tribal areas where I assume the government was losing control of their monsters.
What planet have you been living on the past 25 years? Iran has a population of almost 100 million as well as a sizeable diaspora across the world. If even a small percentage of the population engages in terrorism, that translates into thousands of potential actors. And unlike a state-to-state war, this is the kind of distributed, unpredictable threat that’s much harder to deter or contain.
afaik Iran is a very very different case demographically from Iraq and Afghanistan- in terms of being bigger, more modern and secular. It seems like those are dynamics that make it harder to go to war/stay in war.
Quite the contrary, the religious populace is more likely to fall in line and decide the government knows best; it’s the secular populace that is demanding retaliation and critical of the government for not pursuing nuclearization already.
One data point I heard recently was 80% of Iranians oppose the current regime. That said I've also heard there is wide support for Iran to have a nuclear program. Presumably as a matter of national pride. I would still imagine the secular population to be less inclined to go to war with Israel in general.
The only Iranians I've personally talked to are ones that live in the west. They generally want to have peace with Israel and want to see the regime removed. Again very anecdotally they are still not happy about Israel bombing Iran but if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority for a hypothetical secular or democratic regime.
The fact that someone dislikes their government's current ruling regime doesn't mean they want the US to invade and install a puppet government instead. It's a false dichotomy.
> if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority
Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran. When Israel bombed an Iranian consulate, Iran referred it to the security council and waited, but the security council took no action. When Israel carries out an assassination within Iran, Iran did the same thing. Only after the UN refused to do anything to hold Israel to account did Iran retaliate. Then recently Israel launched a massive series of strikes against Iran, assassinating top members of its military and blowing up apartment buildings. It seems clear that the Iranian government didn't want to go to war with Israel, but at a certain point they ran out of options.
Iran has been attacking Israelthrough its proxies. Israel struck the Iranian consulate in a country they're at war with meeting proxies they're at war with. This is indeed an escalation. As a response Iran launched a huge number of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, which is a major eacalation and direct attack.
> Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran.
Really?
It is interesting that you made no mention of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, not Houthi in Yemen. All are well-known proxies for Iran to militarily harass Israel. They all receive direct funds and weapons from Iran.
lol. Watch Khameni’s morning broadcast where they have hundreds of delusional adherents shouting “Death to America, Death to Israel” 50 times in a row. I’m sure you’ll come out feeling the same way.
If you're in Iran it makes sense that you would want that if you feel that Israel is a threat. (But it doesn't make it a good idea).
I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?
In Afghanistan they had basically just been fighting a war, where the last war in Iran was 30 years ago?
> I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?
> 95,000 Iranian child soldiers were casualties during the Iran–Iraq War, mostly between the ages of 16 and 17, with a few younger
> The conflict has been compared to World War I: 171 in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as sulfur mustard by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Kurds. The world powers United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided military, intelligence, economic, and political support for Iraq. On average, Iraq imported about $7 billion in weapons during every year of the war, accounting for fully 12% of global arms sales in the period.
No, but they're the ones making the decisions about fighting such a war. The child soldiers in the 1980s are the politicians, the diplomats, and the generals in the 2020s.
Ah I see what you mean. Yes they don’t have the birth rate (or the suicidal fanaticism) to sustain a decades long attritional war against an occupation like Afghanistan or Yemen can.
But given the size of the existing Iranian population and geography, and the lack of any significantly sized pre-existing anti-government military faction, I’m not sure the US military is large enough to even occupy Iran in the first place, absent a draft.
I think they probably like having an GDP 25x larger than North Korea's. Gets a lot harder to export your products around the world when you're squared off against the US.
They still trade oil with China, that is as much as the rest of the world they need. Of course, getting trade overland is a bit more difficult than by boat which is mostly cut off during a war.
Lebanon and Syria have a clear path to peace, Israel does not. Jordan and Egypt are at peace. Gaza and the West bank are a fucked up situation but at least there is peace in the West bank and Gaza has a clear path to obtain peace as well, if only they weren't ruled by a terrorist organization.
It has a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt. Also, they signed the Abraham Accords with UAE and Bahrain. As far I know, there is no risk of conflict with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, nor Oman. Who else am I missing?
Half joking: (ignoring Trump's recent "threats") Is the US a threat to Canada or Mexico?
I don't know that much. But I have heard about how in terms of daily outlook a lot of Iranians aren't very religious. Esp. compared to other countries in the region.
On the other hand, the internal Cyber Police HQ got bombed today. If the institutions of internal suppression are sufficiently disrupted, maybe some form of resistance could be form. Who knows.
People keep wishcasting this idea, but just because many/most Iranian people don't like the regime does not mean they want to be bombed by Israel/the USA.
The one thing we’ve learned over and over again since WWII: strategic bombing does not actually achieve any objective except temporarily disrupting logistics. If anything it strengthens the resolve of the people being bombed, giving the target regime more ammunition to carry on.
Did the US ever invade Japanese home islands (Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu, Hokkaido) during the war? I am pretty sure they got some of Okinawa then dropped two nukes, then Japan surrendered. Do I have the order of events incorrect?
This is dumb. Strategic bombing did work in WWII, but it was never as effective as its advocates claimed at the time mostly because the bombs rarely hit anything important. They had to drop far more munitions than originally envisioned to actually do critical damage to infrastructure.
You can't really compare WWII dumb bombs dropped from 25,000 feet to modern precision weapons that can hit precisely the weakest point on a target, times thousands of targets, within the span of a few hours or days.
I mean, we literally just watched a massively successful strategic bombing campaign over the last week! Desert Storm was massively successful, Iraqi Freedom (the actual invasion, pre-nationbuilding part) was massively successful, Israel's bombing of Hezbollah was massively successful. I don't know how anyone can argue that strategic bombing with precision munitions isn't successful.
Strategic bombing doesn't work. With the exception of maybe nukes, wars aren't won from the sky and strategic objectives are hard to achieve. The bombing prior to Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom was operational bombing, its purpose was to flatten resistance so the Army could roll in.
It appears that no matter what, no matter the technology involved (maybe with the exception of nukes), you always need grunts on the ground to hold it.
> What should we expect the political fallout in Iran?
The Iranian regimes favorite enemy just played their part to perfection, so we should expect that to compel the majority of Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of a brutal foreign invasion by not one but BOTH of their standard-bearer arch-nemeses.
Propaganda isn't everything. Iran having a nuclear bomb or not having one does count for more than whether we played our part in the bad guy in their narrative.
Well that pre-supposes that Iran was actively working on acquiring the bomb, that this course of action would stop them from getting the bomb, and that Iran having the bomb is actually a severe issue.
If it wasn't suicide and I was the big boss, I would get some nuclear subs for my irrelevant South American nation ASAP. The "rules based order" is just wet toilet paper, who's to say that in 50 years we or our neighbors aren't next?
Gringos have always been crazy, but now y'all are getting extra spicy. Qaddafi, Ukraine and now Iran. Get nukes or bust is the name of the game now.
Are you suggesting that states may bomb each other when they don't want to "take the risk" of the other state possibly carrying out a dangerous attack on them in the future?
Plus, the nuclear issue is the excuse, not the reason. Palestine, Lebanon, Syria (+ regime change, sorta), Iraq (+ regime change), Afghanistan and now Iran. All attacked repeatedly and extensively over the past two decades.
so we should expect that to compel the majority of Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of a brutal foreign invasion by not one but BOTH of their standard-bearer arch-nemeses.
Organized how? There’s no internet. I hope Kinko’s is still open because they’re going to need a lot of leaflets to organize anything meaningful.
There isn't going to be political fallout. The Iranian regime has systemically wiped out all dissent over the last decade and a half. The remaining population is all either pro-Khamenei or too powerless to speak out. If anything an unprovoked war will give the country stronger reason to distrust the west and rally behind their leader.
Iran doesn’t quite have the capability to shutdown the shipping lanes in the PG. At least not in any way thats sustainable for a long period. A few days at best. A USN CG would put a stop to it in a hurry.
Let's not confuse capability with intention and consequences Straits of Hormuz is barely 40km wide and the Persian gulf is very shallow. Blocking it very feasible for nations bordering it who are willing to take the consequences. We don't know if they are and if so, unblocking it also has consequences in terms of requiring committing to prolonges military occupation. Ultimately, it appears the military industrial complex has won by replacing defense $$ in Afghanistan & Ukraine with yet another conflict.
The Houthi threat was in and around the red sea. Iran’s naval reach is limited to with whatever it is they call a “Navy” in the Gulf of Oman. Almost on other side of the Arabian peninsula. Also the Houthis got pummeled once the U.S showed up. The U.S didn’t even continue a sustained campaign to wipe them out. Something it is more than capable of doing with just a single carrier group. That’s not even counting the Saudis getting involved.
The first infliction point would be to see whether the regime intends to strike at US forces or do they intend to climb down. IMHO, that would be suicidal, but it doesn't mean they won't do it.
The second point is when they decide to end the war (they aren't doing well), and all the accusations start flying. Then there'll be political fallout.
The point of Iran of enriching U beyond civilian use but not actually going full military grade was leverage. They're the only Shiia super power in the reigion. Nobody likes them.
So what can we expect:
* a ground invasion is pretty much out of the question considering the geography or Iran and its neighboring countries.
* Iran destroys every oil production and transport sites in the region (say good by to your election, Republican Party)
* they could fast produce the bomb and test it underground as a final warning
* OR they fail and resort to more desperate measure like a dirty bomb
* OR they fail and there is some sort of regime change
* Or there is some kind of extended war of attrition and it makes the refugee crisis from the past 20 years seem like it was a mere tourist wave.
In any case, this will accentuate the Qaddafi effect and more nations will follow the North Korea option of nuclear "unauthorized" nuclear dissuasion, which is also the case for Israel by the way.
Talking of which, Israel will become politically radioactive in the world. Its support is already negative in nearly all countries and has dropped significantly in the US such as the evangelicals.
I speak for myself, of course. And the people I know in my community.
Do you believe all evangelicals believe the same thing, and that we want the end of the world to come immediately? Where would you get such a strange idea? I can assure you it is an ignorant thought.
I think when a lot of people here say "evangelicals" they actually mean "dispensational premillennialists"–who are a significant chunk of "evangelicals", but not the whole
But to be fair to the dispensational premillennialists, even many of them would consider the idea that Israeli (or US) military action is somehow "accelerating the end-times" to be distasteful – whether or not they think that action is justified in itself.
Are those ten million Evangelicals somehow not part of the mainstream? Like is it ten million outcasts that the majority of evangelicals do not claim? That seems unlikely due to the fact that the count of self-reported Christian Zionists is in the multiple tens of millions in the US.
What I think is going on here is you either do want to speak for all evangelicals, and want to convince people that they all believe what you believe, or you are somehow part of a community in which you haven’t heard of or spoken to nearly any of its members. These are the only two ways to make sense of the “who are you talking about?” question; you are either being willfully untruthful about tens of millions of evangelicals, or you simply, somehow, haven’t heard about tens of millions of evangelicals.
You're reacting emotionally to handfuloflight's witty remark and now you're caught in this strait-laced and dignified bit to mask you being offended by the remark and caught making a very poor argument.
Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for (i.e., the "apocalyptic accelerationism" handfuloflight refers to)?
Would it be fair for me to assume that handfuloflight's remark was solid but fell short in the generalizing way that jokes often lay, because of the possibility that there are Evangelicals who don't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for because it's a terrible look and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large?
Both of ya'll need to be more forthright with your positions instead of performing this constipated do-si-do along the HN guidelines. Give me a good flame war, get flagged, ring up dang and the new dude, or just downvote each other.
A quick internet search says 80% of white male evangelicals voted for Trump in 2024. I assume they’re referring to that, since project 2025 is exactly what they accused the evangelicals of supporting.
Still 80 != 100, and not all evangelicals are white males. Alienating the reasonable evangelicals isn’t going to help fix stuff.
C'mon man, you know there are a lot of biblical literalists who are all in on that end times stuff even if you and your social circle don't subscribe to it.
What evangelical church doesn’t believe in the second coming or the significance of the holy land?
Like your pastor, at your evangelical church, preaches that these things are not literal?
Edit: As someone that grew up evangelical, and has had evangelical friends my entire life, it is very strange to see someone casually say that the rejection of biblical inerrancy is an evangelical thing. It stands in stark contrast to the theology that’s fundamental to the faith.
It is literally as odd as seeing someone get mad when another person says that sainthood or the Eucharist are fundamental tenets to Catholicism. I would certainly want them to clarify what exactly their priest was saying to make them feel otherwise.
It is a real religion with a real theology! “Evangelical” isn’t a vibe, it’s a distinct system of worship! Biblical prophecy is very fundamental and a strongly-held belief and value that is taught in every evangelical church I have ever heard of!
There are evangelical movements within American mainline Protestant denominations that broadly hold to amillenialism and do not concern themselves with contemporary speculation regarding eschatology. They receive less attention nationally because they are politically irrelevant.
Amillennialism does not necessarily mean a wholesale rejection of the notion of biblical prophecy. If anything it is largely a disagreement about what the fulfillment of biblical prophecy will look like.
That aside, of course there are always small movements in every faith, but that isn’t usually super meaningful or helpful when talking about the larger group. I’m sure you can find some Catholics that don’t believe in transubstantiation but nobody is out here painting the church as being Eucharist-neutral.
I would not characterize entities like the United Methodist Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as small movements. Both are evangelical churches in the historical sense and neither has a specific position on contemporary political entities as they relate to Biblical prophecies.
For me the last few days show how militarily-impotent Iran is. Even if they had the nuclear bomb they would not be able to use it against Israel-because right now Iran had no air-defenses and Israel is rumored to have about 100 nuclear warheads.
I do not think Iran has any military options. Because it is not liked the Iranian regime does not have any political options either. So I have no idea what will happen-which makes the current situation so interesting to watch.
All this talk of Iran getting a nuke to hit Israel... doesn't the Iranian government know that it would instantly be destroyed the moment they used a nuclear weapon of any kind?
> doesn't the Iranian government know that it would instantly be destroyed the moment they used a nuclear weapon of any kind?
YES. They Absolutely know this. The point of an Iranian nuke is deterrence, and the reason Israel finds that intolerable is that Israeli policy is to maintain the ability to unilaterally raise the stakes of a conflict past any of its neighbors.
That just isn't true and assumes Western type of logic.
Iran doesn't just call death to America and death to Israel in every rally. They mean it. When they publish photos of their facilities I was shocked to see the US flag, then I understood it's on the floor. They walk on the Israeli and US flag every day in these places as an insult. As a westerner I find this pretty hilarious... But they are serious.
For reference I will point you to the Huttis... The main damage they do to Israel is waking up Israelis due to a missile alarm. As a result they lose hundreds of lives in bombings and crucial resources. That doesn't deter them. Hell, they don't even like the Palestinians since they are Sunni... It's a matter of being part of a Jihad.
Notice that this isn't true for all Muslims. The extremists are a death cult who believe that dying in a Jihad will send all of them to heaven. If they get a bomb it is very possible they won't care about the consequences in the same way a "normal" country cares about them.
No, the western kind of logic here is to assume the people we’ve taken as enemies are irrational and fanatical caricatures, instead of normal-ass humans who are attempting to maintain agency over their lives and responding to the actions of those around them.
I think if you look at the actions of Iran over the last 20 years and attempt to categorize it as one of either a geopolitical foe attempting to maintain some degree of control over their local surroundings OR an implacable suicidal death cult, one of those theories is going to fit the facts a whole lot better than the other, as evidenced by the fact that the Iranian regime is still in existence, despite all but daily attempts by both the US and Israel to bait them into attempting “suicide by global cop.”
I'm not saying they're irrational. I'm saying that the basis for their rationality is different to ours. A rational westerner would rarely commit a suicide bombing in a civilian setting (it happens too). But it's common in these circles.
Another example would be the Islamic Jihad attacks prior to 2023. The Islamic Jihad is an organization in Gaza that is similar in purpose to Hamas but distinct. They fired missiles into Israel which led to an Israeli attack. Hamas very explicitly stood down and sent through normal channels that it isn't interested in escalation. This created in Israel a false sense of security which led to the "success" of the Oct 7th attacks. When someone says they want to kill you and aren't afraid of death, it is prudent to believe them.
Neither one of us can enter the minds of these people, but they had plenty of chances to stand down and compromise. They chose not to do that. I wish Trump hadn't quit the nuclear deal because I would have liked to know how that would have turned out. But this is the situation we have right now...
Iran does build up global terrorism and has continued to do that for decades. Their path to nuclear weapons would mean they could continue doing that and no one would be able to do anything even if they never actually use the bomb.
Again, I’d encourage you to stop thinking you’re dealing with people fundamentally different than you, and start considering why they’re acting the way they’re acting. You’ve referenced Palestinian fighters a couple times - I’d suggest the lens that these are fundamentally a different kind of people is probably going to tell you less about the current situation and how to change it for the better than the other lens, which is that these people are fundamentally human like you, and if you’re seeing extreme behavior, there’s probably extreme circumstances driving it.
To be clear, I’m not saying this to justify extreme or violent behavior, but to consistently act surprised when people act “irrationally” is to suggest either your definition of rational is wrong or your understanding of the circumstances are wrong. As the old joke goes, you can’t blame the mouse when the experiment fails.
>The main damage they do to Israel is waking up Israelis due to a missile alarm. As a result they lose hundreds of lives in bombings and crucial resources. That doesn't deter them
Ansar Allah has managed to largely shut down the port of Eilat, one of only 3 major ports in Israel, and Israel relies on maritime imports to sustain itself.
They aren't detered by Israeli bombs because they've been bombed by the Saudis for over a decade in their ongoing civil war.
But all of this talk about nuclear bombs and jihad is hypothetical. Meanwhile only one country in the MidEast has an ACTUAL undeclared nuclear arsenal, and it's the country that has occupied territory in multiple neighboring countries while conducting an ethnic cleansing that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of women and children.
As a Westerner, I'd much rather we deal with the Rogue State perpetrators of actual crimes rather than the hypothetical criminals.
> Ansar Allah has managed to largely shut down the port of Eilat, one of only 3 major ports in Israel, and Israel relies on maritime imports to sustain itself.
That was mostly due to the blockade, it doesn't justify the rockets. That mostly damages a private company and doesn't cost Israel much in the grand scheme of things considering Israel has 2 additional large ports.
> They aren't detered by Israeli bombs because they've been bombed by the Saudis for over a decade in their ongoing civil war.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Death of their own people doesn't fit into their equation.
> But all of this talk about nuclear bombs and jihad is hypothetical. Meanwhile only one country in the MidEast has an ACTUAL undeclared nuclear arsenal, and it's the country that has occupied territory in multiple neighboring countries while conducting an ethnic cleansing that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of women and children.
That mixes a lot of different things and is mostly false.
Unlike them Israel never called for an annihilation of a different state. It called for a regime change. It never made a threat related to nukes other than one idiotic member of parliament who said something stupid.
Israeli demonstrators never called for death to Iran and even now the targets in Iran focus on the people/infrastructure behind the nuclear program while Iran targeted many civilian areas.
The claim of ethnic cleansing is also false and shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation in Gaza. There are Israelis who are justifiably warning that Israel is headed in that direction, but it physically hasn't happened yet. There are many civilian casualties and that is indeed horrible and tragic, but blaming Israel for it is contributing to the death toll.
If you're such a believer in Islamic logic then please explain why Hamas is still holding 53 Israeli hostages?
That is Israels main excuse for the war, without them the war will be over. What is the logic behind that?
Hamas sees Israel as a western nation. It believes that without western support Israel will collapse. In that sense the western outrage over the violence in Gaza is fuel to Hamas, it gives them incentive to keep the violence going and encourages them to use children. It encourages them to hoard the aid sent by the west and produce a picture of starvation amongst their own people.
The Israeli right-wing also benefits from this. They know that if the west abandons support for Israel it will allow them to do whatever they want. They believe that no amount of compromise will ever satisfy Palestinian extremists and they encourage taking harder action against them to fuel a war.
These sorts of stances and misinformation in the west is contributing to more violence and Palestinian death.
86 year old fanatical Islamists don't necessarily operate on the same principles of game theory as the rest of us. Mutual self-destruction is not something they fear to the same degree.
And yet, for twenty goddamn years now, they’ve been negotiating with us and have _not_ built a nuclear weapon, despite repeated threats and provocations by the US. Iran is not an irrational actor. They are a state under siege by a superpower and its violent regional partners, and have acted in the fashion one would expect from a state in that position.
I mean, you're also forgetting the fact that Israel sends assassins after their top nuclear scientists every year or two, and cyberattacks every few years, and "mysterious accidents".
It's a bit like saying "but Y2K never happened, they must have been exaggerating" or "but nobody talks about the Ozone hole or acid rain anymore so it must have never been a real problem".
How much plausible deniability would Iran have if they gave a nuke to Hezbollah who fired it over the border at Tel Aviv?
"That was Hezbollah, not us!"
You might say using a proxy would be a hopelessly transparent ploy, but Hezbollah has been firing other Iranian supplied weapons at Israel for years and yet many people swear up and down that Iran has "never attacked Israel". So apparently the proxy ploy does work on a lot of people.
This is a statement that's fairly ignorant of Iran's long running military strategy. The military situation is much more complex and nuanced that you're laying it out.
One of Iran's strengths, for example, has always been lots of cheap missiles. People often point out how few of the missiles actually hit their targets in Israel, but that's missing the point: every intercepted missile costs orders of magnitude more to intercept than it does to create and launch. The Iron Dome is very effective, but is both incredibly expensive to run and, most importantly, loses efficacy over time as it's resources are depleted.
Nobody knows exactly how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon, but most analysts that I've read that the time to actually being able to launch a weapon is in terms of weeks. So part of Iran's strategy will always been draw attacks until it is ready to potentially retaliate.
On top of that, this is not a video game. Iran does not want to use a nuclear missile, nobody really does since it like ends, at least regionally, in everyone losing. Part of the balance of the conflict in the middle East in Iran is precisely not putting them in a potion where the use of nuclear weapons suddenly becomes rational. This is exactly why we in America have been nervous about open aggression towards Iran. Not because we might not win, but because it backs them into a corner where nuclear options suddenly become more rational.
> Because it is not liked the Iranian regime does not have any political options either.
Just one tiny example of how this is false: because of US sanctions China gets a enormous (estimated at around 15%) amount of their oil, very cheaply, from Iran. A serious threat to Iran then becomes a serious threat to Chinese oil supplies.
The issue is extremely complicated and nuanced, so any takes that are binary are missing a lot of information. By striking Iran we are pushing this this issue into places we haven't really explored yet, with consequences nobody truly knows.
One of the main reasons for the Israeli attack was the mounting stockpile of missiles. Even the small fraction of conventional missiles that hit Israel created a great deal of damage. They were on route to create enough missiles and launchpads that would make Israels air defense irrelevant. The equivalent of two nuclear bombs.
They're not going to escalate. They're already getting their ass handed to them by Israel and the last thing they want is to throw down with their other enemies in the region right now. You are correct that there will be no ground invasion, so there is no existential threat to the government. This means they have no incentive to do something stupid that will make anyone change their mind on that invasion.
It's a country of 100M people. They're not just gonna be have their "ass handed to them", just like it didn't happen in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq1, Iraq2, Yemen and Afghanistan. Countries do adapt to bombings, especially when there's a superpower nearby.
Also if they "were just about to have the bomb" then they could develop it and use it after. So there is the conflicting position that they are both insane to use it and but both sane to not escalate the conflict. This is where most pro-war arguments fail the basic logic test in the nuclear bomb era.
"just like it didn't happen in korea, vietnam, iraq1, iraq2, yemen and afghanistan."
that's a fancy retelling of history you got there. MILLIONs died in those wars and less than 100K US troops died. Out of those wars, iraq 1 led to iraq defeat and withdrawal from kuwait. iraq 2 had saddam dragged through the streets and a regime change within 3 weeks, yemen was counterterrorism - there's no regime to topple, in afghanistan the taliban regime was removed for 20 years and only once the troops were withdrawn were they able to crawl back.
Possibly, but the cost that regime being over is likely similar to that US paid with war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which, and I am being very, very charitable, was too much blood for too little gain.
Forcing Iran into submission is not going be as easy as it was in Iraq.
One of the key reasons behind why Iraq fell so quickly is that Saddam made all the wrong moves leading up the invasion.
By that point, he had alienated every single potential ally (including Iran) - and virtually all states in the region were supportive of the invasion, regardless of their positions in public.
Not to mention that the invasion of Iraq was ultimately a failure anyways..
Iran has been escalating reasonably, and is clearly acting as a sovereign state should. You can project all you want, but Saddam was playing another ballgame.
Unfortunately, international law means nothing these days, so it might have been a mistake to not establish deterrence sooner.
Regardless, Iran is not going to be as easy to topple as some people might think.
Iran and Libya are very different places both in terms of history and current day.
I would expect Israel to win the political battle as well. The world likes winners and Israel is going to be a winner here. It winning will also enable it to address some of the issues that are a concern. Without Iran backing up Palestinian militants it is going to be easier for Israel to make some concessions that it couldn't otherwise.
You can already see a change of tone in Europe. Especially that Iran is aligned with Russia against Ukraine.
Short term I expect the people of Iran to unite around their hatred for the aggressor, making one of the proclaimed goals of "regime change" impossible.
No, if you're familiar with Iranian history it should probably make you wary of interventionism with the goal of regime change. Create a power vacuum and you get the government you deserve, not the one you ask for.
Say, have you ever wondered how exactly Iran came to hate America so much?
> If you're uncomfortable, you should ask your congressAIPACSlave to nuke the entire planet. This way you can make sure there's nobody on this planet left to hate America's rape-culture-based Foreign Policy.
Referring to Congress as AIPAC slaves is textbook anti-Semitic rhetoric; it relies on the old conspiracy theory that Jews secretly control governments. Smuggling in bigotry like this undermines any chance at actual discussion we might have.
I'm flagging your comment because it's counterproductive, feeds a troll comment, and also conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism which is forbidden by HN's guidelines dictating good-faith discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Israel is committing a holocaust of Gaza right now, the time for good faith discussion ended a while ago. Accusing anti-zionists of Anti-semetism for pointing out that the sky is blue as a way to protect Israel from scrutiny is manuscript double anti-semetism. One should be ashamed of oneself for trafficking in genocide whitewashing by using the real issue of antisemetism almost as a human shield.
Spare me. Someone concerned about "double anti-semitism" wouldn't be making allusions to the "Jews control the government via AIPAC" trope, and in the same breath accuse that government of fostering a "rape-culture-based foreign policy."
It's my suspicion that most of the 60% enriched material was moved prior to the attack(Edit: which recent statements from Iran seem to support), and now undergoing enrichment to 90% in a facility the US doesn't know about. Enrichment gets easier as the percentage goes up.
I expect (ok, I WORRY) a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years.
It didn't have to be this way, we had a working treaty and inspections regime until Trump pulled us out of it.
Decades of effort to prohibit nuclear proliferation have just gone down the toilet.
EDIT: Ya'll are right, the idea of them doing a test and going public makes a lot more sense.
> I expect a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years.
This absolutely will not happen. Iran will make a nuke, and they will test it very publicly, and then the political math in the Middle East changes overnight. The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence, not attack - if Iran set off a nuke in an American city, the regime would not survive, and it’s possible the country would not.
Edit: to put that differently, the only way an Iranian bomb goes off in an American city is if an American bomb goes off in an Iranian city.
“ The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence”
I hope this is true, but Iran has a hard time convincing people because their theocratic elements are suicidal from a secular standpoint. Eg their religious messaging is confounding.
You are lumping together three very different countries into a western mindset of deterrence.
While Pakistan is Muslim they are not the same as Iran in any way. The current rulers of Iran do not operate by western logic and would be consider a "holy death" as a direct path to heaven.
Iranian populace isn't behind that, the people themselves are reasonably secular and aren't behind that. However, the leadership is dangerous and you should not assume they would use western logic.
I really don't understand why the US didn't continue their talks with Iran. They were clearly open to joining a non-proliferation treaty at the time. They also have a religious law against developing nukes in addition to their other tentative agreements and cooperation with IAEA.
I don't expect Iran to use any nukes that they develop though. Having nukes puts a country in a special diplomatic class. Using them is almost never beneficial. The status quo risks for nuclear programs is stronger sovereignty, which would drastically shift the regional balance of power and possibly tip the scales on a broad international level.
I think Iran’s mercenaries eventually blew up the entire diplomatic strategy. It turns out they should have stop funding entities that shoot missiles at population centers so often. It was a reckless strategy that failed.
Exactly, they should be rational just like our secular politicians.
"As a Christian growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, ‘Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.’ And from my perspective, I’d rather be on the blessing side of things.”
- Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator
"There is a reason the first time I shook Netanyahu's hand, I didn't wash it until I could touch the heads of my children."
- Randy Fine, a U.S. congressman
And of course, there's the President of the United States who's known to be completely rational.
Iran has shown itself a rational actor time and time again by not escalating against continued provocation by Israel and the US, knowing that to do so would be to enter a conflict it can’t win. That’s not the behavior of an irrational actor who’s willing to fight whatever the cost, even total annihilation (which would be what happened if Iran nuked the US/Israel).
They may be religious fanatics, but they’re not idiots.
I don't think this makes much sense, due to the scale of the two parties: Iran somehow figuring out how to get a nuke onto a US city would invite complete and total annihilation of Iran -- and the world would largely support it. Iran knows this.
Nukes among peers aren't there to be used. They are there to immobilize and freeze a layer of conflict.
Just out of interest are large parts of Iran set to be radioactive for tens of thousands of years? What happens to all the radioactive dust? What is stopping Iran producing dirty ballistic missiles that would make Tel Aviv uninhabitable? Just the threat of nuclear retaliation?
As I understand it, conventional explosives derive their destructive force from using chemical energy to vaporize material so quickly that it explodes forming a destructive shockwave.
With a kinetic energy impacted like the MOP bunker buster, does the material vaporize ahead of the munitions? Is the destructive shockwave the munition casing itself, or perhaps the vaporized breccia being pushed in front of it?
In some ways I imagine it like a nail being driven into the ground but my gut feeling is that, at such high impact energies, something more complicated is going on. For example, with small calibre ballistics you can have many kinds of terminal action: from square edged paper cutting rounds used to make clean holes in targets, to subsonic rounds transferring energy into a target, all the way up to supersonic rounds which drive a shock cone through a “soft” target to cause trauma.
I thought part of Trump's campaign was that he'd distance the US from foreign conflicts and not get involved so much. Is he trying to renege on every single thing he campaigned on?
I have gone from feeling vaguely positive about Israel as a modern center of innovation to believing the Likud government and its many supporters are genocidal child-starving war criminals who massively distort American politics via dirty money (eg Ritchie Torres) and possibly sexual blackmail (eg Maxwell).
I was not very happy with the settlements of West Bank ongoing for decades, but kind of thought every side is to blame and the situation is complex. It's not complex anymore.
I'm concerned by the appearance that the Trump administration was negotiating with the Iranians in bad faith to buy time for an Israeli operation Before America joined the war it was a bad look since it benefits us but it still wasn't outside the realm of possibilities that Israel did this of its own initiative since they're obviously insane. Now that we've taken advantage of the opportunity, it really looks like Trump may have been negotiating in bad faith.
I'm personally of the opinion that the Israeli operation forced Trump's hand and he realized that he can't trust the Iranians going forward since they have no reason to trust us going forward. That's just my opinion; I obviously can't expect anybody else negotiating nuclear non-proliferation (or anything else related to war or peace) with America in the future to have such an optimistic outlook on this turn of events.
If the Israelis did force his hand then I personally can accept that he made the tough call that needed to be made in that moment, but then the next call needs to be distancing us from the Israelis because we can't have an ally that fucks everything up when we're negotiating, *especially* when they literally assassinated the guy who was negotiating with Trump on Iran's behalf.
3. You can use highly enriched uranium (HEU) for things other than weapons, but the weapons are the only things that require HEU. Medical isotopes and propulsion can be done with LEU. For instance, Argentina produces medical Mo99 from LEU [1]. US Navy wants to switch to LEU for submarines [2]. One of the reasons for these developments is exactly proliferation risk management.
> 3. You can use highly enriched uranium (HEU) for things other than weapons, but the weapons are the only things that require HEU.
OP seems to expect everyone to believe that any regime invests years and small fortunes in research sites built in networks of bomb-proof bunkers buried inside mountains, right next to their network of ballistic missiles, to research medical applications.
You're suggesting that honest countries with no intention of building nuclear weapons would have no reason to ever try and hide or protect their nuclear sites. This is probably the single worst point in history to make that argument.
Australia's future nuclear submarines are planned to use HEU not LEU.
HEU has clear advantages over LEU for submarines – LEU submarines need to be refuelled once every decade (give or take a few years), weapons grade HEU reactors are never refuelled – the initial fuelling is enough to last 30-40 years, and by the time refuelling is becoming needed, the submarine is retired/scrapped.
This was also part of Australia's justification for backstabbing France over AUKUS. Australia was paying France for diesel-electric submarines, but if it wanted nuclear, France can provide that too – but French nuclear submarines are LEU not HEU – the US and the UK are the only nations which have weapons grade HEU subs. [0] Of course, an arguably much bigger factor was Anglosphere strategic alliances versus greater cultural/political distance from France, but it is diplomatically helpful to be able to appeal to a justification which is more objectively technical in nature.
In an attempt to manage non-proliferation concerns, I understand the AUKUS plan is that when they start constructing nuclear submarines in Australia, they'll build and fuel the reactor in the UK (or possibly the US, but the UK is apparently more likely), ship it fuelled to Australia for installation in the submarine, and then at the end of the submarine's life, the reactor will be removed from it in Australia and then shipped back to the UK for defeuelling and disassembly. But, I guess it is an open question to what extent such an exercise is required by the letter of the non-proliferation treaty, versus whether it will be done that way simply to close down a potential line of diplomatic and political criticism.
[0] Russian and Indian sub fuel is HEU by IAEA definitions, but significantly less enriched than the US/UK subs, which use weapons grade uranium as fuel. Some Soviet era subs did use weapons grade HEU
Regarding #3, I haven't kept up with this specific issue lately, but wasn't the issue with their use and creation of HEU, atleast for a while, that they wouldn't allow UN nuclear energy inspectors to monitor what was being created at the reactors? There are AP articles from 2023[1] saying that Iran had barred 1/3 of the most experienced inspectors the UN had there from monitoring it, and a news article from the UN itself from this year[2] says that Iran has been actively impeding their ability to monitor its nuclear program.
Presumably if you allow monitors for non-weapons uses, the accounting of where the material goes is relatively straightforward. Therefore monitoring could not be allowed, ipso facto, they are doing it for weapons.
An other compatible explanation is that they wanted ambiguity about their weapon production.
Besides, wasn't this whole thing triggered by a UN report showing they had made a lot more 50% enriched stuff than expected? I.e. the monitoring "worked"
But ambiguity with respect to weapons production has to be taken as a confirmation of an intent to develop weapons of the opposite side. Which makes this equivalent to just having a nuke program. It doesn't even give you a bargaining chip because there is nothing you can do as a step back (since you didn't do anything in the first place)
I suggest you wrap the misconceptions in quotation marks to make it clearer what is the misconception and what is not. Took me two passes to realize what was what.
> 3. Highly enriched U-235 is only for weapons - Modern medical, propulsion and research reactors use HEU
If you genuinely have no interest in uranium for weapons, it makes more sense to buy it from a country known to supply it at purities and quantities for peaceful purposes than to build you own centrifuges under mountains. Iran is/was either using uranium enrichment for weapons development or a political bargaining chip.
> Modern medical, propulsion and research reactors use HEU
This blanket statement is so inaccurate it is useless. HEU is a range, medical or research applications usually use 20–30% enriched Uranium, not the >60% Iran is (has been?) currently working on.
So like the Trump administration, systematically undermining American democracy in favor of Putin, and sending violent crowds of drooling mouth breathing batshit crazy white supremacist insurrectionists breaking and entering into sacred government buildings, beating the living daylights out of police and stealing their equipment as they lay crying in pain on the ground, driving them to commit suicide, smearing shit on the walls and floors of Congress, proudly parading Racist Confederate Loser Battle Flags around the Capitol, stealing and vandalizing government property, shouting out their support for Trump while correctly claiming and proudly posting to social media that they are acting on his behalf and at his command, and trying to capture and murder American politicians including the Vice President himself.
To me, the only point that matters is #3 and to the best of my knowledge it isn't true any longer.
Iran has produced a large amount of >60% U-235 (enriched), probably hundreds of kilograms, way more than would be required for any peaceful purpose. I don't think any modern medical uses actually require enriched uranium any more. And anyway, how much medical imaging or radiation treatment could you possibly be doing? And they could be developing propulsion systems, that wouldn't be a peaceful purpose (it would be a military ship).
Put all this together and it seems abundantly clear that the sole purpose of Iran's HEU program is the production of nuclear weapons. HEU isn't required in any significant amount for peaceful purposes.
> Put all this together and it seems abundantly clear that the sole purpose of Iran's HEU program is the production of nuclear weapons.
Not true. One simple reason could be just to keep the appearance of the program ongoing in order to gain leverage in negotiations. Remember that Trump pulled US out of the negotiations on his first term, this could easily just be Iran's response to it.
No, these bombings are not a negotiation tactic, they are a response to a dangerous action (violating non-proliferation treaties). The regime hoping that this action might be useful as a negotiation tactic does not somehow strip the action of its consequences.
If I point a gun at my wife during a divorce proceeding and a cop shoots me, that's on me, no? Even if I never meant to pull the trigger and the gun wasn't even loaded.
And when the best available intelligence says Iran was nowhere near close of obtaining a nuke?
The real reason is this: Israel is in a unique position where they have removed all threats at their borders so they can finally attack their biggest enemy. So they do that, and while doing so pull the US with them. We are at the brink of a massive war that will have millions of casualties, with even more millions fleeing to Europe, destabilizing the world even further.
You probably bought the reasoning about Saddam's WMDs as well.
Complete non-sequitur from where the conversation was one comment ago.
This thread started with you saying "maybe they are doing it as a negotiation tactic". And yet simultaneously you think it is everyone else's fault if such a tactic is taken seriously?
Ah yes the old, "It's all a Jewish plot and Jews control the media".
Nevermind the Iranian regime funding terrorists and constantly talking about nuking Israel, attacking the west and using their proxies to actually attack Israel and the West.
None of the points matter when Iran literally states their goal is nuclear weapons and using them on Israel, over and over again. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Yet it's framed as "misconceptions perpetuated by Israel and its 5th column in US media"
> There are 4 common misconceptions perpetuated by Israel and its 5th column (...)
None of your trivia points have any relevance, and it seems your point was to find a way to make wild baseless claims about "Israel and its 5th column".
Propaganda indeed.
Edit: of course the torrent of downvotes landed within minutes of commenting on a message posted 5-minutes ago.
My point is to underline the fact that the comment had no purpose other than to shoehorn wild claims of "Israel and its 5th column". Do you dispute this fact?
In that reporting stream, at 22:58, "White House releases photos of Trump in Situation Room"[1], I'm struck that we are in a timeline that is not only dark, but surreal.
It sounds trite to say from a position of relative comfort and distance, but I can only hope that someday our better selves will find peace with each other, around the globe.
But we won't be able to undo all the injustices and atrocities that we inflicted upon each other. We know these wrongs as we are doing them, and they will remain upon us.
Remote War photos are now commonplace. The striking thing is that he is wearing his MAGA hat, as if he purposely wants to piss off his base who had delusions of "no wars president"
Fascinating how this happened merely weeks after Iran-China railway link opened (Reported on May 25, 2025. Link below.). It directly threatens US hegemony by providing a faster and more secure land corridor for trade, particularly Iranian oil and gas exports to China and Chinese goods flowing into Iran and the broader Middle East. This bypasses critical maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca, where the US Navy traditionally exerts significant control, reducing reliance on these US-dominated sea routes. Furthermore, the railway facilitates sanctioned Iranian oil exports to China and enables increased Chinese investment in Iran, undermining the effectiveness of US economic sanctions as a primary tool of foreign policy. It accelerates Eurasian integration under China's Belt and Road Initiative, deepening economic and strategic ties across the continent and fostering the development of a US-independent economic bloc linking China, Iran, Turkey, Central Asia, and Russia. The railway physically connects two major US adversaries, China and Iran, enabling easier movement of goods, resources, and potentially military or logistical support, thereby strengthening an anti-Western coalition challenging US global dominance. In essence, the railway erodes US control over trade routes, weakens sanctions, empowers a rival Eurasian bloc centered on China, and solidifies an opposing strategic axis.
doubt it's really game-changing. Rail is more expensive and the three other countries in the middle can be strong-armed and harassed into stalling or cutting this off.
from what i read, the Strait of Hormuz is mostly used for shipping to Asia now, with the US being a net exporter of oil, KSA and others getting more options to ship via the Red Sea instead, and overall blocking this would be a minor annoyance, not lasting long with 2 carrier strike groups on the way, and most to-be-blocked shipments going to China - shooting themselves in the foot. It seems the historical memories of the 70's mideast oil beef are just that. But what do i know.
I don't think it's going through Afghanistan. It's probably just re-using Soviet railroads. But it is going through Turkmenistan, which is one of the craziest insane and most bizarre and unpredictable places one can think of, and Uzbekistan, which used to happily host US troops in Khanabad. Just a matter of some cash and some threats of sanctions with either one of those two.
Belt & Road continues to fray as China shows reluctance to help its partners when in need. China seems to only come to the aid of anyone after embarrassment or pressure or if it directly helps them. I'm reminded a few years back when Pakistan was suffering from terrible floods, China initially sent its very best thoughts and prayers but it wasn't until after the US started to send aid that China finally got involved. Ultimately all packages from the US seemed to have exceeded the Chinese total but I am unsure. If countries can get away by playing both the US and China off of each other great, but if you need help just from China, good luck.
I like how you gloss over the preceding decades of being constantly shot at with rockets (leading to a thing called "Iron Dome"). Being surrounded with countries that every day chant "death to Israel". Also the sane, rational, and peaceful Islamic Republic of Iran is the one that organized and funded those attacks.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that very few are pointing this out. People seem to rally against Iran because of some hypothetical scenario where it could become...exactly like Israel.
There are reasons why presidents have avoided attacking Iran.
- massive instability in the ME. Just a few men with shoulder fired missiles can disrupt oil shipments from the biggest oil producers
- the high chance of being sucked into a forever war. Iran can cause a lot of problems with limited resources and can rebuild. They have no reason to give up and the US might have to continue bombing indefinitely, or launch a ground invasion.
- the increased chance of nuclear war in the ME. This action assumes that Iran has no backup facilities, or will never have, to continue building a bomb. Having already suffered the consequences, Iran has no reason not to seek a bomb.
Worse, is that this was done at the behest of Israel. Israel is America’s shittiest ally in the region where the relationship is exclusively one-sided. There are good reasons why, despite all the lies and bullshit from America politicians, America has not executed military actions at their behest before now.
“Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.”
— John Sheehan, S.J.
Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. navy to fight the Barbary war (in modern Libya) because he refused to pay tribute to protect our trading routes. This quote is simply false. We've had enemies in the Middle East pretty much since the founding of the American republic.
> “Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.” — John Sheehan, S.J.
Before Israel? Like before 1947? When half the place was under British rule and the oil industry was a fraction of what it was today?
That's about as useful as saying that before the atomic bomb, we had no enemies in the Middle East.
What a dishonest way to make such an inflammatory accusation.
Yes, before 1947, back when the Secretary of State as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all seasoned professionals who had just won WW2, strongly advised AGAINST supporting Zionism in Palestine. They correctly asserted that demands from the Zionists would never end, and that it would sour the US's otherwise solid relations with the entire Arab region.
Good job uncritically posting a fake screenshot. It's edited from the public stats page you can find on third-party 4chan archives. You can even check the numbers at a given date from the Internet Archive.
> On April 26, Ben-Gurion sent a letter to Kennedy warning about the forthcoming destruction of Israel due to the Treaty of Federation signed by Egypt, Syria and Iraq on April 17.
then later
> The most ominous part of Ben-Gurion’s letter was when he wrote: “Mr. President, my people have the right to exist – both in Israel and wherever they may live, and this existence is in danger.”
This article is funny. This is set in 1960. 10 years after Israel was attacked by an Arab coalition and 10 years before Israel was attacked AGAIN by guess who, an Arab coalition.
What do you expect, that president of a country lets it to be destroyed to later tell people like you "see, told ya"? Time doesn't allow you to go back. You can hate war but in this case it just seems like if they had no nukes they would be destroyed long ago by neighboring countries.
About 4chan link, Techchrunch basically sums it up:
> One 4chan janitor who spoke to TechCrunch on the condition of anonymity said they are “confident” the leaked data and screenshots are “all real”.
Yeah totally real. because 4chan was hacked by a competitor we can be sure there was nothing planted in the dump. And because the guy who posted the screenshot limits replies we can be sure it is doubly real.
Thinking how much antisemitism there was on 4chan I can only shrug.
> "To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.” President Trump
you have no idea what you're talking about - every single country that experiences domestic terrorism relies on israeli intelligence for counter terrorism. almost all of europe, us, much of the middle east all have very active intelligence partnerships.
if you think it's one-sided you're either severely misinformed or bigoted.
Actually now is different. The axis of resistance that would pop up (asad, Hezbollah, Hamas, houthis) are all basically gone and unable to mount an attack.
Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, HTS, and majority of Middle East is not in favor of Iran getting a nuke.
Well put, and an important - and often either overlooked or fully unknown - point, especially in the west.
Many in the west see the middle east as a broadly similar unit, not realizing that there Iran represents a frequently highly-disliked section in the broader area. The neutralization of Iraq definitely has had an impact on that front as well (the two being hard core enemies for a long time).
The children of all the people killed by Israel will continue to resist. The US/Israel has created 100x new enemies in the past year and a half (not counting the billions outside of the ME).
It’s less than 1000 Iranians dead as of now and I doubt we hit 1000 by the end of things. Palestinians are such horrible refugees that none of the neighboring Muslim countries want to take them in, not to mention their staggeringly high rates of incest wrecking any potential host’s gene pool.
Serious question re Russia: Can they actually get more engaged than they already are...? Because id thought the opposite; Russia is weaker than anyone since initial soviet breakup, isn't now the ideal time wrt to Israeli involvement?
I disagree, given the high probability they were going to do it anyway. They built Natanz enrichment in secret, they built Arak in secret, they built Fordow in secret, not to mention the more recent violations of the NPT to which they're still a signatory. They've violated the NPT over and over and over again. Why would one more agreement make any difference to their clandestine program?
This is the thing Western liberals need to understand. The leaders of these despotic regimes don't think like you. They don't intend to adhere to the agreements like you would. Their psychology is different to your psychology. And you can't make a unilateral agreement with a party like this. The agreement becomes a weapon to creep forward and present the world with a fait accompli at a future date.
> This is the thing Western liberals need to understand.
First Western liberals needed to understand that Ukraine shouldn't have given up its nukes. Now they need to understand that Iran shouldn't have tried to get them.
The Ukraine situation proves my point, though. Russia was a signatory to an agreement with Ukraine to not do what they're doing. You can't make unilateral agreements with parties that have no intention of holding to them, as much as you would like to wishcast a different reality. The only option is a military one.
Oh, I've seen this one before! Then you install a police state, back it up with foreign weapons you sell to the police state in exchange for taxpayer money, forcibly "disappear" any disagreeable types and make the entire population hate your country for centuries to come!
All observers to trials since 1965 have reported allegations of torture which have been made by defendants and have expressed their own conviction that prisoners are tortured for the purpose of obtaining confessions. Alleged methods of torture include whipping and beating, electric shocks, the extraction of nails and teeth, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape.
Did "western liberals" get all that? Oh, I forgot this line by mistake!
SAVAK was established in 1967 with help from both the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
The false equivalency of destroying a democracy that had no nuclear ambitions, with attacking the nuclear facilities of a theocratic regime that has violated the NPT multiple times.
For your first point, that’s not as big of an issue as it used to for the USA thanks to fracking, now the USA is a net exporter of oil.
For the second, I don’t think anything other than an air campaign like it’s been done will happen, it’s not like the USA is out for blood like after 9/11.
For the third, yeah, that’s unfortunately possible, North Korea, Ukraine and now this show that the only way no one messes with you is by having a good enough deterrent. However, even if this hadn’t happened, if Iran got a bomb, they wouldn’t threaten like nk does to get stuff, it would just test it on Israel, so you would get nuclear war anyway.
Blows my mind how people think Iran is building nuclear weapons when nobody in the intel community does... Thought y'all wouldve learned after Iraq but guess not...
I think there are narrow and broad perspectives to apply here. The narrow view is that this is purely a matter of Iran's nuclear program, whereas the broad view is that Iran does not exist in a vacuum.
First, a refresher on the state of affairs:
* Iran, Russia and China have various military pacts and economic trade deals which bypass western tariffs and sanctions. Some political strategists have characterized these specific countries as an anti-western axis.
* Iran supplies Russia with drones and drone manufacturing technology which plays a crucial role in the war on Ukraine.
* Iran backs terrorist organizations such as the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The US has recently conducted strikes against the Houthis in Lebanon. Israel conducted their pager attack against Hezbollah. Hamas, we understand, was the catalyst of the current conflict in Gaza.
* Iran is on record stating a desire for the destruction of Israel.
The West has enemies.
Given this context, the west has one of two options: do nothing and let their enemies grow stronger, bolder, and more unified, or proactively disarm and disable the coalition in order to avoid a greater conflict (self-fulfilling prophecies not withstanding).
Now let's reexamine today's strike on the nuclear sites:
* Israel and the US have squashed Iran's rebel factions.
* Israel has seized Tehran's airspace.
* Iran is allegedly low on remaining missile supplies.
* Iran does not have a nuke.
* The US just demolished their uranium refinement sites.
At this point you'll ask 2 questions:
Q1. Can Iran retaliate?
The short answer is: probably not. Iran, who typically strikes through rebels and missiles, is in short supply of both, while also being placed in a headlock (enforced by F-35s) they might be inclined to capitulate sooner than later.
Q2. Will anyone defend Iran? And by anyone we mean Russia or China.
Well, China has yet to get involved in a global conflict, and has generally had an opportunistic approach to international relationships. I.e Iran is only good for their oil exports, which are still intact (for now). Plus China is on record supporting the 2015 nuclear agreement, i.e they don't want Iran to have nukes either.
What about Russia? Well, any other day of the week they might be inclined to assist an ally, but what can they spare? They're not exactly masters of their domain at the moment.
In summary, this was a somewhat necessary intervention for the US in both helping an ally in the immediate conflict as well as serving a purpose in the greater geo political context. While this will certainly have unforseeable consequences in global stability, perhaps these small, strategic conflicts are intended to prevent a larger one.
There is a lot of equating "The West" with israel in this. A LOT of the west is not behind what israel is doing , not even americans are. Iran is a very minor threat to europe and US, and very minor threat in general.
There is nothing ideological about this war, nobody seriously believes that. It's 100% power play
Could be a good way to boost the economy amidst a trade war while simultaneously doubling-down on protectionism. On the one hand we usually profit from wars, on the other hand we lose trading partners when we do our usual human rights violations shtick.
I predict this is a ploy to try to get us into a war, so Trump can have his third term, rejecting calls to step down "because we're at war". It's a little early, but our kids are already used to being in 20-year-long pointless wars in the Middle East.
That's a huge lie, if 'we' is to be read as 'Americans' and not 'the 1%'.
78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck [0].
'We' - taxpayers - 'spent' trillions and trillions of dollars on war in the middle east. What was the return on investment? We could have housed every American, eliminated student debt, gone 100% clean energy, and ended world hunger; with change left over.
On the contrary, nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran. It's been an open not-even-secret for decades that America is very active, on many fronts, in trying to delay or remove Iran's growing capability to create nuclear weapons.
That would help, but it doesn't change the fact that America and the broader west has been working hard for decades to counter Iran's nuclear weapons program.
No, it is not illegal for a US president to authorize strikes like this. American hasn't formally declared war since WWII.
Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and no one, especially no one in the middle east - wants a nuclear armed Iran. America and its partners - and quite often its not-partners - have been working to stop Iranian uranium enrichment for a very long time.
As for "guarantees they will pursue nuclear weapons by all means" -- that's the point: they've already been doing so nonstop for decades.
In much of the middle east, Iran is detested, and a nuclear armed Iran is deeply feared throughout the region. Iran with nukes means the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to pursue nuclear weapons as well. Again, in vast swaths of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
"they've already been doing so nonstop for decades" - I would think it's not that complicated to make a nuclear bomb today, is it ? Technology has been there for almost 100 years already.
Your thinking would be wrong, then. Making nuclear weapons is ridiculously complicated, tedious, and requires access to loads of very specific technology.
I would actually love to read a bit about it. Like, let's say a reasonably sized developed country - say Australia for example, decides that making nukes it's a national priority. How long it would take them ?
> that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan....
I think that was the plan. Israeli and american and turkish planes are now freely flying over Syria , iraq, (i assume also afghanistan) to conduct attacks. Iran is being set up as theater for long proxy war. The rest of middle east and libya is controlled by turkey & israel which seem to have complementary interests as proxies of the US. At the moment it appears the US/israeli dominance in the whole former Ottoman empire is strong, but inevitably (and quickly) we will see dozens of unconventional wars in the region (what we call terrorism)
President can authorize precision strikes and special ops if there’s imminent threat justification. I’m not arguing either way if this strike was justified, but there’s legal pathways for it. The congress rule is about declaring war.
A chaotic broken Iran is going to be a powder keg for the world that keeps erupting unless the US is willing to just glass the entire country. It only looks like a better outcome in the very short term.
Are you sure? He certainly engaged in a lot of military operations in several countries without Congress's approval. He also ramped up drone strikes dramatically.
Because acting unsurprised means giving Trump a pass. It means normalizing awful things and normalizing hate and hurt. No one actually wants the world where he has no moral limits.
This information is just a google search away, so I’ll assume you’re willfully ignorant. No it’s not illegal. It can go on for 60 days before requiring authorization by Congress.
How the heck does a US president have military powers so powerful and broad? If congress can only declare war, it doesn't make sense to me that the president can put the entire country at risk of war by directly bombing another country. Like then at that point, congress has to approve right..? Because the damage is already done. It's a big slap on the face at the global stage, with no room for political face-saving. The damage being already done to both global reputation and national sovereignty. There's no going back.
If another country bombed the US, and then their system of government was like, "oh well it isn't technically war cause it was just our single head honcho making his own decision. But good news, our second government entity officially declared not going to war with you, kthxbye srry lol", that logic isn't going to fly in the US. The US is gonna retaliate and consider it an act of war, because it was bombed by a foreign power... damage being already done.
How the heck can Trump do this. I get it if the US got attacked, then it's useless to wait for congress to decide war-or-not-war... but this literally puts the US on a direct war path with Iran. the US literally just bombed another country unprovoked.
And Trump said he hated war, which was his platform when running. He was gonna end the war in Ukraine because nobody wins and war is nasty. What is going on.. why is Congress so spineless too. They probably won't even do anything. This is the worst timeline ever.
> How the heck does a US president have military powers so powerful and broad? If congress can only declare war [...]
It's been this way since the Vietnam war, it not the Korean war. Every president since then has been able to engage in relatively small military operations without congressional approval. And the UN is what ended formal declarations of war, too. Basically Congress can stop military actions started by the President by taking the money away or not providing it to begin with, but if the operation is small then it's a fait accompli before Congress can do anything about it.
See the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, Libya, Syria, etc.
In America, there's nothing unusual here: Presidents can, and very frequently have, decided to do military strikes on targets. This is not illegal in American law.
Iran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
We have all this technology but you can't get a decent overview of any conflict. There is liveuamap which seems to have data and certainly is better than any other website I know of but the ui is a horrific mess.
I think it is important for the people of the world to get an idea how things are unfolding.
It should be an animation of the exchanges both verbally and physically. Have a complete set of news sources for each action.
The BBC is not something you can trust to report on anything. I can't even see a date with the article? Pictures of the situation room??? Trump's name written in gold??What a waste of my time.
Games from the 90's provide better visualizations than anything online today.
The opposite. They're thinking "if we try to do this, we will die, because their intelligence knows where we are at all times".
This war is quite paradigm shifting in multiple ways, and I'm hopeful it serves as a strong deterrent. No longer will soldiers be the first to die. The leadership is now first to die, and within a week. That significantly alters the incentives for pursuing war. This was never the case until today.
Just wait for China to get rich enough to counter American military dominance, and then ally with them for protection. Iran is already half way to becoming a Chinese vassal state, either it falls apart or becomes one completely after this.
Knowing "where you are" is irrelevant. Iraq was invaded under the pretense of having weapons of mass destruction, so the rational thing to do is having them anyway, cause the US can bomb you anytime if you don't. Meanwhile, North Korea is 100% fine.
This is the ultimate gamble here. On one path, those considering a nuke could be deterred after realizing the Trump administration is willing to use that as a reason to attack. On the other path, countries could either decide the risk of attack is necessary or estimate the risk of future administrations acting similarly as low enough to go for the bomb.
Yeah, yeah, the same puppet that negotiated between EU and Russia and took Russian deal just because it was much more profitable for Ukraine. And he got toppled for that choice. Cool story bro.
Yep, that's how it ends. I expect, there will be many many countries with nukes in 2030. Even a country like Poland, which is part of Nato, announced that it will seek to acquire nuclear weapons in the future.
We started thinking that after seeing Palestine get bombed and US vetoing every attempt at aid. We used to be a neutral country since independence, but Ukraine and Gaza proved that the world will just stand aside and watch the neutral countries get exterminated by nuclear nations.
The issue is that a nuclear armed Iran (and remember that Iran is largely detested in the middle east, and is broadly considered to be a destabilizing enemy) would result in the rest of the middle east feeling compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs. No one wants an nuclear armed Iran.
Iran having nukes (and recall that in the broader middle east, Iran is largely considered a dangerous enemy) would result in the rest of the middle east pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran. Iran having nukes is a very bad idea - that's why the west , and even countries beyond, have been working for decades to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Any self respecting dictator could see the writing on the wall after Gadaffi, or for that matter, Sadam. A domestic nuclear program though is still not a simple proposition.
I wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea is now doubling its efforts and even offering Russia additional resources to help it acquire nuclear capabilities.
You say that but Iran couldn’t even escalate their rhetoric post-strike because “Every American is now a legitimate target” is now a tired refrain rather than a feared declaration.
The lesson here is not to make idle threats against half of the world that you don’t honestly mean.
You're saying that there exists some country capable of a nuclear weapons program (an exceedingly difficult thing), that for some reason has not actually built one, and now that they see Iran pummeled for trying to build theirs... is now incentivized to finally go for it??
Turkey, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Finland and even Switzerland* are all assessed as having the capability but having refrained for political reasons.
* the Swiss nuclear weapons programme ran for over four decades during the Cold War
History disagrees with you, and Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. They were even providing Russia with arms for their invasion of Ukraine. Let's not equate them with many others, such as Poland, etc. Iran absolutely should not be allowed under any circumstances to have a nuclear weapon. If they were as close as what intelligence seems to indicate (though I know that's hard to believe after the Iraq war, but we aren't in a ground war so the burden of proof is understandably less) then I frankly don't think it would have mattered if it were Kamala, Biden, or Trump in office. The facilities were getting bombed.
The scenario was already war gamed during the Biden administration, it was already a possible outcome. The G7 already backed this idea that Iran can't have this before, and they'll do it again. The US doesn't stand alone on this, Saudi Arabia and basically everyone in the region and world doesn't want Iran having a nuke sans Russia/China. I'm not even sure if Russia/China really want it either. It's just common sense.
This is absolutely the case. We've been collectively fighting to stop Iran from getting nukes for decades. In much of the middle east, Iran is considered a serious enemy. Iran getting nuclear weapons would mean the rest of the middle east would instantly feel compelled to get their own.
A country doesn't acquire nukes to use them. They acquire them to freeze specific layers of conflict. Actually using them among peers invites annihilation.
It turns out (and I didn't realize this until I looked back into it just a few years ago) that the 70s/80s concept of nuclear winter is discredited and believed not to be something that would arise from a global thermonuclear holocaust.
The US actually ends Iran's nuclear program, they quit trying and obey ... because we bombed them?
Most of the recent middle east history doesn't seem to ever end as much as just go through a continuous cycle of violence creating more of what the folks condoning violence claim they're preventing.
fwiw they do seem to have wiped out a bunch of opponents recently, some weakened to the point of giving up, others wiped out entirely. ever since the so-called "arab spring" the trend has been pretty steady.
I wonder that too, with Gaza with the current approach the only endgame seems to be to either just kill everyone or to displace every single person somewhere else, but if those children continue to have living conditions of animals, their resistance will be of no consequence. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but i think this is not inaccurate unfortunately.
We fought a war against Iraq, conducted no fly zone operations over them for 12 years, fought another war, occupied them for 9 years, left and came back less than 3 years later for another 7 year long military operation against the terrorist group that filled the power vacuum. We still have about 2500 troops stationed in Iraq.
Thank you for the additional examples of things not simply shutting down after a quick conflict. Lasting peace requires decades of military involvement. That is my point.
It's a completely different story. The roots and branches of Iran and its current leadership go deeper and wider on a different level. Saddam had nothing in comparison. Hamas would be a cakewalk in comparison and that's apparently still going.
Hard to see this being achievable over a just a couple of years if at all.
Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. That was the assessment of Trump's own government back in March, according to testimony of his national security advisor under oath before congress.
We knew about these sites because they have been under IAEA supervision for many years.
The smart thing for Iran to do at this point is do what Israel did: not submit to any arms control and develop their own weapons in secret. Clearly this is the only way to be safe when people in Tel Aviv and Washington are openly discussing the "Libya solution."
According to the IAEA, Iran has around 400kg of 60% enriched Uranium. Nobody disputes this. There is zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 5% for civilian purposes, and zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 20% for non-bomb purposes (naval ship reactors typically use higher enrichment to avoid refueling and increase power density). That's enough Uranium to build around 10 bombs if fully enriched. They've done work on designing the actual bomb itself, too, and there's very little dispute about that either.
They have a nuclear weapons program. What Iran hasn't done, or there's no evidence of them having done, is actually start putting one together. But many of the prerequisites to do so are in place, though people dispute exactly how long it would take them to pull it off once they decided to do so.
Gaining the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon is not the same thing as assembling one.
Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, March 2025:
"the IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." [1]
Please explain how "Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program" is grammar hacking the above quote.
If you're actively doing the research and design required to build a nuclear weapon, and you're enriching uranium for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon, you have a nuclear weapons program. Whether you're actually physically assembling one immediately or not.
You wouldn't argue that the Manhattan Project wasn't a "real" nuclear weapons program until they started physically building the prototype.
I think his point is: you knew about this 60% because we have visibility into their plants. But if we didn't, we probably have less of an idea of what is going on there.
This is grossly incorrect: Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment for decades - and the west (and even the not-west) has been working to counter it the whole time.
Iran is considered a bellicose enemy in much of the middle east. A nuclear-armed Iran would quickly lead to the rest of the middle east pursing their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran.
A nuclear armed Iran leads to rapid nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east.
I remember an old interview of Robert Fisk where in which his analysis was that the only way to stay safe from attacks like this was to have a nuclear weapon.
I can't think of any other way. Their rhetoric is needlessly belligerent but it doesn't seem like there's anything they can do to guarantee their own safety.
Assad was deposed more than a year after the start of the current Israel/Gaza flare up, which has included conflict in Lebanon and Yemen. He was also deposed nearly 14 years into the Syrian Civil War.
Considering the fact that many US congressmen openly fly the flag of Israel in and around their congressional offices and openly proclaim absolute commitment to this foreign entity, there is no end in sight to the direct interference in US politics and subsequent military intervention and aid supporting these people while our country is sucked dry and our soldiers are ordered to die fighting in their wars.
> If Iran has nukes, then a nuke race will start in the middle East
A fair concern, but it is interesting that although "estimates of Israel's stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads" [1], we are not concerned about those warheads as much as we do about the ones Iran might have. Should US bomb Israeli nuclear plants? No. Should they have bombed the Iranian ones? Why?
Because in Israel they don't chant "death to Iran" for the past 46 year.
Amazingly none of Israel immediate neighbors, whom she has peace deals with, felt the need to obtain Nuclear weapons (Jordan/Egypt).
Israel is 1500km from Iran, people in Israel don't care about Iran they only think about Iran in the context of the weekly threats to destroy Ireal for the past 46 years. Iran on the other hand has a fucked up regime. That's the difference.
> Death to Arabs is an anti-Arab slogan originating in Israel. It is often used during protests and civil disturbances across Israel, the West Bank, and to a lesser extent, the Gaza Strip. Depending on the person's temperament, it may specifically be an expression of anti-Palestinianism or otherwise a broader expression anti-Arab sentiment, which includes non-Palestinian Arabs.
Have you been to Israel? I have cousins there. When I was 14 and visited, my 19 year old cousin told me we need to kill all the Arabs because “if we exile them, they will just come back.” Do you really think (a large segment of) Israelis are less crazy than (a large segment of) Iranians?
Israel has always threatened its neighbors. Remember, it was born as a group of European Jews that attacked Palestine to conquer their land, with arms provided to them by Europe. It will always exist under a state of war.
We have to let Israel die off and change our alliances. An alliance with Iran would be much more beneficial to America than an alliance with Israel.
We didn't want Israel to have nukes either, we tried to stop them and failed. We wouldn't bomb Israel's nukes because they -already- have them, and they have grown in a semi-reliable regional ally since then. We are trying to stop Iran from having them at all to prevent them from being essentially off-limits to retaliation (note Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism / people's fears of supporting Ukraine given Russia keeps threatening nuclear action) and kicking off a regional nuclear arms race.
Most of Islamic republics are fiefdoms, kingdoms and dictatorships. Most of the populations are radicalized, and have very limited freedom of speech and right to protest.
I think this attack makes it more likely they’ll get nukes, not less. They moved all their enriched uranium already, and now they know that there’s no longer any point in diplomacy.
The next facilities they build will be a few times deeper, and I have no doubt we’ll soon be hearing that ground troops are the only way to stop them.
They had already crossed the line into nuclear tech that's specifically for weapons, i.e. with a 400kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%. Unless we accept explanations like "scientific curiosity", they were already somewhere in the process of building nuclear weapons, even if success wasn't immanent.
I don't know how long these operations will set them back, but if the Iranian regime won't willingly refrain from nuclear weapons work, isn't a delay better than nothing?
60% enrichment is not weapons grade. Weapons grade is 80%. High enrichment is used in certain reactor designs, such as naval reactors.
There are a lot of reasons to be enriching uranium besides building nuclear weapons. Considering the US reneged on its deal to drop sanctions in exchange for Iran to not enrich uranium, it is pretty obviously useful as a bargaining chip, in the negotiations.
The US intelligence community assessed that Iran has not been working on a bomb since the program was shut down in 2003. They didn't want a nuke, they wanted an end to sanctions. They further wanted to avoid provoking exactly this sort of conflict. This did not delay them getting nuclear weapons, it will make them get nuclear weapons.
To quote an ISIS report, "Iran has no civilian use or justification for its production of 60 percent enriched uranium, particularly at the level of hundreds of kilograms". In theory it could be for naval propulsion, but experts (including IAEA inspectors) seem unconvinced.
They “could have” had nuclear weapons for a long time if they’d wanted to, yes, but they didn’t get them. They signed the NPT, allowed inspections, and their ruler issued a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons. Why’d they do all that if their goal all along was to get a nuclear weapon? They could have just done it.
These attacks make it clear that they would have been better off if they had gotten them, so it seems reasonable to assume this will be their new policy. What other strategic choice have they been left with?
Just to clarify, is your position that Iran was never working toward nuclear weapons, or just not until recently? I think enriching uranium to 60% is pretty clear evidence of their intent, even though it's just one component of an eventual weapon.
Being an NPT signatory could be evidence of Iran not working toward nuclear weapons, if they were compliant. But they have violated their NPT obligations on some occasions, with major violations recently.
I think they wanted to be seen as credibly close as a deterrent and bargaining chip in negotiations, but they had no intention of going all the way unless attacked.
Now they likely do intend to get them asap if they’re able to.
Those can be bombed right at the beginning. Israel will probably try to establish a similar status que as in Lebanon right now - "if you make a move we immediately take it out".
And the development of a nuclear sites leaves a significant intelligence trail, not sure it can be hidden.
(Of course they can always be gifted a bomb, but that's a very different story)
Yeah I’m sure it will be a huge success with no unforeseen consequences whatsoever. Since that’s how these things have been going over the last thirty years.
And that's something we will have to accept, that Islamic populations will always have nukes.
How do you plan to handle a world with Islamic populations having nukes? Because that's something you will have to plan for. You have no choice. They will not let you not let them have nukes. They will make sure they will have nukes. That's just given.
The US is the leader of the liberal empire which depends on the middle east allowing trade. Iran is standing in the way of this and wants to push back the empire's control away from the middle east... but they have their own plans to establish another empire of their own.
I know "empire" is maybe an outdated term but I'm just illustrating there are bigger incentives than at the national level. Ironically it is conservative nationalists (who are hated by the Left) that want the empire to shrink and for the US to pull back from this leadership position. The risk here is it could also destabilize the entire world, but that's a different matter.
In short, this move is an attempt to strengthen the status quo that began after WW2.If the status quo is maintained it directly benefits the US.
People who were born into, grew up in, and live the current western bubble take it for granted and genuinely believe it is something natural rather than carefully built and expensively maintained - for extraordinary benefit.
I don't take it for granted, but Israel and these trillion-dollar Mid East wars don't seem to help it. China and Russia must be very pleased with the US being so distracted for the past 50 years while they established economic control even in the Mid East.
I'm seeing a lot of death and the payoff is... Cheap gas prices? I can't imagine what. But the replies to this laying out all the benefits of blood soaked American hegemony I'm sure will be great for a laugh.
The petrodollar, which largely depends on the US having significant influence over global oil supply, is arguably the main reason why the USD is the global reserve currency and an enormous reason why the US is as wealthy as it is.
The petrodollar is severely overrated by people who claim it's the cause for every foreign policy decision they disagree with. USD is attractive because the US government is stable and US companies are attractive investments, due to a historical track record of competence and rule of law adherence - unlike, say, Saudi currency, or Russian currency, or Chinese currency. The US government doesn't do a lot of currency manipulation relative to those other countries either.
Of course, that historical record is being shat upon currently, and the importance of petroleum is on a downward trajectory from here on.
We aren't even really getting cheap gas prices out of this. Iran is one of the largest oil producers, and we won't allow trade with them, so instead we've built a relationship with other dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, who know we have no other choice. But our actions are also straining that.
This is the opposite of how I see it. This move is a complete repudiation of the post-ww2 order that emphasized the system of international laws and treaties developed by the UN. For the US to blindly follow Israel into a war with a sovereign country without even taking it to the UN or Congress is preposterous and signals the end of the post-ww2 and American domestic order. Both the UN Charter and the US Constitution are trashed and we won't recover from it in our life times. There's a reason Bush W sent Colin Powell to the UN, we still paid lip service to the rule of law 20 years ago. We don't even pretend anymore. We are trashing our laws and institution all at the behest of some a tiny racist religious extremist country.
I don’t envy the position of American diplomats the next time they are asked to negotiate an off-ramp from hostilities while military options are simultaneously being considered. Intentional or not, the diplomatic posture leading up to this point reads like diversion.
This is also how I see it. This child-man has just blown 80 years of careful control and credibility. Who allowed this to happen? A bunch of feckless children, who should never have been allowed to rule. Way to go, people. It all goes downhill from here.
"the system of international laws and treaties" are only effective to the extent that someone is going to enforce it, and that someone is the US and its allies. So ultimately it's military power that matters.
The status quo is only maintained because the US has military bases all over the world. If we retreat from the world and let Iran do whatever it wants (which is more influence and an Islamic empire), the the world order crumbles and that has an even more increased chance of WW3, as multiple nations will fight over the void left behind by the US.
Part of the reason things are unfolding this way is because the US rose to world power with the invention of the nuclear bomb.... which automatically means that toppling the US might mean nuclear war, which spells doom for the entire world. Not sure I would call that luck, but that is why the world cannot change to a new world order easily without existential risk. And as the "world police" the US doesn't want non-allies to get the bomb for this reason (something that Trump has been saying for years, which proves he is just maintaining status quo).
You realize we (us) are a large, religious, racist country? Generally speaking, anti muslim, anti Iran sentiment is EXTREMELY high in the parts of the US that voted for Trump, at least based on my personal network.
Keeping the Arab world from building their own nuclear weapons has long been contingent on Iran not having a nuclear weapons program. It only benefits the US to the extent it prevents the situation where half the countries in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.
Good lord, it benefits far more than just America if the broader middle east doesn't enter into a rapid nuclear weapons proliferation stage. Iran is considered to be a very serious enemy throughout much of the middle east. A nuclear armed Iran is a very bad idea.
the dude needs a PR win of some kind. I guess he gave up on the Nobel prize and decided to try something else. Aside from that, could really be a chance to end the nukes there and try to topple the regime, who knows what's going to happen, but time-wise now is the best opportunity.
Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism. They cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. No country that doesn't have a nuclear weapons program enriches uranium to 60%. Iran must be forced to come to a diplomatic negotiation.
I understand Iran is a headache to Israel, but did it have to be an enemy of USA? Isn't Iran's ambition, and its proxies, are all regional in nature? Have they ever attempted to harm an american living in America?
Israel has led an amazingly succesful campaign in presenting their problems (often arising out of their territorial ambitions) as a problem for the entire west.
I agree which is why we need to get all these evangelical nuts actively trying to destroy the world so that Jesus come back out of power. No more death cults!.
Israel definitely, but the US? Ehhh we have religious zealots but they're very tame as compared to zealots elsewhere. Not a lot of beheadings or executions going on here.
Khamenei is largely popular, even though the youth of Iran largely doesn't support the regime at a whole.
The root problem is the military is controlled by various factions of lunatics that want to see the end of Israel. It's these people ought to be mercilessly killed and I have no qualms once so ever advocating for brutal violence and (preferably) murder against them.
The Netherlands and Germany both produce highly enriched uranium despite not having nuclear weapons programs. 60% enrichment is insufficient for use in nuclear weapons. Iran's enriched uranium is its main bargaining chip in the diplomatic negotiations that the US walked away from. Iran was assessed by the US intelligence community to not be developing nuclear weapons.
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorist groups. The key word being “state”. There are many well known terrorist groups that are not sponsored by Iran.
Iran was willing to "come to a diplomatic negotiation" before Israel pre-emptively and unilaterally attacked. In fact, Iran and the US had found a diplomatic solution before Trump tore it up and promised to get a better deal (and then repeatedly failed to do so).
Iran did come to a diplomatic solution: the JCPOA [0]. Unfortunately, it was Obama who did it, so Trump tore it up in his first term. Why would Iran believe that any diplomatic outcome is meaningful?
Why must we stop Iran's terrorism? Their terrorism is directed at Israel, not America.
We can in fact just as easily support Iran's attacks against Israel. No reason to pick either side.
Right now the American people are coming to the consensus that Israel are the bad guys. Everybody under 50 already recognizes that, purely based on the thousands of Palestinian toddlers they see on Instagram that Israel kills and injures (the popular post today on Instagram is of a toddler with his legs severed). And the people over 50 will eventually die off, causing Israel's base of support to disappear.
There is no hope of Israel's permanent existence. We should remove our support for Israel immediately and prepare for the long term.
You see the Gaza child missing limbs. They see the Israeli civilian massacred by Hamas. The quantity is far less relevant than the quality of Instagrams (and any other) algorithm.
What is the realistic path to Israels demise exactly? This country, which literally JUST voted in Trump knowing full well he would approve this approach, is going to change course that much?
I'll believe it when Texas finally goes blue, such ive been hearing about for 11 election cycles now.
Why do you highlight that the theocracy "believes in jihad" and not that the theocracy has issued a religious decree opposing weapons of mass destruction?
If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island? More generally, you don't think its likely that, regardless of what you think of Israel, their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
> If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island?
They aren't ready to directly start that war. They are trying to cut off the alliances first. Iran is a much smaller country (90M vs over a billion) with a lot of oil. Conveniently, Iran is already so dehumanized many Americans don't even recognize their rights to sovereignty.
> their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
No. They have been trying to attack Iran since the revolution. It's similar to how Cuba embarrassed America and was never forgiven. If Iran wanted a weapon they'd have one. However, these attacks may force Iran to get one because countries with nuclear weapons appear to actually have sovereignty. Iran of course retains the possibility of making one, hoping that will have the same effect, but it appears that doesn't do it.
If this was about the benefit to the United States, then we would have had months of public buildup and debate like we did with the war in Iraq. It is hardly an example of a good decision, but history shows that it was at least a popular one; the majority of poll respondents and of legislators were both in favor of the initial invasion of Iraq. I was only eleven at the time, but I remember most moderate Democrats and independents who I knew (including, particularly, my seventh-grade history teacher, who was no fan of Bush) were in favor of the war.
Contrast that to the situation today, when polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to involvement [1] and even some prominent Republican legislators (Gaetz, IIRC) were against the war. This is the Trump show: it's motivated by his ego and hopium. He's more erratic than ever. Historically, American presidents almost never started a major war without popular support (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all popular when they started, and I think Libya and Kosovo were too). I can't even think of a case where the country was dragged into a war that was opposed 60% to 16% in favor. I would be very interested to hear if there ever was one.
Isn't it great when people take things out of context? In this case the context that wishing death is quite common in Iranian expressions of frustrations?
> Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003
Where did you get that info? Makes no sense. South Korea has been consistently against starting another war with NK for at least 30 years or so, and besides, in 2003 South Korea was ruled by Kim Dae-Jung, famous for he's staunch support of improving relations with North Korea (he got a Nobel prize for that), and then Roh Moo-Hyun, from the same party and largely following Kim's foreign policy.
Thanks to them we had no wars, and of course now we have some young whippersnappers complaining about their "pro-NK" policies, saying we could have totally bombed NK, starting a war, and burning the peninsula to the ground, but at least North Korea won't have nukes today!
While I understand not wanting countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes, it does protect them from invasion. We've seen what happened after Ukraine gave up their nukes. Less we forget, the Neocons of the Bush era wanted to remake the entire Middle East, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.
The actions of the US and Israel are only proving an unfortunate trend of reality: The only deterrence against invasion from other countries is nuclear deterrence. We had a comprehensive deal with Iran to limit their nuclear program which Trump tore up in 2017 and which Israel is taking advantage of today.
Oil for starters. Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east. By proxy they are participating in every conflict.
A nuclear iran would be completely intolerable, never mind that their regime might just be lunatic enough to use them.
Add that war is bad for the whole world.
So the us benefits that it protects her economic (and strategic) interests in the ME, which are real and extremely important, at the low cost of a limited air campaign.
There are further moral arguments, but i'm answering your question in the most direct way.
> Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east
Says Israel, the nation who tore up every single international laws, directly led campaign against UN and ICC, and whose right-wing (ones in power now) have been dreaming about a Greater Israel that threatens territorial integrity of like 10 different ME countries.
It's seeming more and more like Israel, which propped up Hamas for example, is the principal destabilizing element in the region, and therefore really it's America, which spearheaded the original overthrow of Iranian democracy, alongside all its other middle eastern meddling for the last fifty years.
If we want their oil, we can buy it like reasonable people do. What you're referring to is armed robbery.
>Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east
Is this a joke? The country that has not started any wars in its 300 year existence is not the "destabilizing element". That would be the country that has attacked Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran this year alone.
This is a strange comparison. Iran funds the Houthis, for example, who commit plenty of acts of war. And if you’re talking about starting wars, it’s worth noting that the present war in Gaza was started by Hamas. (I’m making no statement about whether the actions of either side or justified — I’m just pointing out that, in the present shooting war, the first shots were fired by Hamas, not Israel.)
You misunderstood me. I was talking about oil from the other gulf states. About 25 percent of the global oil supply goes through the straight of Hormuz. If iran were to disrupt that it would be disastrous for obvious reasons.
It's logical for the West to work to prevent that from being a possibility.
Iran/persia is far older then 300 years old. But again you somehow missed the point. I was talking about the current 40 year old regime, which while not having directly started any wars, have since the beginning declared their intentions to do so against America and Israel.
The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This wouldn’t be happening if they had a credible, survivable nuclear deterrence. QED this forces Iran to acquire nukes.
Which country? Do you think Canada is sovereign? Do you think it will be able to defend itself if Trump gives the military an order to make them the 51st state by any means necessary?
Well, Afghanistan defended itself for a bit. As did Vietnam, as clear examples. Neither possess nuclear weapons.
Today countries as various as Brazil and Australia are independent, sovereign nations. Even Ukraine which was invaded by nuclear-armed Russia is still sovereign and fighting. Iran for that matter still has its sovereignty, they just lost some military assets.
Canada is sovereign because of its proximity and interconnection with US. If your economy is large enough, you can "nuke" your opponents by using mutually assured poverty.
But I largely agree, if you aren't a giant economy and you don't have nukes - then if the US or Russia accesses you of building nukes, you need to start building nukes ASAP.
Iran will definitely continue pursuing uranium enrichment. IRIB claims that the enriched uranium stockpile was moved away from those locations - which makes sense, so they probably didn't lose their stockpile. They will build new enrichment sites, which means bombing again.
I think it's too early to say that the Fordow facility has definitely been destroyed. So far I've only heard Trump make the claim and I'm not inclined to take his word for it.
True, Trump's words are worthless. I'm hearing that the Iranian state media is claiming no irreversible damage at Fordow / only entry points were targeted - but ofcourse that doesn't carry much weight either.
FWIW one take on all of this that I have considered is that Israel and the US have been looking for an out that allows them to claim to have successfully achieved their objectives. I wouldn't be surprised if this attack was unsuccessful but won't be followed up if that becomes apparent later.
Israel only just (before this US bombing) claimed they had set Iran's nuclear program back by 2-3 years. I found the timing of the announcement curious.
This after suffering extensive damage from direct missile strikes (Haifa port/refinery, Mossad headquarters, Wiezmann institute, C4I/cyber defense, etc). I think the missile strikes have been much more damaging than expected and understandably under-reported. Weapons expert Ted Postol of MIT claims Israel's missile defense is only intercepting around 5%.
I think Israel will be very unhappy if things continue to escalate without further US involvement. Depending on how Iran retaliates against the US, further involvement might not be forthcoming. We've seen seen Iran attack a US base in Jordan without causing escalation from the US. Could expect something similar.
I'm not sure what you mean - Iran has been full-tilt pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. And America, its partners, and even its definitely-not-partners, have been working to counter that the whole time.
Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
I've wondered how much of a deterrent dirty bombs are or aren't outside of nukes and curious if they might be in the cards for retaliatory moves by Iran.
My understanding is those don't accomplish much militarily since they just give people cancer 30 years later. So you commit a war crime for no military advantage, then what? The other country just hits back with a dirty bomb of their own?
Precisely, Trump could only do this terrorist attack because he knows for certain that Iran does not have nukes. Nukes are an abomination to the Islamic Rules of War - which is why there is/was a long standing fatwa against it.
You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This was their only leverage in negotiation. Trump is about to make a speech in 30 minutes. It's over for them. The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. Israeli intelligence and bombing for the past week was setting up for this final act.
> The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work.
I'm old enough to remember when we (the US) ran this exact playbook, except the last letter was 'q' instead of 'n'.
Spoiler: the B-2 played a part in both of the big wars we lost in the last couple of decades. The problem hinges on the definition of "work": yes, the bombs hit what they are aimed at. No, that does not result in operational success without a coherent theory of victory.
I'm old enough to remember that Iraq had its entire government toppled in about 3 weeks after the US invasion so this is not the example you think it is lol. You conveniently redefined what we are talking about. You must not remember saddam getting dragged through the streets.
no need to go into other areas of the conversation that didn't exist before you came along to insert some reason why you feel justified defending a regime that oppresses women through a "morality police" force. i don't care why you think they should be allowed to have nukes. i'm sure you can argue for it all day. you don't need to get philosophical about what is "winning" or "working".
if you can't agree on objective reality and what we are discussing, we have nothing to discuss. move on
Yes, the regime changed. Objectively, that is true. We agree on that. And then...
the US lost nearly 5,000 service members in Iraq. We are still paying for the $3 trillion the war cost. Americans derived no benefit whatsoever from the change of regime in Iraq, a country that had not attacked us.
As an American who lives in a US city not currently under attack by Iran, it is reasonable to ask why we should sign up for this again. This has absolutely zero with defending Iran. How they manage their domestic affairs has no bearing on me.
If there is a case to be made that we should curtail our urgent domestic policy goals in favor of another war thousands of miles from the US, it has not been made.
My concern is this: I have no dog in this fight, but now I am going to be asked to pay for it. And it working like it "worked" in Iraq is my primary concern on that front.
Isolating the first 3 weeks or so from an 8-year war to say that it "worked" is obviously a special kind of sophistry. I'm not sure what purpose is served by such an analysis, honestly.
And I'm old enough to remember the previous war with Iraq which left Iraq's government intact, and the 12 years of no fly zone operations before attempt 2. I also remember attempt 2 costing around $3 Trillion.
I remember that being caused by a massive US ground invasion, not by sustained bombing. Has the US spent the last six months building up ground forces on Iran's borders?
When I look at Russia invading Ukraine, and I see how Israel is behaving, and I listen to the American president talking about annexing my country, I can see why a country might believe it needs nuclear weapons.
Whether this is good or bad is something people can discuss. But I think it’s fleetingly difficult for me to see any sort of righteous high ground these days.
If they don’t understand math and risk, they should. The US nearly nuked itself multiple times during development and learning. It will happen when everyone else races to build them.
I mean if Russia can just walk into Ukraine, why can't Israel terrorize Iran from the sky. Why can't China just waltz into Taiwan?
The thing about Trump's isolationism is that it's actually a passive aggressive position. Imagine you know which kids in your classroom are likely to fight and you take a policy of "I won't stop it if it happens", that's basically telling some of the kids "go ahead", so how is this isolationist?
Now, literally joining in on the fight when the kids pop off, that is uniquely Trumpian.
In the case of Taiwan, because there's not really a path to victory from straight up invasion that accomplishes anything really meaningful, unless Xi is down for his legacy to be 5 million deaths and the sudden burden of tens of millions of infrastructureless refugees that are apparently full throated PRC citizens now.
The PRC's only realistic hope is a soft power takeover which it seems mildly competent at progressing on. About to have a serious setback with the KMT recalls though.
I can only see China invading after SMIC has matched the capabilities of TSMC. China wouldn't need TSMC anymore and if the rest of the world' tech sectors collapse then sucks for them but not China.
"Accountability is the essence of democracy. If people do not know what their government is doing, they cannot be truly self-governing. The national security state assumes the government secrets are too important to be shared, that only those in the know can see classified information, that only the president has all the facts, that we must simply trust that our rulers of acting in our interest." ~ Garry Wills
It's, unfortunately, not illegal unless the military action continues for more than 60 days without Congressional approval. This is due to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The strong do as they will while the weak suffer what they must.
I’m glad that trump has returned us to a world where quotes from the 5th century bc seem like commentary on current affairs, since it means that all my time learning about power dynamics in political systems during antiquity is now completely relevant to dealing with current events, rather than a giant waste of time.
The last formal declaration of war by the US was during World War 2.
We got very good at gray area nonsense. The Korean War is not a war, it's a conflict. The Vietnam War is not a war, it's an engagement. We have police actions, "peacekeeping" operations, and a hundred other things...but not "wars".
We have the "global war on terror" and the accompanying Authorization for the Use of Military Force, created in the wake of 9/11 and still in effect today.
Congressional approval of military action is fundamentally dead.
Congress has been happily shedding its powers for decades. They don't want to be held responsible if a war turns out badly, so they haven't declared a war since 1945, I believe.
It wasn't supposed to be how it worked but our legislature is basically dysfunctional and either vaguely gave away or just won't protect its own power.
> Gödel's Loophole is a supposed "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit America's republican structure to be legally turned into a dictatorship.
Generally no, but if you gaslight yourself into thinking you're the greatest democracy in the world with no equal and you need no patches or bugfixes, you can achieve a lot without any real checks or balances.
> The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.
So it seems he's allowed to do this? It's still within 48 hours, so he has time to officially "notify" Congress, if he hasn't done so already. And since this was an aerial bombing, no armed forces remain there, so the 60-day bit is irrelevant.
Russia's drones are primarily domestic production, not imported. The original Shaheds and their design were imported, but now the Russians are on the Geran-3 version and are cranking them out at the cyclic rate.
Not the situation as it stands. If it ends here its a disaster for Netanyahu.
As concerns global stability a single precision strike from an untouchable platform with zero marginal increase in obligations on strained naval assets is basically the best case scenario. If we had dropped a bomb, took a picture in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and gone back to playing chess with peer adversaries in any conflict since the Korean War it would have been the smart move. The United States military is designed to protect global trade and win high intensity conflicts against peer adversaries and be seen preparing for it as a deterrant. It does this job extremely well. It was not designed for assymetrical quagmires with no possible palatable exit strategy.
Likud may be willing to fight Iran to the last American, but I'd rather we didn't.
Israel is "too big to fail" at this point. Netanyahu knows he can provoke every country in the world and if he ever meets real resistance the US government and military will take over. There's literally no way this cannot end well for him.
Maybe, but I think that in the cold calculus of geo-realpolitik, TSMC is more important than Israel in a world where WTI is unlikely to ever trade above 150 and will never break 200 [1]. APAC is influential, but not in the same way it was when the entire economy was weeks from collapse without Israel dominating the region.
And the Trump Administration understands that we can't defend them both at a cost the public will accept. I think. Even MAGA diehards are like 70% opposed to another quagmire in the Middle East even if Trump endorses like a downticket primary radical.
That may be the perception from the outside due to theater (Trump holding Netanyahu's chair for the cameras etc.), but these plans have existed forever. Here is a plan from the Brookings Institute from 2009:
There are many people around the world who are relived with Iran denied nuclear weapons, not just Israel. There are many countries in the Middle East, some openly hostile to Israel, who are very happy that Iran will not get immunity like North Korea.
Israel did most of the dirty work, US just came in to drive the final nail.
Yea, why don't we let the most destabilizing state sponsor of terrorism obtain a nuke? Surely that's only in Israel's interest...
You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
If Iran had a nuke, they are crazy enough to use it by slipping it to their cells.
"If someone says they are going to kill you, believe them."
Iran: Death to Israel
Iran: Death to America
Hamas: Death to Israel
Hamas: Death to America
So, hugs and pallets of cash? ...or you destroy their ability to kill a million of your civilians.
If their enrichment wasn't for weapons-development, why was it being done in a hardened under-ground bunker?
In 2023, unannounced inspections uncovered uranium particles enriched near weapons-grade. The so-called agreement was toilet paper to the terrorist state.
> Yea, why don't we let the most destabilizing state sponsor of terrorism obtain a nuke? Surely that's only in Israel's interest...
Well, the Democrats had a very good plan to deal with this: diplomacy. They agreed a deal where Iran agreed not to build nuclear weapons, and in exchange they removed sanctions on Iran. A win-win scenario for everyone (except Bibi). Trump then - completely inexplicably - decided that he could do better at negotiating a deal, ripped up Obama's one, and then decided to... plunge the Middle East into chaos.
> You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
Surely the man who decided it was a good idea to alllow Qatar to give Hamas lots of money is at least partially to blame? [1] Or perhaps the person who decided to advocate to the US government that they should sell weapons to Iran [2]
Nearly all of Iran's neighbors in the region except Jordan and Syria supported our withdrawal from the agreement. The only complaining was done by Iran, European nations and the UN.
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, Egypt, etc all supported us.
I really don't understand why you think this makes this a good idea. Saudi Arabia also decided to launch an extremely ill-fated and brutal invasion of Yemen, which worked out terribly for them and for the Yeminis. I don't think they have good judgement on this.
The Middle East is not strongly in the sphere of influence that Europeans have yes.
I promise you that the boots on the ground of the rest of the nations listed by the other person here is far more important here than strongly worded letters by the aging bureaucracy that governs the EU.
all those countries are effectively US vassals. Most of them have US military bases on their soil. Of course they’re going to do exactly what the US wants
Not since after they immediately started rounding up immigrants and citizens alike and putting them in foreign and domestic private prisons without cause or due process. That alone makes anything DOGE does irrelevant twice over.
It was originally serious only in shutting down the aspects of government that are a hinderance to large enterprise, and that part is just as serious as it ever was.
A superpower being beholden to Netanyahu's impulses beggars belief. Israel, their client state, acts out in aggression against its neighbour against US advice. The US bails them out and takes the fallout now. Astounding.
Preventing Iran from having a nuke is IMO a good way of preserving peace. The allies tried appeasment and most historians agree that approach was one of the main causes of WWII.
Huge difference here IMHO is that the west has been using this line for 40-50 years. At some point it's not "appeasement" and just "diplomacy between countries with differing values are complicated."
Put another way: if you want to call it appeasement, fine, it has worked for a long time. On the other hand, "peace via war" has a terrible track record.
What if the U.S. simply stopped interfering with other nations[1]? Have you considered that option? But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes.
And there's the answer: on the world stage, you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes, have your own, or be forced into a client state.
> Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask.
It's a very big ask to not proliferate nuclear weapons, because nukes correlate with sovereignty. You didn’t address that point at all.
> This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates.
US friendship in the case of Iran means a puppet ruler (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran). And now Europe is in the process of decoupling itself from the US. Not to mention how the US completely dropped support for Ukraine. Turns out relying on an "ally" for defense like this is not such a great idea.
Israel also understands this, and so has multiple nukes in its arsenal. Why did Israel "simply" not proliferate nuclear weapons even when it enjoyed the protection and support of the US?
If I was Iran, or any country on the US's naughty list, I would be trying to build a nuke as quickly and quietly as I can. It seems to be the only way to not get bombed.
Has anyone credible said/demonstrated that they have developed nuclear weapons?
The US clearly does not believe they have operational nukes, or we would not have bombed them today. The actions undermine the official statements.
Put in realpolitik: would it be worth the US spending an Iraq War's expenditure of lives and $3 trillion to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?
Why?
What makes this moment the place where the working approach of the last half-century simply cannot work another day?
If they had already developed them, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because nobody is going to war with a nuclear armed state.
The question is only, did they have the means to, and was there an indication they were? The answer is yes. They were enriching uranium at levels that go beyond anything non-nefarious. Their lead nuclear scientists were going to be meeting with their ballistic missile scientists (according to the dossier.)
On would it be worth it: nuclear proliferation is probably the most dangerous existential threat that humanity faces that is completely preventable. Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region and the cascade of nuclear proliferation that would occur if they succeeded would be a nightmare. That is easily worth $3T.
If I’m a head of state in a contested region, I would read your post as an urgent appeal to make acquisition of nuclear capability as the top priority of the state.
Nonproliferation via war is not a viable approach.
This reminds me to read more on the game theory aspect of nuclear states. But I do find it fascinating that no nuclear-armed states have ever been in a shooting war. Interesting to speculate whether the Middle East could have seen less bloodshed over the decades if all the players had been armed since near the beginning of the nuclear age.
I agree with you about accidental detonation and nonproliferation in general.
But it is also clear that enforcement of nonproliferation without similarly muscular enforcement of sovereignty in general creates a huge incentive for proliferation.
If we truly want nonproliferation, it simply follows that powerful nations must stop actions like the Russian conquest in Ukraine and whatever Israel is doing in Iran. Every government at base has an incentive to do everything possible keep bombs from falling on its cities, and a demonstrated nuclear capability is the only proven way to do that in a regime where nuclear powers are allowed to act with impunity.
I think one thing Iran could do would be to stop funding terrorism in the middle east and perhaps also not threaten the complete destruction of Israel while simultaneously pursuing nuclear weapons. That seems to have sent the wrong message by the looks of it.
Conflating things with nonproliferation detracts from the effort to prevent that singular threat. Now we are weighing the global, persistent threat of more nuclear weapons against regional terrorism and proving unable to decide which is more important. This, in a case where by nature of the problem, “both” is not an acceptable answer.
Maybe we are detracting from some regional terrorism at the margins while increasing incentives for nuclear proliferation. I don’t think that’s a smart trade off, but that’s where we are headed.
Doesn't seem to have worked in this case. They did not have nukes, they got attacked. How you explain that? How do these good guys protect them against evil guys if not with nukes?
A nuclear armed Iran is a horrible idea. America an many other countries have been countering that for decades.
A nuclear armed Iran - and remember that in vast swathes of the middle east, Iran is considered a very dangerous enemy - would lead to the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing their own nuclear weapons.
Nuclear proliferation is best way to world peace. Anyone saying else is just pure evil who want to subjugate and genocide other nations. More nukes the better and safer world is.
There is nothing far-fetched about countering Iran's nuclear ambitions: they have been actively and blatantly pursuing it for decades.
A nuclear armed Iran would quickly lead much of the middle east to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran: in that part of the world, Iran is considered a very serious enemy.
They've been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades, and bit by bit getting closer. A nuclear armed Iran would result in the rest of the middle east - most of which considers Iran a serious enemy - to pursue their own nuclear weapons program.
This is a conflict America and its allies have been fighting for decades: to ensure Iran does not get nuclear weapons.
Much of the middle east considers Iran to be a very significant enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would lead to much of the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs.
Well one better goes for the bomb if one decided to go above 60% (because whatelse do you plan?). Apparently using it as a bargain doesn't work out as expected.
War is a racket, move along we got bombs to sell. All I can hope is that somehow someway the Iranian people will be better off in the future. Well at least America has its enemy again, the immigrants as enemy wasn’t going over as smoothly as expected. Religion and culture wars are just so much easier.
Just about every intelligence agency and expert agrees on nearly all the data. The debate and the 'conflicting' reports are mainly a matter of definitions.
The data is that Iran has some weapons research, and have/had about 400kg of 60% enriched Uranium (no civilian use), an higher amount of lower grade enriched Uranium, and a certain number of centrifuges for enrichment.
The interpretation bit is regarding what's called 'weaponization' (aka taking all the materials and converting them to a bomg):
A modern bomb would use >90% (preferably >95%) Uranium and an implosion mechanism and be light and small enough to put on a common ballistic missile. While getting to 90% would have been easy for them (at one time they 'accidentally' enriched to 88%), they haven't done it yet, and it isn't entirely clear how close they are on miniaturization.
A hacky bomb could use a lower grade of Uranium (60% would barely do if they pooled all of it), be much heavier (it comes with the lower grade), possibly use a simpler gun-type mechanism, and would have to be delivered with some custom mechanism.
So 'weapons grade' could mean '90% and above', or it could mean 'enriched to a level that has no use apart from building weapons'. 'Distance to a bomb' could mean 'distance from what can be easily delivered' or 'distance from any fissile explosive'.
Seems like a lot of spin comments here that are turning people away from the political subservience of the united states that got the world into this mess
America, the west, much of the not-west, and even much of the middle east, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
In large swaths of the middle east, Iran is considered a dangerous enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would quickly lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east.
This isn't some recent initiative thought up for the heck of it: it's been on ongoing focus for a very long time.
This is astonishing. Our intelligence concluded Iran wasn’t moving towards a nuke and we hit them anyway, using peace negotiations as a ruse. No authorization from the representatives of the people who actually fight in the war, no thought of what this will do.
If the comparison with how we treat hostile forces with nuclear weapons wasn’t more stark. N. Korea is basically left alone, their leader praised. Libya gives up nukes and then the state falls in on itself.
This is proving to any state that nuclear arms are really the only protection. The world is less safe, and the next generation of young men like me (20 years ago) are about to be thrown into the meat grinder, sent by a ruling class that doesn’t even answer to the people anymore.
This strike didn't happen to protect Americans from nukes, this happened to protect a rogue politician who was about to be impeached by his countrymen, and to make the Greater Israel project come true.
Reminder, a recent survey found 16% American supported an offensive strike against Iran.[1]
America and the west (and much of the not-west) have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Iran is considered a dangerous enemy in much of the middle east. A nuclear armed Iran would quickly lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east. No one wants an Iran with nukes.
60% enriched uranium is not quite considered weapons-grade, but also has no civilian applications. Hiding the facility is immaterial if the facility is doing stuff that isn't useful for non-weapon work.
Iran did not expect to be bombed back at all, which is why their defenses were so shoddy around nearly everything. The _only_ thing having this level of protection is the enrichment facility.
That's a separate question. I am just responding to the people saying we don't know they are enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. Of course they are.
Look I dgaf about what Iran was doing, there is no wool over my eyes about what that state is capable of. I saw the IEDs with copper cones used to kill and maim my friends, they almost certainly came from Iran.
What I care about is: congress declares war, not the executive. The people should decide, and we just stepped 10 steps closer to the monarchy we tried to depose 250 years ago.
This has been happening my entire 40+ years of life. I agree it shouldn’t, but this ain’t anything new. If this makes Trump a monarchy, then every president since 2000 was a monarch.
In the middle east, Iran is considered a serious enemy, and is widely detested. A nuclear armed Iran would immediately lead the rest of the middle east to pursue their own nuclear weapons program.
The premise of going to war with a country because that country may have the capability to win/end it is quite demonic circular reasoning. In this case IL/US should preemptively bunker bust every person in the region that has sovereign will. I think only when the entire region is replaced by Tesla Robots loyal to western chauvinism then IL/US can finally feel safe from the consequences of their own actions like committing genocides.
I visited Nagasaki/Hiroshima a few years ago, at the end of both memorials there are celebrations of NPTs and denuclearization efforts with veneers of 90's nostalgia - as if the job were done. How wrong we all were, today 2 non-NPT nuclear powers bombed a NPT non-nuclear power to prevent imaginary WMD Nukes, triggering a possible regional conflict that will kill millions. The only country that shouldn't have nukes is America - they dropped 2 for vibes because the Nazis already surrendered and they wanted to try out their new toy. IL\US project their genocidal tendencies onto others then claim preemptive strikes. Both countries a threat to world peace. It's clear now the only way these two countries leave you alone is if you have a nuke. Any sovereign logical leader will now pursue them. IL/US have made the world a much more dangerous place just because they want to continue the holocaust of Gaza.
My understanding is that actually making a bomb once you have the material for it just isn't that hard. Her statements are only contradictory if it is hard (and slow).
IMHO the Israeli policy of punching everyone so hard they're reeling is a massive mistake for Israel in the long term. It works great short-term, but 50 years? 100 years? Who knows what the world will look like then, and being surrounded by enemies is not going to work well when you no longer have your fancy US-backed missile shields and whatnot. The best long-term bet is for normalised relationship with its neighbours, and every time something like this happens that gets set back 20 years at least.
Then again, they had already given up on that with how it treated the Palestinians both in Gaza and West-Bank...
This doesn't mean military action is never an option under any circumstances, but no nation can perpetuate hostilities forever. Whether it's 50, 100, or 200 years: this has a massive risk of coming back to bite Israel hard.
Yeah IMO the last 2 years (and especially 5 hours) have pretty much permanently shattered Israel's privileged child status in the US. Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support, and dragging the US into this war have fractured rightwing support.
Hope they're building other friendships in the region, I don't see the unquestioning US patronage lasting much longer.
Much of humanity has learned, and so aggressively pursues anti-proliferation.
America, the west, and many countries beyond the west, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Iran is detested in much of the middle east. If they get nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
That remains to be seen and, in another universe, could have been said about someone not keeping a nation from creating nuclear weaponry which it subsequently used against its opponents.
A large portion of Trump's base are very unhappy about bombing Iran and are very critical of any comments that are pro-war in general. I see it in a lot of comments sections and social media message to the effect of "I voted for Trump, and I didn't vote for this (war in Iran)".
Generally, Any prominent pro-Israel republican if they post anything pro-war will have hundreds of negative replies.
It is incredibly depressing to see people constantly falling into the trap that their political opposition are dumb / brainwashed.
Yeah there was no good reason for that. The main thing I liked about Trump is that he didn't start any wars his first term, if he gets us into a war I'm going to be fucking mad.
> if he gets us into a war I'm going to be fucking mad
Maybe Trump will claim the airstrikes were just a joke, like he does when he tells his supporters to use violence towards other Americans. Otherwise, the United States is definitely, unambiguously at war with Iran.
11/29/11: "In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."
1/17/12: "@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected."
9/16/13: "I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order save face!"
11/10/13: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled!"
"If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace." - Presidential debate, 2024
If you voted for Trump, you voted precisely for this. Every accusation from him is either a confession in disguise or an unfulfilled wish.
Every accusation from Trump is some random line he pulled out of his ass on the spot, and people like you keep falling for it and trying to divine some grand strategy out of it.
A discussion of a major world event makes a lot more sense than a discussion of something tangentially related to a major world event. People sensibly flag the tangential stuff as effective dupes - it wouldn't really make sense to have a front page discussion about the event as well as a front page discussion about a plane.
As I understand it, congress still authorized the use of force. Nowadays, the president effectively bypasses congress using the 2 decades old authorization for the use of force against the overly broad threat of "terror."
A declaration of war is an invitation for the other side to attack. Rather than being a restraint against war, empowering Congress to declare war allows them to force a potentially unwilling president into war.
Imagine if Putin got Trump to bomb ukraine for him. Imagine if Xi got Trump to bomb Taiwan for him. There would be a crisis in this country as the media would be attacking trump for being a stooge to a foreign power.
How is it possible that a foreign leader, Netanyahu ( who has lied in the past to get us to attack iraq ), can get Trump to bomb Iran and nobody, especially in the media, bats an eye.
The media is focused on the bombing, but shouldn't the focus be on foreign control over much of the US government? After years of soul searching over the iraq fiasco and the lies can we still be in this position again?
I sympathize with people thinking Israel is wagging the dog but I don't think it's true.
Israel exists in the way that it does and does what it does because we allow it to. It is a toolf our imperial interests, not the other way around. To argue otherwise absolves us of our responsibility and can often descend into antisemitism (which I oppose).
We have described Israel as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in a region we want to destabilize becuase it has resources that are important to us.
Oh and this is uniparty too. Don't kid yourselves if you think things would be different if the Democrats were in power. It would not. There is universal agreement on US foreign policy across both parties. The events in Gaza began under a Democratic president who did absolutely nothing to rein Israel in where he could've ended it with a phone call.
There is no opposition to what Israel is doing. Even now, Democratic leaders in Congress aren't complaining about what the president is doing and has done. They're complaining that they weren't consulted. And not to oppose it but to have the opportunity to express their support.
And yes, the media is absolutely complicit in what's going on too.
The bunker busters will not have worked on Fordow.
(It will be the first time a GBU-57A/B has been used in war, which is interesting)
They needed troops on the ground. Israel was going to do this.
It's possible they have just collapsed the entrances.
Trumps comments - https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump You have a loop, @Osint613 reposted Trump as "Fordow is gone" which Trump reposted. Neither of them have any idea.
(Natanz, Isfahan were already hit and damaged by Israel, the US didn't bother to bunker bust them, it was Tomahawks from subs )
You need a tactical nuke to destroy Fordow, but the USA considers tactical the same as strategic, so it would be very unlikely. Russia could, since they put tactical in a different category.
Expert opinions seem to differ on this. We will know once enough satellite and signal intelligence data has been analyzed for US leadership to ascertain whether further strikes may be required.
Both parties wilfully fund genocide and mess around with regime change. Trump does seem more restrained than most presidents, but it's hard to agree with this move.
All the Middle East calamities have begun with targeted and limited operations. Not believable anymore.
While it is hard to predict what the future will being and while the middle east has been a hotbed for conflict since times immemorial it is likely that taking the Theocratic regime in Iran out of the equation is a net-positive when it comes to limiting the amount of conflict in the region. I intentionally do not use the word 'peace' because I do not see peace ever breaking out there given the historical record and the many sources of conflict.
Destabilizing Iran will make another migration crisis in Europe, will divide it politically because of the rise of anti immigrant far right, and finally set up the scene for a big european war for which russia is preparing.
If US hopes to not be involved in it, it will be up for the surprise.
You think migration of refugees will lead to... civil war in Europe? There's a lot of space in Europe – it could accomodate even all 90 million Iranian refugees and not collapse (let us hope Iranian civilians not made into refugees by Trump and Netanyahu).
Colin Powell, is that you? How have you been, man? Have you been keeping in touch with John Yoo? That guy has been on fire lately! btw how'd those things with the Taliban and Saddam work out?
Trump was never against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius". He was just generally critical of everything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country. There are a boat load of earnest good-faith criticisms of our society and government. Trump excels at tapping into that frustration across the whole spectrum, which is how his cabinet is a circus of malcontents with no actual constructive ideas.
> Trump wasn't against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius"
I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war.
Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action.
e.g.
I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag.
However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude.
> He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country
You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it.
I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like".
That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him.
Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
> Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it
Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
Right-leaning is giving them too much credit. It's just self-leaning and, like many other political groups, Trump just said the transparently false stuff that he needed to in order to appeal to them.
The dumbest and/or most self-interested of many demographics, it turns out, were happy to be tricked!
Yes because I would not expect HN populace to be the same distribution as the general US. Just like how I would find it strange if medical professionals had more anti-vaxx than I expected.
Asking HN for political analysis is like asking Politico for an in depth analysis on ML capabilities.
There are a handful of users on HN who have domain experience or knowledge in policymaking due to professional adjacencies (IP Law, High Finance, Space/Defense Tech VC, etc) but get drowned out.
I agree completely. Try to mention that on this site though and you get replies such as "we're not the same as other social media sites!", or some variant of the community here being the smartest in the room.
the kind of domain expertise you describe results in a different kind of imperialist psychosis. you should look to analysis coming from communists, Brazil, China, Iran, Palestine, Yemen, etc. These groups have a much more clear-eyed view of US policy.
He did order the commander of the IRGC to be taken out during his last term while simultaneously pushing the Abraham accords with several Sunni nations. The "peace through strength" concept is only believable when it is clear that strength will be used - call it Chekhov's gun of international relations.
Either there will be an _extremely_ bloody and long disintegration of government in Iran, or Trump will probably agree a slightly worse version of the Iran nuclear deal (and now the Iranians will know - once and for all - that the only way for them to remain in power is to get the bomb as soon as possible).
Admittedly, I was one of the people who wasn’t impressed with the deal Obama made in 2016. I didn’t like that it allowed Iran to keep enriching uranium or that we paid them.
In recent years, that deal has been looking better every day. We are undoubtedly worse off today than we would be had Trump left the deal in place. This is a bad situation.
It was just not a good deal. It was more like kicking the can down the road and funding the regime. That's not good for Iranians and not good for anyone else.
Human problems are always in conflict, in cycle. How was that a bad deal? Never let perfect be the enemy of good
It also just as well could have been us making another deal to extend the time, but just because Obama's deal was "not good enough" this the outcome we want?
The Iran deal was far from perfect, especially taking into account the ancillary payments to Iran. I find it hard to believe that the oil-rich country of Iran is interested in nuclear energy for purely altruistic means.
It wasn’t a good deal. It was also probably the best deal that could have been achieved at any point in the past 20 years. More importantly, it would have kept things on an even keel and kept us talking to each other for as long as we both honored the deal. It was an opportunity to see if we could build a little bit of trust and make another deal later. Yes, it kicked the can down the road. It also represented a willingness on the part of both countries to try to avoid a conflict even though we both had reasons to want one.
It’s possible it would have been a complete failure. We will never know. What we do know for sure is that we have had fewer options for dealing with the situation since we pulled out of the deal and now we are at war.
Our country’s handling of Iran has been nothing short of a spectacular blunder. Two administrations have tried to negotiate out of the hole Trump got us into when he tore up the deal. The buffoon actually thought he would cancel the deal and make a better one. Now, after 20+ years of criticizing the Iraq war and campaigning three times on not starting new wars, he is the trigger man getting us into a new one when we are least prepared for it.
I guess we'll see what the fallout from this attack is, but if there isn't anything major (and that's where my money is) then it would seem that just dropping bunker busters on their nuclear facilities and then going home was actually the best solution all along.
The problem in Iran is the government or shall we say the dictatorship. I'm not sure how the US could have/should have handled Iran since the revolution. You're naive if you think the current Iranian regime has any interest in aligning itself to western views via deals. It wants to cement its control, broaden its sphere of influence:
Deals are tactical. They're not about shifting world views.
I'm not sure the US and Iran are really "at war right now". This is very different than Iraq. But I do agree intervention has risks. The problem is that no intervention also has risks. Take for example Obama's lack of appetite to intervene in Syria. Contrast to Turkey and Israel that effectively intervened recently in Syria and force a regime change that at least so far is more or less holding out.
Something like is going on between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Iran (borderline). The Iraq war. The Afghanistan war. A prolonged period of hostilities.
Something you would look back at and call "The US Iran War". I don't think the previous acts of violence, or the current one, between these two meets the mark yet. And it's not clear if this one will. Iran can't really do much right now and it's not clear whether the US will go a lot further here.
E.g. we probably aren't going to look back at the hostilities with Yemen and call them the "US-Yemen war" or the "US Houthis war" like we look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Or as Putin would put it, it's a special military operation (yeah yeah, that one is a war).
My common interpretation of a war is that it involves the continuous exchange of violence on both sides over some time. An isolated bombing operation isn't what I think of as a war. Israel and Iran are at war for sure. The US and Iran, we'll see. It's possible Iran will calculate that it is not in their benefit to wage an open war on the US.
There's is already a history of violence between Iran and the USA. Was that a war? When Iranian funded militias attacked American bases is that war?
>You're naive if you think the current Iranian regime has any interest in aligning itself to western views via deals.
You are going to have take a step back and convince me why I should care about US hegemonic interests in the region. Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place. If you really care about the profit margins of Aramco and ExxonMobil (the whole reason were in this mess in first place) you should lead with that so that others know why you care about what a sovereign country does.
> Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place
Iran spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders. Pretending that Iran is its own country and can thus be ignored is not an effective policy.
>spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders.
1. This describes many countries that we haven't invaded that I'm not sure you are being serious.
2. You will need to be specific. Which US interests? The interests of Californians or of Saudi Aramaco?
3. America is propoganda giant number one, and China has seemed to come up just fine despite America spending hundreds of billions trying to convince the world the communists in China are eating dirt.
I'm not convinced that this is a good use time or money for the American tax payer. I'm fully convinced American hegomonic decline is fully self-inflected and the trillions wasted in Afghanistan did more to hurt American than any backwards goat farmer in the middle east could ever accomplish.
I honestly don't care about the oil companies. I'll lead with that.
I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.
A regime like Iran's that has killed Americans, is openly calling the US "The Great Satan", is supporting militias in places like Iraq that attack Americans. That funds, supports and trains organizations the US considers terrorist organizations. Is abusing its own citizenry and actively seeks to export its values to other countries. Is supplying weapons to Russia for attacking Ukraine. This sort of regime can't just do whatever it wants under the label of "its own nation" since what its doing impacts others.
The US is the big superpower of the "west" and the "free world". For the most part it is its deterrence against Russia and China that is standing in the way of those doing whatever they want (e.g. China taking Taiwan by force). I don't think the world would be a better place if the US just stands back.
All that said, intervention, and use of force, needs to be sensible/reasonable/calculated. It's not easy to say where this is going. But it's also not easy to say where it would have gone otherwise. I can also understand Americans not having an appetite for any of this after Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. But to contrast that I think failure to intervene in the Arab Spring led to pretty bad consequences, prolonged civil wars, a refugee crisis, etc. So perhaps some intervention and support would have helped. Also the US withdrawal and lack of support to democracy in Russia were probably factors in the reversal of that country back to where it is today.
Anyways, that's my very long opinion on this topic. But I can totally understand Americans not wanting any part of this. But don't think that you can just hide, things that happen in the world impact you.
>I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.
You aren't arguing for a free and stable world. You are arguing for a total hegemonic power for US interests - and thats my point. You are taking the position of "this is what is good for US companies and interests" and working backwards from there.
It's remarkable you use the "were stopping China from doing whatever they want", but you don't stop and think that there are other people who have legitimate concerns in stopping the US from doing what they want. Replace China with the US and Taiwan with Palestine. Aren't we doing to Palestine what you claim we should stop China from doing to Taiwan? At the very least it comes across hypocritical to claim you are in it for a "free and stable world" when that actually means "the US should get to invade whoever it wants".
Furthermore, the same things you say about Iran, you could argue about North Korea. North Korea has killed Americans, they have an entire month dedicated to hating America (it starts next month!) and openly funds corporate espionage attacks that drains billions from Americans. Despite that do you honestly believe, that the world would be safer if we started dropping GBU-43s on North Korean children? Honestly answer me that.
Despite what you can say about North Korean regime - don't you believe a North Korea, with Nukes mind you, is far more preferable than the alternative? Where America is dropping bombs on North Korean every 5 years? Which do you think is actually better?
Why does North Korea - who again, has done all the same, and more, than Iran get a pass from the military industrial complex? Isn't North Korea clearly the bigger threat when it comes to peace as defined by the parameters you laid out? Once you interrogate this line of thinking it makes 0 sense - and anyone who thinks candidly realizes the contradiction: ironically, once our so called "enemies" have nukes, children stop being vaporized by bombs.
China is doing really fine right now, why would it destabilize its own region? Free PR, outstanding manufacturing capabilities, a lot of manpower, most amount of trades, US being written off as unreliable partner and etc.
This. I spent 6 weeks in Taiwan last year traveling around the island. Unless there is a US President as brave as Bill Clinton who put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland in support of democratic elections, it will take 3 days to take over the island and not a single shot will be fired. Since the chip lithography systems can be shut remotely, there isn't any reason to attack the island.
Pretty much. My understanding of current US realpolitiks is that leadership finally realized that they can't really do much about Chinese superiority in every single competing industry, and all these unwelcoming outcomes are just freak outs and bunch of "hail mary"s with the hopes it can somehow reverse something. It's just not acceptable from an American PoV to not perceived as "best and strongest", so everyone is having a hard time coping with it.
Japan kinda went through the same problem in 80s/90s, but from a different angle. The problem is, US can't pull the same on China as it did with Japan.
The worst part is, it's only been half a year since Trump took office. We're experiencing crisis after crisis in the world stage, and it's the worst possible time to have someone unstable as him in charge of the world's most powerful military. Who knows what's going to happen in the next, sigh, 3.5 years with this shortage of adults who know patience and diplomacy.
It's almost impossible to imagine Netanyahu acting so emboldened under any previous US president. And it's hard to deny that Trump now looks extremely diminished on the world stage, between his leading from behind with Israel over both Gaza and Iran and his comprehensive failure to have any impact on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
This needs a citation. Israel developed their nukes 50 years ago with the assistance of Jewish nuclear physicists from around the world and french materials. They didn't need to steal nuclear secrets.
Yeah but Netanyahu tried the same shit regarding Iran with the last few presidents, including the previous incarnation of Trump who had better advisers.
This is the first time the lie has worked to this extent.
Netanyahu has warned that Iran is minutes away from the bomb for the last 30 years. Trumps own intelligence community was telling us that Iran is incapable of producing a bomb just a week or so ago.
Death to America is a great motto, but that's all it really is, they sadly lack the capability to follow through with it. With or without these latest strikes.
If Trump is unstable then how can you predict his actions? How is this an example of not acting in time / for deterrence, when it was in fact a preemptive strike? (And he did the whole "2 weeks" ruse).
In the same way you can predict what will happen to a bridge that is unstable. It doesn't matter which bad option he winds up choosing, the fact he's not choosing the good option is what makes him unpredictable.
Stupid people being back by other people doesn't mean they aren't stupid. It actually means the contrary - there's more stupid people than we previously thought...
I'm being a bit mean I suppose, it's not actually stupidity. It's naivety and fierce propaganda campaigns. Everyone longs for a simpler time and the domestic economic struggles of the US are plain.
OP predicted Trump will mess up not that he'll lose an election. His electorate is largely supporting him via emotional response, hence his constant appeal to emotions, morality, demonization, etc - it works very well. The title of the book on my manipulated mothers shelf is "Democrats hate America" not "Iranian nuclear enrichment policy” — because this isn’t about policy, it’s about identity. Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t have to withstand scrutiny; it just has to resonate. And it resonates because it offers a simple moral binary: good vs. evil, us vs. them. That’s why failures, scandals, or even authoritarian gestures don’t shake his base — they’re not evaluating him on outcomes, but on whether he reflects their emotional reality. The real danger isn’t just that he might “mess up,” but that the political incentives now reward this kind of performative grievance over competence.
So i don't buy into trumps instability being a factor here nor bidens deteriorating mental health as president being ok. Yet i still think this is false equivalence.
I've watched many people deteriorate mentally and their are many routes. Biden was clearly the "i misplace stuff" route, not "i will now attack an ally".
He definitely shouldn't have been allowed to run for president again but Trump is far more belligerent. I'm not even necessarily opposed to his actions in Iran. But he's now verbally, fiscally, or actually attacked several allies and enemies. He'll likely attack more. I think it's fine to argue for or against his actions. But it's silly to equate the scale of his actions, or risk of mental deterioration, with Biden. The stakes are much higher, the strong allies and enemies are all making reactive bold moves in response. Things are moving fast now.
Yes, thank you. Anyone who has taken care of old people recognized Biden as the passive type that was content to sit in a chair while other people did stuff around him - which wasn't all that problematic given our bureaucratic delegation-based style of governance. Meanwhile Trump is the manic aggressive type. The more you try to get him to recognize his limitations the more he denies he has any and acts out to prove it.
How do you, logically, draw the line from "cavalier use of deadly force" to "our enemies are going to take bolder action against US allies"? That leap of logic doesn't make sense; its a leap of pseudologic someone speaking from fear would make.
If anything, a better standpoint is: Illogical and cavalier use of deadly force should scare our enemies, because it makes expression of our nation's military power more unpredictable. If China invades Taiwan; Trump might just blow up the Three Gorges Dam. Other Presidents might move with care, logic, and intrinsic sanctity for human life; Trump doesn't.
I never suggested that our enemies might move with care, logic, and intrinsic sanctity for human life. I suggested that Trump's disregard for many of these cornerstones of national leadership might cause them to not move at all.
It's literally what you wrote and continue to argue for. But anyways, I strongly disagree with the premise that threats and violence results in deescalation.
Alternative prediction:
Destabilized Iran will make another migration crisis in Europe, will divide it politically because of the rise of anti immigrant far right, and finally set the scene for a full scale european war with russia, followed by other counties on both sides.
US will be forced to join and millions of its citizen will die in WW3.
Alternate prediction: Iran - a country detested in much of the middle east - getting nuclear weapons will quickly lead to proliferation as other middle east countries feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs to counter the threat of Iran.
This is why the west has been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Maybe, but the EU has different policies and a different understanding of immigration now compared to say 2010-2023, right? Also those countries you mentioned are a bit closer to Europe compared to Iran.
But I’m also not sure that the situations are comparable. In the case of Ukraine which is probably most similar to Iran from an economic standpoint, had many refugees who were temporarily fleeing Russian aggression but planned to return to Ukraine. Iran, especially if/when it’s out from under sanctions has a more robust economy and geopolitical forces going for it, versus Libya or Syria, in my view.
It will matter because they can have policies like “stricter border control” to stop legal or illegal immigration. It’s like Pakistan and how they closed their border to refugees from Iran.
> Economy will matter only if there will be no fallout in Iran which is not guaranteed.
Sure it depends on what all happens, but my point was it is different than Syria or Libya in many aspects.
I know that this kind of comment makes sense from the American perspective (based on past US actions in South America) but the EU is not actually responsible for massively destabilising the Middle East.
A nuclear armed Iran is very definitely a threat. Much of the middle east considers Iran to be an enemy, and if Iran gets nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to follow.
The west has been working to counter Iran's ongoing nuclear weapons program for decades.
“De-Nazification” required every Allied power to commit to years of occupation and decades more of economic support to prevent backsliding. No such agreement is possible today.
Contemporary experience shows the probable outcome of regime change policy is a failed state that remains a hazard to its neighbors.
De-Nazification required the Allies mass-murdering about a million Germans after the war was over. There's a reason why there's a fudge factor of 1M in the POW camps in the years after the war.
During the Civil War, Abolitionists mass-murdered slave owners by way of dueling them. The story of Cassius Marcellus Clay is littered with stories of brutally killing slave owners and we champion Abolitionists as righteous.
De-Nazification as policy essentially evaporated in the west in the earliest years of the Adenaur government. Killing and displacement of Germans in the east certainly occurred, but the example of the west shows this was not essential.
Killing men in personal duels is not comparable or relevant.
Russia will bump up arms shipments to Iran. We'll have no choice but to strike interior of Russia. Russia will not hit mainland US, but will attack US bases across Western Europe. This will be WW3.
Russia needs everything it can manufacture for itself to use in Ukraine, and they have already gotten everything useful there was to get from Iran, so the latter is on their own.
This absolutely will not happen. Iran has been shipping missiles & drones TO Russia, because Russia can't domestically produce enough of either to sustain their war against Ukraine.
In Lebanon the state is attempting to reassert itself. In Syria the rebels took control. But with no foreign boots on the ground, and no organized opposition ready to step in, what exactly is supposed to happen after the regime folds?
Its actually incredible how this exact thing could have been done by any other President and half the people losing their minds about WW3 in these comments wouldn't have even logged on to comment.
Diplomatic options include returning to the JCPOA framework (the "Iran deal"), multilateral sanctions enforcement, or establishing a new verification regime with IAEA oversight.
IAEA declared that Iran has violated the previous agreements, hides their enriched uranium, and their enrichment is essentially weapons-grade.
> The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now “the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material” — something the agency said was of “serious concern.”
> The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency — which was seen by The Associated Press — says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.
> U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.”
> "The Board of Governors... finds that Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency," the text said.
Anyway, there's a difference between having enough enriched uranium for a bomb, and actually making that uranium into a bomb. But it's not that big of a difference, it's not like enriching uranium to weapons-grade isn't bad.
Unlike, India, Pakistan or, say, Israel, Iran is a ratifier of the non-proliferation treaty and subject to inspections making sure they don’t. Meanwhile Israel not only has had nukes for decades but also continually refuses any accountability for them.
Indeed, to venture off-topic, Israel has sought nuclear weapons for as long as it has existed, which one might plausibly construe as further evidence that their state was knowingly and willingly established by military force, without much pretense that it could ever persist otherwise.
Your questions in here give the impression you do, and that your opinion is in favor of some kind of intervention. Military interventions have all gone poorly for us, while using diplomacy has worked over and over. Results should matter here and results say bombing is the wrong choice.
They wouldn't be the only country that made nuclear weapons. Or are you proposing that every country that's ever manufactured nukes be bombed into dust? There are a lot of them.
Their meddling directly contributed to the current disastrous war in Gaza and lebanon. They also helped prop up the Assad regime in Syria. All so they could threaten a country 700 miles away.
I expect you to deny or water down most of my claims, so to spare a long flamewar, just assume i've given all the generic standard responses everyone here has seen 100 times. I agree with most of them.
But what business is it of Iran whether or not israel exists? They don't seem
to care
about palestinians too much otherwise they wouldn't be supporting hamas and the war they started.
It's a genocidal regime, despised by most of her citizens. They fund proxy wars across the middle east based on religious extremism. They deserve everything they are getting and with all due respect only an idiot would support them.
Something like 400 people just died because of a claim about nuclear weapons which is not backed up by evidence. Claims that have been echoed for decades…
Purportedly 400 people just died… Was it because a sovereign country wants to have Nuclear power? Maybe? Maybe not? Was it because Israel already has Nukes? Who knows… But it’s not a simple end of story situation unless lives have no value.
Radiopharmacy / Nuclear pharmacy. While peaceful, it's a delicate science and some kind of inspections are usually enforced. Thankfully, Iran did allow IAEA inspectors and is a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). One could wish that was the reality of the nuclear operations of certain other states which are not scrutinized.
It is all very, even exceedingly simple. Iran’s nuclear program had no civilian explanation or justification. There’s nothing to be done with 60% enriched material other than go for nuclear weapons within a very short timeframe.
Let's get rid of all nuclear weapons. Why are we picking on Israel here? Unlike the US Israel has never used theirs (or admitted they actually have them). Russia has openly threatened the west with nuclear attack.
It's not really the reason Iran wants to have nuclear weapons though. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel but more generally to be able to act with impunity.
Israel has nothing against Iran. Before the Islamic revolution there were warm relations between the countries and the people. They are pretty distant geographically and until now have never fought a direct war. Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades now and openly claims it wants to destroy it. Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.
I'd rather live in a world without nuclear weapons but I'm a lot more worried about Russia and Pakistan (e.g.).
By the way, we've seen what value security guarantees have to countries willing to give up nuclear deterrence in Ukraine. Not worth anything.
Israel and the Palestinians have a history of violence from Israel's first day as a country. Israel and Iran not really. More recently Israel has been attacked by Palestinians on Oct 7th. Iran was involved in training Hamas: https://ecfr.eu/article/iran-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-a-marri...
"The Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October reflected their own independent calculations. Although they could not have happened without the provision of long-term Iranian support, the attacks likely came as an unwelcome surprise for Tehran, which over the last two months has avoided giving Palestinian groups full-throated support. Whether Hamas and PIJ remain tightly aligned with Iran, however, will depend on the outcome of the war in Gaza and wider dynamics in the Middle East’s fluctuating geopolitics."
Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has been oppressing Palestinians long before Oct 7th.
Israel was involved in supporting ISIS. That's why ISIS never attacked Israel (except that one time accidentally which they apologized for! How crazy is that?)
> Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has a history of hostility towards multiple neighbouring states. US has invaded Iraq for Israel. Iran does not want to be next.
> Exactly.
So you agree Israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons
Israel wasn't really at war with either Lebanon or Yemen or with the Palestinians. It was with Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas. All attacked Israel with no provocation before Israel retaliated.
Syria is a different story. Israel did bomb military assets in Syria once the Assad regime fell/fled out of concerns they would fall into the hands of Jihadists. It also took territory to expand the zone it controls in case said Jihadists have intentions of proceeding into Israel. It took advantage of a vacuum in an uncertain security situation. During Assad's reign it did not bomb Syria since the 1973 war (where Syria attacked Israel with no provocation, that was Assad the father fwiw).
Sure, by that token the US wasn’t really at war with Germany or Vietnam, it was at war with the Nazis and the Viet Cong. It’s a meaningless distinction to anyone actually affected by the wars.
Additionally, Israel bombed Damascus during Assad’s reign.
Here’s one recent example (bombing an embassy building):
Iran seemed like they were doing fine in the existence department, no? I have a lot of disagreement (to put it mildly) with Israel, but I think they'd be fine letting Iran be if they'd stop funding Hezbollah and the Houthis, and quieted down with the "Israel must be destroyed" rhetoric.
(And before the argument changes subject, I think Iran [and others] are justified in being angry with Israel about what they're doing in Gaza.)
Netanyahu has consistently said he wanted a regime change in Iran, alongside Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iran does not want to end up like the other countries.
I mean, other neighboring countries close to Israel have largely made peace with the country, and they have no nukes. Iran stands out in terms of constantly funding proxies to attack it.
>A world where Iran has no nukes is a safer world, end of story.
Safer for who? Would anyone be lobbing missiles into Tehran if Iran had nukes?
Given how Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine were treated after dismantling their nuclear programs, and given how much grace countries like North Korea are given you'd be an idiot to not have nuclear program, especially when the US accuses you of having on.
Remember, Iran agreed to nuclear deproliferation under Obama, and the next guy tore it up. It's only rational to try and develop nukes and I'd argue its safer if Iran had nukes. Kids wouldn't be dying under rubble in Tehran otherwise.
Nuclear deproliferation is complete joke unless the US and Russia are the first to give up their nukes.
I guess this is a half truth- that people were still not happy with Iran- who they were still funding and also continuing to develop non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
Breaking promises with them means we give up the ability to work with them diplomatically on other goals. "They haven't done everything we'd like them to do" isn't a valid response to someone fulfilling the terms of an agreement you've made with them.
Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.
At some point we have to try to make things better, and believe that better (even just a smidge at a time, and possibly with great effort) is possible. Or else we might as well just build the suicide booths from Futurama.
It feels deeply cynical and jaded to me to say, well, just let Iran fund armies and encourage ethnic cleansing, as long as they don't do this one specific thing that is more important to Americans. As long as the horrors you create only affect people in the middle east, we can look the other way.
Your question necessitates the idea that the US is some sort of worldwide nanny state, where anything that happens without an action, the US “let” happen. It’s an innocent question but the assumptions are far more drastic. Reflect on some other alternatives besides “the US is in charge of everything”, especially looking at our track record in the Middle East.
I already heard that when the USA illegally attacked and invaded Iraq. Both of these situations, from the point of view of international law, are no different from Russia's illegal bombing of Ukraine.
Yes, but as much as I don't trust Trump or his administration, it's not clear whether Iran has or doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and if they do, how close they are to a serviceable weapon.
Bush Jr and his buddies are IMO unindicted war criminals. It remains to be seen if this current act puts Trump in the same shoes. I hope Iran really did have a nuclear weapons program and that this attack is in some way justified. But I won't believe or disbelieve it until we know more, corroborated by trustworthy sources outside the US.
The premise here is correct only as far as it is true that anyone besides the US possesses the capacity to act. Beyond that point, it is no longer charitable to frame it that way.
By "others", you presumably mean credible threats from enemy states (since we allow Israel to secretly harbor nuclear weaponry with no problem). But no, I don't think that. I think it's nuanced, and I think that it's wrong to frame it with language like "let", instead of saying it like it is: starting a war to intervene. War in the Middle East is historically a bad idea, and there better be a good reason to justify the senseless death. I think the seriousness of that decision should not be minimized by statements like "well we couldn't just let them do anything". There is a serious chance of this escalating into something far worse.
Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The official concern has always been that Iran signed the NPT, but then at various times seems to have possibly violated the terms. I'm not necessarily in favor of this recent attack, just pointing out that legally Israel and Iran are in completely different situations.
True. I doubt that the US would have this strong of a reaction to a different non-compliant country we were allied with, though. (Can you imagine the US bunker-bombing Germany, SK, AUS, etc?)
Israel signed the Rome statue and has repeatedly violated specific orders from the ICJ to prevent genocide, so let's not pretend that this is somehow about a concern for international law.
Another great point! The US doesn't recognize the ICJ anymore after it was caught illegally planting mines in Nicaraguan harbors and lost in the ICJ. A verdict the US still has not complied with. Just more evidence that upholding international law isn't a priority for the US.
If you are a leader of any nation, you are an idiot to not have a nuclear program. It's carteblanche for any nuclear power to come in and fuck your shit up.
Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes.
The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes.
You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes.
It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.
Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.
YOU are the one suffering from "thought terminating cliche" by saying something as foolish as that you trust Iran as much as the US with nuclear bombs. It is like saying you trust the Taliban with nukes. I simply don't know how to debate with people whose brains are so broken.
On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting.
Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
Dwight Eisenhower had a different view (from The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953-1956: A Personal Account (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313):
The incident took place in 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.
I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.)
Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
I don’t think there’s a particular moral concern and I’m not sure where that meme has arisen from. An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb than other bombs. There’s nothing special about it besides it being exceptionally large in its destructive capability.
If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb.
I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.
The difference is in targeting cities. Civilian targets. Let me remind you of the paragraph above:
> Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]
A civilian is just a soldier who hasn’t put on a uniform in this scenario, and a soldier is just a civilian who has put on a uniform. You’re making a meaningless distinction in this context. There isn’t some sort of magic status that changes here - the same Japanese civilians were working at shipyards and ordinance factories to build weapons to kill American soldiers - you think we shouldn’t bomb those factories because we would kill Japanese civilians building weapons to kill American soldiers and that’s ok because the Americans were wearing a costume and we call them “military personnel”?
> the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary
This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war.
There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man.
I’ve read far too many books and spent too much time on this specific topic to have my mind changed by a random YouTube link and a random quote. You are free to choose the narrative that fits your worldview best, I’ve chosen mine based on my own research and learning.
Not like when Netanyahu pledged to turn Gaza into a "deserted island"¹, but if that's the kind of rhetoric that justifies US bombing campaigns, then why haven't we bombed Israel's not-so-secret nuclear weapon production facilities, too?
Soviet Union was an US peer, in terms of power, and China was their ally. Bombing their nuclear facilities could result in war that the US could just as well lose, so that's why they had to show some restraint. But believe me, they would bomb those facilities if they could.
Probably not your intent, but this is a very clear summation of why it is is likely understood as critical to Iranian security to develop and publicly test a nuclear weapon.
The development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons has been against Islamic law in the Islamic Republic of Iran since the mid 90s under a fatwa issued by Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. It is well understood that Iran wants the ability to develop nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat that justifies the atrocity of their creation but all of the evidence suggests that they are otherwise uninterested in nuclear weapons.
We do not significantly disagree, but I take umbrage at the repetition of the pernicious lie that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want sovereignty in their land and justice for the Islamic people. This is a reasonable position.
Understood. I am just making the latter argument that any head of state in a conflicted region must, as a matter of baseline sovereignty, pursue a nuclear deterrent.
It’s clear at this point that such deterrent works, and it’s also not clear what other deterrent might work in its stead. Some of the big imperialist wars of the last half-century likely would have been avoided had the invadee been armed with nukes.
Probably something other than the one thing that would justify lifting the mid 90's fatwa declaring the creation, possession, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law.
How aware is this community of the Supreme Leader's staunch opposition to nuclear weapons?
They literally printed a bank note celebrating their nuclear program. The SL is not "staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons".
(I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)
Ok, I will take the bait. Two countries that are frequently noted as having the capability to build nuclear weapons is Japan and Korea. (For the purpose of this post, please assume with good faith that they don't have secret programmes to build nuclear weapons.) Both have world-leading civilian nuclear power programmes and at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. Side note: One thing that I never see discussed: As both countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Act, I assume that they have regular audits of their facilities by IEAE. (If they were consistently failing with major mishaps, or secret programmes, I am sure that we would read about it.) Both of them have incredibly sophisticated national scientific research programmes that could easily pursue nuclear weapons.
What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world.
Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
Indeed. The lowest of the horses, however, is clearly the USA. Our history and our actions (POSIWID is the most effective heuristic in the modern information environment), including the capricious abandonment of the very successful JCPOA, suggest complete dishonesty in this realm. There is zero reason to believe we have any legitimate reason for attacking Iran and every reason to distrust our stated motivations. Iraq was 22 years ago.
We presented outright fabrications to the UN to justify an imperial war after the president campaigned against "nation building." It is hard to ignore the parallels to Iran and Trump, proclaimed "anti war" candidate that you had to vote for to prevent WW3. Here we are.
I am bathed in the light of heaven for my war is in service of justice and peace for all existence. Those who stand in opposition to these goals are an evolutionary dead-end. An answer to the Fermi Paradox.
My father, a middle-class mormon and far-right political enthusiast, once told me in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East, "people will die for their country, but they'll kill for their god." This harrowing indication of his radicalization nonetheless holds as a true and instructive maxim.
Who is your god? For most of America, it is power and the best proxy for power is the demigod of Money. Avarice and greed are in, Christlike works are out. Too woke.
It is literally possible to use all of this incredible technology and productive capacity to enable food security, high quality housing, access to healthcare, unlimited access to the wealth of all human knowledge and digitizable creations, while protecting our only habitable planet and nurturing its biosphere, and so much more, for all of humanity. Yet money and the desire for power will see billions suffer and die in the next century while mass global extinctions will only decelerate due to depletion of species.
Why can't we do better than the current environment of lawless global and domestic violence waged by the US government? It is barbarism.
It is possible that mistakes were made in the aftermath of WW2. It is possible that the victors have rewritten history in a favorable light -- in fact, that is the most reasonable expectation. This must not be used to justify genocide for if our society takes that path the victory against the Axis powers is meaningless and evil will have triumphed in the world.
Israel is more than Netanyahu and less than the Jewish people. Humanity must unite and destroy the power structures that incentivize the hyperscale atrocities we are currently manifesting.
Did I say the Supreme Leader is a benign figure? Iran has problems. Big ones.
You are disingenuous and malicious when you portray my position in this way. The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons. He is the respected religious leader of the Iranian government. The actions of the Iranian government, including their adherence to the JCPOA that Trump capriciously discarded, are consistent with this fatwa.
You must provide some other justification for your stance than merely accepting the US propaganda.
We can just disagree about this and let the evidence people can find on their own speak for itself. I find the idea that the SL is "opposed to nuclear weapons" to be risible. Iran bought from AQ Khan!
It is extremely important to document the facile and childish level of argumentation within the industry whose hubris seeks to force the world into the period of its greatest calamities. Society failed to highlight the intellectual immaturity of the Nazis and it has yielded the material reality we exist in today.
Again, I appreciate your labor and contributions to the historical record.
Strict adherence to the JCPOA, capriciously discarded by the man who just bombed Iran in my name, suggests that Iran's position was legitimately held.
In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment.
It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.
No it isn't. Most countries work with other countries under a shared set of principles. Even China and Russia do this to an extent. Where deviation happens, it happens when a country can afford to do it (see: south China sea disputes.) Sometimes, they'll do it anyway and suffer (see: North Korea.)
Doing whatever you want is just opening yourself fully to the full spectrum of game theory outcomes. The leadership in Iran is discovering what that means.
Even if Iran were arming regional proxies, that's an Israel problem, not an america problem. Though AIPAC et el makes sure no american is ever aware of that distinction.
That doesn't seem like a good reason to cancel the only thing stopping them from developing nukes. Of course they fund proxy armies, but that's a reginal problem that can be addressed through conventional means.
Cancelling the Joint Agreement is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In particular, it was clearly an expression of Trump's animus to Obama.
Yep, the JCPOA was canceled because 1) Bibi has always wanted to go to war with Iran, and knew very well how to get the US's help to do it, and 2) Trump's ego can be trivially played by just saying it's something Obama got credit for.
The limits were to sunset starting from 2026 and end by 2031. The deal was to end with Iran being allowed to enrich as much as they wanted to, just a step away from a bomb.
The point was to build trust that Iran would not continue to pursue nuclear weapons. The trust would be built through the multi-year partnership.
The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what." And yeah, if that's your starting place, you've figured out where that path ends up. You're never going to be satisfied with anything Iran says because your fundamental premise is that they can't be trusted to not pursue a nuclear bomb.
By walking away from the deal, we gave Iran a clear message: "you might as well pursue a bomb because we are always going to act like you are, no matter what you actually do."
>The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."
No, it's a position that assumes some people there have an interest in a nuclear bomb, and some suspicion is warranted - which means a safe deal needed to have them some distance away from a bomb.
After all, if they just wanted nuclear power, they could have trivially had it without all this fuss. It was always so much cheaper to buy LEU than endure all these sanctions.
> The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."
Understanding that Iran is religiously opposed to the creation of nuclear weapons with only the caveat that the fatwa declaring the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law may be rescinded in the event of an existential threat to the republic, it naturally follows that people hold that belief because they intend to present an existential threat to Iran.
There's no evidence the fatwa even exists (aside from statements by self-interested parties), much less any details of its contents and any exception it may have. At any point they could point to an exception in subsection 4) c) and do whatever they want. Because the fatwa isn't published, they can add whatever exception they want later. If it really exists and is really meaningful, they would have publicized it in advance and so been bound by it.
I believe the right to "do whatever they want" is one generally valued by sovereign entities. The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them. It does sound like a good reason to not capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium that was discarded to no positive end by Donald Trump, the man who is illegally starting another US war of choice as we speak.
Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA and developed nuclear weapons in 2017? It's worked for literally everyone else who's tried it and it is hard to empathize with a perspective in which the United States has true moral authority over a country that we destabilized and have continuously demonized.
Enrichment to levels suitable for domestic nuclear power (the goal, and follow on decoupling from Russia as the supplier and extractor of fuel for existing Iran nuclear power station) is a magnitude and more less time and effort than enrichment to levels suitable for weapons.
Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns, getting rid of all the uranium variations save the rare target weight takes more and more time as percent purity increases.
"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres and leaving locked and logged "long soak" spectrometer instruments behind. It's hard to enrich to greater levels without leaving a ratio fingerprint behind in the gamma spectrum.
"The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim."
That's a tad Descartes before the hordes .. the response that situation in 2002 was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015 which had plenty of carrots, sticks, and ability to peer into dark places .. but not real support from Isreal or the US who scuppered the plan under Trump.
You are aware the deal was entirely dependent on Russia, and the follow-on Biden wanted to sign (but couldn't since Iran wouldn't fully cooperate with IAEA) involved Russia even more heavily? There's no other place that both sides accept can store the enriched Uranium or supply fuel rods to Iran.
>Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns
It's the other way around. Going from 3 to 20 percent is much harder than 20 to 60 which is harder than 60 to 90. Going to 99.9999% would be tough, but is unnecessary even for nukes.
>"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres
They were allowed to enrich to that level under the deal starting in 2031, inspections would have tested if the enriched material was diverted.
Even if they could be effective at such short notice, it would have taken the US being distracted by some other crisis and being unable to act in the short period between detection and weaponization to lead to a nuke.
The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report in May saying they enriched up to 60% U-235 at one of their facilities[0].
> As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month.
Radiopharmaceuticals are enriched to 60%. Iran is one of the top producers in the world. Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran
Iran imports radiopharmaceuticals from Canada and that import was never restricted. Besides, radiopharmaceuticals are done with cyclotrons and do not require 60% HEU.
There are dozens of elements and isotopes used in radiopharmacology. Highly enriched uranium is absolutely one of them -hence why energy.gov is posting about it- and it's significantly cheaper than using a particle accelerator to create radioactive isotopes.
Cato institute has argued it was for leverage in talks with the US. Iranians were quite clear about this, setting timelines for enrichment targets to amp up the pressure after the us withdrew from JCPOA.
I have heard similar estimates. I think what is important: It is less than one year. That is pretty quick from the view of regional geopolitics.
Here is a quote that I found from abc.net.au via Google:
> According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons.
Putting on my black hat for moment: I think Iran's strategy to tip toe up to the line of weapons grade uranium is strategic genius. (Of course, I don't want them to have nuclear weapons!) It provides maximum deniability so they can get as many parts as close as possible before the final 12 months dash to get nuclear weapons.
the last bit of refinement is much easier than the initial bits. Natural abundance is 0.7%, so getting to 10% is about halfway to weapons grade and 60% is ~80-90% of the way there.
You raise a very good point here, probably the most important consideration if one wishes to defend Israel's and US's recent bombing of Iranian nuclear research sites. I don't know any legitimate civilian purpose to enrich uranium to near-weapons grade... except to eventually produce weapons grade material.
Honestly Iran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
Well let's not forget stuxnet... Iran hasn't been left uncontested. They have faced considerable setbacks along the way. They've been trying to develop [all of the things you need for nuclear weapons] for some time, and more recently had been accelerating those efforts.
Netanyahu may exaggerate the imminence of an Iranian nuke, but the reason Iran hasn't built a nuke is because Israel has been repeatedly setting Iran back in its progress over the years.
The single biggest setback was the JCPOA or the "Iran nuclear deal," which Netanyahu pressured Trump to unilaterally renege on.
Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe.
The deal was on only for about 3 years. Iran has been enriching to some extent since 2009. I'd would think there was a lot more in setting it back than a failed deal.
Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work.
>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.
Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?
You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”
> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings
>Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time
The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).
>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich
They could just give up.
>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.
>Say more. What's the relevance?
Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.
Breakout time was not reduced lol. You have a deal, then you get another deal, then you get another deal.
"I just got a 1 year discount with a vendor"
The wise man lowered his head and muttered: "No, you have earned a price increase in 12 months."
> They could just give up.
Which makes literally no sense, as we are seeing. The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
>The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
That's in contradiction, no? Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal. Iran would have been in a position where no deal was possible, and all the same arguments against what happened now would actually apply against a x100 stronger Iran.
I get the feeling you're willfully playing dumb, but to take it step by step:
Now, after having proven that deals mean nothing both in Ukraine and Iran, the only sensible move is to develop nuclear weapons.
Prior to us having broken both of these deals, there was a believable argument for the US being an honest broker who can ensure security in lieu of you having your own nuclear weapons.
> Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal
What do you mean? You do the same thing again: economic normalization for non-proliferation.
Ukraine started in 2014. Libya in 2011. The truth of the world was already clear at that point, as well as Iranian intentions. The JCPOA was never going to handle a Iranian nuke but would have facilitated it. You cannot use economic incentives to fix a broken world, and Iran had many other motives for nukes.
Facilities deep in a mountain, no IAEA access, refusal to negotiate, October 7th, ... You'd have to be quite naive to think it's all above board. (Instead of under a mountain).
Let's be clear Iran is the bad guy. But so was Saddam Hussein and he didn't have the weapons they said he did.
On Fox News they'll tell you nuclear war is imminent but they say that because they want to bomb, not because it's true or not. They're only justifying their actions, not reacting to a threat.
I don't watch Fox News. Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons. I'm all for prosecuting Blair and Bush, always have been. This is not a matter in which you can just sit back and say "well, hopefully it's all innocent". Iran had to be open - they were the opposite.
> Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons
You're correct. However, Netanyahu also claimed that Iran was behind the two assassination attempts on Trump during the campaign trail. A laughably transparent lie obviously designed to woo Trump. Then there's that this war is politically very convenient for him as it distracts from some Knesset political drama, increasing international criticism of the Gaza situation, and it obstructs Trump's attempts at a politician solution with Iran.
I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons. Clearly they've been playing with fire for a long time but that doesn't mean they actually have nuclear weapons. But I consider anything the Netanyahu government says as deeply and profoundly untrustworthy. So colour me highly sceptical on it all.
Iraq was also not giving sufficient access to inspectors, which was one of the reasons people were convinced he did have WMDs. Things like "you can just sit back and say 'well, hopefully it's all innocent'" is pretty much what people were saying at the time as well.
Wars have unpredictable outcomes, all of this may very well cause more problems than it solves.
The alternatives were that they were enriching well beyond peaceful thresholds primarily for leverage in negotiations, or that they wanted "breakout" capability, so they could build multiple bombs quickly, if they ever chose to. But these alternatives can still be unacceptable from the standpoint of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation.
Iran is one of the top producers or radiopharmaceuticals from highly enriched materials including uranium. This should be unsurprising because Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran
There are some ridiculous pro-palestine/anti-israel takes out there that says that the politics of the region are more stable when Iran has nuclear weapons.
Israel has been talking about the threat for some time and Iran over time has broadened its nuclear program and has enriched more and more Uranium to higher and higher levels.
Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program?
Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that?
Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.
One of the problems is that we became the defenders of Israel. And it's a situation we created when we created a religious extremist government in Iran.
The US and Israel have a long standing partnership. During the cold war the USSR backed Syria and Egypt (E.g.) and the US backed Israel. That was not different than other places in the world where the US pushed back against soviet expansion. Unlike Europe though there was never a formal defense pact. Also unlike Europe there were actual wars with people getting killed.
I'm not sure the US "created" the religious extremist government in Iran. It's a complicated story. But the Shah was hated and like other similar dictators to date the US was happy to support that regime and turn a blind eye to the atrocities against the Iranian citizenry. Just like it is happy to work with other dictatorial regimes today as long as their interests align. When the revolution happened the Ayatollah was already well positioned to take advantage of the situation. Many of the people who rose up were eventually lined up against the wall and executed, like tends to happen in these revolutions.
- it's disgusting that the USA is always like, oops, my bad, we messed up when we helped you kill all those people, we were doing our best (sometimes in the case of Iraq going back and forth three times!)
- now that we're here, not sure what else we can do (we shouldn't let Iran fund proxy wars and have nukes)
The US messed up a lot of things e.g. in the Americas. Before them the Europeans also messed plenty of stuff up.
But the US has also at times been a positive force.
I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum.
But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.
A consequential night for Israel: peace for many decades to come. I worry, however, that peace through bombing is not a permanent solution. Peace comes through diplomacy. Ideology does not die in the rubble.
This conveniently ignores decades of context. The CIA-backed coup that toppled Iran’s elected government, the sweeping sanctions, support for Saddam during a brutal war, assassinations and cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Painting Iran as the sole aggressor skips the part where outside powers kept breaking the "rules" they imposed. Also forgetting that Iran's current repressive and theocratic government is itself a direct consequence of US interference.
You can let this context paralyze you into feeling that there's no morally right response to any action anyone takes in this complex world. Or, you can just say: what they're doing is wrong, so we're going to stop it. If you don't learn to do the latter, you'll spend the rest of your life beholden to the tyranny of the people who do.
I think my own thought isn't 'what they're doing is wrong' but 'what they're doing is dangerous'.
Thus in my view it kind of doesn't matter whether what they're doing is right or wrong, and the sensible goal is to simply prevent the dangerous stuff without necessarily judging them. Thus limited bombings focused on nuclear enrichment plants, rather than some wider campaign.
The problem as I see it is that it may not work, and that nuclear bomb development might be quite easy.
What? Do you really believe the world seriously beholds itself to "do as I say not as I do"? There's no such thing as international law. There's just self-interested nations who have always only done what is in their best interest. There's no higher authority.
So, in your reality, China says "but, but, you guys got to invade Iraq and attack Iran unprovoked, that means we get to invade Taiwan" and we just have to sit back and let it happen because... reasons. Nope. That's not how it works. We don't hold everyone to the same standards, and we certainly don't hold ourselves to the standards we police the world to hold itself to. That's the way it works.
I don't believe in fair. I do however believe that maybe we can learn and change and expect our leadership to do the same. Cooperation and diplomacy lead to far higher long term returns than might makes right as we have seen time and time again. What we are seeing now however is a policy of maximizing the minimum which will force others to do the same and leads to everyone, including the US, being far worse off.
Please do not lose grasp on what we're talking about here: These were nuclear enrichment facilities with the goal of enriching fissile material for nuclear weapons. These were not civilian, or even conventional military, targets. There is a gulf of difference between one overnight mission to dampen the nuclear prospects of a dictatorial, authoritarian, religious-extremist regime, and China launching a multi-modal invasion of a near-peer ally.
I believe the complete dominance of the preemptive attacks shows how little capability they actually have to use any such weapons and that likely trickles down to any development of those weapons. I no longer believe in the 'They have WMD and will take over the world in days' wolf cries. Iran is not some nice country being picked on, but the entities attacking them also aren't being truthful in their reasons either. I have no love for any of the parties in this fight at the moment. They are all wrong, but one side did throw the first punch so they are, in my view, the most wrong here and the US just backed them.
> There's no such thing as international law. There's just self-interested nations who have always only done what is in their best interest.
If you think about that a little bit more, you may see that internal laws can change the best interests if coencequences are big enough. And maybe that is the point.
So we're blaming the US because Iran chose to pursue weapons-grade enrichment. Have you considered that Iran could simply choose not to do that, like every other paranuclear state?
Ultimately the choice of whether or not Iran gets to build a nuclear bomb is not up to them, and they're finding that out now.
What happened between Trump withdrawing from the treaty and Fordo getting bombed? I feel like you're perhaps missing a few critical steps on the Iranian side.
Trump signaled that diplomacy wasn't going to solve the tension, and they weren't getting what they wanted to in exchange for not building weapons. Of course they were going to build them. Why would they not, whether for offense or defense?
Iran regime has been a great destabilizer and war monger. So, may be their nuke development just provided an opening for the regime change operation. The Middle East will be much more peaceful once Iran is de-fanged. This even may help Europe because Iran was helping Russia in the war.
no boots on the ground and more moderate goals. The current state of Iraq - severely corrupt moderately religious not threatening anybody kleptocracy would be a success here. Not threatening is the key - Iran has been behind sectarian violence in Iraq, behind Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, helping Assad, ... one can see that Iran's regime should have already been taken out yesterday just in order to advance peace in the Middle East.
Note - no boots on the ground wouldn't be a big limitation because in case of say ethnic violence, with Azerbaijani and Persian being the largest groups, or even just great social chaos, Turkey and Azerbaijan, are, as far as i understand, ready to bring their armies into the Iran's Azerbaijani populated provinces, which would leave Persians, who are many don't like that "Arab's Islam", in their provinces to their own devices, probably even restoring the monarchy with the Shah's son, which again would be a good outcome here.
They don't have much options. They have only Revolutionary Guard for them. Army hates the Guard. The Guard isn't really a fighting force, it can only launch missiles and beat unarmed protesters. Once it runs out of missiles (with a lot of missiles lost to the bombing), it is done.
I expect a full no-fly zone enforcement, and with that the regime's domestic authority and power will quickly go down the drain.
It does remind me of the North Korean situation, where nobody wanted NK to get nukes, but since nobody was willing to take action on it, and diplomacy went nowhere (because they obviously wanted nukes), eventually NK got the nukes they wanted.
Does anyone think that situation resolved well? If we were able to go back in time, would we choose diplomacy again, knowing it would fail?
I don't think we've seen the resolution of that situation. We will one day, and I think the chances of it being a good outcome are pretty slim. I'm very much against Iran having nuclear weapons. I just hope we don't get dragged into a long war which will explode our national debt and potentially lead to a sovereign debt crisis.
Iraq and Afghanistan were long wars because we had a ground invasion and then nation building in countries with relatively weak civic structures and identities. It doesn't seem like anybody is seriously considering a ground invasion of Iran here, Israel will probably just continue airstrikes and sabotage/assassination. The US might join in on more airstrikes but it seems extremely unlikely it'd go beyond that, the appetite for nation building is obviously gone ever since Iraq and Afghanistan went terribly. Nobody in the US wants a repeat of that.
North-Korea has had a bunch of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul since the 50s. They've had a "we will completely fuck your shit up"-type deterrent way before nukes, which is also why they've been able to do their nuclear programme: they used their previous deterrent to develop their new one.
There was never really any other option than "ask nicely to not do that", and maybe try some covert sabotage here and there. Everyone knew that and everyone knew that everyone knew.
In Iran the situation is different, because everyone knows that they don't have any such deterrent and they will lose in any real shooting war, with fairly little options to meaningfully fight back. There is a real inventive to actual pursue diplomacy for Iran which didn't exist in North-Korea.
Also the North-Korean regime and population is of quite a different nature than Iran. By and large, the North-Korean regime just wants to be left alone and is quite isolationist. This also doesn't really apply to Iran.
There are lots of people in this thread who are defaulting to "when the US attacks someone that's by default OK, and you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not".
What makes it OK specifically for the US to do this? There is an entire international framework to deal with non proliferation. Bombing another country on the other side of the world because you can is not that.
The people who decide if it's okay are the ones with nuclear weapons. They are the ones who built and enforce the framework for determining what "okay" even means. That's why nuclear weapon acquisition is so powerful. And why it's so fiercely protected.
The framework to deal with non-proliferation depends on the states involved voluntarily participating in the framework. Iran was not doing so.
There are numerous countries that enjoy paranuclear status who have had no problem not lying to the IAEA.
You cannot place blame for this outcome on anyone other than Iran, they made the move entirely of their own volition. Once you open the door for consequence, you don't get to choose how it is handed out.
You completely missed the point. Whether certain actions are "OK" are not is utterly irrelevant in geopolitical affairs. Sovereign states will always act in their (perceived) best interest regardless of legalisms or moral codes. Justifications are then manufactured for public consumption.
Ultima ratio regum.
As for international frameworks, how should the Non-Proliferation Treaty be enforced? If a country violates it then what should the consequences be?
North Korea is crazy and diplomacy works just fine with them. This is entirely the foreign policy of another country that has taken American foreign policy hostage. I'm sorry, the America is not safer because of this ... the opposite in fact.
That ship sailed but the world was able to manage them. The ship didn't sail with Iran and the world was able to manage it. My point being is that whatever stage the situation is in, diplomacy without war actually works.
So this is a comment in favour of nuclear proliferation? I don't get your point. It sounds like you're saying oh well because NK has worked out so far. So far, by the way, because they're still a rogue state, and they now have nuclear weapons on top of that.
Yes, so far it worked. That's what "it's working" means, like, it will always be "its working so far". Listen, don't bring up the bullshit framework everyone used to get into the Iraq war. I can hear the echoes of it in your commentary. Everything is working so far, that is what a process is.
"It's working" in terms of NK not nuking anyone, but it also means that people are scared to do anything to North Korea even when they're belligerent, because they're a nuclear power now.
> Listen, don't bring up the bullshit framework everyone used to get into the Iraq war.
Ridiculous comparison. No one's talking about a ground invasion here.
I discard any pro-proliferation arguments at face value.
You’re arguing for a greater number of uncontrollable parameters governing the world’s most deadly weapons. I can’t think of a more idiotic position to take. And the “nothing bad has happened yet” belief system is just insane. Stanislav Petrov? Able Archer 83? Read a book man.
How many times has the world’s most capable military accidentally almost detonated a nuclear bomb?
You do realize that there are ways to avoid nuclear proliferation without war? The US had a deal with Iran and multiple other countries that made them limit their nuclear capabilities, but the US withdrew from it in 2018.
Iran needing to be babysat is their choice. Numerous states are capable of building nuclear weapons or enriching weapon-grade uranium. And they don't, because they aren't bad actors.
Iran is an objectively bad actor when it comes to nuclear weapons. They created the problem voluntarily, of their own volition. What comes after is not up to them.
Iran, by the way, broke the IAEA agreement. Fordo was built illegally, without disclosure to the IAEA.
But this is still bad, may be illegal, and isn't over yet. We don't actually know what they hit, if those sites were empty, and what's happened to ~1/2 ton of highly-enriched uranium or the regime's ability to produce more.
I can't believe OP is saying this like some "I'm actually smart" moment. Play stupid games to win stupid prizes, except it affects the entire world now
It boggles my mind that you ever thought Trump had a principled stand on anything. Most of the world has known since the 1980s exactly who Donald Trump is.
I understand what you mean, but we've been in this conflict for decades already. America and loads of other countries have been working to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would result in the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing nukes by way of defense against Iran - a country most of the middle east views as a combatant and an enemy.
I won't comment or discuss who you voted for - that isn't germane here. What is important is that America has been working for decades - often quite blatantly, sometimes with the thinnest veneer of deniability - to stop Iran from getting nukes. We're now just saying the quiet part out loud.
> America and loads of other countries have been working to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons.
1. America is a continent. You probably mean the USA.
2. What the US has been working to stop Iran from is being independent of its near-control - which it had gained with the 1953 CIA-fomented coup d'etat against the Mossadegh government, and lost again in 1979 when the Islamist-headed faction of the rebellion gained power. While it's true that the US would not like Iran to have nuclear weapons, that has served more as an excuse to try and suppress it rather than actual motivation.
No, America is a country - you demonstrate this by knowing exactly which country I refer to when I say the word. Pop quiz: how many countries have the word "America" in their name?
#2 is not worth responding to, as you didn't feel the need to respond to my broader point: anti-proliferation in the middle east has been a long-pursued initiative by the west and much of the rest of the world for decades.
a) Russia plans to conquer Ukraine and use its resources. Nuclear power plants are very expensive and critical to industry. Russia wants to capture these for their own use, not blow them up and irradiate the countryside that they wish to be a part of their own country!
b) Active reactors contain very "hot" decay products that are very bad for your health if atomised by an explosion and spread around. Chernobyl is the prototypical example of this. Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium, that's the point! Natural Uranium would "trigger itself" prematurely due to its constant background decay radiation.
Likely the reason to bomb Iran now in the first hand was internal politics of Israel. Controlling party was losing votes. Now, few bombs and problem solved.
For those who think the attack would rally Iranians behind the Ayatollah, can you explain your logic? Israel has been bombing Iranian military targets (while Iran has been attacking Israeli civilian targets in retaliation) for a week, and we haven’t seen the Islamist regime grow stronger.
I have no idea why this is still on the front page of HN. To me, it has become a dumping ground for ideologically motivated individuals to blindly attack Israel and the U.S. with unproven claims and speculation, rather than fostering interesting technical discussions.
People almost always rally behind the political leadership when attacked by another country.
I could even imagine that this has happened before in Iran and that the Iran-Iraq war was an important reason why the Mullahs could consolidate their power.
All the discussion about who is right, wo would win etc. aside. Israel should be a big wakeup call to muslim countries. With so little population and surrounded by so many hostile countries, they manage to be so strong and be able to defend themselves.
It is a big shame that many muslim countries are under dysfunctional governments and struggling to make progress so they can’t even protect themselves.
Personally I don’t agree with any kind of war but it is not realistic to expect everything to be fine while fighting inside your country, with a backwards mindset, discussing religion etc. not working honestly and expecting to prosper.
Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves.
What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all.
I suspect that after their nuclear program was discovered and set back they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy and convinced themselves they could repurpose it as leverage. But they are a theocratic regime and their messaging (whether genuine or not) made that a non-viable option in reality.
This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent and you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you? Theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first if you can't destroy their capability by other means. What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
> Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had.
I feel very conflicted about what's happening.
On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects. You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
> What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
This is the key. People talk some crazy stories about Iran being a theocratic state whose life mission is destroying Israel but the fact is they don't want to end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat.
And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US. So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.
> end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat.
You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not.
Syria was embroiled and toppled by Islamic Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham backed by Turkey. Libya was due to civil war. Several of these conflicts were funded by Iran as well.
You can go down the list. Please study at least some basics on the region.
> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.
One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation? Theocracies can be unpredictable. Also they could provide dirty bombs to their proxies in the region.
[delayed]
israel is way smaller and easier to bomb.
why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people to kill whole israel?
afaik as i recall gov of iran says israel is little satan and says it goal to kill it.
is it crazy, sure. is it crazy story to say,no. it seems real.
> it would mean mutual destruction.
some religious lunatics would deem that worthy
it will not be mutual. look at map and size of countries.
so it even no need to be lunatic to act some nukes.
Don’t forget Ukraine - gave up their nukes and look what happened
They never really had them. They were in Ukraine but Moscow had control.
Then why would they need a full Budapest memorandum with co-signees if Moscow could just take them back?
This sounds ridiculous.
because rockets to be transported to russkies back. if they would not sign, some bad things could happened along the way.
And Ukraine built them.
That's not true. All nuclear weapons in USSR were built inside modern Russian territory, there was no production in any other republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project#Log...
The rockets, not the nukes (warheads).
Now every country that has the capacity to get a strategic deterrent will race to get one. So much for Biden's escalation management. Too bad Trump likes Russia so much he does everything not to step on their toes. With a heftier backing from the US the Russo-Ukrainian war would be over by now.
Genuine question, if the US has that capability and Trump is the issue, why didn't Biden do what was needed to make the war over?
Biden took the approach of keeping 10 pairs of gloves on when dealing with Russia. Don't help too little not to make it too easy for the russians, don't help to much to avoid escalation.
The US has every incentive to turn Ukraine into Russia’s Vietnam.
> This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent and you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you?
Religious government or not, Iran has plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts working for their foreign policy and war effort. Your underestimating this betrays prejudice.
But clearly all these smart people are not involved in the decision making, considering how Iran’s foreign policy has looked like, exactly how parent described.
Compare military spending by Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the United States (only Middle East related) with Iranian military spending, over the four decades of Iran's shadow wars with these countries and isolation by much of the rest of the world.
And yet Iranian proxies have repeatedly challenged these powers across the Middle East, in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Sinai, etc. And a lot of Iran's actions have broad support in many other Middle Eastern countries, including strong US allies, those where there are no natural ethnic, religious or linguistic ties to Iran, and where there is prosperity based on peace and the American world order.
Whatever else the Iranian govt are, they are not foreign policy under-hitters or flawed tacticians blinded by dogmatism.
> Religious government or not, Iran has plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts working for their foreign policy and war effort. Your underestimating this betrays prejudice
America also has lots of brilliant people. Then we have Hegseth, Noem and the other fuck.
Thank you, great liberator. Please bomb us more to save our lives.
You’d be surprised, but the people of Iran have been waiting for this moment for years. There are 80 million people who want the end of the regime.
Whether this fulfills that goal, we will see, but anything that weakens the regime is good for the Iranian people.
Iraq flash backs , they were sure very happy to greet their liberators , it's amazing to see propaganda's effects working in action
Oh! I remember this one. The next part goes, “They’re going to greet us as liberators and give our troops flowers.”
And then twenty years from now everyone will say they were always against it.
The problem is the timeline... MIC takes over and it becomes about building, selling, and dropping bombs instead of rebuilding and GTFO.
During Iraq the US military deployed some insanely creative strategies with the deployment of concrete- yet nothing meaningful was actually built for the people of Iraq...
Even those who want a regime change tend to dislike getting bombs on their heads.
And if anything, the last 20 years taught us that revolutions imposed from the outside never work
You hear and read about it, but it’s still surreal to see the effects of propaganda in real life. I’m glad I’m old enough to have seen this show before live.
how does this do anything except strengthen the resolve of those thugs in power? even those against the regime will want retribution for an attack on their home land.
regime change has never worked, not with actual boots on the ground, let alone targeted air strikes.
yugoslavia?
I don't see Hitler and Mussolini's grandsons ruling Germany and Italy.
Believe it or not, Mussolini's granddaughter is a fairly influential former politician within Italy
Anecdotally Mussolini’s granddaughter has been a member of both houses of the Italian Parliament as well as the European Parliament.
how much did it cost to rebuild germany? and how many trillions did we flush down the drain attempting to put together a functioning government in iraq and afghanistan?
where is DOGE when you actually need them?
Are they not there DOGE-ing as we speak?! lol.
How many Iranians do you know that told you that?
https://news.sky.com/story/iraniansstandwithisrael-iran-bans...
Literally every Iranian I know, which is quite a few. The regime is NOT liked.
I know a similar precedent from Belarus, an Eastern European country. The population is way smaller, and their main problem is Moscow in the east, but it's the same sentiment -- please bomb us as we cannot throw out this regime ourselves, yes.
Internet used to joke about US "freedom bombs", but it's taken quite seriously and positively there.
My wife is from Belarus and I have been there many times. What you say in so ridiculous it’s hard to even respond with a serious answer. Just want to point out that they suffered the most under Nazis and would do anything to prevent being in another war.
US-aligned IT specialists are uniquely propagandized (they're one of the main targets of Western propaganda for good reason - they have outsized influence!), so don't expect many reality-compatible takes on this website.
Tech is MIC.
US didn't like it the last time the Iranian people got their regime change.
Imagine a terrorist attack against the Trump admin in the following weeks, and someone coming in to say "you'd be surprised, but the people of the USA have been waiting for this moment for months. There are 100 million people who want an end to Trump".
People never, ever, under any circumstances, want to be attacked and bombed by another country. Not even the biggest dissidents rotting in regime jails would welcome this. Not even a little bit.
>People never, ever, under any circumstances, want to be attacked and bombed by another country.
Depends on the effectiveness of the bombing.
Even most children or partners of abusive people feel defensive when an outsider intervenes. Nevermind getting your country bombed by strangers. Spending days reading news that hide people behind symbols make some forget that we're dealing with human relationship.
If the attack was specifically targeting the US to encourage the downfall of Trump, I am sure there are millions of Americans that would be celebrating. Spend some time on Bluesky – they'd love it over there if the attacks didn't literally hit them. They can't seem to see much further than that.
Such bombs would necessarily need to fall in American cities, so the scenario you describe is not possible.
Which part is impossible?
You misspelt Iraq
[flagged]
Thank you for putting it so clearly and bluntly.
People lack common sense, but not their appetite to ingurgitate the daily three meals that the propaganda machines prepared for them.
North Korea is a Chinese client state. As a general rule, client states are treated as extensions of the countries that control them. Iran is not a client state.
NK is more of a russian client state, not chinese.
Iran is more like a server state, it serves terror and death through their proxies. It's like a vpn of destruction.
then what is the US pray tell? The cloudflare of killing?
That's a fairly apt comparison actually.
meh, more like the AWS
If anything, the lack of competence is on the other side.
Was enriched uranium destroyed? I doubt it.
Have they even "obliterated" Fordow site buried 90 m deep inside the mountain? I have serious doubts.
Iran's nuclear program was set back some months if anything.
Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.
I agree with the gp.
Iran is a huge country and USA and Israel has been pointing their finger on this exakt spot for weeks.
Either they dug further down or they just transported things away.
Leaving it all there just seems like a really weird thing to do.
> transported things away
This implies a tunnel system, or was this transport done in plain sight?
there actually are images of lots of movement there - so perhaps plain sight is the right answer.
hopefully I am wrong
> Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.
I don't know if you noticed, but what you are arguing for is in fact for mindlessly accepting unverified claims and extrapolate them to an optimal outcome. This is the opposite of critical thinking, and goes well beyond wishful thinking.
Meanwhile, if you pay attention to OP's point, you'll understand that Iran's nuclear sites have been continuously designed and developed for decades, while subjected to an almost evolutionary pressure, to continue operations even after withstanding direct attacks in scenarios matching exactly Trump's attacks.
In the very least, you must assess the effect of those strikes before making any sort of claim.
Another factor which it seems you somehow missed was the fact that Russia, another nuclear-capable totalitarian regime, is nowadays heavily dependent on Iran to conduct it's imperialist agenda. If Russia was negotiating handing over nuclear capabilities to North Korea in exchange for supporting it's war effort, do you believe Russia now has no interest to speed up Iran's nuclear weapons programmes?
Weird that Iran, an oil exporter with huge potential for solar, would expend so much energy on protecting a purportedly civilian nuclear program. I'm sure it's nothing.
This isn't really relevant but I'm only making one comment in this post so I'll say it here: young folks don't remember decades of Iranian state sponsored terrorism and do not understand the context of conflict in the middle east.
Even if it is only set back by a few months, that is enough time to put pressure on Iran to abandon it altogether.
Keep in mind, Israel has full aerial control over Iran and has taken out hundreds of their missile launchers.
We can keep pounding the various nuclear facilities and hinder ant chances of rebuilding, making any effort futile.
This would be a really risky strategy as it will push the Iranians into a corner with potentially large impacts on the oil price (which will change US public opinion).
That sounds to me like the US seriously needs to promote non-petroleum sources of energy. If not for the environment, for their own national sovereignity.
The thing is, the United States is self sufficient in petroleum. But domestic prices will go up to reflect the effect on world supply.
Arguably the same could happen given widespread use of non petroleum sources of energy. Prices will go up to reflect the marginal cost of hydrocarbon based energy, even if that use is minimal, until the point where the energy network is completely decoupled from those markets.
This happened in the United Kingdom after the invasion of Ukraine. More wind was used as gas became more expensive. But the price of electricity from wind also went up.
US could ban fuel exports. Unlikely as rich people would suffer, but they may be placated with bribes.
The US is a net oil exporter.
> No increase in radiation levels have been detected, the UN's nuclear watchdog says
I guess means no. However I have no idea what they would say if they did. "Yes we poisoned the whole area for generations to come, success!"
I'm willing to bet that the Americans can build another one of those GBU-57 bombs every some months if they had to.
I don't know that it can be confirmed, but Iran is claiming that the US tipped them off. This is a fairly standard tactic, and it makes more sense here. This is something that would satisfy both the pro-war crowd and the group that is pro-Israel or anti-Iran, but not necessarily pro-war. We get to show our strength and support for our allies without really committing.
How do you purport to know this?
The layout of Fordow from what we’ve seen is not a single site. Depending on how many runs they did maybe it is all but destroyed or maybe it’s 1/3 destroyed. I’m sure Israel’s intelligence on it is pretty accurate (probably not public at this point)
The US, Israel and possibly Britain will install a no-fly zone over Iran. Israel is going to be entirely unwilling to allow Iran to go right back to building again what just got destroyed. This was a once in decades shot for Israel to take against Iran, in its very weakened state (with its proxies out of commission, Syria knocked over, and Russia very preoccupied). They'll attempt the post Gulf War I approach against Iraq (as an invasion will never be on the table). Sanctions and no-fly zone. They'll retain control over Iran's sky and in doing so will be free to bomb as they see fit if Iran attempts to build or re-start something like Fordow. If they attempt to install new air defenses, they'll simply bomb them. Whether that one bombing took care of Fordow is going to be moot, they'll hit it ten more times if that's what it takes, and destroy anything that attempts to move in or out of there. Israel can't maintain a no-fly zone over Iran so the US will be enlisted to do the heavy lifting on that.
aiding regime change would be much easier, and would solve all these problems better. At some point in the next few days, the regime will be so weakened that the Iranian people will overthrow it themselves
Yes, this was also said about Iraq in 1991.
The US negotiators in Iraq in ‘91 stupidly didn’t enforce a total no-fly zone, allowing the use of helicopters by the regime. Saddam used helicopter gunships to mow down the would-be revolutionaries attempting regime change. Israel won’t make the same mistake.
91 also happened in a brief period where Russia was holding back from supplying end-of-line military hardware to anyone who wanted to take a shot at the United States and its clients.
The IRGC is unlikely to let the regime fall so easily. They'll kill a lot of Iranians to stop that from happening. The Iranian people have limited means to fight at present. The no-fly zone and sanctions approach will be used to attempt to strangle the regime over the coming years. It'll take a small miracle for the regime to fall anytime soon, it's not that weak yet (imo) despite what the propaganda is claiming.
Overthrow and get what? Another Libya?
Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state, and at least 50% of members of current governing parties in parliament are from religious parties and zionist parties.
In what sense Israel is not a theocracy.
Maybe the fact that every single one of these representatives has been appointed in a fair democratic vote?
Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. Democracy and theocracy are quite compatible, as long as the people are religious enough.
That would mean the USA are a theocracy too, given most senators are Christian. That doesn’t make too much sense.
Theocracy is a form of government in which religious leaders rule in the name of a deity, and religious law is the basis for all legal and political decisions.
The USA is not a theocracy, though. The majority-Christian senators are not generally enacting theocratic laws and regulations (though there are some tendencies and influences, as seen with the recent repeal of Roe v Wade, for example).
However, Israel does have highly theocratic tendencies. Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. They have even more religious influence on public life than the USA does (which is already somewhat high by European standards), with businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays (not selling risen bread during Passover, making elevators stop automatically on every floor during days of rest, observing kosher restrictions on food etc). Many of their foreign policy decisions are explicitly influenced by religious tenets, such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god (which includes modern day Israel, the Occupied Territories, and several parts of modern day Syria, Lebanon, and others).
They're nowhere near the level of religous rule and/or fanaticism as Saudi Arabia, but they have much more religious influence and control of public life then a modern European/US-style democracy.
You… don’t see it?
m8 they literally swear on the bible
/s
This is not how it played out if you talk to Iranians.
They will tell you that the theocracy folks were a small minority of the entire resistance and first built a government of unity.
Once in charge they started annihilating all other opposition factions one by one.
> Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too.
OP referred to democratic votes, whereas you talk about "popular uprising". Can you explain in your own words why you believe these are even comparable?
Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine after a popular uprising in 2014 was somehow democratic. That should show that depending on who is being ousted and your opinion on them, yes the two things can be comparable.
> Most people in the West seem to believe the removal of democratically elected, pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (...)
You should seriously learn about Yanukovych before making any sort of claim regarding him. He was elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU and pro-western programme, only to turn out to be a Russian puppet that not only enforced policies completely contrary to his programme but also pushed Ukraine into a dictatorship.
The "popular uprising" you glance over was actually months of demonstrations protesting Yanukovych unilateral rejection of the EU–Ukraine association agreement as ordered by Russia, which he campaigned and was elected for and contrary to Ukraine's parliament overwhelming approval.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
You're talking about the same Yanukovych who felt compelled to exile in Russia.
> That should show that depending on who is being ousted (...)
Those who favour freedom under democracies are indeed partial against dictators who try to destroy democratic states and deny people's rights, specially if it to serve the interests of other totalitarian regimes.
And all your arguments don't matter. He was a legally elected President - whose election was even EU Vetted by many, many observers and found to be completely valid. He could have been overthrown in the next elections and if that had happened, the Russian ethnic regions wouldn't have rebelled. You would have yet another corrupt Ukrainian President and no-one would have batted an eye. Life would have just continued as usual.
But the US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.
But the GP is not saying the election wasn't valid, they're saying the guy was misrepresenting himself. I hate the US meddling as much as the next guy, but why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"?
That is an awful retelling of history. There was no revolution in Ukraine, but protests and demonstrations that were brutally crushed by government forces. The people persevered though and the president fled the country, leading to a formal and correct process of electing a new government after. The US didn’t have anything more to do with this.
Yes it was. Democracy is not only about casting your vote once every few years and then shutting up and staying put, it’s also about holding your elected representatives accountable.
How nice of you to insert some Russian bullshit narrative into the discussion.
Because both are representations of the rule and self-determination of the people. Popular uprisings are comparable to direct voting in terms of expressing the power of the people (though of course have other major differences in terms of violence, rule of law, etc).
> Because both are representations of the rule and self-determination of the people.
No, not really. Having a radical group remove another totalitarian ruler doesn't automatically grant them legitimacy or any arguments involving "self determination of people".
Liar
Enlighten me, which part of my comment was a lie?
> In what sense Israel is not a theocracy.
I find this very disingenuous because the person you replied to was talking only about Iran, and stating that Iran is a theocracy in their opinion. They never mentioned anything about Iran, let alone stating that Israel isn't a theocracy.
So asking this question, this way, is quite strange in my opinion.
Who cares if they are? They're not out here calling for the destruction of all the Islamic states. Well, at least not the ones not already actively bombing them.
> Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state (...)
I think the "Jewish state" refers to how the country serves as the homeland for the jewish people, not how they force a religion upon others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state
Israel's legal definition is "Jewish and Democratic state", which explicitly ensures "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state
The Basic Law (their Constitution) of Israel defines it as a Jewish state. Its first page says:
Not irrespective of religion, exclusive to the Jewish People.With such a commitment to equality it's hard to believe policies like this slipped through
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee
Absurd.
it took nk 40+ years to get nukes. is this definion of inching?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_m...
also you say nk uses nukes as deterrent, deterrent from whom? if they deterred any, they were fine deterring it for 40+ years without.
It's not so much them being a theocracy IMHO. It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.
Put those Israeli shoes on. There's a state armed with ballistic missiles in easy range of you, they have the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium, recently acquired more advanced centrifuges, they have the uranium already enriched far beyond what's necessary for civilian use, they have far more of it than they credibly need for such civilian use, and they believe god has ordered them to destroy you.
How well would you sleep at night?
> It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.
And the US is full of Christo-fascists who believe they have a religious duty to "defend" Israel by any means necessary.
It absolutely blows my mind that in this day and age people are taking sides on a religious war. Stay out. Stay far out. There is no winning. There is no stopping the conflict. Every side has an ordained right to blow the others off the face of the planet. The only thing to see is human atrocities as far as the eye in the name of <your god of choice>.
> There's a state ... [that has] ... the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium
Do they? It's oft repeated. But I vaguely remember this country being sold on an Iraq invasion due to nukes. Nukes that never existed and never were close to existing. This wasn't a simple miscalculation. The nukes were entirely and knowingly fictional. And that's just one example of a bullshit made-up reason this nation has started a war to waste lives.
How do you think Palestinians sleep at night? With the threat of Israel, funded by the largest military in the world, looming over them every night?
Why should I believe my country today? Why is today the day of all days that the truth is finally being told? Why is today the day that god is real and I should jump in on the bloodshed?
Your masters are lying to you, to their benefit. They didn't wake up today and decide to be honest.
Those with the spirit to strike, will always dominate those with a mind to moderate.
Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Support for Israel extends beyond religious justifications.
There's only 3 problems with this old claim.
1. You have to define 'Israel' quite carefully to make it work. Palestinians in East Jerusalem cannot vote in Israeli elections. Is East Jerusalem part of Israel or not?
2. There are several other democracies in the Middle East, for example Iraq and Lebanon.
3. Some of the countries which aren't democratic, would be democratic, except that representative governments were overthrown by the United States, in part to enforce cooperation with Israel, against the wishes of most of the people in the country. For example, Egypt.
Whose fault is that? The US and Russia have propped and warred every angle to extract as much oil as possible. The instability maintains a heavy flow of refugees into Europe, destabilising the freedoms they have there and pushing the politics further right.
The sudden switch yesterday from "they can't make nukes" to "they're a fortnight away from ICBMs" felt a little too reminiscent of Iraq twenty years ago.
If we want a stable Middle East, we have to stop bombing the shit out of it, and invest. Negotiate fairly for resources. Offer them a future. And demand Israel stop committing war crimes.
I wonder if the _negotiate fairly_ option is viable after countless generations have been bombed.
We either try, or resign to slowly killing each other until one does figure out how to wipe the other out forever.
Forced separation only deepens the hatred.
It's not about democracy. If it were, we wouldn't have overthrown countless democratically elected leaders throughout South America during the 20th Century.
Our elected leaders constantly attempt to expand their own power. To maximally punish whistleblowers. Our election system is ran by a duopoly who exerts extreme power over those voicing alternative views and opinions.
About democracy, it is not.
Let's say it was though. What gives us the right to blow other countries off the face of the planet? Are we somehow so much better than everyone else because we believe we're democratic? We don't even rank in the top 10 most democratic countries. We throw more people in jail than China. Per capita AND total overall. We throw more kids in jail than any other first world country [0].
Surely, democracy does not automagically lend to treating people fairly. We have enough problems in our own damn democracy to worry about. Crazy to be starting wars to "help" someone who never asked for it. Forcing violence upon those who never consented is absolutely abhorrent.
[0] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/afric...
Israel is the only country with tiered citizenship.
It is the only country that has constitutional preference for an ethnic group instead of equality of all subjects/citizens.
It is also the only country with automatic citizenship based on religion.
It is also the only country with nuclear weapons but not part of NPT. Even North Korea is a member of NPT.
The myth of Democracy is just that, a myth. It doesn’t work anymore.
The 18% of Israeli citizens that are Muslim are 100% equal to their Jewish brethren under the law. There is no tiered citizenship.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-rejects-israeli-...
Looks theocratic to me
You seem to believe “democracy” is some kind of magic spell or something? This “democracy” just perpetrated and are continuing to perpetrate the worst kind of wanton and sadistic genocide in full view of the world and are doing it in high definition and with impunity. America is supposedly also a democracy and we just in fact bombed a place objectively without any provocation, in violation of our own supreme law, and being utterly counter to American interests, because an alien and foreign interest group has a stranglehold on America.
Democracy is not some magic word that justifies things
Iran was democratic … until we overthrew them.
We, the British or the Americans, or those who control both?
Iran used to be a democracy in the Middle East until the US got involved
Bad hasbara.
A shining beacon of democracy.
Israel, the democratic country whose prime minister appears to be deliberately prolonging the current conflict in Gaza and starting a new war with Iran to avoid facing corruption charges?
Israel has elections. So does Russia. Is Russia a democracy?
I could really care less what theit form of government is
[dead]
> starting a new war with Iran
Hamas has started in on the 7th of october 2023, effectively rolling back years of negotiations done by Yasser Arafat. Where do you think they've got the weapons from? Netanyahu is no better, but they offered him the perfect motive for a response.
> Every side has an ordained right to blow the others off the face of the planet.
What? Israel is 2000 Kms away from Iran, and would want nothing do to with them if not for Iran's "Death to Israel" slogan and policy...
> Do they?
The IAEA declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations, hardly a "bullshit made-up excuse"
All this talk about nuclear weapons is purposefully misleading. Iran had agreements in place to keep its nuclear program under strict and thorough international checks, and was currently negotiating a new one. The original deal was scrapped on Netanyahu's request, and the bombing was started by Netanyahu to prevent a new one.
Israel doesn't fear Iran's nukes. Israel fears an economically functional Iran and uses the wmd excuse to sabotage it as much as possible. The worst possible outcome for them is Iran proving it has no nuclear weapons at all and having its sanctions lifted.
Realistically, a secular Iran would be the only real ally of Israel in the region. This is how it was under the shah, until 1979.
Israel is set to benefit enormously from an economically functional Iran, with sanctions lifted, and a sane, non-fanatical, non-oppressive government. Iran used to be a pretty cool and developed country in 1960s, and could be now.
(Edit: typo)
You’re like the gusanos that say Cuba was so much better before the revolution. Without mentioning it was only great for the landowning slavers.
Why do you think there was a revolution?
Cubans kept massively supporting Fidel for quite some time, and quite explicitly, even through the disastrous Communist economic policies.
Iranians keep protesting; last few years have seen several large protests, involving hundreds of thousands, and continuing for months. The popularity just isn't there.
Regarding revolutions, it's quite often that a relatively small group of like-minded people capture the control, and the majority is weakly supporting them, or is even weakly opposed but complies. The French revolution was mostly about some nobility wanting to remove the monarchy that oppressed them, along with the rest; most of the population wasn't overtly anti-monarchy, and not even covertly so, but it did not like the monarchy's pressure either. The Russian revolution was "communist" and "proletarian", but even by their own Marxist accounting, proletarians were less than 10% of Russian population, and communists, much fewer still. Nevertheless, they subdued most of the Russian empire.
The Iranian revolution was also done by a group of highly religious people who were fed up with the shah's secularization reforms. The shah, AFAICT, was a guy a bit like Putin, or Saudi kings: efficient and geared towards prosperity of the country, but quite authoritarian. The fact that e.g. the educated urban population in Iran wasn't happy about authoritarianism does not imply that the same people were (or are) huge fans of theocracy. Actually, the theocracy ended up even more oppressive.
> This is how it was under the shah, until 1979.
Sort of? The US played a role in that shit show and it wasn’t all happy days under the Shah.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Not "happy", but Iran was quite a bit more sober, not hostile towards Israel, and relatively secular.
(Similarly, China under Deng Xiaoping was not a paragon of political freedom at all, but it was quite a bit more sober than under Mao Zedong. The US administration had tons of shortcomings under president Biden, but it was in quite a bit less of disarray than under president Trump.)
Shah was a dictator propped up by US. There's no going back to these times.
Installed. We overthrew Mossadegh. We overthrew a democracy.
Indeed, it was a shameful act.
> Israel is set to benefit enormously from an economically functional Iran,
Israel is currently engaged in genocide, how would it be good for it to benefit enormously?
People keep saying genocide but has it been established objectively? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't, but that was some time ago.
> ? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't
Is this some reality distortion field? This never happened. Instead the ICJ issued multiple explicit orders to Israel that Israel has violated and the genocide case is still ongoing.
Who cares about ICJ or any International Law these days anymore?
Yeah, I mean we can still use it (or it's slowness and uselessness) to hide behind it but the facts are on the table. Gaza looks like post-war Germany at this point. People ARE starving. Meanwhile Israel expands to the east. Also illegally.
[dead]
Sure, they're making weapons grade uranium to exhibit it in the Museum of the Islamic Revolution and the Holy Defense in Teheran.
Iran has violated the NPT so many times at this stage that no good faith observer can say what you've said here with a straight face. This is just using words to persuade for political purposes, it is not analysis.
> The worst possible outcome for them is Iran proving it has no nuclear weapons at all and having its sanctions lifted.
Circumstantial evidence seems to be that Iran indeed was enriching Uranium beyond what was necessary for electricity. Why would they build enrichment facility deep underground? It is not that Iran is having energy crisis. The claim that Iran is thinking of green energy and climate change effects is a bit weak.
Remember all that evidence about iraq? Remember the british guy who worked at the ministry and went to the news saying there was no evidence and then suicided without leaving his own fingerprints on the weapon?
Iran opposition to Israel's occupation of Muslim lands and territories, predates the current government of Iran. All rational non-racists, non-Zionistic people oppose Israel's occupation including the vast majority of UN member states.
These positions are not mutually exclusive though. You can both be in favor of stripping Irans ability to build nukes and oppose Israel’s settlements.
Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though.
I can oppose IRA violence and British imperialism at the same time but if we're having a reasonable conversation we have to recognise that British colonial force in Ireland is what drove people to form the IRA.
> Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though.
Even Iran’s leaders would laugh in your face at such a naive statement, you should reconsider your media diet
You know that isn’t true. Israel could withdraw to the 1969 borders and Iran would be just as dedicated to destroying it.
Iran is stupid trying to covertly get to a nuclear bomb, Israel is very stupid with those illegal settlements. It’s costing them both a lot of sympathy.
My understanding is that most countries support a two nation solution. I have not seen any Iranian statement that accepts this. On the other hand I have seen them consistently calling for outright destruction of Israel. Given their declared intend of destruction, no one in right mind would allow them the capability of destruction.
just exactly predating goverment was friendly with israel:
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/496386/Pahlavi-and-Israel-t...
so what exact goverment your arr referring?
You can oppose something or you can create terorrist militias to attack Israel and destabilize its neighboring countries.
Your "terrorists" militias predate formation of Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1979. Yasser Arafat, and all other Palestinian liberators were also labeled as terrorists.
Can you name one Palestinian who has fought against Israel's occupation and is not considered a terrorist by you?
https://jcpa.org/the-parallels-between-yahya-sinwar-and-yass...
Can you name a single Palestinian who has actually moved the needle on a functioning democratic Palestinian state? Every single current and former Palestinian leader has been heavily theocratic, has pledged to kill Jews wherever they are and has never considered sharing any of whatever power he’s gotten with anyone else.
Do you stop to ask what creates the environment where the most extreme views flourish and gain traction?
I always marvel at the extreme racism required to so thoroughly dehumanize an entire population.
Islamist majority?
This is like complaining that Nat Turner didn't move the needle on moving the US toward universal suffrage.
No? The issue US had with the PLF is that it was controlled by Marxist. the theocratic pro-palestine movements didn't start until the 90s.
All of that Palestine resistance to Israel has accomplished nothing except misery for Palestinians.
They should just let the second Holocaust happen?
Anyone who unironically attributes any land to be Muslim, Jewish or of any other religion must be immediately dealt with.
Land is land. It should never, never be beholden to any one religion.
Occupation of "Muslim lands"?
Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities.
Before the Ottomans and various Islamic conquests it was almost entirely Christian/Roman (as was the whole Middle East). Before that Jewish.
And keep in mind Zionism started during the Ottoman era, with Jews simply immigrating there.
Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN which you reference.
I've never understood the argument of Muslim Land or Arab Land. If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that?
Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]. How does that become suddenly Muslim Land?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus...
> Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]
(Links a page that shows the exact opposite)
> If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that?
Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleanse 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades?
> This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read sources.
Exactly. The Ottoman rule of Palestine spans 400 years, and the graph at the top of the page you linked shows that Jews became a majority in Jerusalem only at the very end of it, following zionist immigration at the end of the 19th century.
> The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes Israeli (not Jewish)
The problem is that this isn't reddit and people actually read the sources. This is the text of the Partition Plan:
"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence..."
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp
From Wikipedia:
Jerusalem was already Jewish majority before 1881. And the large waves of the movement were towards the end, not towards the beginning.Yes, as we said, zionist immigration to Palestine began at the end of the 19th century. Nothing to do with the small historical Jewish population of Palestine or Jerusalem.
Why do you have such a problem with Zionist immigration that made Jerusalem a Jewish-majority city? It was legal immigration allowed by Ottoman Empire. Do you see Muslims immigrating to Europe in the same light? Many previously "white" cities in Europe are now Muslim. Should Europeans call it "Muslim occupation of white land"? That sounds pretty racist. Why double standard?
Ah no, I have no problem with it, as much as Palestinians had little problem with the tens, and then hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants to their land.
Of course if the UN were suddenly to declare that half of my country is now assigned to them only to build their, say, Arab state- then I would be quite pissed. Wouldn't you?
Yes indeed, if white British people were expelled from their lands and their homes confiscated by anyone, Norse, Germanic or Russian, it'd be considered ethnic cleansing and a war crime.
The jews of Ottoman era were Sephardic and Mizrahi jews of N. Africa, not the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazis of Germany, France and Russia.
Thank you for your support.
After the UN divided the holy land into an Israeli and an Arab state, the Arabs began their ethnic cleaning campaign. That is why there were zero Jews left in Gaza or the West Bank after the war. The war that was started with the stated goal of eliminating the Jews.
And note that despite Arab calls for the Arabs to evacuate the holy land, it remained 20% Arab. And let's not get started on the Jews in the other 20 plus Arab states. What at happened to them?
Like how the Arab countries expelled Jews after Israel was founded? The double standard about Israel and Arab colonization and ethnic cleansing is absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...
I actually do know the "Muslim lands" reference. Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. It's a conquest tactic. It gets slightly reframed to be tolerable for westerners by invoking the idea that they're "indigenous", when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples.
https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/8/12/israel-sau...
> Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever.
What are you basing this on? Are "religious" Muslims some kind of True Scots Muslims? I'm willing to bet that if I speak to any of my Muslim neighbours none of them will agree with this.
> when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples.
So what area are arabs from? You know there are arab jews and christians right?
The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula. After they accepted Islam in the 7th century, they turned to conquest other areas.
This is all well documented in Arab sources, they are very proud of this.
>they accepted Islam in the 7th century
Oh i didn't realize we're going back more than a millennia. Well, in that case every modern nation state is the product of one form of genocide or another - the USA being the worst genocidal state, going back just 500 years.
>The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula
Seems silly to me to claim a land that "your people" inhabited centuries and millennia ago, as it honestly seems silly to me talk about "racial features" when talking about humans. Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim, christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by virtue of being of the same "race"?
Denying the existence of Arab culture, of which the Arabs are (rightly, in my opinion) very proud of, is racism. Not everybody has the same values and customs as you do.
Can you mention one cultural trait that an arab jew, muslim, and atheist would share?
That's like saying there is a european culture, it's nonsense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Europe
"Whilst there are a great number of perspectives that can be taken on the subject, it is impossible to form a single, all-embracing concept of European culture."
Literally the second sentence in that wiki
Well if you go back enough… all english people are actually vikings who committed genocide against the britons.
And all swedish people are steppe barbarians who committed genocide against the local sami people.
> and a fairly even mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims
False. The population in 1800 was ~90% Muslim, ~8% Christian.
> let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN
The UN had no authority to partition other people's land.
Wrong. They were given the authority by general consensus after WW2. Maybe a poor choice, but it's not at all the responsibility of current Israelis to think about what their grandparents did. For a Gen Z Israeli, there's only one country.
If they don't control it, it's not the "other people's" land either.
Land belongs to whoever controls it. That's it. That is all it will ever be.
If there is not some higher power (e.g. the UN, who you say does not have authority), you have no recourse.
No matter what land it is or who they are: nobody currently living was there first. The only claim is always "I was the last to control it". But none of us are the first.
The censuses were always flip-flopping back and forth, until the 1880s. You cherry picked one nice one, but I could check pick over half a dozen censuses that show Jewish majority during the 19th century - no less than the amount of censuses that promote the other competing narrative. And all the later censuses, after 1880, show Jewish majority. That was over three decades before the fall of the Ottoman empire.
From wikipedia's article on the history of Palestine:
> "Most of Palestine's population, estimated to be around 200,000 in the early years of Ottoman rule, lived in villages. The largest cities were Gaza, Safad and Jerusalem, each with a population of around 5,000–6,000."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
That's in the 16th century. Almost no Jews at that time either.
> That's in the 16th century.
OP's point was "Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities."
What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then?
> Almost no Jews at that time either.
What a wild claim: almost no Jews in places like Jerusalem? Please cite whatever source you have to make such an extraordinary claim.
> What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then
Exactly the part that you left out: that the Jewish presence (before zionist immigration began) was of any relevance in the demography of the region.
So why was it called Palestine Partition Plan, and not Israeli partition plan:
"Palestine Partition Plan" is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on November 29, 1947. This resolution, officially titled "Future Government of Palestine," recommended the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem and its environs to be placed under a special international regime."
"Palestine" is a term which pre-dates Islam (coming from the Greek "Palaistine"), so I don't think you are making the point you are trying to make.
Yup, Palestine is a name for the land, not the people. It is a Roman era corruption of Phoenician.
> And keep in mind Zionism started during the Ottoman era, with Jews simply immigrating there.
Presumably during one of the frequent rounds of forceful expulsion from European states.
> Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN
Who proposed the Balfour Declaration 30 years prior?
Exactly. Ill intended actors (Soviets, competing European interests, Islamists etc.) even propped up the propaganda fiction about the "evil" Crusaders, while in fact the Crusaders fought against colonization.
The entire north of Africa, as well as the Levante and Asia Minor was still 80-90% Christian when Crusaders came.
It's more than opposition to occupation of West Bank and Gaza. They oppose existence of Israel as they believe whole Palestine should be an Islamic state.
> Iran opposition to Israel's occupation of Muslim lands and territories, predates the current government of Iran.
And yet, the previous government of Iran had friendly relations with Israel, as do some other Arab and Muslim countries.
The US also has friendly relations with countries with whom it disagrees vehemently, and that do (IMO) far worse things than Israel does.
A complete inversion of history. What an insane take!
[flagged]
Israel occupies lands belonging to the Biblical patriarch Jacob. That was something like 1800 BCE, two and a half millennia before Mohammed. Islam refers to Jacob, as does the Torah/Old Testament as "Israel".
I find the repeated suggestion that those are Muslim lands because Israel is a new territory to be strange -- it can't be a Quranic position. It doesn't appear consistent with history either.
Assuming this claim were true, which it isn't, the modern Israelis have genetically nothing in common with the Jews of the old testament. They don't have the same culture, religion, language or genetics.
That's a ridiculous position. We can't organize today's world based on who was where 4 millennia ago. (If we did, most if not all countries would immediately cease to exist, starting of course with the US but not limited to them.)
I find historical claims like this not very convincing. 1800 BCE looked very different from today and if people from old civilizations start claiming their land, we would not see any end of wars. Should Italy claim most of Europe because Romans had it under their control?
You make it sound like the dispute is about who has some ancient religious right to the land. It's true that both sides claim that but it's totally disingenuous to pretend that is the reason for so much Arab anger.
People still have a living memory of specific properties in specific locations that they were forced out of and are now occupied by other families, often with some of their relatives killed in the process That applies both to places in Israel proper (displaced in 1940s to 1960s) and to Gaza and the West Bank (in the time since then). Even before the most recent war in Gaza, any Palestinian could be forced out of their home at any moment by an Israeli settler with no recourse.
Last time I checked history books said Britain donated land to Jews. At the time Britain took house land there were no state and no nation called Palestinians, just tribes. Since then Palestinians formed as a nation.
So what do you want Israel to do, disappear? Or negotiate, but with whom? The only power there is hamas which is non-negotiable. I really interested in seeing any realistic solution to the problem, however far fetched it is.
You are arguing in favour of the land allocations in 1948?
> Britain donated land to Jews
Land it didn't own. Most people can be very generous with what they don't have.
If you start from made up premises, the conclusion is also made up.
Try to read a non fantasy sionist history book…
> How well would you sleep at night?
Well, considering that Israeli's are occupying land that rightfully belongs to someone else, I'd say not very well indeed. It's the final major European colonial outpost, and its fighting hard not to go the way of Algeria, Kenya, Malaya and a long long list of others.
> and they believe god has ordered them to destroy you
Maybe, but obviously the other side thinks exactly the same.
Religious wars were lots of fun five centuries ago. They will be funnier still in the nuclear age.
Israel has nukes, so why would they be afraid of Iran?
There's "having nukes" and there's "using nukes".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QgkUVIj3KWY
The trouble with a regime like Iran is that they are a death cult. The price the put on human life (their own people as much as anyone else) is low, and they're all for martyrdom. With Iran, you cannot assume it's a just a deterrent in a cold war. You have to assume an increased likelihood that they will actually use them.
> The trouble with a regime like Iran is that they are a death cult.
Compare the number of deaths caused by Iranian weapons and those caused by Israeli weapons in the last year. Or 5 years, or 10.
Do you have some other way of defining ‘death cult’?
Not only that, they were planning to give them to Hezbollah. The brain-dead takes I'm hearing about this shitty war amazes me.
People are just fear mongering to suggest Iran would use them or give them to those who would. The real issue here is that once you have them, you basically entrench yourself as a regional power. If the regime started falling out of favor, all their neighbors would be obliged to come to their aid to protect the nukes. Also, you would be far more limited in how you fight your proxy war. These are the things the involved parties are considering, not Armageddon fantasies.
The main point of having nukes is not using them. The moment one uses them -- they lost.
Nukes are good as a deterrent, not good as a weapon.
Same reason the U.S. and USSR were afraid of each other in the Cold War.
[flagged]
I don't think you realise how ignorant and racist is this idea that an entire religion and country of 90 million doesn't behave like normal human beings.
Have you lived in Iran? It's not a whole country of 90 million people who will shout "Push the button!". Most of them are unwillingly imprisoned under a regime lead by the religious zealots who will push that button, even if it means destruction of themselves and their population. Or at least, that's the assumption that the west must make, based their religious views and their past rhetoric.
Which is their past rhetoric?
As for their religious views, hasn't their supreme leader declared multiple times that nuclear weapons are prohibited by their religion?
It doesn’t take 90 million iranians to push a button.
[dead]
There was a very interesting "street walk video" by a somewhat-famous travelling-blogger, he visited Afghanistan, talked to a lot of people, created a lot of footage of their daily life, asking about the regime etc.
This video got blocked after publishing by a political action group / NGO, it came back online only after dozens of other YouTube channels reported that.
And yes - this video depicted life of people in a theocracy ;-)
You can cherry pick and show anything you want.
I can go to USA, interview a few crazies (and there's a lot of them) and then make a documentary.
Isn't christianity the one that has martyrdom at its core? Jesus was martyred for our sins after all. Christians can’t really be trusted not to sacrifice themselves at the drop of a roman helmet.
Or not. Perhaps, we understand the nuances of that because we were raised in a christian culture, but don’t understand the nuances of martyrdom in islam because we weren’t raised in a muslim culture? I know that’s true for me, i assume that’s true for any non-muslim who claims stuff about the core of islam.
You are wrong. Muslims don't wake up trying to get martydom asap. Protecting life (own included) is top-most goal, so much that even harming your body (tattoos etc) is strictly prohibited.
This is an extremely insane take and should be deleted immediately. Disgusting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid
Stop being so naive.
[flagged]
They woke up and started bombing Israel for no apparent reason or they are responding to Israeli attacks ?
> They woke up and started bombing Israel for no apparent reason or they are responding to Israeli attacks ?
You failed to answer my question. Why?
Check out YouTube and see the high rate of ballistic missiles thrown at Israel. Those existed for years, and were developed for this exact purpose. It just so happened they didn't have the nuclear warhead yet.
I repeat the question: are you really asking why a country would be afraid of a regime which is literally raining ballistic missiles over them?
1.Israel bombed Iran 2.Iran is bombing Israel back
How is it supposed to work ?
Reducing the Middle East conflict so much makes the entire discussion useless. If you want to point at someone guilty, look at the British who fucked up Palestine big time. Everything since then is a spiral of revenge and spite.
Because Iran isn't afraid of the MAD aspect, because of religion. They'd use a nuke in Israel, and Israel is tiny so it'd be devastating.
Would they? How would they deliver it? If they were caught trying to do it, what would happen?
Why is an Iranian weapon somehow different do one held by any other country? Countries with them usually don’t use them, and the one that has is attacking Iran.
The first thing I would want to do after wearing Israeli shoes would be to find a way to flee immediately and disassociate myself from being complicit with the ongoing genocide (or to resist it if I were in such a position), Iran's hostility be damned.
In which case, I suppose that any resistance I might do would have the state call me an anti-Semite.
Anybody who would throw a nuke at Israel would be incinerated a minute later. To suggest Iran would do it anyway is equivalent to saying that they're completely, crazy, fanatical, genocidal and stupid, which is a deeply racist, dehumanising statement.
The dehumanising thing is to steadfastly believe that deep down everyone holds secular liberal values, regardless of their words and actions.
Secular discussion about conflict in the Middle East frequently discounts the possibility that self-professed religious fundamentalists are in fact religious fundamentalists. A lot of Israeli settlers really do believe that they are fulfilling a sacred duty. A lot of Palestinians really do believe that becoming a martyr for al-Aqsa guarantees them an eternity in paradise. A lot of American Evangelicals really do believe that conflict in the Middle East will bring about the day of judgement.
I might believe that we live in a godless and meaningless universe in which death is final, but that puts me in a very small minority. Most people -throughout history and across the world - frequently act in ways that are totally irrational from a secular perspective, but are perfectly logical within a framework of faith.
You’d need to make a distinction between the Iranian regime, a corrupt band of thieves in charge of the government, infused by religion, and the Iranian people, who have been suffering through this for almost half a century. Any criticism is directed against the former, and fully valid: These people are fanatical idiots, albeit dangerous.
That is why they formed the Axis of Resistance. They will act through their proxies. And imagine if Hezbollah or the Houthis got nuclear weapons, the whole world would be threatened.
> the whole world would be threatened.
Why? What do Hezbollah or the Houthis care about the world? They fight Israel, which is a genocidal regime.
This even ignoring the ludicrous idea that if they got a nuclear weapon they could deliver it anywhere.
There is nothing racist or dehumanising about acknowledging cultures different from your own. In fact, I would say that assuming everybody adheres to your cultural values is the racist position.
To suggest Iran would do it anyway would actually just be taking Iranian leadership at their word.
[flagged]
Isn't Israel a defacto theocracy too?
No, Israel is not using religious norms or holy scriptures as the law, and establishes no state religion. Iran's constitution directly says that the norms of the Sharia law are its foundation, and makes Shia Islam the state religion.
"Jewish State" literally means religious norms and holy scriptures are considered a law. Rabbinical courts are part of the Israeli legal system, which operates religious courts in parallel to the civil court system.
The rabbinical courts exist for sorting out religious issues, such as religious marriages and divorces of Jewish citizens. Judaism is not even special-cased: «Such courts exist for the recognized religious communities in Israel, including Muslim courts, Christian courts, and Jewish Rabbinical courts.» (Wikipedia).
The Basic Laws, which sort of comprise the makeshift constitution of Israel, don't seem to make any religious references, but rather refer to the founding UN principles like human rights.
I would say the US is too at this point, given continued references to god by its leaders. A country where a senator can say he supports a certain foreign policy because it's written in the Bible?
Let's call them what comes with that too, then; do we have AIPAC sympathizers in here?
Can you explain your comment a bit more please?
No, it's not.
They might be fanatical, but to the point of desiring the destruction of themselves, their loved ones, their country, their culture, their literature, their history.. just to inflict genocide on others? This is a dehumanising thought.
Besides, the fanatical leader of that country has said in clear terms that they consider nuclear weapons forbidden by their religion. They have also said in clear terms that oppose the "Israeli regime" and the existence of Israel as a political entity- that's what they mean by "destruction of Israel", not nuking it.
In 1930s and early 1940s, emperor Hirohito of Japan approved of a number of terrible things done by the Japanese imperial armed forces to people of China and Korea, and warred bitterly with the US. But once he realized that he's losing the war, and Japan can be just destroyed by nuclear bombs, he decided to surrender, in order to avoid the complete destruction of his country and senseless deaths of Japanese people. (This is somehow documented.) He cared about the Japanese and Japan more than he cared about his majesty, or honor, or abstract ideas; he agreed to abdicate of all his powers.
Sadly, I highly doubt that the regime of the ayatollahs is going to act like that, instead of fighting fanatically to the bitter end and the last drop of Iranian blood if need be. (A bitter end is very far from the current situation though.)
yes I think so, if they believe that they are stopping another genocide then they'd conceivably be willing to risk their own genocide to help do what's right.
You make it sound like it's some natural law that they have to destroy the state of Israel. I mean, did you even think about this when you heard it for the first time? Do you think your common Iranian citizen wake up in the morning and feels the natural urge to destroy Israel? What is this?
Be serious.
This is no justification to ignore international law. But that's dead now. Nobody will ever care again until we're done with the next big war or something. Bomb away...
... so you preemptively attack every neighbor and commit genocide?
Was this bombing a genocide?
The word “and” can be used to delineate two linked ideas. Sometimes they’re closely linked ideas like bombing someone AND accusing them of being two weeks away from nukes for decades. Sometimes they’re less closely linked ideas, like bombing someone AND committing genocide against someone else.
[flagged]
Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel.
The whole “preemptive strike” stuff is BS and not a serious argument.
> Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel?
I'm guessing from the words and actions of Iranian leaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
What are you pointing at there? Their position from 1979 which is 12 years after 1967?
Also, let’s leave rhetoric aside. What is the actual record of violence between Israel and anyone else? It’s not even close https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties
Israel here is the aggressor. Not acknowledging that makes no sense and doesn’t leave grounds for any meaningful discussion.
From the wiki they linked:
In 2015, former Basij chief and senior RIGC officer, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, stated in an interview that the destruction of Israel is "nonnegotiable". In addition, according to the Times of Israel, Naqdi said that during the summer Gaza conflict with Israel, a significant portion of Hamas’s weaponry, training, and technical expertise was provided by Iran.[27][28] In 2019, Naqdi made a direct call for the destruction of Israel during a televised interview. Naqdi asserted that the Zionist regime must be "annihilated and destroyed," asserting "This will definitely happen." He declared his intention to one day raise the flag of the Islamic Revolution over Jerusalem.
Rhetoric aside. What was the actual record of violence when Hitler published „My Struggle“ in 1925, laying out his ideas of solving the „Jewish question“? Why should one believe the evil of it lays out its plans way in advance?
> Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel.
Even by your own logic, do you believe that having a country threaten your existence is not reason enough to want them destroyed?
destroy Iran I mean
If you pay attention to my question, you'll notice that it isn't conditional to who made threats to who. Do you believe this influences your answer?
> they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.
Do they? What is this based on? My understanding was that they were reacting to a pattern of imperialism of which Israel was the crown jewel. Is there actually something inherent about the Shi'ite religion which says Israel must fall?
Iran was one of the first countries in the Middle East to recognize Israel. But it all changed since Islamic Revolution. Their official position since than have been that Israel cannot exist. They don't even refer to it as Israel but as "Zionist Regime". It's their official public position and what they say on their (government controlled) TV. They've been fighting proxy war with Israel since 80s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
I'm not sure that answers my question. They could have a political belief that Israel must fall but you haven't shown a reason to believe it's based on their religious beliefs. Obviously the two things are tied up together but I don't believe that if a Jewish homeland state had been created in Western Europe or in Antarctica that Iran would have an issue with it. Their problem is surely that Israel represents an historical and continuing power play by Western forces, a springboard from which the US and it's allies can encourage coups, wage wars and dominate the trade of the natural resources in the region. It seems like a very practical concern more than a religious one.
It doesn't matter for Israel weather it's based on religious belief or not. But Iran does frame their opposition in Islamic context in its communication to Iranian people. E.g. Khamenei says things like "fighting Israel to liberate Palestine is an obligation and an Islamic jihad." https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-supreme-leader-israel-cancerous...
It might not matter for Israel but it matters for me as an Irishman watching the rest of the world getting sucked into a conflict.
Framing it as a religious opposition paints Iran as an irrational actor which can't be reasoned with, when it appears to me that it's behaving the way it's been pushed to behave by encroaching colonial forces.
I don't believe in Islam or in Judaism but I do believe in radical discourse and trying to understand the position of the other. Saying "it's their religion to be bloody violent and destructive, what can we do?" throws any space for understanding out of the window.
>but you haven't shown a reason to believe it's based on their religious beliefs.
Their religious leaders like literally come out and say, "This is based on our religious beliefs."
> by having a theocracy they
Religion is just another ideology, and it s not like Islam has a specific position about nuclear energy
In my view, religion is the set of ideologies that plays the children’s game of one-upping each other’s numbers until one of the children says “infinity” and sticks fingers in ears, sayin the game is over.
By this I mean the religious ideological move is eternal punishment for what they deem unsatisfactory or eternal bliss for compliance, no other branch.
Other ideologies invoke similar (infinite growth in capitalism, e.g.) but those are hyperbole for proselytization. An ideology that attempts to persuade with either the most egregious stick possible or the most delicious carrot possible makes religion the least palatable of ideologies.
> What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all.
You're misunderstanding their position and that's why it seems idiotic to you: they stopped working on building nukes back in 2003, after that date all they did was using the ability to get nukes as a negotiation leverage, that's how they got JPCoA in 2015 and since the US unilaterally left it in 2018 and the rest of the Western world failed to keep it working (that would have required courage to anger the US), Iran was seeking to force a new deal by raising the bar a bit: they announced back in 2022 that they'd enrich up to 60% in order to increase their negotiation leverage, but they didn't go past that stage nor did they work on the militarization tech in the meantime, because they weren't aiming to get the bomb at all.
"In God we trust"
A cheap shot ignorant of the history and context of that phrase.
May as well get on the record here and now I'm against it, I guess. Not that anyone's asking my opinion, I'm from among the social classes whose job it is to go get killed in these things so the wealthy have something to be erect and/or lachrymose about. But this way at least when I'm old and facing kidney failure I can tell some smug young snot I espoused their politics before they learned the word "cool."
This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction.
Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases.
This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing and showing the world they won’t defend themselves is worse.
The US will again bankroll another big, more expensive war to the tune of trillions more in debt. Another decade of war ahead with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. The cycle repeats.
I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either.
Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.
The lack of appetite in the US didn’t stop this. And the lack of appetite among normal Iranians won’t matter much.
War is better for regime survival than peace. This is a country ruled by a very scared elite that isn’t held accountable for anything and whose only means of survival is creating continuous distractions from domestic failures. And it’s similar in Iran.
The Iranian regime has gone through serious military blows in the past and survived. Their best course of action is de-escalation and regaining domestic control.
Yes I was primarily thinking about regime survival in Washington, not Teheran.
>War is better for regime survival than peace.
Not when your adversary has air superiority and they can just kill at will the leaders and elite and not the schmucks. Israel's tactics is to kill important people and links.
Iran doesn’t have air superiority (you probably misread which countries’ regime I meant…)
Missiles don't sell themselves
Do you think there will be boots on the ground? It seems more likely to me that Trump will escalate only through air attacks, fail to achieve much, and then either end the war by walking away, or throwing nukes.
Quite different from the Iraq war.
Dubious proof?! Iran has been blatantly pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and the west (along with much of the rest of the world and the middle east) has been working to counter it the whole time.
Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.
If it wanted nuclear weapons, it would just buy some from Pakistan.
Their actions do not follow the conclusion you state.
What is clear now though to any Iranian is that they should get nuclear weapons asap. Diplomacy is just a tool used by the west to string you along while they get ready to bomb you
It is very likely false that Iran had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them. This was also the position of US intelligence, until they were forced by higher-ups to speak different words.
Of course, Iran very much wanted the ability to make a nuke, and they probably could have had one ready in 1 or 2 years. But the proof put forward in defense of this strike is claiming Iran was weeks away from nukes. That proof is dubious.
(Also interesting to consider how US retreat from the nuclear deal under Trump 1 has affected and shaped the current situation)
Yes, dubious proof. A quick Google search can reveal this claim has been bs for decades, consistently evaluated by the US’ own intelligence, up until a day ago [0]
But that doesn’t matter anymore
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo
I think Netanyahu belongs in prison, and Trump, the less said the better, but: couldn't have happened to a nicer unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility dug into the side of a mountain hours outside of population centers.
If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they can make a bomb, not with explosives but just with mass. They should have shaped it like a giant piano.
> unauthorized
It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes? A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them. Then Israel also got them, also "unauthorized", but countries who don't mind pretend they don't know.
In the end there is no authorized and unauthorized nukes, only a calculus of power.
> It's a weird one. I don't disagree with your post, still, what is "approved" nukes?
1. Check this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...
2. Cross out the countries which are attacked for having nuclear weapons.
Here's your definition of approved nukes.
I don't know that it's the best or fairest situation, but I do know I like it better than "every country is allowed to have nukes."
recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe.
Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.
It's "make nukes first, ask questions later"
An interesting question is: why wasn’t North Korea attacked to prevent it developing a nuclear weapon?
(Probably the risk to S. Korea, and the risk of pulling China into a war.)
> Russia attacked ukraine because they didn't. Iran got attacked because it didn't. North korea isnt attacked because they have. That's the moral of the story.
How do you explain India vs Pakistan?
They always immediately stop their conflicts once the building opposite of the one with the nuclear command center blows up. So... it seems to work for them
both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt). the countries not having nukes are still in much worse situation
I mean israel gets attacked even though they have nukes, but some rockets are not the same as a regime-changing war
> both have nukes and that acts as a strong deterrent for both of them not to escalate (which they didnt).
Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis.
You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make.
It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
> is also an absurd argument to make.
It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
> It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments.
I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
> every country should have nukes if they want to be safe
This seems analogous to the idea that every household should have guns if they want to be safe.
Except that police exists. We willingly relinquish the monopoly of violence to the state that protects us. The world nation stage is anarchic instead, there is no world police, and the strong dominate
It's an interesting analogy. I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people. There, we allow gun use, but under stricter conditions. The majority agrees that this is right, so the system works.
What is "the police" on the level of countries? There is no majority that agrees that, e. g., the NATO can serve as the police. It feels like on this level, we live in an anarchy with only very few actors who don't really want to live together. So maybe nukes are an option, although I don't like it.
> I'm opposed to guns in every household because we have the police which is meant to give security to people
You're naive. The police (or whatever you call it) is meant for inward force projection of the state. Your security is not the main concern.
Besides the police works too slowly to truly protect you when SHTF. Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.
In properly safe countries this is of course not true. But sadly the world stage still seems to be on the development level of ”lawless neighborhood” so there’s some merit to the idea (not that it is necessarily the best way forward though).
North Korea wasn't attacked because they have rocket artillery trained on Seoul. That's why nobody stopped them from developing nukes in the first place. Kim doesn't need nuclear weapons to cause nuclear-scale damage.
Nukes make individual countries safer, but every additional country with nukes makes the world as a whole less safe.
NK isn't attacked, because SK cities are in range for conventional rockets. I'm not sure how much the nuclear capabilities add to that.
I think GP is right, sadly. The logical conclusion from Ukraine, Iran and North Korea is, get nukes. UN designations of illegal wars turned out to be BS, the only thing that may work is nukes.
Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon.
We all hooray (well, some of us) the "good" countries having nukes, to bring peace and stability. But it only takes one funky election to get a crazy person in charge of such "good" nukes. And if you 10x the number of nuclear powers, that's 10x more shots at that.
Let's hope NATO doesn't get compromised, else I see 30 new nuclear programs starting soon.
I don't intend this as a drive-by zinger, far from it, but I think you're being hopelessly optimistic. Every country with the science and engineering muscle to make it happen will be pursuing a nuclear program. NATO, former Warsaw Pact, some assholes who managed to cobble together a broadly recognized country by virtue of force of will, you name it. They're all going to be seeking to create nuclear weapons.
GP is missing one very relevant example of Libya. Gaddafi was persuaded by the west to abandon his nuclear programme, and 8 years later he was dead in a ditch.
Good old "weapons make everything safer" logic. Guess I should get some nukes as well?
It's the prisoners dilemma: best scenario is nobody has nukes. But if your enemy get nukes, you better get them ASAP. A Nash equilibrium is set where everybody should either have nukes or be strongly allied with someone with nukes.
Regarding guns: if you have easy access to weapons, everyone also has access, so the Nash equilibrium is "get a weapon". If weapons circulation is restricted, the Nash equilibrium is "don't waste your money on weapons".
Probably because the country you live in has one or is under unconditional protection of one.
Correct. That is how sovereign states relate to each other, though.
Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless.
Invasion of Afghanistan only happened after diplomatic efforts to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden. Iraq invasion was pushed through UN. Likewise, the Balkan war in 1990s was UN-sanctioned.
This? I mean, never mind the question of nukes, I don't think anyone declared war. Iran is a buffet of pick-your-own-target, in the middle of a negotiation that was supposed to end the nuclear program peacefully. I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it. It's a step back from a world, where at least in theory we were supposed to stay within the frameworks of principle-based laws.
You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it. Maybe. But I'd like to think it set a limit to how far they can bend it. Now? I'm not so sure.
> I'm not saying it because I like Iran (I don't) but because it sets the tone where countries just do what they want, if they can get away with it.
Well, Iran has been funding armies to the tune of millions (billions?) of dollars to attack Israel, as well as funding multiple terror attacks against Jews and against the US for many years.
So, alternative view - the fact that Iran has been allowed to do this, while the entire time stating quite clearly that they intend to destroy another sovereign country, while at the same time develop most of what they need for nukes - the fact that they've been allowed to do all this is actually proof that countries can do whatever they want and get away with it. And stopping their program is actually a way to show that countries can't just get away with it.
Israel isn't even close to the most recent country that got nukes (and they never signed the non-proliferation treaty) so I'm not sure why you have beef with them in particular.
I'm not saying I have beef with it. I would be happier with a world where fewer countries, including Iran and Israel, have nukes. I'm saying legality of nukes seems 100% derived from a calculus of power, not first principles - that includes US, UK, Russia, China, everyone.
If a mafia boss defines anything he gets away with as legal, that's not aligned with what we commonly think of as legal justice and thus a pointless distinction.
There is no justice nor glory to be had in nuclear weapons, but they exist, and need to be contained to as few entities that can use them as possible. Like seriously, the ideal number of nuclear warheads in the world is 0, but that is not the world we were born into.
So I've made peace with mafia boss power politics keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons on the low end of the spectrum, and for that matter I'd support a much more aggressive approach to that end than we have seen these last 30 years.
The irony of this entire situation is that it actually all but guarantees large scale nuclear proliferation.
It’s not that people were just too dumb or too scared to do something about it.
Everyone will agree with that. It's pretty obvious NK got nukes because they had an ally strong enough to shield them. "Unauthorized" referred to precisely the lack of credible support from a strong ally.
Isr ael is literally involved with bombing Iran right now and this is a post about it. How could you expect them not to be mentioned?
You 100% know why.
> I think Netanyahu belongs in prison
Didn't Netanyahu perjure himself to congress about iraq's wmds two decades? Isn't that grounds for arrest? It's amazing how our media never mentions that netanyahu is a habitual liar when they push netanyahu's iran's wmds spiel.
At this point our media companies are israel's PR department. Fox news should be banned like RT for being a foreign mouthpiece.
> Fox news should be banned like RT for being a foreign mouthpiece.
You forget that it is also US state media. Republicans would be banning their own version of RT.
> Isn't that grounds for arrest?
Maybe, but worth saying the ICC have issued a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes. The reason he hasn't been arrested is:
- The ICC is just a court, not a police department. Only countries have those, and while Netanyahu is in Israel, his own police probably won't arrest him.
- Authoritarian governments like Trump, Orban, Putin are actively undermining the ICC, which makes enforcement even less likely.
I believe no US administration ever acknowledged the ICC. By the way, the German chancellor just said he wouldn't arrest Netanyahu if he came to Germany.
It's not just a Trump thing.
Of course the US has acknowledged the ICC.
In 2002 on the heels of 9/11 George W Bush signed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_... into law, also known as Hague Invasion Act, specifically acknowledging the ICC in the clearest of ways.
If there is a nation that cannot be expected to act with equanimity in regards to Israel, that's Germany. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ICC, that Germany has always recognised.
Is this something the German chancellor can say? In countries with an independent judiciary, this is a matter for prosecutors, police and courts.
[flagged]
> Nobody voted for them.
How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?
Judges aren't representatives, they exist to interpret the law.
"Perjure"? Was he testifying under oath?
"Providing a false statement to Congress is a crime, regardless of whether you are under oath."[0]
[0] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/04/five-...
If lying were a crime, Trump would never be released from jail again.
Trump sanctioned ICC judges after ICC issued a warrant for Netanyahu. It's a lot more than just PR.
[flagged]
If Israel wasn't there, there would be terrorists on my doorstep? That's your actual, honest claim here?
The Ayatollah regime wants to export their version of Islam to the whole world, by any means necessary, including terrorism.
We're going to start dropping some freedom munitions on every nation that wants to export a looneytunes religious viewpoint? Physician, heal thyself...
Seriously, though. There are thousands of tin-pot dictators who would love to remake the world in their image. None of them have the ability to do so, including Iran. What makes this one special? Other than it being a very convenient target in a news cycle with some very inconvenient stories?
Yes there would be. Don’t be naive on the aspirations of extremeist Islamist.
Be the cause of the terrorism, then talk of how you're the "tip of the spear" in preventing terrorism. You'd need to be special to be that kind of deluded.
With these strikes, it seems more like Israel has ample intelligence on the US government than it has on the Middle East, since even DNI concurred that there was no proof of WMDs.
I don't know what Netanyahu said so he may have perjured himself, but Iraq technically had WMD. They weren't nukes, but the chemical variety and most of them weren't stored properly.
They had jack. Zero. Nada.
It was ginned up BS that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.
The Kurds would beg to differ.
The same Kurds the US government fucked over in Syria?
Why does it matter if the US screwed them?
> They had jack. Zero. Nada.
> It was ginned up BS
This is just not true. You can view the documents on wikileaks and other organizations.
> that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.
Perhaps, but completely irrelevant to whether or not they had WMD.
I don't get why people who are on the right side of this refuse to admit this.
Wikipedia says they had no WMDs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des....
What are these documents you are referring to?
Sure glad we spent a generation of lives and treasure, and maybe the golden years of the American hegemony on that boondoggle to take care of a few crappy chemical weapons in some dusty sand pit of a country.
Chemicals are usually less efficient than normal bombs. They’re too local. You can do the same with explosives. “Iraq had explosives.”
If you read up on Iraq's history of WMDs, the relevance of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons was that Saddam's regime had already a long history of developing and using these types of weapons both against neighbors and its own civilians. When Saddam decided to invade and annex Kuwait, half the world united to act, drive him out, and eliminate Iraq's WMD programmes. After the first gulf war, the UN was in charge of verifying that Saddam's regime destroyed it's existing stockpile and WMD programmes, but Saddam not only actively prevented the UN from doing any form of verificarion but also outright antagonized the UN.
It was with this backdrop that the "Iraq has WMDs" campaign managed to get traction. If you learn history and pay attention to the events, you'll quickly understand that Saddam's antagonism and mockery of the whole UN institution, specially when they self-isolated, was an easy sell even with weak evidence.
Making this out to be a simple matter exclusively and bounded to the existence of WMDs is naive and outright ignorant.
I don't know who is downvoting PP but here's Wikipedia's article on Iraq WMDs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:
> U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased active WMD production and stockpiling.
> Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:
The article says an awful lot more, such as pointing out the fact that Saddam's regime not only ran WMD development programmes for decades but also had a long and verified track record of using them in military engagements and even against civilians.
The article also points out the fact that once Saddam's regime was defeated in it's botched attempt at invading and annexing Kuwait, it rejected and outright antagonized the UN's programme that foresaw terminating Saddam's WMD programmes.
Trying to spin the issue as a simplistic "they had no WMDs" is ignorant to the point of being nearly disingenuous. You need to ignore everything and the whole history to make such a simplistic and superficial observation.
The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".
> The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".
It's not s problem at all. It's actually the whole point.
Following Saddam's botched invasion of Kuwait, the regime was ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile. The UN was mandated to foresee Saddam's WMD programmes were destroyed. Saddam spent the following years outright preventing the UN to do any form of verification, and went to the extent of outright antagonizing them.
So you reach a point where a totalitarian regime with a long and proven track record of developing and using WMDs refuses to show it got rid of it's WMDs. How can you tell if they still have it if they actively prevent the UN from checking?
You instead receive intel that suggests Saddam is indeed not only stockpiling WMDs but also actively developing them.
Do you think it's unreasonable to enforce the decision?
It's tempting to look back and take the simplistic and ignorant path of saying "there were no WMDs". This however denies all facts and state of affairs. In fact, the whole WMD talk is a red herring.
"Yes, we did lie. But in hindsight, our lie did not affect anyone's decision making. The truthful part by itself was enough to convince everyone who was convinced."
Let’s hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran. otherwise it may have just given a brief pause and further escalation.
If the regime survives, now Iranian people have a very good reasons to ignore its shortcomings and tyranny and Do a proper sacrifice. It’s a natural resources rich nation of 90 million people. If they want to get serious, they can get serious.
Well the mass destruction and death in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya came with regime change but what followed was more death and chaos that none have fully recovered from. I'm sorry but that "we'll just bomb the country and hope that helps" attitude is utterly stupid and has been repeatedly proven to be deeply ineffective
Can you think of a regime that was bombed by foreigners and quickly fell?
I cannot. Ground occupation, yes. But afaict bombing just reinforces the regime.
I don't think we have a historical precedence to what is happening here. The closest would be Israel's attack on Hezbollah which literally collapsed and led to the collapse of the Syrian regime as well.
The Iranian regime is very centralized and with Israel and the USA having air superiority and having penetrated it completely from an intelligence perspective (see Israel's perfect knowledge of the whereabouts of the previous chief of staff and the newly appointed chief of staff) it's going to be very hard for it to survive if a decision is made to remove it. There are a handful of key people that once gone there is not going to be any continuity.
The current regime is allowed to continue because of fear of chaos if it is removed, not because there isn't a capability to remove it.
Syria regime changed was made by troops on the ground.
Again, no bombing campaigns led to a change of regime. This theory is proven again and again
Sound like it's very realistic that Israel will target the regime itself soon. I don't think the US will actively support it, though.
First footage from the area doesn't appear to show any extended damage, so maybe it was all a show.
Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can. This, IMHO, can have very bad outcomes for the peace worldwide since it means that anybody who can bomb someone can just go ahead and do it. No more international order.
What's next then? Bomb Brussels because EU doesn't buy chicken from USA? This stuff isn't OK.
The regime change in Iran can be a silver lining if it changes with something more cooperative. But yes, I agree that this is unlikely.
> Regardless, a sovereign country was bombed tonight just because they can.
The dictatorial nature of Trump's order to attack a nation is far more concerning. Supposedly the US requires an act of Congress to authorize this sort of operation. Sidestepping congress underlines US's descent into totalitarianism and one of the very first acts crystalizing a dictatorship.
An act of Congress is not required for the first 60 days.
It didn't literally cause a regime change but the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was essentially the last nail in the coffin for the Milosevic regime.
The key element is where the will of the people points - Milosevic was already unpopular and the bombing further united the people against him.
The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks.
According to my Iranian friends (even the most hardline Ayatollah haters), most Iranians hate the regime, but they'll rally behind them if boots land on the ground.
Many of them still look at the Iran-Iraq war with a shade of Iranian patriotism (not sure there's a word to capture that actual feeling of sad memories of losing family members, coupled with a patriotic sense of duty).
The younger generation, not so much, since they didn't have to live through that hell.
Not necessarily but this is also not the end of the campaign. If Israel and US take out their ultimate bargaining chip and have air supremacy then the room to maneuver for the ayatollah is quite small. What happens next inside Iran is anyone’s guess. There have been multiple waves of very large protests in the past five years. What’s stopping mossad from delivering rifles to them from Syria or an airdrop at this point of escalation
Argentinian Junta fell after they lost the Falkland war in 1982
Japan
Okinawa and all those pacific island, not to mention China and south east Asia.
Even if the regime doesn't survive, what's our track record in Iranian regime change like? What are the chances people there swallow their pride and roll over? If anything, Khomeini is probably a moderate compared to a lot of what we could end up with after 'regime change' (lol)
What are the chances that the peaceful, think it through, be reasonable crowd is ready to organize the next regime. Or maybe the hotheads with guns are ready to shoot first aim later.
Perhaps forcing regime changes on other countries shouldn't be a quick decision.
Saying "Khomeini" on current day Iran casts a large doubt on how much you know on the topic.
He is asking a valid question. Experts on the issue also warn that there is no guarantee that what replaces the current regime would be any more amenable.
I guess it’s all about how it’s handled afterwards. Germany and Japan have become huge US allies after some proper bombings.
Just recently Trump tried to troll the Germany’s leader for it and only got a “Thank you for defeating us”.
The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one and a lot of people have grievances with it but the problem is, this is about Israel and they are not any better and didn’t stand at a higher moral ground with their illegal occupation and actions that many consider genocidal.
> some proper bombings
and a war that killed 400,000 Americans.
You want to repeat that history?
Here's some history I don't want to repeat:
1939, Nazi Germany starts fucking around and nobody does anything about it and then we have WWII on our hands.
You've totally missed the point. It's precisely because we didn't "properly" bomb Germany to stop that first invasion of Poland, that WWII happened and we lost 400,000 Americans, 6 million Jews etc.
The only thing this parent got wrong is the dates. Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime would have collapsed if the West had stood up to:
* The militarization of the Rhineland in 1936
* The Anschluss with Austria in March 1938
* The annexation of the Sudetenland (and the rest of Czechoslovakia) in October 1938
The German army was weak in the 1930s and his generals very hesitant. Hitler's "reckless" successes gave him credibility and power.
Apparently Hitler was genuinely surprised when the west declared war after the invasion of Poland. He expected the cowardly West to roll over again.
I recommend Childers' "World War II: A Military and Social History" if you're into this kind of thing.
> The truth is that Iran’s regime is indeed a very shitty one
Relative to their last, America-backed regime? I don't think you're looking at this from an Iranian perspective at all.
The regime is spectacularly unpopular with the majority of Iranians.
I get this a lot from a guy I do trust, and his old man is an Iranian immigrant, but I also recognize my sources are very biased against the regime.
Is there any good reporting out there or sentiment analysis that can show this? Or is it all word of mouth on the Internet? It's okay if there is nothing, but I'd feel a lot better if there was something substantial to back this up too.
Look up the demonstrations in Iran within the last ten years and/or since 2022.
I would be very interested in hearing an Iranian perspective on how daily life changed for people when the Islamic Republic deposed Pahlavi.
You can tell its a shitty one when a resource rich nation don’t prosper.
The number of resource rich nations that do prosper are few and far between. It’s more the exception than the rule.
You think America can occupy a country as big land-wise as Iran with a population approaching 100 million and an actual military?
This is more likely to be the end of the American empire than an actual change in Iran.
The US has no desire or intent to occupy Iran. It would take a year just to move enough forces to even contemplate it. Iran is mountainous which makes this a lot harder than Iraq.
It is also completely unnecessary. There are two options. Either the current regime makes a "deal" or it's going to get crippled to the point of irrelevance or removed.
Iran and Iraq are very different. Different culture, people and history. It's also worth remembering Iran is not homogeneous, only 61% of the population are Persians. There are Azeri, there are Kurds and various other ethnic/region minorities.
Iran is extremely vulnerable. It has internal issues, constantly oppressing/suppressing its people. Its economy is in terrible shape. Most of its economic engine can be easily taken out (its main oil terminals). The bulk of its military can be destroyed from the air, it has little defensive or offensive capability. They know it.
I think what you are missing is how vulnerable the United States and its allies are in the region.
There are much much softer targets than Tel Aviv, many of which Iran has successfully attacked in the past.
The argument that the Iranian people hate their autocratic government might be correct. But a symmetric argument can be made about many of the regimes which work with the United States. No one in those countries is going to war with Iran to defend the US right to have military bases in the Middle East.
Then wouldn’t it be best to prop up groups on the inside? Start with providing restricted airspaces to groups who hate the regime, and let them be autonomous regions. That wouldn’t need any boots on the ground.
Say you give the Kurds their own part of Iran and help protect their area could weaken the rest. I think there is already such a deal in in Iraq afaik.
Don’t think the current guy in the white house is much into nation building. Also after Iraq and 20 years wasted in Afghanistan - Americans are less likely to care about rebuilding a country.
Well, its done now. All we can do is to hope for the better outcome and ever more powerful ideological regime is not the better outcome. Trump might just guaranteed that though. He isn’t good at this international relations and peacemakings stuff.
At least 60% of the 90 million are closet Christians or atheists in a country where you get the death penalty for renouncing islam.
You think we need to occupy them? This isn't Iraq.
60%? Serious citation needed. The largest Christian population in Iran are Armenians. There are far fewer than 1 million Armenians in Iran. So unless you have evidence for the claim that there are 50+ million atheists in Iran, the number just defies belief.
I would be shocked if there were 50 million atheists in America. Maybe if you included people who are spiritual but do not believe directly in a god. Maybe I could accept it then, but at that point, you are stretching the definition of 'atheist' to its breaking point.
I guess I should have said non Muslim, I knew it was around 60 though.
https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GAMAAN-Iran-Re...
Did you read the appendix? 85% of respondents have a college degree, with the actual proportion in the population being 28%.
This survey is heavily weighted towards emigres and people who know emigres.
Trump thinks regime change will happen instantly and easily. Maybe he has secret source front NSA and CIA, who track private messages of Iranians! 60% of Iranians are secret christians. 38% are closeted gays!
A few bombs, everyone comes out of closet, unconditional surrender, democracy, live happily ever after... Sounds like American movie...
Well in that case I'm sure they're totally cool with us bombing them and look forward to being greeted as liberators.
I'm pretty sure that's what the bush crowd was saying about Iraq too
it wasn't the 'Bush crowd'; it was everyone but a few dissenting critical journalists.[0][1]
war and conflict are almost always bipartisan to some degree.
[0]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-reporting-team-that-g_n_9... [1]: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iraq/journalism-press-failed-...
It's like there's an echo from every other stupid poll-raising middle east adventure we've ever gotten into.
This is a stupid war being waged by idiots against idiots . Unfortunately none of those idiots calling the shots will die, it'll be a bunch of kids who just made the mistake of not being rich and powerful enough.
America allies, Saudi head chop more than Iran. And there are 100K Jews in Iran and they get into parliament too. Show me that in Israel. You got confused with Saudi and Pakistan. Dont think 60% there Christian or atheist there. Westrrn media is always BS. They got so many wrongs since 2 deacdes ago, I read way less western stuff these days. Otherwise my whole world view looks like Marvel MCU and Tom Cruise with Arnie running around with guns.
There many Jews in parliament in Israel!
(If you mean Muslims, or Arabs, there are plenty of those in the Israeli parliament too.)
Around 20% if Israeli parliament is Arab which is about the same as percentage of Israelis who are Arab.
It is ending a bit like Ming dynasty and Rome towards the end. Corruptions rife everywhere. Leaders try to be competent and yet ended making more mess. You can already see China is doing 5nm. Best camera phone is Huawei. Best EV in both variants models and quality and total volume sales, BYD. Tesla get decimated. Even AI China is on par. In terms of talents, you can see how well Americans read and count. In 30 years time, you need to learn Chinese and maybe Russian. I dont see America will be much viable pass the next 30 years. If you get a Dem prez, the country will be saturated with illegals. If you get JD, debrs will spiral out of control while opening a warfront in the middle east with Iran and China. This is basically empire ending scenario.
In 30 years time there will be fewer Mandarin speakers than there are today, and far fewer Russian speakers. This has nothing to do with Americans; four out of five English speakers live in other countries. It's the consequence of Metcalf's Law in age of internet communication, combined with obvious demographic trends.
>If you get a Dem prez, the country will be saturated with illegals
Is this, in your mind, how empires end? I'm not sure if you've cracked a history book in a while, but immigrants built this country. We are a country of immigrants. We win when we get the hardest working, most entrepreneurial, boldest and smartest people to come here. Immigrants are no couch potatoes - on average they work harder than American born citizens do by an order of magnitude for way less pay.
No matter what. America getting them self into this, so fast is going to lead to a lot of worldwide drama distracting from the disastrous financial situation of the US.
If the regime survives, it is also going to target (and murder) a whole hell of a lot of innocent civilians that it suspects aided Israel (and many/most will almost certainly be innocent). Due process is not a thing with IRGC.
Iranian people won't suddenly start to like the regime just because certain sites were destroyed.
My conclusion from the last 30 years of regime changes in ME is, be careful what you wish for. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt - they all had their regimes "improved" by well-meaning (?) external powers, and they all went pretty badly.
That's not to endorse any of these regimes, including the current Iranian one, just saying the variance is enormous around these events.
Regime change is what the US and Israel has been doing for the last 40 years in the middle east.
That is literally the ultimate ambition of this war.
There's a long list of middle eastern countries where we've installed our stooges.
They don’t care about the regime, they only want it to be aligned with the US and Israel. The Saudi absolute monarchy regime (something that is way worst than the Iranian one) that is directly coming from middle ages, doesn’t get the same journalistic treatment in the US. Women rights in Iran are lightyears ahead of what is happening in Saudi Arabia. But who cares? Talking about Iran regime change only is pure hypocrisy when your best friend in the region can kill anyone by just deciding it.
Actually, Saudi Arabia doesn't beat woman to death for not wearing a hijab (although they're not great either). Saudi is ranked 56 on the Gender Inequality Index, whereas Iran is 113. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
No but talking badly of the royal family will get you executed: https://cpj.org/2025/06/saudi-arabia-executes-journalist-tur...
You claimed "women's rights in Iran are lightyears ahead of Saudi Arabia."
And Iran executes plenty of journalists too.
Saudi Arabia has killed and dismembered a journalist in their own embassy in Istambul, Jamal Khashoggi.
Israel hasn't really engaged in regime change. If anything the opposite. There was a single failed attempt to get the Christians into power in Lebanon. But mostly sort of the devil I know. We have Hussein in Jordan. We had Assad in Syria. Egypt had its own turmoils but not much Israeli involvement. The PA and Hamas were also viewed as a stabler alternative to chaos. Saudi and the emirates pretty stable. Turkey (not quite middle east but whatever) also have their internal turmoil. Iran has been stable as well.
Israel helped strengthen Hamas to make Palestine Authority ( who came close to negotiating peace ) weak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
I'm sure if we keep trying we'll get it right eventually.
The plan is working as intended I think. They are not optimising for humanity.
Bombings will continue until morale improves?
Sure. It's nice to hope though. The Iranian establishment is even more rabid now.
[dead]
Why there is regime change there? You are watching fake news projected by your own government for your bubble. The regime now is way stronger. Their economy now is also significantly bigger and stronger (hint: China). A fresh grad there can find job in less than 2 weeks. Try that in UK or NY...even 6mths would be atough endevour.
Actually, Iran's GDP peaked in 2012 and is currently 30% lower than that peak. Nice try though.
Iran has smaller gdp than israel and 12 times it's population. They are a delusional dwarf, and they beat and blind women that refuse to wear headscarf. So I wouldn't mind some dead and crippled clergy and IRGC as long as there are no boots on the ground. Just kill the elites until the population sorts the thing themselves.
Like in Lybia?
Exactly. Libya is non threatening and doesn't sponsor terrorism as of late. That the Libyans decided to fuck things up internally doesn't change the fact that externally it was a success.
Let’s hope whatever intel that says Iran really does have nukes is true, given its propensity as a scapegoat for previous wars. Don’t forget that less than 2 months ago, senior intelligence officials said conclusively Iran was not close to having nuclear weapons.
Edit: 3 months, and source: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...
Another source, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[0]
On that page you can download an unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment [pdf] where on page 26 it states:
>> We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
I also think there is more reading in there that may interest people here.
[0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
[pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
Leaving aside the accuracy of this claim, "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".
The nuclear physicists got the glory for the Manhattan Project, but the enrichment was the vast majority of the time and cost[1]. Similar ratios apply today. There is zero question that Iran's government is spending a significant fraction of its GDP on enrichment activity that would be economically absurd except as a step towards nuclear weapons--they acknowledge it proudly!
That doesn't mean these strikes were necessarily a good idea. There's no question that Iran was working actively towards a bomb though, even if "building a weapon" gets redefined narrowly to exclude almost all the actual effort.
1. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-...
> "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device".
Agreed. However, taking into account the full statement (provided by the collective U.S. Intelligence Services) to include the parts about: Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003 and that he has final say in the matter, says they were not working actively towards a bomb.
But there was growing advocation for doing so. Now they have been emboldened further and been given fuel to advocate restarting the program. If Khamenei had so far kept the pro-nuke elements of the regime at bay, this strike may force the very thing that foreign Intelligence roped us into "stopping".
I am not saying they did not have the means; they will rebuild the means, and now they will have the motivation as well as know-how in a way that will be more difficult to stop.
So it seems that due to imprecise language people disagree on the exact place of the red line the US (and Israel) were drawing. The post you responded to was indicating that the red line was, as a sibling comment mentioned, the breakout time from political decision to working nuclear weapon. Many other people, yourself included, seem to consider the red line to be the political decision itself. This red line now may be crossed in response to our first strike after their violation of the breakout time red line. If we were successful it seems as though the message is clear, we will use overwhelming military force to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. So even if the political decision gets made to build one, any attempt to restart the process - which isn't exactly stealthy - will be met with similar force. If we failed though, then we might get to see a nuclear weapon being used in modern times.
> they were not working actively towards a bomb
I think this becomes a definitions game again. I'd consider a country to be "working actively towards a bomb" when it's taking costly steps that provide no commensurate benefit except towards a nuclear weapons program. At that point, there's no rational explanation for their actions except that they're working towards the bomb.
So e.g. enrichment of uranium to <3.67% (as permitted by the JCPOA) is not such a step, since that's also economically useful for civilian nuclear power. Enrichment to 60% is such a step--the only conceivable civilian uses are niches for which the cost would far exceed any benefit.
It seems you agree they're enriching in the latter way, but you don't count that as "working actively towards a bomb". So what definition are you using for that phrase? We obviously can't just let the Iranian government decide, or they'll define everything short of a successful test as part of their "peaceful explosive lenses program" or whatever.
My general sense is that the JCPOA was working reasonably well, and it's unfortunate that Trump exited. To the extent these strikes were a necessary solution, they might be to a problem of his own making. I agree that Iran could be emboldened and merely delayed here. That may imply an inevitable endgame of either regime change or near-total destruction of Iran's economic capacity, big escalations and risks.
“Intelligence community” can be wrong. It’s not as if they are infallible.
Sure, but so can foreign Intelligence that the America First Trump team decided was way better than US Intelligence that tax payers are paying obscene amounts for. So, I guess we just pick which ever one fits what we find more important to listen to.
This stinks of Iraq & WMD. Which the U.S. Intelligence made drastic changes to prevent happening again.
Only now we were on the side of saying there is no proof it was actively being worked on, and the person/state with "proof" also happens to be the state that has been bitterly opposed to Iran and started launching unprovoked missiles. That state also knows how to get what it wants from this administration and suddenly we go from, there is no proof they are doing nefarious things with their program, to they are about nuke us all if we don't do something; all in a matter of weeks.
The alternative was to do nothing , let them continue the obvious nuclear weapon nation program. I am surprised we hadn’t attacked them earlier given what they did to our troops in Iraq with EFPs or Ukraine with the Shahed drones.
> The alternative was to do nothing
Yes & No. Thats what I understood the Trump campaign promised, to stop military meddling in other countries religious (or otherwise) conflicts.
Diplomacy is not nothing, and has kept the Iran program from restarting (going by US reports that it was stopped). Now it is all but sure to start up again. Unless the goal was for the US to be suckered into forcing a regime change, and we all know how well those attempts have gone.
> I am surprised we hadn’t attacked them earlier given what they did to our troops in Iraq with EFPs
If it happened at that time with proof and congressional approval then okay, but thats not an excuse for now. Thats how states end up in a war that lasts for a couple or more millennia
I think a good way of explaining what the Iranian government has been doing, is actively working on reducing breakout time without actually making the breakout decision
"Breakout time" is how long it takes a country between the political decision to build a nuclear weapon, and actually having one which is militarily usable
Bibi has repeatedly informed us the bomb would be ready in the next few months for 23 years or so.
Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where.
Etc
Israel has also been sabotaging their program and murdering scientists for the same time. Maybe it's an instance of the prevention paradox? Together with the fact that things sometimes naturally need MUCH more time than anticipated?
> Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where.
Presumably if Saddam had built a large reinforced concrete bunker deep in the side of a mountain hours from the nearest city, that might be a place fairly high on your checklist?
He's been saying this since 1992, so 33 years so far.
What is the term for political leaders who fill their speeches with a Boogeyman rather than doing their job? I feel there should be a term for it. Ideally one that describes them in pairs. Like a boogey marriage.
Why bring him up? No one cares about him. He's been lying about it all those years until it became true, that doesn't mean it's still false. I can say the universe will be destroyed in a year, I'll eventually be right.
"Will be done in 'x' months" vs "Could be ready within 'x' months" are distinct statements.
My project managers often ask how long a project would take. I might say something like "two weeks after we're approved to start".
The PMs will wait a few months, approve the project, and then look flabbergasted when it is not instantaneously completed! "But you had all this time! Months ago you said it would take weeks!"
You would have thought folks would have learned from the Iraq War that the US lies. I'm no fan of Khomeini's sabre-rattling, but if people are really buying into the narrative that we did this because they had nukes, idk what to tell you besides go read your history.
It isn't just the US that lies, its politicians and leaders. People in charge want to keep power, and the only ones willing to fight their way to the top don't deserve the power of office.
Folks do know. Folks knew before the Iraq war too.
But what does this generic knowledge have to do with anything, when the military action is already decided for geo-political reasons? The only decision to make is what pretext to use.
In a way, the 'iraq wmd' justification has proven it's value as a pretext - so why not tweak it and use it again?
If they thought Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be attacking them. Nobody thinks Iran had a nuclear weapon, or that they are even trying that hard to get one.
I don't understand this argument; why would you have a large, acknowledged, underground nuclear purification unit if it wasn't for bombs? Why wouldn't you cooperate with their regular IAEA inspection if it wasn't for bombs?
They might be making the bombs, but once they are made (and the delivery mechanism exists), then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation.
The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
> then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation
Even supposing Iran developed a nuclear weapon, their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation depends on (a) the number of warheads, (b) the available delivery mechanisms
An Iran which had only a handful of warheads, and rather limited delivery mechanisms (few or no ICBMs, no SLBMs, no long-range bomber capability) might find its ability to engage in nuclear retaliation against the US extremely limited
Even attempting to use nuclear weapons against Israel or regional US allies, there would be a massive attempt by Israel/US/allies to intercept any nuclear armed missile before it reached its destination
People argued missile defence (as in Reagan's "Star Wars") would never work against the Soviets because they could always just overwhelm it given the superabundance of warheads and delivery systems they had. The same logic does not apply to Iran, because even if it did build a nuke, initially it would only have a handful. Only if they were allowed to build out their nuclear arsenal and delivery systems without intervention, over an extended period, might that eventually come true.
My understanding is that the prospect of nuclear retaliation against hawkish US allies can contribute greatly to peace in the region.
This is what I’d expect Iran to do instead of ICBM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
But they do have ballistic missiles and can hit US allies
This was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)
Unfortunately MAD in the classic sense doesn't apply here. Yes if Iran launched a nuke at Israel, or vice versa, and the other had nuclear capabilities, they would destroy each other, but the MAD scenario between the USSR and the United States doesn't really play out here.
The biggest global risk in this case would be that tactical nukes would be back on the menu which would immediately change the face of modern warfare.
I feel like it's been demonstrated that if Israel orders the United States to destroy the world on its behalf, the United States will do it.
So Iran is a special case compared to every other country getting them?
So the reason to make an exception to the Non-Proliferation Treaty just for the giant tyrannical fundamentalist state is, what, because otherwise they might get insecure and anxious?
OK, they never signed up to it, but still.
Are you referring to Israel here, who stole the recipe from their closest 'ally' and has made not one or two but hundreds of nukes outside of the NPT?
AFAIK the recipe was given to them by the French.
Allegedly.
We made an exception for Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
North Korea left the NPT, Israel never signed it.
The prior government did sign it and there’s very good reason to hold successor states to the treaties signed before they existed.
What about the agreement to protect Ukraine if they gave up the nuclear weapons?
Trusting the US or any agreement with it would be foolish.
The problem is that these people are religiously unhinged. They are executing Gods will with God on their side.
Ted Cruz is explicitly advocating that Christians are biblically commanded to defend the modern day state of Israel, and that this alone justifies our attack on Iran.
Or just because they tried to assassinate Trump.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/donald-trump-iran-a...
Ted Cruz can blather whatever he wants (and he also footnoted it to say it was only HIS belief), but only Iran has holy-text justification for the destruction of all Jews, mentioned numerous times in authenticated Hadiths (just search them for "The last hour will not come")
Unlike the American evangelicals and the Israeli?
Are you referring to Iran or Israel?
In the past 24 hours alone, all 3 parties in this conflict have attributed their success to God. You genuinely, honestly have to be more specific in your comment because not a single involved participant is a fully secular country.
So, with that being said - which nuclear-obsessive theocracy do you support?
To be fair it's the same god.
The reason there is a conflict at all is that the Iranian regime believes it is their religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. This is why they arm any group willing and able to attack Israel, and will continue to do so, and they cannot be negotiated with on this because they see it as a religious imperative.
Conversely there is no religious reason for anyone in Israel or the US to attack Iran, independently of the belief that they should defend Israel.
one of the scariest parts of the current US administration is that there is a fairly strong evangelical Christian belief that a massive (possibly nuclear) war in Israel is a necessary precursor to the 2nd coming.
[dead]
Along the same lines ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJiwovX3mNA ... powerful lyrics
[dead]
Add to that, its "deterrence" arsenal of intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) are credible militarily only as nuclear delivery systems. For example, the "Khaybar Breaker" rocket (English meaning), referring to a destruction of an historic Jewish stronghold, leaving little to imagination, when equiped with conventional warheads are simply an expensive way to ruin hospital wings. But, when you merge heavy rockets with diligent production of precursors of nuclear weapons, not only is that work toward military use of a nuclear weapon-- it creates a powerful inertia toward actually completing that work, from two directions, lest your very expensive work prove pointless. The current war is vividly demonstrating that IRBM's are not deterrent unless (a) impossibly numerous or (b) unconventionally armed. A threshold IRBM threat makes it more, not less, likely to provoke a first strike against it, as has occurred.
Also note that Iran does have an ICBM of sorts. They have a space launch vehicle, capable of putting maybe 600kg in orbit. Anything that can achieve orbit can also be used as an ICBM. The US tends to operate on the assumption that it can bomb abroad without return fire. That may have just changed. The US has never attacked anybody with significant missile capability before.
The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable. Washington, D.C. has some drone and missile defenses. But the rest of the east coast is not protected much.
Iran could also attack the US with drones launched from a small ship off the US east coast. Roughly the same technique Ukraine just used on Russia, using some small expendable ship instead of a trailer.
.
>The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable.
This would mean complete suicide for Iran. The US military basically exists to inflict unimaginable hurt on anyone who does this. Not to mention, an attack on the US is an attack on NATO.
There are loads of NATO countries that will not assist the US in this case because NATO is a defensive alliance not a "this country responded my armed aggression, let's strike them" alliance.
The symbolic value of Iran hitting a target in the US, even with only a small conventional warhead, would be considerable
Iran would definitely possess nuclear weapons after doing something like that. The only question is whether they're armed to explode in the air or when they hit the ground.
for people who don't follow news. last year Iran strikes on Israel with IRBM (two times, 150 missiles each time) weren't particularly effective (either intercepted or falling in empty fields). On the other side Israel attempt on taking our Iranian AD was success.
It led Iran to make 2 decisions
- Accelerate production of IRBM in order to have 10000 in stock and to build 1000 launchers in order to execute massive launches that will not possible to defend against
- Apparently the did decide to mate their IRBM with nukes as recently there was meeting between whoever managed iranian missiles problem and heads of nuclear project (there is economist article about it).
This comes against backdrop of hamas and hezbollah been wiped. especially hezbollah which was supposed to be strike force against israel with estimated 100k-200k missiles and rockets.
PS. to those who write that jordan/usa intercepted most/a lot. they (together with saudi arabia, uk and france intercepted drones and cruise missiles. out of all IRBM only 6 were intercepted with SM3 missiles from USA ship)
Hamas has not "been wiped"; they have more members than before October 7th.
Do they have much in the way of military capability right now? They could have a full two million committed members, and that might be a serious long term strategic issue for Israel, but the actual immediate threat might be nominal.
some yes. left over weapon. they can booby trap buildings, attach explosives to apc/tanks. maybe some rpg. Occasional rocket info Israel. A bunch of undiscovered tunnels
but now after their command was wiped out and they can't sell aid, they have serious financial problems (they need to pay their fighters. it's very transactional).
but in case idf will leave gaza, they will have enough power to dominate the strip.
> Hamas [has] more members than before October 7th
I'm skeptical of this; any source?
I hope their new members are midwit western university students not capable of speaking fluent Arabic while extinguishing your consciousness.
> for people who don't follow news. last year Iran strikes on Israel with IRBM (two times, 150 missiles each time) weren't particularly effective (either intercepted or falling in empty fields).
For clarification, those interception efforts last year required massive assistance from the US and Jordan, and required a hugely disproportionate and unsustainable investment of munitions to pull off. What we've seen in the last week is that Israeli air defenses are much more brittle than they want anyone to believe.
EDIT: For the down-voters, here's Bloomberg citing Israeli media that defending against Operation True Promise cost ~$1 billion USD: https://archive.is/WHDvG
and here is NPR about Jordan's assistance: https://www.npr.org/2024/04/15/1244900560/what-is-known-abou...
and here is the NYT questioning Israel's missile stockpiles: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/world/middleeast/israel-i...
[dead]
Everyone in Iran who decided to follow international law and not pursue nuclear weapons including Khamenei look like clowns right now.
They were putting together advanced parts towards a nuclear weapon and IAEA says they weren't cooperating. Everyone knew what this meant. Even themselves, why did they need JCPOA otherwise? Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.
Nobody believes that running a secretive bomb-proof underground bunker full of gas centrifuges is "not pursuing nuclear weapons". We're not stupid.
"Not close" doesn't mean they're not working on it. I think it's reasonable to expect that unspoken bit is "... but their current avenue of work is going to eventually succeed".
I'm tired of the US playing puppetmaster (poorly) around the world, getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with us (or rather, creating conflicts when it has to do with access to oil or something). And it's not like we haven't messed up Iran enough already.
But I do not want a nuclear-armed Iran to be a thing. If they were working on it and had a solid program that was likely to bear fruit, I hate to say it, but this was probably the right move. But this is a big "if"; I don't trust this administration to tell the truth about any of this, no more than I trusted Bush Jr when he said Iraq had nukes.
The photos of the facilities are literally all over the internet. The IAEA knew about it and knew Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium. This isn't Iraq 2.
Flies in the face of the US intelligence community’s report at the end of March [0], but, I am not floored if true. Do you have any sources?
Edit: If you mean "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)" [1], that report explicitly mentions up to 60% which is not weapons grade.
[0]: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2... [1]: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
This stuff gets grammar-hacked a million different ways.
Yes, 60% enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade, but it can be made weapons grade very quickly. Once you've gotten to 60%, you've done 99% of the work - U-235 starts as such a small percentage of natural Uranium that most of the process is spent at very low concentrations.
It can simultaneously be true that Iran isn't "imminently creating a bomb" and also that they're actively working towards a breakout point where they could build a dozen bombs in very quick succession once they did decide to go forwards with the process.
I don't personally think they were rushing towards a bomb at this moment, but Israel isn't really in the mood to wait around until they decide to do so.
60% enrichment may not be weapons grade, but it takes only days or weeks to go from 60% to 90%. It is much easier than going from natural uranium to 60%.
But maybe a little harshly: Who cares? Does it somehow raise the moral foundation of the operation if they had nukes? Would the attack suddenly be unethical if it was only against a military target with the public, accepted purpose to, one day, be able to develop precursors to nuclear weapons? Why?
60% enrichment level is significantly higher than what’s required for peaceful purposes. To say that it’s not weapons grade is just disingenuous.
Except that it is literally not weapons grade.
It turns out there's a big gap between most peaceful purposes and weapons grade, and this was in that gap.
Wikipedia points to a source that says it is used for parts of a multi-stage fusion bomb:
> Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage
Source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html#nfaq6.2
Ah yes, alongside the weapons grade steel and weapons grade copper.
There’s no minimum qualification for steel to be useful in a bomb, there is for uranium which this meets.
Just to be clear, this isn't "useful [to make] a bomb" - it's useful in a thermonuclear warhead that already has a primary fission stage using the originally-mentioned highly enriched weapons grade uranium, plus a second fusion stage that (as far as I'm aware) Iran is not working to develop.
edit: phrasing. it feels like we're going around in circles nitpicking based on a poor framing and the tendency for innuendo on this topic
You might want to rephrase that as a thermonuclear warhead is obviously a bomb making it “useful in a bomb.”
Also, you can use 60% enriched uranium in the primary stage at the cost of a much larger, less efficient, and dirty device.
When the only purpose of stepping into that gap is to get to weapons grade, it doesn't really work as a gray area.
[flagged]
Fuel grade is like 3%. It's exponentially harder to go from 3%-60% (months-years) than 60%-90%(days-weeks). So no, the only reason to enrich that high is to keep your breakout time threateningly short.
Which still, astonishingly, does not make it weapons grade.
Yes brother you are technically correct about that substring of that comment. “Weapons-grade” was indeed not 100% accurate and therefore, technically , inaccurate. That is true, you are right.
That same comment also said, even led with “flies in the face of”. That was the most important part of the comment: ‘saying that Iran is enriching weapons-grade uranium “flies in the face of” intelligence reports which reported no weapons-grade uranium.’ But that part was not correct: the difference between Iran’s uranium (60% enriched) and weapons-grade uranium, while >0, is not large enough to characterize that assessment “flying in the face of”.
So yes if you focus on that substring of the comment you are right. But why would you? It’s not the point of the comment.
Which makes it nit picking. Which is why you’re getting so much pushback.
True, but can you name a reason to create a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium that doesn't involve weapons?
The only reason to make 60% is to make a weapon, and it’s actually useful in a weapon.
Saying it’s not weapons grade only means you haven’t finished or intend to use something else for the initial stage.
> only means you haven’t finished or intend to use something else for the initial stage
So in other words it’s not weapons grade?
No, 60% is a weapons grade enrichment level, but does not qualify in specific weapons grade categories.
Reduced fat milk is often specifically referring to 2% milk, but 1% milk is also reduced fat milk.
[flagged]
Everything I just said was factually accurate.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.
> Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium
Do you have a citation for this?
IAEA was claiming 60% enrichment. Enough weapons grade material for nine warheads: https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
Weapons grade Uranium is over 90% purity.
60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.
That's like saying driving from NYC to Sacramento is just a "Stepping Stone" to driving to SF. You've done most of the drive.
To get 1kg of U-235 requires 1.11kg at 90% purity, 1.67kg at 60% purity, and 140.6kg at natural 0.711% purity.
Sure, but if this is being talked about like there's a legal justification to take military action then there actually has to be legal justification.
Was what Iran doing illegal?
It was a pre-emptive strike based on the behaviors of a state sponsor of terrorism. It’s not like the US and its allies have not tried to stop this before - see StuxNet
Sure, but is a kinetic pre-emptive strike in this context legal?
Because this is what underlies all of this -- is the premise that Iran is behaving in an unacceptable and illegal fashion and therefore a legal response with violence is justified.
This all presupposes that Iran is breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons. Are they breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons?
What does "legal" even really mean between states at war. The consequences typically come down to a popularity contest and Iran is one of the few states with fewer friends than Israel.
Was Iran's activities funding militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which launched attacks against Israel and US forces "legal"? Which of the US' activities were "legal"? It's all mostly a bad joke.
It's tricky. Arming a country or group than then launches an attack, or uses those weapons in a war, doesn't make you a participant in that conflict. This is why Europe and the US can supply weapons to Ukraine without being participants in a conflict with Russia.
However Iran has the stated intention of destroying the state of Israel, and actively incites it's proxies to attack Israel, and this could be seen as a valid justification for taking action. Not a lawyer though.
This is between nation states. Concepts like laws and legality really don’t apply at this level of abstraction. Agreements are a matter of convenience and convention because there is no higher authority that can enforce them.
Geopolitics operates in an explicitly anarchic arena.
Countries can attack others. There is not like a superset of a country over all countries that says what is and isn’t legal. All we have are agreements and treaties.
Not that we would or should but the US could attack any number of countries today and only if one or more countries stopped the US would the victor be able to say it’s illegal.
bad news about who the US sponsors
You only get to 60% on the road to 90%. At 60% it has no other useful purpose.
Are there other uses for highly enriched uranium? Wikipedia mentions 'research' I think.
Has the Iranian government ever explained why they are enriching uranium?
Their story is a desire to build reactors for when the oil runs out. Energy security
Nobody builds reactors with 60% enriched uranium
You only need 5% enriched for that.
No one in the US government was claiming that Iran had nuclear weapons. The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons based on the current rate of uranium enrichment, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. Of course we may never know whether that's really true.
> The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons
No the US was claiming: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." in it's 2025 Threat Assessment. The reports believes they were not working on them and Khamenei has the final authority to restart the program which he had not done. However, they believe there was growing pressured to do so.
Trump just gave the guy reason to green light a weapons project he had so far not wanted.
[pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
It doesn't matter if it's true at this point. The US can not involve themself in every fucking war for their own motives, just by calling "Bombs" they did this a few times to often. I really hope this is going to have consequences for orange man.
Iran has “Death to America” as an hymn. It is commonly accepted that a nation directly threatening others of death deserves the war.
Funny you should say that. The US has Bomb Iran as a parody of Barbara Ann, available on CD:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_Iran
So apparently it's humourous to kill.
It's not like for like, but if you have a rabid population with low education being told to say stuff like this, they will, just because of social pressure and brainwashing.
Related, example of that brainwashing at scale:
- Killing people bad, but patriotic as a soldier.
- Killing people fine on TV, procreational entertainment bad.
- People told what to wear bad, but telling people they must be clothed, good.
- Religion says no killing, or protect those not of the same religion. People still kill, seen as no conflict of interest at all.
- Hording wealth seen as successful, yet society and the world has people suffering and illegal immigration as a consequence of not having it.
- People who don't work are grifters, but most people secretly want to quit their job and not work. Told to see the non workers as people sponging off society.
- Forced to work until your health fails, seen as acceptable.
Point being, no moral high ground because we're all brainwashed.
The predicate that Iran has them but would show restraint is the same that same that they don't have them but will show restraint and not use desperate measures like blowing up the entire Middle Eastern oil production and distribution network and ports and not use dirty bombs.
Which shows how much of BS the pro-war argument was to begin with.
From what I read, they likely still couldn't penetrate the halls at Fordow, which are about 260 feet underground and encased in 30000psi concrete. Did we even do anything there?
Which is precisely what makes the calculus of this so dangerous, something I don't think many people understand.
Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests and on any given Sunday, are not particularly interested in starting a nuclear conflict. At the same time, understandably, their adversaries are not particularly interested in them having that option.
The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense. In this case, if you bomb Fordow and can completely eradicate the nuclear weapons, you do eliminate the immediate nuclear risk (though not without creating a slew of new problems to deal with). But, if you fail you have now backed them into a corner where this might become an increasingly reasonable option.
Either way the events of today are very likely to unfold in ways that forever change not only the dynamics of the middle east but global politics as a whole.
This is a great comment IMO :)
> Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests
Exactly. I do my best to consider them an "adversary", not an "enemy" for just that reason.
> The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense.
I'd argue there are two risks: one is that this puts Iran in a position where, if the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them.
It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions.
I don't think we have a better option, sadly, but it is a consequence of this action.
Also, I don't think this makes a rational case for use. For possession, yes. For threatening to use them under certain conditions, yes - but the only rational use case for deploying nuclear weapons is if your opponent has already done the same. This became the case when the thermonuclear bomb was invented.
Ukraine, and now Iran, have made one thing abundantly clear to the world: if you want to have any actual sovereignty on the world stage, you must have nuclear weapons. Otherwise you are merely waiting for another nation to find an excuse to violate your borders.
Every country in the world with well organized military is right now working on plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal either by proxy or by way of a domestic nuclear program. That is the legacy of this strike. It puts the point at the end of the exclamation that was Ukraine.
The seeds of a new era of proliferation have been sown, and our children will reap the rewards.
There are now ways to purify uranium much more cost effectively and in better secrecy that centrifuges. Small labs can do it effectively now, and a massively distributed effort would not only make it possible to achieve without needing to buy restricted equipment, it also would make it nearly impossible to disrupt militarily.
You could just open source a design and let the market do the work. It’s of course a terrible idea, which would lead to explosive proliferation and lots of cancer, but it would work. The technical part is challenging but not outside of the reach of serious hobby level efforts.
I will be surprised if we don’t start to see something along these lines cropping up all over the place soon. It’s a natural progression of several technologies that have become vastly more economical and accessible as time goes on.
The main problem is the Iranian regime's view that it is their religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. This is why they supply weapons to Hamas, Hizbullah, the Houthis, and anyone who will attack Israel, and incite them to do so.
They will not stop, and they can't be negotiated with on this, again because they see it as a religious duty.
> It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions.
We've already seen that with North Korea and Libya. NK got to having them before we could stop them. Libya gave up its nuclear program (which is how we learned about Iran's), and we staged a revolution there and regime change.
“ the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them”
Which is why they likely were trying to possess them before and the US and Israel felt the need to strike
Do you think Iran will have nukes in the near (20 years, just to put a number) term? Your position really only makes sense if that's not the case. By whatever means, the goal now seems to be to prevent that.
> I don't think we have a better option
I'd love help getting on board with this
> Do you think Iran will have nukes in the near (20 years, just to put a number) term?
If they managed to get enough of their HEU and any reactor spent fuel out of Fordo and elsewhere into locations we don't know about where they happen to have previously built backup facilities then they could have them very quickly. Hopefully a) they didn't build backup facilities, and b) didn't get a change to spirit away the materials w/o us noticing.
The plan we've committed to now is to prevent it.
If we fail, there's still the hope that other commenters here are right, and Iran isn't intent on using them offensively. If so, then Iran itself will be safe from this sort of attack.
... but it will also be clear to every other that the only way to be secure from Western military intervention is to possess nuclear weapons. There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving. This will lead to a world where proliferation is rampant, but not necessarily one where their use is no longer taboo as it is today.
> There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them despite Western demands and surviving.
Like North Korea?
Correct.
And like Ukraine (conversely).
I mean 20 years ago, mossad literally destroy their nuclear program using Stuxnet
20 years is reasonable time to rebuild
In the region, it feels like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are going to be watching this very closely closely.
KSA has been slowly coming around for the past decade or so. Trump's recent visit -- domestic optics aside -- confirmed and strengthened that.
Turkey/Türkiye has been going the other direction. They're not totally off the reservation, but Erdogan isn't exactly in NATO's inner circle personally.
Is there a good write up somewhere on what a nuclear Iran would mean?
I don’t wish for more nuclear weapons, but to date, the states with them, usually (a nice apply word) don’t use them.
260ft is around 79m. The bombs can penetrate around 60m of concrete. So one bomb, probably not, but they are able to follow each other in quick succession meaning 2 or three should be able to do the job quite easily, with accurate GPS positioning.
They can penetrate 60m of soil. They cannot penetrate 60m of concrete. Reinforced concrete at about 5000psi would only get penetration of 8-15m.
The facility is beneath 80m of limestone which in the Qom formation is roughly equivalent to about 5000psi concrete.
Beneath the limestone, sits the facility itself which is encased in high performance concrete. So these bombs need to pen 80m of 5000psi material and then a unknown depth of high performance concrete.
There is no public information about what kind of material 60m refers to, and the best guesses of reinforced concrete are 18m. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP While a single bomb would be insufficient, you don't need that many to get to 80m.
And US military assets are often much more powerful than publicly advertised...
A bomb penetrating 18m of reinforced concrete doesn't excavate 18m of concrete. It would weaken it by some percentage through fractures and overpressure but you'll need to pen it again with the second bomb.
They dropped six.
Also, surely – I have no expertise – but you don't need to totally destroy the bunker to render the operation basically dead, right?
The land, roads, ingress points, elevators, security, everything around here is now FUBAR. Okay so you didn't "destroy the bunker", but how many years until it's functional again?
The bombs don't dig a hole, removing all matter for the next bomb to dig its way deeper...
The point is not to dig a hole. Penetration depth is a function of compression strength of the medium. Every bomb leaves a path of debris in its wake with negligible compression strength that subsequent bombs can pass through before expending their energy.
But they compact the material beneath the explosion.
That does not materially add to compression strength.
Media is reporting that 12 were dropped on Fordow
you don't actually need to completely destroy all the underground levels in Fordow. It is enough to cause enough damage so that the stored uranium contaminates the site, while being sealed from the outside world under the collapsed site.
There is uranium stored there. It was moved out weeks ago.
ahh.. in my mind it was multiple hits spread over an area. This does make more sense.
AP quoting Iranian officials reports no radiological contamination, which suggests the facilities weren't penetrated https://apnews.com/live/israel-iran-war-updates#00000197-95a...
You wouldn't expect significant radiological contamination from bombing an HEU facility deep underground? This isn't like exposed reactor core material.
They do have reactors though, do they not? Hitting the spent fuel pools and/or the reactors would produce detectable radioactive contamination. The HEU? Not so much as its half-life is 700 million years, and the stuff is dense and will quickly settle down.
Why would they have reactors? This is uranium enrichment, not plutonium production.
This bombing was for show. The US did not use the required munitions to destroy these targets. Not even close.
They dropped 12 of the GBU-57s. What would you recommend?
12 of those bunker busters in succession? High chance the facilities really were destroyed.
There are limited ways to destroy Fordow. US is only country to possess them
That does not follow. It is not like it is an active reactor. There is no reason there should be significant radiological contamination.
The facility enriches Uranium hexafluoride gas.
With a half-life between 700 million years (for U-235) and 4 billion years (for U-238). And it's dense stuff that will immediately settle on the ground. You're not going to detect it from afar.
What does "unauthorized" mean here? Who needs to authorize weapons-grade uranium enrichment?
The GBU-57 is dope. Really curious to see how well it worked here
Unauthorized in the sense of a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Whether Iran is actually violating the treaty is a matter of some dispute.
https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/
it's declared to be in violation https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran...
It's literally an anvil they drop out of the sky hoping to punch through structures like an aerial drilling platform. I guess it's dope, but it seems like cartoon armament to me.
> I guess it's dope, but it seems like cartoon armament to me.
The first bunker-buster :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_bomb
"According to an anecdote, the idea arose after a group of Royal Navy officers saw a similar, but fictional, bomb depicted in the 1943 Walt Disney animated propaganda film Victory Through Air Power,[Note 10] and the name Disney was consequently given to the weapon."
Curious too. I can’t even imagine driving a 16ton nail through hundreds of feet of hard rock and reinforced concrete.
Not physically possible. You can get through hundreds of feet of loosely compacted soil and gravel but high performance concrete? 8-15m max.
If they built the facility out of 30,000psi concrete, they'd be lucky to pen 4 meters with a direct hit, nevermind the 80m of limestone above it.
There are 3 lead characters in this tragedy of a play. And what they have in common is that all 3 try to cling to power because the alternative is prison (at best).
I know 30,000 lbs is a lot, but I'm still surprised that terminal velocity is fast enough for it to penetrate concrete as deeply as they say it can.
I'm a little surprised too. Even at the speed of sound in granite (6km/s) where you can start to consider crater-forming dynamics you only get an impact depth of 200ft. Treating it as a Newtonian impactor you get a depth of 60ft. I'd wager the cone shape pushing material to the side is hugely important to the outcome.
It's a shame we got rid of the deal that brought their domestic uranium production to a halt [0]. Trump fucked this all up so badly.
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
Ah but he’ll get a better deal, just you wait. Did you know he wrote a whole book on deals?
Yes.
And yet every neighboring country in the region supported our withdrawal.
Yeah, Iran contains a lot of people who want to stir shit up with their neighbours.
But Iran also contains reformers, and the deal was a bet that if you do good diplomacy you can reduce the power and influence of the shit-stirrers.
The original deal didn't address the core issues. It was just a delay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
The relief of sanctions enabled Iran to fund their other activities in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. It also enable the regime to invest in other weapons programs including weapons Iran has been supplying to Russia and those it and its proxies are launching against Israel.
I'm not sure Trump withdrawal from that deal was the best idea but the deal wasn't great either.
I mean, this strike doesn't really address the core issue either. The core issue being Iran being a fundamentalist regime.
The deal did address – quite precisely and successfully – the core issue. It didn't address some other side issues.
"The thing that prevented them from achieving a nuclear weapon didn't also prevent them from funding x y z other far less problematic things that can be far more easily handled through conventional diplomacy and military action"
Seriously?
The factual's don't matter in Politics, not when mad men are at the helm. Funny how Trump closed his address with thanking god, and the Iranians start theirs in the name of god. So different, yet the same.
The US posturing against Iran dates back to the Cold War era when Iran was tagged as “northern tier” state, and any nationalist moves inside looked like a Soviet opening, and a threat to the Anglo stronghold of Iran's Oil.
strangely, all parties involved believe in SAME God.
here is more about that bomb : https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-b#394257unker-buster-a...
All it did was prove to Iran they need nuclear weapons. There’s one thing every country knows and it’s that the only way you don’t become the target of Russia, the US, or Israel is to maintain a nuclear arsenal.
We couldn’t stop North Korea with threats of violence but we did manage to stop Iran for almost 50 years through diplomacy. That’s all pissed down the drain now.
Oh we stopped them? They’ve steadily advanced towards being a nuclear state regardless of all the diplomacy deployed. How many countries don’t have nukes that aren’t being invaded. Canada, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica etc. they don’t have nukes and I don’t think they’re about to be invaded because they’ve joined the international community and are not sponsoring hezbollah or houthis etc.
> I think Netanyahu belongs in prison
We're working on it, 10-20 more years of legal proceedings and it's done.
> unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility
"Unauthorized" because Trump and Netanyahu deliberately killed the international program that was keeping the system in check.
Also, Netanyahu belongs not in prison but on the electric chair.
Thinking that doing something like that will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is naive. It's not a technical challenge for them, it's a political decision, only a political decision. If they really wanted to, they would already have it. Enriched material was transported from these centers some time ago, as news outlets have already reported.
As for the facts, and not just the narrative: 60% enrichment is not considered weapons-grade enrichment, and it is not illegal under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Therefore, today's attack is an illegal act of aggression against another country, violating international law. Those are the facts.
Just curious where the enrichment fact you are claiming comes from. I see the NPT outlined 3% max while watchdogs detected over 80%. I didn’t think there were debates about them breaking the NPT
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
> Enriched material was transported from these centers some time ago, as news outlets have already reported.
That's what Iran state media says. Has anyone else said this?
I would like to see the confirmation as well. At the same time, it does sound plausible. Why keep the highly enriched uranium at the centrifuge site after you're done doing all the centrifuging.
The challenge for Israel is there's always a small chance your intelligence has a blind spot or is wrong. You can't prove a negative.
This is why I think the most likely scenario is that Israel will commit to regime change. Israel can't trust the current regime to not race to a nuclear weapon at this stage, and Israel can never be over 99% certain that a clandestine effort isn't being done outside of the current understanding of intelligence. "Assume the worst" seems to be a doctrine they adhere to.
I am not sure how its only a political decision when they don't have control of their own airspace. How exactly do they rebuild when as soon as they start they get bombed. I think its more accurate to say it WAS a political decision. They had the capability but did not pursue it due to the fallout of doing so. The question its do they still retain the capability and will they ever be allowed to reclaim that capability if they lost it.
60% can be weaponized and it’s not a huge leap to go to 90%
> If they really wanted to, they would already have it. Enriched material was transported from these centers some time ago.
…
> 60% enrichment is not considered weapons-grade enrichment.
So which is it?
1. They already have enriched uranium and can just make a bomb now
2. They don’t have weapons-grade enriched uranium (and now probably cannot enrich it)
3. (Speculation) They know how to enrich further, but deliberately didn't.
That's just (2).
Whether they had the theoretical ability to complete enrichment or not last week, does not matter, because they likely do not have it now.
There isn't anything special about Iran. It's anyone's political decision to use a nuke. So you make diplomatic decisions, war inclusive, to increase chances that you will not be nuked.
> dug into the side of a mountain hours outside of population centers
Did you have to add that qualifier because otherwise there's at least one other nuclear power in Middle East that regularly bombs civilians.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Iran doesnt have and hasnt pursued a nuclear weapons program: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/trump-iran-i...
Sorry, but this is a hopelessly naive take. They were undoubtedly content to abide by the terms of the JCPOA, but they have also done significantly more than would be required for a purely civilian nuclear program, notwithstanding their prolific ballistic missile program.
All obviously true, but what I don’t understand is how anyone could possibly believe that this strike could push Iran toward signing and abiding by the terms of an agreement more stringent than JCPOA. I’d be very happy to be wrong but it’s hard for me to see how this isn’t a big step backward.
I don't think anyone believes that, it's just a matter of giving up on a diplomatic solution and resorting to the use of force. It might only be a short-term solution, but it is what it is.
There is saying might is right. Since he is the new American president, that is might. So he is righteous. I dont think prisons fit a "righteous" person.
moral of the story: if you don’t make the nuke to wipe everyone out fast enough, you will eventually get bombed and no amount of diplomacy will save you from game theory.
I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government.
The Iranian government has frequently reference a goal of destroying Israel, a sovereign nation, and referred to the US in very disparaging (and biblical) terms. That doesn't justify direct attack, but it also isn't diplomatic.
Disparaging? They literally chant death to America. Is that not also calling for its destruction?
Who is “they”? A representative subset of the overall population, or a group of extremists, possibly performing for the cameras?
Iran was once an open and liberal country; the current government is generally very unpopular.
Just as Netanyahu‘s actions do not represent all Israels, so the Iranian government does not represent all Iranians.
I'm sure the decades of CIA meddling in the Middle East and endless wars had no effect on raising generations of US hatred. To hit someone, then call them dangerous when they say "I hate you" is real hero stuff
Iran has actually been quite willing to negotiate. It has not withdrawn from the talks, it was the US that did it the last time under Trump.
Are you aware that Iran approved of US invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War? It even allowed the use of it's air space.
Are you aware that Iran was the only country excluded from the Madrid peace talks of 1991 between Israel and Palestine? To counter this exclusion, Iran strengthened it's ties with Hamas and Hizbollah.
Iran is not some insane theocracy seeking of everyone's destruction. The regime is bad for the people, but self-interested just as any other, and benefits very little from full exclusion.
I do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government.
That's completely unfair to Iran. They had IAEA inspectors in their country and they were negotiating with the US (a nation who has put crippling sanctions on them).
Then a country that doesn't have IAEA inspectors bombed them, killing the people that very people who were negotiating with the US. Their message since than has been reasonable; "we won't negotiate while Israel is attacking us".
How much more diplomatic would you like them to be? They can't just roll over and take it, or they'll be finished.
> How much more diplomatic would you like them to be?
I don't know maybe just start by not swearing that your neighbor must be destroyed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
india/pakistan whitter on about it all the time. As did the french/english.
But, if you were near to a country that was busily invading neighbours, run by religious zealots, a huge military had a history of using allies to attack you and is obviously illegally playing with nuclear bombs what would you do?
The problem is, that describes both iran and israel.
That is a massive oversimplification of the diplomatic failures on many sides here.
You could just as easily say that doing regime change in a country will make them hate you, or that backing out of deals will make things worse, or that Israel can shape US policy at their own whims.
Yes, Iran had a stupid nuclear strategy. But that is only a minor part of this story.
I wonder if the bunker buster was used. It has a somewhat indirect lineage to the ww2 grand slam designed by Barnes Wallis.
Iran has massive earthquake risks. For reasons unassociated with nuclear bunkers they do a lot of research into (fibre, and other) strengthened cement construction. With obvious applications to their nuclear industry of course.
Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
> Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
Iran does not have the same degree of sexist restrictions as eg Saudi Arabia. It's a very different climate from places where salafism is more common. Female education in particular is highly supported eg: https://x.com/khamenei_ir/status/1869369086142296490
By a wide margin, the majority of Iranian university students are women. The ratio is over 60/40
> Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
I thought it was generally known that richer societies with me equal treatment - where people are generally more able to choose jobs they like rather than needing to take whatever's a ticket to a decent life - are the places with higher disparities in well-paying occupations?
> I wonder if the bunker buster was used
Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.
As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion. An earthquake bomb would disrupt both. You wouldn't be starting the feed cycle up rapidly, but since we're told Iran has stockpiles, this goes to sustainable delivery of materials more than specific short term risk.
As a strategy, I see this as flawed. A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials.
(This does not mean to imply I support either bombing or production of weapons grade materiel. It's a comment to outcome, not wisdom)
> A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials.
A dirty bomb is basically Hollywood nonsense, and wouldn't use uranium to begin with because it isn't very radioactive.
The premise is that you put radioactive materials into a conventional explosive to spread it around. But spreading a kilogram of something over a small area is boring because you can fully vaporize a small area using conventional explosives, spreading a kilogram of something over a large area is useless because you'd be diluting it so much it wouldn't matter, and spreading several tons of something over a large area is back to "you could do more damage by just using several tons of far cheaper conventional explosives".
Also anything that is dangerous enough to actually be scary in dirty bomb form, like Cobalt-60, would be impossible to handle without providing a lethal dose of radiation to anyone working with he material within minutes if not seconds (presumably a reasonablely large & dangerous amount of this material is involved). At least, not without incredibly expensive equipment. And by the time you factor in those prerequisites it's just not worth it.
The toxicity of the Uranium would be a bigger problem than the radioactivity
And has the same issue with dilution, and is even more boring because there are much cheaper things with more chemical toxicity than uranium too, like lead.
It isn’t any more toxic than lead, which this bomb probably was filled with.
Uranium, especially highly enriched uranium, is not very radioactive. That's one of the reasons its useful for weapons. UF6 is chemically really nasty, but it's heavy and also you have criticality issues that limit how much you can pack into a confined space before it explosively disassembles. That is to say, it would make an extremely poor dirty bomb that would do very little. It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that.
Far more concerning is the possibility that they give it away to someone else. Enrichment is nonlinear, going from 60% to the 90% needed for weapons is a fairly trivial amount of work.
> It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that.
I wouldn't discount it, though. Remember, feelings matter more than facts. Magnitudes more people die on the road than in the air, but we know how well that translates to fear and action.
I mean heck, how about 9/11 compared to COVID? Wearing a mask for a while: heinous assault on freedom, Apple pie, and the American way. Meanwhile, the post-9/11 security and surveillance apparatus: totally justified to keep America safe
Yeah, my point is there are much better options that would also induce fear and actually be effective. Fentanyl strapped to an explosive, or any of a ton of other chemical agents. Iran would do far more damage -- and create a deep source of fear that would likely have lingering consequences for decades -- by giving their HEU away rather than making an ineffective dirty bomb. There is no way anybody who knows what they had would use it that way. Even the most fanatical member of the Iranian regime understands what to do with the material better than that.
While true, the problem is it wouldn't meaningfully change the security situation for Iran.
Deliverable nuclear weapons make you invasion proof - nobody wants to risk it. A "dirty bomb" isn't something that can come flying in on an ICBM and eliminate large chunks of your nation - the threat of it is more likely to enhance aggression rather then deter it.
You start with natural uranium, which has .72% U-235. Getting from that to 20% is _hard_. You need large cascades of centrifuges to do this because it's only .72%, so each stage gets you just a wee bit more enriched. You do this over and over and over again until you get to higher enrichment. Once you have HEU enriching further is very easy for the same reason that it was hard when it was unenriched: now the stuff you don't want (U-238) is much less. To get from 80% HEU to 96% is trivial using the same centrifuge cascades, and how long it takes really depends on a) how much 80% HEU you have, and b) how much 96% HEU you want. If you have 100lbs of 80% HEU then to get to 10lbs of 96% HEU might really only take weeks if not less when it might have taken years to get from .72% to 80%.
> earthquake bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_bomb for others who haven't heard the term
Remember that Israel had more nuclear bombs than China and never signed any international as tmy treaty.
China is estimated to have approximately 600 nuclear warheads. China is rapidly expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal and is projected to reach at least 1,000 operational warheads by 2030.
Israel is widely believed to possess around 90 nuclear warheads.
Israel never acknowledged that. It is claimed that the US president at the time demanded that Israel kept this a secret to avoid embarrassment to the US.
Iran repeatedly calls for death to Israel and the USA. Israel never did that.
Iran is prone to earthquakes, would an earthquake bomb do more damage than that?
Even if it just damages the centrifuges, as far as I see it, it would just delay their enrichment process, severely less than total destruction of their underground base.
Yes that's basically my point. They recalibrate, tighten the pipes, and flush the contamination back out of the chain. 6 to 8 weeks/days/whatever later it's back in cycle.
If they can even get back in
> As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion.
Centrifuges. They got them via the A. Q. Khan network. We learned about if circa 2005 from Qaddaffi who gave up his to secure peace and his safety (and it didn't turn out well for him because Obama did not respect the gentleman's deal Qaddaffi had with Bush).
the bunker buster, if used, will almost certainly be nuclear. estimated tonnage: 300 kt
MOP is a conventional weapon, 30,000 lbs. Only the B-2 is rated to carry it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
Genuinely surprised that Israel couldn't push one out of their c-130s
The kinetics matter here. The B2 flies much higher than the C-130 which would aid the GBU-57 MOP (almost certainly used here) in it's ability to penetrate to maximum depth. 80% of the 15 ton weight of that bomb is just heavy metal to give it maximum energy as it borrows into the ground.
Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs making it a better platform than a C-130, and that isn't even taking the stealth of the platform into account
> Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs
Wow. That is amazing. 60,000 lbs. combined.
Don't think the C-130s can fly high enough with a single 30,000lb bomb. The graphic at bbc site show it would be dropped from about 12km (~40,000 ft) in order to gain the speed needed to drive it some 60m underground.
From 40,000 feet, the bomb would take ~ 50 seconds to fall and would impact at mach 1.5.
Various sources are saying 6 to 12 of these bombs were used. So, you'd need a lot of C-130s and those planes are too slow to NOT get shot down.
Do they even have access to this variant? I thought they had access to the older ones that weren't as advanced.
The MOP isn't particularly 'advanced', it's basically refined version of the Korean-vintage Tarzon guided earthquake bombs. It's just too heavy for most military aircraft to carry.
The IDF has the F-15I which has a centerline hard point rated for 5,000lb load. That's immense for a fighter but a magnitude too low for the MOP.
There are a variety of smaller US penetrating bombs that the F-15 can handle, but they don't have the mass and structure to penetrate as deeply.
They do not.
Israel doesn't have access to the MOP.
Israel hasn’t degraded Iranian air defenses that much. The stuff that can’t threaten a F-35 can still trouble a C-130.
Why do you say this? Israel only lost 1 drone.
According to Israel they fly freely in West/central Iran and use all the plains including F15/16. Initially they relied on the F-35's stealth but as of last week they claim air superiority.
video shows how confused and disoriented are whatever SAM that survived
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/iran...
The GBU-57 was most likely used, which is non nuclear
This is nonsense.
those of you hating on this comment, the conventional weapons could not possibly work, the facility is too deep
Even after everyone corrected you with information on the specific ordinance used, you're doubling down?
they might be right, but that's why the attack failed and why there's a risk what I said might still come true
i was listening to Al Jazeera, one of the DC flaks they interviewed gave an upper estimate of the facility depth as 1000 ft. The conventional device can go to something like 60m or 200 ft. 6 devices were dropped, they would have to have everything, including geology with repeated strikes on the same point, be perfect to get past 1000 feet, and then they probably would not destroy the whole facility. As far as I know, they don't even have a good map of the layout.
hence, the only real option is a nuclear weapon. this is absolutely being considered inside the pentagon. our government is psychotic. a 1 kt nuclear weapon (laughably small, hiroshima was 15 kt) is 73x more powerful than a 30,000 lb bomb. they would be like, well, it's an underground explosion! The world will forgive us. it's so crafty and smart to use a nuke to stop a nuke (that doesn't exist).
https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1935741526191100181
"The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is located."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-...
> almost certainly be nuclear
Source:
Bunker buster is not necessarily a solution for this. It was created for normal bunkers, WW2 style of construction. What they have in Iran are construction sites very deep in the mountains. I wouldn't be surprised if this type of bombs can't do more than superficial damage to the sites.
Right...the GBU-57 having been placed into service in 2011 was surely created to destroy 65-year old bunker designs.
GBU-57 reaches 200ft depth, Fordow is 300ft. The seismic wave of explosion at 200ft of several tons of TNT would reach 300ft with pretty damaging energy.
And, if it weren't enough, you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one.
To the commenters below:
- nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
- I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
- jugding by, for example, the precise drone strikes on the top military commanders, Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them (the public statement of 300ft may be a lie, yet the point is that US and Israel know the depth and thus weapons to use)
GBU-57 reaches 200ft of soil and gravel. Not 200ft of 5000psi limestone typical of the Qom formation in that area of Iran.
That limestone probably much better transfers the seismic wave of the explosion though.
The equipment in the facility isn't bolted into the limestone though. The facility is inside ultra high performance concrete and if the Iranian engineers had two braincells, dampening layers. They were building it for this moment after all.
I imagine Iran will just pick a 1000-meter mountain to dig under then?
> you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one
This is tremendously difficult. There is nothing unclassified to suggest we can do this. (There is also no evidence it didn’t occur. Just clarifying the borders of the fog of war here.)
The JDAM precision is 5m.
More than 30 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing
"At 04:30 on the morning of 13 February, two F-117 stealth bombers each dropped a 910 kilograms (2,000 lb) GBU-27 laser-guided bomb on the shelter. The first bomb cut through 3 metres (10 ft) of reinforced concrete before a time-delayed fuse exploded. Minutes later, the second bomb followed the path cut by the first bomb."
Huh. Thank you. I'm still cautiously sceptical this scaled to the 57, but less so than before.
Supposedly we dropped six, but I'm interested in any information that comes out about the final damage to see if this was sufficient. Ideally this would be the beginning and end of our direct engagements in this conflict.
EDIT: I kind of wish you had broken your "commenters below" piece into separate replies, but I assume this one was directed at me:
> - I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063
I didn't even consider a no-fly zone, and perhaps. I mean at this point, the current Iranian regime is in the most precarious situation it has ever been in whether they go for the kill against Ali Khamenei or just keep picking out the people below him and the IRGC's ability to fight. But if we do this, then we, and I guess I mean we now that we've actually bombed them, then we're committing to more than just taking out their nuclear capabilities, but we're committing to seeing a full regime change come to fruition.
To be blunt, given our most recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm still very much of the opinion that the least amount of American involvement, the better. If our bombs help curtail Iran's nuclear weapon R&D and we didn't lose a single B-2 in the process, then great, we've done some good for the world[1], but our track record on seeing regime changes through to the end has been less than fabulous.
[1] Still waiting to see how successful the mission was towards this goal by the way.
I wonder if we have that mission accomplished banner in storage somewhere
> Fordow is 300ft
You seem to believe they really have accurate information about these installations. I doubt it.
They had pinpoint accurate information about a lot of senior leaders, that seems a lot harder to know than a stationary facility's location and layout.
German contractors helped the Iranians lots. I would be good money that they have been debriefed and/or spied on.
Why a no-fly zone?
no fly or not no fly, but iranian foreign minister had to ask permission from idf in order to fly out to geneva
Yes, bunker buster was used. Per a different source:
> It included a strike on the heavily-fortified Fordo nuclear site, according to Trump, which is located roughly 300 feet under a mountain about 100 miles south of Tehran. It's a move that Israel has been lobbying the U.S. to carry out, given that only the U.S. has the kind of powerful "bunker buster" bomb capable of reaching the site. Known as the GBU-57 MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), the bomb can only be transported by one specific U.S. warplane, the B-2 stealth bomber, due to its immense 30,000 pound weight.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/21/nx-s1-5441127/iran-us-strike-...
I read the article in full. There is no confirmation of using GBU-57 in the strike. Re-read your quoted section. The English is a bit convoluted, but does do not confirm usage.
Tin foil hat engaged: For all we know special forces detonated plastic explosives deep on site after doors were blown off.
More seriously: Nothing has been confirmed except a Truth Social post.
It’s the only bomb types that make sense given how deep Fordow is buried
Thanks for trying to make this into a technical discussion.
I just realised that this bomb is not the same as the so called Mother of all bombs, which by the way has so far only been used once also by trump. That's the gbu 43. Why did they find it necessary to build an even bigger bomb? I wonder if they anticipated strikes on the me.
As to your other point iran seems to have a decent level of education. Building an entire home grown nuclear program under sanctions is impressive.
The MOP is meant for a different use than the MOAB, it isn't about size. The MOAB is meant for surface destruction, the MOP is a penetrating ordinance meant to go deep through rock before eventually exploding.
Different outcomes. Moab is fuel air explosion and causes massive pressure wave disruption, it's usable against tunnels but operates on a different principle. Bunker buster is an earth penetration weapon to make a camouflet happen and destroy structural integrity.
Today's word of the day for me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflet
> A camouflet, in military science, is an artificial cavern created by an explosion; if the resulting structure is open to the surface it is called a crater.[1]
The GBU-57 used here is an outgrowth of the demonstrated inadequacy of traditional bunker busters bombs used in the Middle East after 9/11. They needed something more specialized for deep penetration than the old bunker busters. This was kind of a stopgap weapon that works pretty well but the size limits the practicality.
US is developing a new generation of purpose-built deep penetration bombs that are a fraction of the size of the GBU-57.
What’s the core technology that enables them? It is crazy how deep the GBU-57 can get before detonating
Case hardening. Making something which if propelled fast enough (secondary issue) and with a G force resisting detonator (secondary issue) which has sufficient integrity and inertia to penetrate as deeply as possible before exploding. Materials science in making aerodynamic rigid, shock tolerant materials to fling at the ground.
I am sure the materials science aspects have come along since ww2, as has delivery technology, but I'd say how it goes fast, hits accurately and explodes is secondary to making a case survive impact and penetrate.
I would posit shaped charges could be amazing in this, if you could make big ones to send very high energy plasma out. I'm less sure depleted uranium would bring much to the table.
(Not in weapons engineering, happy to be corrected)
I'm not sure you would want a shaped charge unless you guarantee it was pointing in the right directionatthe right time. Modern bunker design usually includes deflection tactics.
According to public information, Eglin steel.
I was guessing either tungsten or depleted uranium, as for APDS, but the bomb's average density is only about 5 g/cc (14 tonnes in 3.1 m³). Length of 6.2 m times 5 tonnes per cubic meter gives a sectional density of 31 tonnes per square meter, which is about 15 meters of dirt. So Newton's impact depth approximation would predict a penetration depth one fourth of the reported 60-meter depth.
I don't know how to resolve the discrepancy. The plane wouldn't fly if the bomb weighed four times as much. Maybe most of the bomb's mass is in a small, dense shaft in the middle of the bomb, which detaches on impact?
> Length of 6.2 m times 5 tonnes per cubic meter gives a sectional density of 31 tonnes per square meter, which is about 15 meters of dirt. So Newton's impact depth approximation would predict a penetration depth one fourth of the reported 60-meter depth.
This seems to assume that the weapon would penetrate until it displaced an equal amount of dirt by mass, which seems like nonsense. Why would that be the case?
You have the key phrase to Google right there in the text you quoted
How much does refinements of shape, terminal velocity, target characteristics change the calculation?
I don't know.
Shape can change it to be arbitrarily bad; 14 tonnes of 5-micron-thick Eglin steel foil spread over a ten-block area wouldn't penetrate anything, just gently waft down, although it could give you some paper cuts. I suspect it can't make it much better, except in the sense of increasing sectional density by making the bomb longer and thinner, which we already know the results of.
Velocity doesn't enter into Newton's impact depth approximation at all. It does affect things in real life, but you can see from meteor craters that it, too, has its limits.
Target characteristics, no idea, but in a fast enough impact, everything acts like a gas. It's only at near-subsonic time scales that condensed-matter phenomena like elasticity come into play. Even at longer time scales the impact can melt things. This of course comes into conflict with the design objective of the bomb acting solid, so that it penetrates the soil instead of just mixing into it, and can still detonate when it comes to rest. I feel like buried plates of the same metal would have to be able to deflect it? And there are plenty of other high-strength alloys.
A system described in the 2003 United States Air Force report called Hypervelocity Rod Bundles[10] was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods that are satellite-controlled and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.[11][12][13]
The bomb would naturally contain large kinetic energy because it moves at orbital velocities, around 8 kilometres per second (26,000 ft/s; Mach 24) in orbit and 3 kilometres per second (9,800 ft/s; Mach 8.8) at impact. As the rod reenters Earth's atmosphere, it would lose most of its velocity, but the remaining energy would cause considerable damage. Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[13] These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.[12][14] As the name suggests, the 'bunker buster' is powerful enough to destroy a nuclear bunker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment?useskin=ve...
I did some quick calculations: The energy of the impact from the stored kinetic energy gained by falling fro 15,000m is about the same as half a kiloton of TNT going off. That's focused into a circle just 80cm in diameter.
Yet setting off half a tonne of TNT on the ground, or even just under it, won't penetrate 60 meters deep, or even 15; it will just blast open a shallow crater. A shaped charge will do only a little better.
It's not that crazy. It's simple physics. Drop a 15 ton metal lawn dart from 50,000 feet and it has a lot of energy.
No real secret sauce, the weapon weighs almost 30,000lbs and most of it is just hardened metal to make it heavy. The warhead is only ~5,300lbs of explosive
> an entire home grown nuclear program
It's not entirely home grown if they were part of the NPT is it? Signing the NPT (a pinky promise not to develop weapons) means other countries then help you develop nuclear energy, which of course has a lot of overlap to weapons tech...
It seems that they have help from the Russians. Putin last week mentioned that there are quite a few Russian nuclear scientists in Iran.
200+
[flagged]
I doubt anyone here works in defence materials sciences and like the rest of the world would be 49/51 regarding voting intention. I've never voted for a pro war party fwiw but if I'd been of an age, I would have called ww2 a just cause war.
This isn't a just cause and it's not even a war. It's state sanctioned terror. I don't know it has ism in it.
Australian legal opinion says it's unlikely a credible defence in international law exists for this attack. It may redefine the norms for (un)lawful acts by the state, other states, weak and powerful will undoubtedly reflect on this.
It's also being claimed a success. Words like "obliterated" used. Time tends to tell a story there. I think it's a little too soon to say how successful these strikes were, tactically or strategically.
> Australian legal opinion says it's unlikely a credible defence in international law exists for this attack.
The international community has known for a while that USA and Israel are both belligerent nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#U...
CNN reports 12 GBU-57s were dropped on Fordow.
Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is? What's special about a GBU-57 isn't its explosive force. It's that the bomb casing is made out of special high-density ultra-heavy steel; it's deliberately just a super heavy bomb with a delayed fuse. It is literally like them dropping cartoon anvils out of the sky.
From what I've read, the idea is that they keep dropping bombs into the same bomb-hole that previous sorties left, each round of bombs drilling deeper into the structure.
>Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is?
If it is silly and it works, then it is not silly. If I remember correctly you have good cryptography skills. Rectothermal/rubber hose cryptoanalysis is quite silly too, but breaks AES,RSA,ECC and post quantum crypto schemes in 30 seconds.
So many armchair quarterbacks in this thread. You haven’t defined how silly this is beyond your feelings. Are you a munition expert? If you were an AF general given this order, what tactic would you choose excluding a nuke?
I'm not an expert. I just think dropping giant anvils from the sky is Loony Toons tactics. Maybe it works great! I don't know! But it's worth knowing how these things work, and how they work is: they're just super super heavy.
You are reading the wordy "silly" incorrectly.
Yup. Twelve at main site two at Natanz
I've heard 6 at Fordow, and 30 or so Tomahawks across Natanz and Isfahan.
I heard the same as well, the reference was to an interview Trump gave on Fox.
My expectation is that it was 3 rounds of 2 MOPs, hedging bets and potentially cresting a larger hole than drilling a hole one bomb at a time.
So facts are thin on the ground currently. More will become clear in the coming days. I've heard different accounts all the way from 12 bunker busters were used on Fordo to none were used and the entrance was bombed after Iran was warne, kinda like a warning shot, to say "we can get you".
What Iran does next depends on the extent of the damage. It could be nothing. It could be a token response. It could be escalation.
But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.
When Israel tried to previously escalate the conflict with Iran and drag the US into war with Iran, Iran just didn't take the bait. And this is despite Israel assassinating government officials, bombing Iranian embassies and bombing Iran for absolutely no reason.
> But so far Iran has been the only rational actor in this region. Iran has been attacked with justification. Anytime someone says "preemptive strike" they mean "attack without justification". Their responses have been measured, rational, justified and proportionate.
Either I'm misunderstanding (or misreading) something, or at least one of these sentences accidentallied a negation.
When I was doing a postdoc in Germany I shared an office with a woman from Morocco so my office was a meeting point for many islamic woman including one from Iran who complained bitterly about how women were treated in her country but who did get the opportunity to get an advanced education.
[flagged]
How is this relevant to Trump bombing Iran?
It's the most-salient comment you can write without being [flagged] [dead] for "off-topic" conversation.
The parent post was about Iranian women jobs getting jobs in engineering. Whatever restrictions are on them, they don't seem to have trouble getting STEM education.
You said it in a way that sounded like no woman is oppressed if they can get high level education.
I took the contradiction as the point: that they are oppressed and yet, surprisingly, not with respect to educational opportunity
> including one from Iran who complained bitterly about how women were treated in her country but who did get the opportunity to get an advanced education
Consent isn't going to manufacture itself.
[flagged]
As someone who absolutely hates American bullying of a hegemony. This is one case where I believe people of Iran might come out beneficial of it. In the long term? I am not so sure.
But will that happen? I doubt it. A country like America likes authoritarian regimes that like to listen to America. So Iranian things in the best interest of America would be the same theocracy but docile to America at least in the near future (or worse a full fledged military dictatorship which they anyway installed once).
However I just hope/dream (and it's too much of a hope) for the sake of Iranian people - it ends up getting a democracy after all (maybe).
However there is one thing clear - there is no rule based foreign relations, business, diplomacy anymore in this post truth world of ours. It's plain simple - you look after your own hind lest you find someone is at the door wanting to take it; might be an ally just as well.
A side note: I can't thank four of my country's ex PMs [0] enough that they ensured we had nukes inspite of stringent sanctions from other nations which ironically, among them, almost all already had nukes :D
The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon.
[0] esp. Indira Ghandhi; also, probably the only head of sate that actually succeeded in "selling freedom" thing. Something America specialises in and uses as a premise to routinely reduce various parts of the world to rubble. A positive outcome of such endeavours - its defence industry getting push from it and of course it goes about trying to re-build it, giving push to other of its industries, half or quarter way and then finds other sundry places to subject to this routine.
But wasn't Iran already docile to America? Sure, it wasn't a crystal clear ally like Saudi or the Gulf states, but behind the anti-Zionist propaganda and "evil US" blabbering, there were decades of backchannel negotiations, regional pragmatism, and even moments of cooperation — especially when mutual interests aligned, like in post-Taliban Afghanistan or the fight against ISIS.
America and the broader west (and even much of the not-west) has been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. A nuclear armed Iran means much the middle east, which considers Iran a dire enemy, would feel compelled to immediately launch their own nuclear weapons programs.
They could if they wanted to acquire nuclear weapons though. The Saudis explicitly funded the Pakistani nuclear programme with the option of access to nukes if required.
No. Iran vehemently wanted nukes and the West (and its strong/rich local vassal states) vehemently didn't want Iran to have the nukes and Iran knew that and the West knew that Iran knew that. So no. (In fact SA has quite some money into Pakistani nukes; not sure what's the "access" agreements :P)
"A country like America likes authoritarian regimes that like to listen to America."
I dunno. America seems to like Norway, and they don't seem particularly authoritarian.
If the Norwegians or anyone for that matter got uppity...
you forgot that they're white, they don't factor in in this conversation
Trump will declare that his BIG BEAUTIFUL BOMBS won the war, nuclear facilities are no more. Israel cannot claim otherwise, because that would be against big brother. Iran will continue covertly making nuclear bomb, but that will take more years, and will continue peace talks for now. Trump will get Nobel peace prize for peaceful bombing and will be happy.
There's a whole escalation you are forgetting. Iran will retaliate, to which the US wilk respond. That yields a situation where neither side can back out, but neither is putting enough pressure in the other to force them to stop.
The way through seems limited to:
- ground invasion - nuclear annihilation - regime change (no guarantee of success)
If the regime change doesn't work, the options are horrible. And remember that the current Iran regime is the result of a US backed regime change, which allowed radical elements to mobilize hatred against the US.
As if Israel has been giving two flying fracks about what big brother would think. Besides Israel as a nation is too cunning to not be able to subdue someone as dumb and facetious as Trump with flattery alone.
Trump getting Nobel - yes, knowing who all the Swedes have given it to I won't be surprised at all.
> The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon.
Exactly my thoughts. We were absolutely blessed to have been developing our own nuclear capabilities at a time of intense international scrutiny. We were sanctioned to oblivion by the West for that until they realized (after Pakistan too developed their nukes, comfortably) that you can't simply ignore the elephant in the room. And we paid for it dearly too (with the assassinations of leaders in our nuclear programme).
At this point, it should be expected of any rational self-serving sovereign nation that they should develop nukes, especially if they have a record of historical non-aggression. South Korea, modern Japan, the EU (especially those in direct threat of Russia like Poland)... I don't expect Germany to grow a pair to not rely on the US, any time in the near future.
That's an all around bad move for the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war and probably having to carry the can for the next few years alone after getting into a mess not of our own making (well directly anyway).
This is going to hit gas prices, the markets and US security considerations all in order to help keep the current Israeli leadership out of Israeli prisons. Bad move.
And meanwhile the biggest threat to all our security, the climate crisis goes unaddressed.
not just unaddressed, it worsens significantly…
and people like Greta Thunberg are labelled self-serving narcisists who deserve getting more scorn than our political leaders who we accept as being "just so".
Well it is odd how Greta Thunberg pivoted to Palestine as her issue, given that climate change is, in her own words, the greatest risk to us all.
Feels a little bit narcissistic.
Incredible to see the bloodlust and warmongering here, cloaked in the language of technical interest.
As usual, the people who like war are the people who've never gone to war.
They cower behind their the comfort of their home, AC, keyboards, western paycheck and standards of living while trying to be (seen) as "rational" and "stoic".
They talk like there is good sides and bad sides in war, right sides and wrong sides.
Most of them are these small powerless men who dream of power fantasy.
I wonder, will today's children who is seeing this spectacles of war in 4K, all gore and guts and destruction, will grow up to be better leaders for all?
Or are they going to grow up just like their parents, small powerless trigger-happy men filled with mid-life crisis.
False dichotomy final boss
Huh? As GDP per capita goes up the likeliness your country will be in a war decreases dramatically. The people with western paychecks and western standards of living are the most peaceful the world has ever seen.
Your comment is the problem with NOT being “rational” and seeing the world through stories and emotions.
While it might make you feel morally superior to tell these false narratives as if you’re the only rich westerner who cares about the downtrodden (you don’t), you’re not understanding the comfort you enjoy was only made possible by previous generations of what you call “evil trigger happy men.”
You’re free to leave your country and wealth for a “morally superior” poor one, so put your money where your mouth is. I think you might be surprised the role overt violence plays in much of the developing world. Humans will human, we are all the same.
Resource scarcity is what causes war, not western people with keyboards. Wealth (abundance) is the only thing keeping us from killing each other.
counter argument GDP of Baltic states has gone up by hundreds percents since 1990. But we are now closer to war thanks to our "great" neighbor (russia) than ever before. By the way GDP going up has not saved Ukraine from war either. So i would not discard moral superiority so fast.
Russia is a poor country and definitely does not have a western standard of living for the majority of the population.
The US is at war all the time and has high GDP per capita.
I also know a guy who drives drunk all the time and has never been in an accident.
Does that invalidate the fact that drunk driving leads to more road deaths?
It just a counterexample that helps me point out that your simplistic and unsupported claim should not be taken at face value.
There is a lot to be said about the practice of overusing the GDP metric, but in this case reminding everyone that the burden of proof is on you should be enough.
I don’t appreciate your analogy, and it strikes me as false.
[dead]
You know Iran has been financing and spreading jihadism for decades right? We have been at war with Iran all this time, just trying to pretend we are not.
I find it incredibly sad. It tugs at a lot of old memories, as we've been talking about an Iran war since I was in college. Plenty of friends on both sides.
Bloodlust is one thing, but the dehumanization is just far worse. Maybe they go hand in hand - you can't want to see someone die unless you think of them as inhuman.
There's something about social media where it has been amplifying this dehumanization as well. So another layer of sadness where it feels like we could have, should have prevented this. Like an asteroid strike or a global pandemic, it feels like one of those things that should never happen until it does. I remember looking at 80000hours and thinking, nah... nuclear warfare will never happen, let's focus on AI.
But have you seen how cool the bunker buster bombs are? Like, how, incredible the engineering there is? It's going to be so awesome see those in action!
The same people would have drooled over the engineering of concentration camps. "Yeah it's sad there's some human casualties, but you have to appreciate the thought that went into it, and imagine doing that at that scale!"
[flagged]
[flagged]
>extremist Muslims or familiarity with what the Quran and hadiths
You can easily find stuff in the Bible and the Torah or Talmud that would shock you. And Israel even acts on the latter. But conveniently it's just the Muslim world, one beset with colonial extraction for centuries, that you care about. Not the people in the US who supported wars killings hundreds of thousands over the last few decades for religious reasons. Hmm.
> the Muslim world, one beset with colonial extraction for centuries
Surely you mean on the side of extractors? The Ottoman Empire practiced mass movement of people (sürgün), basically settler colonialism; earlier Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates are among the largest empires in history, and their population was mass converted to Islam.
> acting like we can just be nice and everyone will get along
"We"? As far as I know US is not part of that region. Also I remember current president was campaigning on not starting wars. And yet here we are.
Bro just one more war in the middle east bro it'll be good this time bro they're terrorists bro just believe me bro
It feels disingenuous to talk of extremist muslims when we have extremist jews bombing 4 countries in 2 years, and committing a genocide.
Iran has killed a lot less civilians than Israel and it isn't even close. I'm much less worried about them getting the bomb than I am about the fact Israel already has it.
[flagged]
Empathy for the Iranian people, whose budding democratic movement was crushed by the United States, for oil. The ones who are trying to fight for their own freedom from a repressive government, in the middle of this whole mess.
All these events risk spiraling the whole region into chaos, and creating another ISIS-like militancy, the brutality of which is going to be felt by the Iranians first and foremost.
[flagged]
Internally theocratic countries can also be diplomatically reasonable when it comes to the use of arms. The measured retaliation against the unprovoked bombing of its Iranian consulate in Syria leads me to see that it is quite reasonable in its actions.
Why do you see it as bloodlust though?
If (if) this destroyed a nuclear weapons program, that is good for the world.
No one can predict the downstream consequences of today, but I fail to see an argument for why the world benefits from another nation getting the bomb.
I do see this as bloodlust as well.
I think the attacks aren't just about a nuclear weapons program. First, the program, according to US intelligence, does not exist. I'm inclined to believe them. [1] Second, unrelated infrastructure has been attacked, including energy infrastructure, hospitals, and state media.
All of that points not to the destruction of a nuclear weapons program, but of a country. The Israeli government claims to want regime change now... but that claim only came some time after the attacks started and there's no reason in that case to bomb hospitals. The Israeli government claimed the hospitals were "hiding" missle sites, but haven't presented any evidence of that, and have used that excuse many times before now, and were clearly lying.
Ah, plus the countries involved are engaged in a separate act of bloodlust at the moment. Which doesn't directly mean that the attacks against Iran are the same, but it certainly colors the picture.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-trump-intelligence-iran-n...
It's naive to think that is the question to think about here. Did you believe in Saddam's WMDs as well?
With less snark, this will only end peacefully as soon as possible with some diplomacy, or in a massive humanitarian disaster.
The only nation in the middle east with a nuclear weapons program is Israel. Why not destroy that one? It's objectively more of a threat to the region than Iran's.
> only nation in the middle east with a nuclear weapons program is Israel. Why not destroy that one?
Put simply: they have it.
One of the unfair truths of nuclear geopolitics is the power asymmetry between nuclear and non-nuclear states. (And the collective interest of the former in nuclear NIMBYism.)
> No increase in radiation levels have been detected, the UN's nuclear watchdog says
If true they failed to destroy the material (just like last time when the US brought chaos over the world by creating a war out of "they have bombs" lies)
If not true, did they actually try to make the world a more poisonous place?
> If true they failed to destroy the material
Not true. Caverns can collapse without leaking enough into atmosphere to trigger detection. The simple answer is we don’t really know; we may not be able to know.
So most of us had luck then I guess. For now
Bombing another country is literally a declaration of war. With explosions.
Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
Countries stopped doing declarations of war decades ago, cause you know, war is not something _we_ do, it's something bad people do.
_We_ do special operations, interventions, liberations, preventive strikes, weapon destructions.
And then you make movies on how you were the good guys, and that's how we all will remember it.
I'm all for a collective change there, so every foreign movie just ends in the same deus ex machina moment: every protagonist gets bombed out of existence. Might get repetitive after a while, but I guess that's the idea.
Also the enemy is always a guerrilla, terrorist, or a rebel and works for a regime, dictator, or king.
Any reasonable understanding of the term "war" obviously includes bombing a country's strategic military sites.
Today Congressmen's main job is soliciting bribes. I expect they want their name on as few pieces of paper connecting them to a conflict as possible. They are not in charge of the government.
Obama bombed a lot of countries with no act of congress: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, etc. I don’t know the legality but plenty of precedent besides him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
Only a minor difference, but from what I know, those strikes were not against government targets?
> Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria ...
Interesting. Bombing Muslim-majority countries seems to be accepted exception?
By the body of American legislative tradition, no this is not an act of war. In fact, we haven't declared one since WWII.
If Mexico bombed area 51 with bunker busters and stealth planes, it would be interpreted as a declaration of war.
By anyone. The world over.
If you're seriously saying this isn't war, bombing Iran, you're just engaging in willfull self deception at this point.
Bombing government military infrastructure (not terrorist cells or similar) is as clear as it gets.
If this isn’t an act of war then nothing is. And that’s a terrifying thought because that means a single person can start a war without congressional approval. Even impeachment doesn’t help prevent war since it’s after the fact.
What happens if a president orders strikes on a friendly country? It could be due to dementia, narcissistic personality disorder, personal vendettas (hypothetically, in real life I trust the US wouldnt elect that kind of person).
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-2...
Use of military force requires congressional approval.
Well, in principle. In practice, the US executive does not observe this restriction, or at most - makes a flimsy connection the 2001 AUMF following the twin towers attack. The courts do not enjoin it from using military force pretty much arbitraly; and congress does not impeach nor even adopt declarative denunciations of this behavior.
George Washington was the first president to take military action without congressional approval, so on the sense of precedent providing legality, it's quite an old concept.
[flagged]
WWII was the last time American declared war.
We were already at a declared war at that time.
The point being that under your definition, a thermo nucleair device also isnt a declaration of war.
Hence highlighting the completely schizofrenic bind this position entails.
Because no one would consider a nuke anything other than a war, and the same applies to these planes dropping these bombs.
No. The president is the commander in chief. I can't remember the president or the situation but a long time ago a president attacked and said "I'm sending the troops" then senate/congress had to approve it or troops would be stranded.
You are thinking about Truman sending the troops to help South Korea. However, he had UN backing.
The War Powers Act of 1973 was approved literally to avoid it happening in the future.
The US, as rational thinking US citizens may have thought it to be, no longer exists.
In fact, it may never have actually existed.
Intelligent, rational, empathetic people need to realize that when they are doing theory of mind for others (and especially groups) they are projecting their own qualities where they do not exist.
That ship sailed decades ago, my friend.
I don't think it's going to end here. US wants to control Iran , to starve China of its oil. US+Israel already have set up rich middle east countries as bulwarks. The whole middle east is setting up the stage for future proxy wars between US & china/russia
But none of that is necessary. Why is the US suddenly so hostile towards China?
I think because China has very high growth momentum that surpasses american living standards soon, and not long before it will surpass american security standards too. China purchasing power is probably more comfortable than most west countries, with extensive housing and high speed rail and electric cars etc. When a country becomes rich, inevitably other countries ask for their help. That's why china's growth must be curbed, fast.
This is the biggest leopards ate my face moment. After decades of outsourcing to china and pandering to the chinese market for a quick buck, we are now surprised that they have become rich and decide their growth must be curbed. Honestly we in the west deserve everything that is coming to us
Have you seen who they elected as president?
The military industrial complex always wins in the US, even if the whole reason why you get elected is because you were against it. A majestic mockery of democracy.
This is actual terrorism but expected from the zionist capital.
OK what was done was done. What should we expect the political fallout in Iran?
It's really hard to say, but probably not good (there was an Atlantic article about this last week). Part of the dynamic here is the idea that the SL can't back down without losing so much domestic credibility that he puts the regime at risk; being in a shooting war with the West probably reinforces the regime's position. The flip side of this is that I don't think there were many signs that the opposition was in position to challenge the SL any time soon.
They lack the capability to do much aside from disrupt shipping with SRBMs. They've taken down only one drone, which is one less than the Houthis. Their ballistic capability is heavily degraded. Their military leadership is gone. Their airforce is gone. Their air defense is gone. They're a paper tiger and I don't understand why people still think there's the prospect of some kind of grand retaliation. They're not holding back, they just can't do anything.
A tactital victory does not translate to a strategic victory. I'd like to remind you the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco by George W, that was followed by more than 10 years of war and hundreds of thousands dead.
As if conventional responses are the only way to retaliate. We are talking about Iran here. They're all about asymmetric warfare.
Their intelligence heads are also all gone. What kind of response do you envisage?
Well. Some guys with a tiny fraction of the funding Iran has managed to fly a few airliners into some buildings a few years back.
So, I imagine there are perhaps unconventional options available to a country which is fully willing to fund terrorist groups for decades against a country with a very large amount of largely unprotected infrastructure.
But who knows? It just seems a bit premature to argue Iran's defeat. Feels a bit... mission accomplished.
They were already doing that in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Iraq and Bahrain. They weren't holding back before, and they won't hold back after. But their ability to do that is now severely degraded. The officials overseeing these programs are now gone. The weapons they were sending to these groups are now reduced.
Even more reason for them to go. It’s not good enough to continue taking it from Iran.
Ahh, trying to bomb your way to regime change in the Middle East. This feels so familiar. What could possibly go wrong?
If only those who advocated for war were forced to fight in them.
I fought in Iraq.
Will you be volunteering to fight in Iran next? And any wars that fall out of it from a country with twice the population of Iraq being destabilized?
I am already volunteering
But I dont think we are invading
Obama attacked Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. We aren’t there now are we?
December 1, 2012 - 300th drone strike on Pakistan.
Obama executed 563 drone strikes on Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan alone while in office.
> Obama attacked Pakistan
I’m scratching my head on this because Pakistan was and is still a US ally, but I guess you mean the Bin Laden operation?
No, the 300 drone strikes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
From your link: "However, despite the public opposition of Pakistani officials, multiple former Prime Ministers gave covert permission to the United States to carry out these attacks."
Makes sense, they were in the tribal areas where I assume the government was losing control of their monsters.
Impressive appetite for war.
Thanks!
Are you ready for another 9/11?
It's going to be a very bad time for American interests and people outside of the United States in the next few years.
Agree that they can't retaliate through their military, but if they did it would likely be through terror attacks on civilians.
What planet have you been living on the past 25 years? Iran has a population of almost 100 million as well as a sizeable diaspora across the world. If even a small percentage of the population engages in terrorism, that translates into thousands of potential actors. And unlike a state-to-state war, this is the kind of distributed, unpredictable threat that’s much harder to deter or contain.
afaik Iran is a very very different case demographically from Iraq and Afghanistan- in terms of being bigger, more modern and secular. It seems like those are dynamics that make it harder to go to war/stay in war.
Quite the contrary, the religious populace is more likely to fall in line and decide the government knows best; it’s the secular populace that is demanding retaliation and critical of the government for not pursuing nuclearization already.
This doesn't sound right to me. Sources?
One data point I heard recently was 80% of Iranians oppose the current regime. That said I've also heard there is wide support for Iran to have a nuclear program. Presumably as a matter of national pride. I would still imagine the secular population to be less inclined to go to war with Israel in general.
The only Iranians I've personally talked to are ones that live in the west. They generally want to have peace with Israel and want to see the regime removed. Again very anecdotally they are still not happy about Israel bombing Iran but if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority for a hypothetical secular or democratic regime.
The fact that someone dislikes their government's current ruling regime doesn't mean they want the US to invade and install a puppet government instead. It's a false dichotomy.
> if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority
Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran. When Israel bombed an Iranian consulate, Iran referred it to the security council and waited, but the security council took no action. When Israel carries out an assassination within Iran, Iran did the same thing. Only after the UN refused to do anything to hold Israel to account did Iran retaliate. Then recently Israel launched a massive series of strikes against Iran, assassinating top members of its military and blowing up apartment buildings. It seems clear that the Iranian government didn't want to go to war with Israel, but at a certain point they ran out of options.
First letter: https://digitallibrary.un.org/nanna/record/4043282/files/A_7...
Second letter: https://digitallibrary.un.org/nanna/record/4055716/files/S_2...
Iran has been attacking Israelthrough its proxies. Israel struck the Iranian consulate in a country they're at war with meeting proxies they're at war with. This is indeed an escalation. As a response Iran launched a huge number of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, which is a major eacalation and direct attack.
It is interesting that you made no mention of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, not Houthi in Yemen. All are well-known proxies for Iran to militarily harass Israel. They all receive direct funds and weapons from Iran.
lol. Watch Khameni’s morning broadcast where they have hundreds of delusional adherents shouting “Death to America, Death to Israel” 50 times in a row. I’m sure you’ll come out feeling the same way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqu0L0PGOIw
Those are words. None of this refutes the clear pattern of escalations I described coming from Israel.
It’s called defense
If you're in Iran it makes sense that you would want that if you feel that Israel is a threat. (But it doesn't make it a good idea).
I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?
In Afghanistan they had basically just been fighting a war, where the last war in Iran was 30 years ago?
> I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
Excerpts:
> 95,000 Iranian child soldiers were casualties during the Iran–Iraq War, mostly between the ages of 16 and 17, with a few younger
> The conflict has been compared to World War I: 171 in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as sulfur mustard by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Kurds. The world powers United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided military, intelligence, economic, and political support for Iraq. On average, Iraq imported about $7 billion in weapons during every year of the war, accounting for fully 12% of global arms sales in the period.
That was 40 years ago though. So no one fighting on the ground in that war would be fighting on the ground in a war that starts today.
No, but they're the ones making the decisions about fighting such a war. The child soldiers in the 1980s are the politicians, the diplomats, and the generals in the 2020s.
They say that for WWI that it was one of the aspects that kept it "more civilized" (whatever that means in the context of war).
“…and we turned out just fine!”
Ah I see what you mean. Yes they don’t have the birth rate (or the suicidal fanaticism) to sustain a decades long attritional war against an occupation like Afghanistan or Yemen can.
But given the size of the existing Iranian population and geography, and the lack of any significantly sized pre-existing anti-government military faction, I’m not sure the US military is large enough to even occupy Iran in the first place, absent a draft.
It would be reaaalllly stupid for the USA to invade Iran.
Hopefully Iran is the one that blinks for the reasons above.
Why would they blink when they know they are safe from a boots on the ground invasion for the forseeable future?
I think they probably like having an GDP 25x larger than North Korea's. Gets a lot harder to export your products around the world when you're squared off against the US.
They still trade oil with China, that is as much as the rest of the world they need. Of course, getting trade overland is a bit more difficult than by boat which is mostly cut off during a war.
How does that follow?
We don’t need to occupy Iran to absolutely decimate their economic output.
What else are you going to do? Iran has been sanctioned by the US for decades.
Can you really sell "we'll be bombing civilians for years"?
> if you feel that Israel is a threat
Israel is very clearly, without any question or doubt, a serious threat to every one of its neighbors.
Lebanon and Syria have a clear path to peace, Israel does not. Jordan and Egypt are at peace. Gaza and the West bank are a fucked up situation but at least there is peace in the West bank and Gaza has a clear path to obtain peace as well, if only they weren't ruled by a terrorist organization.
There isn't peace in the West Bank - Israel is actively conducting military operations there.
Jordan seems pretty safe and happy to me.
Like the Pager attack thats just another long game it seems: https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/14tcxgq/zionist_ve...
EDIT, clearer map: https://www.islam21c.com/wp-content/uploads/The-alarming-det...
It has a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt. Also, they signed the Abraham Accords with UAE and Bahrain. As far I know, there is no risk of conflict with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, nor Oman. Who else am I missing?
Half joking: (ignoring Trump's recent "threats") Is the US a threat to Canada or Mexico?
Mexico is more of a threat. So many drugs flow North. It’s slowly killing generations of people for decades.
Egypt, Jordan, Cyprus? Really?
Not that secular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonyad
I don't know that much. But I have heard about how in terms of daily outlook a lot of Iranians aren't very religious. Esp. compared to other countries in the region.
On the other hand, the internal Cyber Police HQ got bombed today. If the institutions of internal suppression are sufficiently disrupted, maybe some form of resistance could be form. Who knows.
People keep wishcasting this idea, but just because many/most Iranian people don't like the regime does not mean they want to be bombed by Israel/the USA.
The one thing we’ve learned over and over again since WWII: strategic bombing does not actually achieve any objective except temporarily disrupting logistics. If anything it strengthens the resolve of the people being bombed, giving the target regime more ammunition to carry on.
Did the US ever invade Japanese home islands (Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu, Hokkaido) during the war? I am pretty sure they got some of Okinawa then dropped two nukes, then Japan surrendered. Do I have the order of events incorrect?
The order of events is correct, but leaves out the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which started just before the bombing of Nagasaki.
This is dumb. Strategic bombing did work in WWII, but it was never as effective as its advocates claimed at the time mostly because the bombs rarely hit anything important. They had to drop far more munitions than originally envisioned to actually do critical damage to infrastructure.
You can't really compare WWII dumb bombs dropped from 25,000 feet to modern precision weapons that can hit precisely the weakest point on a target, times thousands of targets, within the span of a few hours or days.
I mean, we literally just watched a massively successful strategic bombing campaign over the last week! Desert Storm was massively successful, Iraqi Freedom (the actual invasion, pre-nationbuilding part) was massively successful, Israel's bombing of Hezbollah was massively successful. I don't know how anyone can argue that strategic bombing with precision munitions isn't successful.
Strategic bombing doesn't work. With the exception of maybe nukes, wars aren't won from the sky and strategic objectives are hard to achieve. The bombing prior to Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom was operational bombing, its purpose was to flatten resistance so the Army could roll in.
It appears that no matter what, no matter the technology involved (maybe with the exception of nukes), you always need grunts on the ground to hold it.
Cambodia says hi. No one did it better than Kissinger.
What part of "strategic precision bombing is not the same as carpet bombing" did you not grasp.
Yes, I agree that bombing random forest is not that useful.
With all respect please type out SL. I and many others don’t know what that means. For us it’s just two random letters thrown into a sentence
I assume it's Supreme Leader.
Supreme Leader
> What should we expect the political fallout in Iran?
The Iranian regimes favorite enemy just played their part to perfection, so we should expect that to compel the majority of Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of a brutal foreign invasion by not one but BOTH of their standard-bearer arch-nemeses.
Propaganda isn't everything. Iran having a nuclear bomb or not having one does count for more than whether we played our part in the bad guy in their narrative.
Well that pre-supposes that Iran was actively working on acquiring the bomb, that this course of action would stop them from getting the bomb, and that Iran having the bomb is actually a severe issue.
It’s impossible to know, all we do know is that they were orders of magnitude above the enrichment required for anything else except bombs.
you willing to take that risk?
If it wasn't suicide and I was the big boss, I would get some nuclear subs for my irrelevant South American nation ASAP. The "rules based order" is just wet toilet paper, who's to say that in 50 years we or our neighbors aren't next?
Gringos have always been crazy, but now y'all are getting extra spicy. Qaddafi, Ukraine and now Iran. Get nukes or bust is the name of the game now.
I'm not willing to take the risk of the world having tens of thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at eachother, but nobody asked my opinion on it.
What's another hundred?
PS. For every one of these adventures the US embarks on, it makes a strategy of nuclear proliferation more rational for those seeking it.
Are you suggesting that states may bomb each other when they don't want to "take the risk" of the other state possibly carrying out a dangerous attack on them in the future?
Plus, the nuclear issue is the excuse, not the reason. Palestine, Lebanon, Syria (+ regime change, sorta), Iraq (+ regime change), Afghanistan and now Iran. All attacked repeatedly and extensively over the past two decades.
so we should expect that to compel the majority of Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of a brutal foreign invasion by not one but BOTH of their standard-bearer arch-nemeses.
Organized how? There’s no internet. I hope Kinko’s is still open because they’re going to need a lot of leaflets to organize anything meaningful.
There's still television and radio.
I talked to my friend in Iran today online, shorly before the US bombing.
There isn't going to be political fallout. The Iranian regime has systemically wiped out all dissent over the last decade and a half. The remaining population is all either pro-Khamenei or too powerless to speak out. If anything an unprovoked war will give the country stronger reason to distrust the west and rally behind their leader.
I would worry about the fallout to the rest of us - Persian Gulf closed to shipping,maybe oil fields attacked, Oil at 300, Recession.
Iran already closed Red Sea.
Iran doesn’t quite have the capability to shutdown the shipping lanes in the PG. At least not in any way thats sustainable for a long period. A few days at best. A USN CG would put a stop to it in a hurry.
Let's not confuse capability with intention and consequences Straits of Hormuz is barely 40km wide and the Persian gulf is very shallow. Blocking it very feasible for nations bordering it who are willing to take the consequences. We don't know if they are and if so, unblocking it also has consequences in terms of requiring committing to prolonges military occupation. Ultimately, it appears the military industrial complex has won by replacing defense $$ in Afghanistan & Ukraine with yet another conflict.
Didn't you guys say the same thing about the Houthis? How do you still fall for this?
The Houthi threat was in and around the red sea. Iran’s naval reach is limited to with whatever it is they call a “Navy” in the Gulf of Oman. Almost on other side of the Arabian peninsula. Also the Houthis got pummeled once the U.S showed up. The U.S didn’t even continue a sustained campaign to wipe them out. Something it is more than capable of doing with just a single carrier group. That’s not even counting the Saudis getting involved.
Putin is probably having Russian caviar dinners with his oil company buddies right now. The rise in oil price is very bad news for Ukraine.
I chose a very good time to buy an electric car.
For now, nothing (everyone is kinda busy).
The first infliction point would be to see whether the regime intends to strike at US forces or do they intend to climb down. IMHO, that would be suicidal, but it doesn't mean they won't do it.
The second point is when they decide to end the war (they aren't doing well), and all the accusations start flying. Then there'll be political fallout.
Optimistically given how much Trump loves attention and declaring victories:
- Trump declares mission accomplished. Looks tough to his base, appeases Israel and calls it a day
- Ditto for Israel. Declares Iran's nuclear ambitions over and re-affirms the friendship between the US and Israel
- Iran lobs a few more missiles at Israel in retaliation to provide legitimacy at home and moves on
Everyone declares victory and gets an off ramp.
> Looks tough to his base
Actually his base is very disappointed by him becoming a total neocon. The influential ones are already speaking out , harshly
The point of Iran of enriching U beyond civilian use but not actually going full military grade was leverage. They're the only Shiia super power in the reigion. Nobody likes them.
So what can we expect:
* a ground invasion is pretty much out of the question considering the geography or Iran and its neighboring countries.
* Iran destroys every oil production and transport sites in the region (say good by to your election, Republican Party)
* they could fast produce the bomb and test it underground as a final warning
* OR they fail and resort to more desperate measure like a dirty bomb
* OR they fail and there is some sort of regime change
* Or there is some kind of extended war of attrition and it makes the refugee crisis from the past 20 years seem like it was a mere tourist wave.
In any case, this will accentuate the Qaddafi effect and more nations will follow the North Korea option of nuclear "unauthorized" nuclear dissuasion, which is also the case for Israel by the way. Talking of which, Israel will become politically radioactive in the world. Its support is already negative in nearly all countries and has dropped significantly in the US such as the evangelicals.
> Its support is already negative in nearly all countries and has dropped significantly in the US such as the evangelicals.
You mean they changed their mind and want to postpone the Armageddon now?
Evangelical here.
That statement is ignorant.
Do you speak for them all? If you do, please clarify.
I speak for myself, of course. And the people I know in my community.
Do you believe all evangelicals believe the same thing, and that we want the end of the world to come immediately? Where would you get such a strange idea? I can assure you it is an ignorant thought.
Thank you for speaking up man. I'm an evangelical atheist and get sick of people generalizing what all evangelicals think too.
Did I say they all believed in the same thing? I would not make such an absurd claim when Christianity itself is so fractured.
Take it up with the sources listed in these articles:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/us-evangelical...
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2025/02/07/the-politics-of-ap...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h...
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197956512
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
You are clearly ignorant of what views come under the heading of the evangelicals.
You said “you mean they changed their mind”. Who were you referring to?
I am obviously proof standing before you that not all evangelicals believe what you suggested.
So who were you referring to?
I think when a lot of people here say "evangelicals" they actually mean "dispensational premillennialists"–who are a significant chunk of "evangelicals", but not the whole
But to be fair to the dispensational premillennialists, even many of them would consider the idea that Israeli (or US) military action is somehow "accelerating the end-times" to be distasteful – whether or not they think that action is justified in itself.
Could be talking about, for one example, Christians United for Israel, a single evangelical organization with ten million American members.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_United_for_Israel
Are those ten million Evangelicals somehow not part of the mainstream? Like is it ten million outcasts that the majority of evangelicals do not claim? That seems unlikely due to the fact that the count of self-reported Christian Zionists is in the multiple tens of millions in the US.
https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/news/2021/10/26/video-the-christ...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-sizeable-us-demographic-many...
What I think is going on here is you either do want to speak for all evangelicals, and want to convince people that they all believe what you believe, or you are somehow part of a community in which you haven’t heard of or spoken to nearly any of its members. These are the only two ways to make sense of the “who are you talking about?” question; you are either being willfully untruthful about tens of millions of evangelicals, or you simply, somehow, haven’t heard about tens of millions of evangelicals.
They, as in those evangelicals who subscribe to apocalyptic accelerationism.
You're reacting emotionally to handfuloflight's witty remark and now you're caught in this strait-laced and dignified bit to mask you being offended by the remark and caught making a very poor argument.
Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for (i.e., the "apocalyptic accelerationism" handfuloflight refers to)?
Would it be fair for me to assume that handfuloflight's remark was solid but fell short in the generalizing way that jokes often lay, because of the possibility that there are Evangelicals who don't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for because it's a terrible look and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large?
Both of ya'll need to be more forthright with your positions instead of performing this constipated do-si-do along the HN guidelines. Give me a good flame war, get flagged, ring up dang and the new dude, or just downvote each other.
I came for the flame war, I stayed for the analysis.
A quick internet search says 80% of white male evangelicals voted for Trump in 2024. I assume they’re referring to that, since project 2025 is exactly what they accused the evangelicals of supporting.
Still 80 != 100, and not all evangelicals are white males. Alienating the reasonable evangelicals isn’t going to help fix stuff.
C'mon man, you know there are a lot of biblical literalists who are all in on that end times stuff even if you and your social circle don't subscribe to it.
What evangelical church doesn’t believe in the second coming or the significance of the holy land?
Like your pastor, at your evangelical church, preaches that these things are not literal?
Edit: As someone that grew up evangelical, and has had evangelical friends my entire life, it is very strange to see someone casually say that the rejection of biblical inerrancy is an evangelical thing. It stands in stark contrast to the theology that’s fundamental to the faith.
It is literally as odd as seeing someone get mad when another person says that sainthood or the Eucharist are fundamental tenets to Catholicism. I would certainly want them to clarify what exactly their priest was saying to make them feel otherwise.
It is a real religion with a real theology! “Evangelical” isn’t a vibe, it’s a distinct system of worship! Biblical prophecy is very fundamental and a strongly-held belief and value that is taught in every evangelical church I have ever heard of!
There are evangelical movements within American mainline Protestant denominations that broadly hold to amillenialism and do not concern themselves with contemporary speculation regarding eschatology. They receive less attention nationally because they are politically irrelevant.
Amillennialism does not necessarily mean a wholesale rejection of the notion of biblical prophecy. If anything it is largely a disagreement about what the fulfillment of biblical prophecy will look like.
That aside, of course there are always small movements in every faith, but that isn’t usually super meaningful or helpful when talking about the larger group. I’m sure you can find some Catholics that don’t believe in transubstantiation but nobody is out here painting the church as being Eucharist-neutral.
I would not characterize entities like the United Methodist Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as small movements. Both are evangelical churches in the historical sense and neither has a specific position on contemporary political entities as they relate to Biblical prophecies.
For me the last few days show how militarily-impotent Iran is. Even if they had the nuclear bomb they would not be able to use it against Israel-because right now Iran had no air-defenses and Israel is rumored to have about 100 nuclear warheads.
I do not think Iran has any military options. Because it is not liked the Iranian regime does not have any political options either. So I have no idea what will happen-which makes the current situation so interesting to watch.
<< For me the last few days show how militarily-impotent Iran is.
I am confused. So it is impotent or the greatest threat in the middle east?
Well, it certainly was the greatest threat. It's unlikely to remain so.
They are a threat as a terrorist, not as a military force.
Did dh say it was the greatest threat?
All this talk of Iran getting a nuke to hit Israel... doesn't the Iranian government know that it would instantly be destroyed the moment they used a nuclear weapon of any kind?
None of this makes sense.
> doesn't the Iranian government know that it would instantly be destroyed the moment they used a nuclear weapon of any kind?
YES. They Absolutely know this. The point of an Iranian nuke is deterrence, and the reason Israel finds that intolerable is that Israeli policy is to maintain the ability to unilaterally raise the stakes of a conflict past any of its neighbors.
That just isn't true and assumes Western type of logic.
Iran doesn't just call death to America and death to Israel in every rally. They mean it. When they publish photos of their facilities I was shocked to see the US flag, then I understood it's on the floor. They walk on the Israeli and US flag every day in these places as an insult. As a westerner I find this pretty hilarious... But they are serious.
For reference I will point you to the Huttis... The main damage they do to Israel is waking up Israelis due to a missile alarm. As a result they lose hundreds of lives in bombings and crucial resources. That doesn't deter them. Hell, they don't even like the Palestinians since they are Sunni... It's a matter of being part of a Jihad.
Notice that this isn't true for all Muslims. The extremists are a death cult who believe that dying in a Jihad will send all of them to heaven. If they get a bomb it is very possible they won't care about the consequences in the same way a "normal" country cares about them.
No, the western kind of logic here is to assume the people we’ve taken as enemies are irrational and fanatical caricatures, instead of normal-ass humans who are attempting to maintain agency over their lives and responding to the actions of those around them.
I think if you look at the actions of Iran over the last 20 years and attempt to categorize it as one of either a geopolitical foe attempting to maintain some degree of control over their local surroundings OR an implacable suicidal death cult, one of those theories is going to fit the facts a whole lot better than the other, as evidenced by the fact that the Iranian regime is still in existence, despite all but daily attempts by both the US and Israel to bait them into attempting “suicide by global cop.”
I'm not saying they're irrational. I'm saying that the basis for their rationality is different to ours. A rational westerner would rarely commit a suicide bombing in a civilian setting (it happens too). But it's common in these circles.
The example I like to give is this, Ismail Haniyeh lost his sons to Israeli bombings. When he told his wife she smiled. This is not normal: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/ismail-saniyeh-hamas-leader-barel...
Another example would be the Islamic Jihad attacks prior to 2023. The Islamic Jihad is an organization in Gaza that is similar in purpose to Hamas but distinct. They fired missiles into Israel which led to an Israeli attack. Hamas very explicitly stood down and sent through normal channels that it isn't interested in escalation. This created in Israel a false sense of security which led to the "success" of the Oct 7th attacks. When someone says they want to kill you and aren't afraid of death, it is prudent to believe them.
Neither one of us can enter the minds of these people, but they had plenty of chances to stand down and compromise. They chose not to do that. I wish Trump hadn't quit the nuclear deal because I would have liked to know how that would have turned out. But this is the situation we have right now...
Iran does build up global terrorism and has continued to do that for decades. Their path to nuclear weapons would mean they could continue doing that and no one would be able to do anything even if they never actually use the bomb.
Again, I’d encourage you to stop thinking you’re dealing with people fundamentally different than you, and start considering why they’re acting the way they’re acting. You’ve referenced Palestinian fighters a couple times - I’d suggest the lens that these are fundamentally a different kind of people is probably going to tell you less about the current situation and how to change it for the better than the other lens, which is that these people are fundamentally human like you, and if you’re seeing extreme behavior, there’s probably extreme circumstances driving it.
To be clear, I’m not saying this to justify extreme or violent behavior, but to consistently act surprised when people act “irrationally” is to suggest either your definition of rational is wrong or your understanding of the circumstances are wrong. As the old joke goes, you can’t blame the mouse when the experiment fails.
>The main damage they do to Israel is waking up Israelis due to a missile alarm. As a result they lose hundreds of lives in bombings and crucial resources. That doesn't deter them
Ansar Allah has managed to largely shut down the port of Eilat, one of only 3 major ports in Israel, and Israel relies on maritime imports to sustain itself.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240716-israel-says-eilat...
They aren't detered by Israeli bombs because they've been bombed by the Saudis for over a decade in their ongoing civil war.
But all of this talk about nuclear bombs and jihad is hypothetical. Meanwhile only one country in the MidEast has an ACTUAL undeclared nuclear arsenal, and it's the country that has occupied territory in multiple neighboring countries while conducting an ethnic cleansing that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of women and children.
As a Westerner, I'd much rather we deal with the Rogue State perpetrators of actual crimes rather than the hypothetical criminals.
> Ansar Allah has managed to largely shut down the port of Eilat, one of only 3 major ports in Israel, and Israel relies on maritime imports to sustain itself.
That was mostly due to the blockade, it doesn't justify the rockets. That mostly damages a private company and doesn't cost Israel much in the grand scheme of things considering Israel has 2 additional large ports.
> They aren't detered by Israeli bombs because they've been bombed by the Saudis for over a decade in their ongoing civil war.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Death of their own people doesn't fit into their equation.
> But all of this talk about nuclear bombs and jihad is hypothetical. Meanwhile only one country in the MidEast has an ACTUAL undeclared nuclear arsenal, and it's the country that has occupied territory in multiple neighboring countries while conducting an ethnic cleansing that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of women and children.
That mixes a lot of different things and is mostly false.
Unlike them Israel never called for an annihilation of a different state. It called for a regime change. It never made a threat related to nukes other than one idiotic member of parliament who said something stupid.
Israeli demonstrators never called for death to Iran and even now the targets in Iran focus on the people/infrastructure behind the nuclear program while Iran targeted many civilian areas.
The claim of ethnic cleansing is also false and shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation in Gaza. There are Israelis who are justifiably warning that Israel is headed in that direction, but it physically hasn't happened yet. There are many civilian casualties and that is indeed horrible and tragic, but blaming Israel for it is contributing to the death toll.
If you're such a believer in Islamic logic then please explain why Hamas is still holding 53 Israeli hostages?
That is Israels main excuse for the war, without them the war will be over. What is the logic behind that?
Hamas sees Israel as a western nation. It believes that without western support Israel will collapse. In that sense the western outrage over the violence in Gaza is fuel to Hamas, it gives them incentive to keep the violence going and encourages them to use children. It encourages them to hoard the aid sent by the west and produce a picture of starvation amongst their own people.
The Israeli right-wing also benefits from this. They know that if the west abandons support for Israel it will allow them to do whatever they want. They believe that no amount of compromise will ever satisfy Palestinian extremists and they encourage taking harder action against them to fuel a war.
These sorts of stances and misinformation in the west is contributing to more violence and Palestinian death.
86 year old fanatical Islamists don't necessarily operate on the same principles of game theory as the rest of us. Mutual self-destruction is not something they fear to the same degree.
And yet, for twenty goddamn years now, they’ve been negotiating with us and have _not_ built a nuclear weapon, despite repeated threats and provocations by the US. Iran is not an irrational actor. They are a state under siege by a superpower and its violent regional partners, and have acted in the fashion one would expect from a state in that position.
I mean, you're also forgetting the fact that Israel sends assassins after their top nuclear scientists every year or two, and cyberattacks every few years, and "mysterious accidents".
It's a bit like saying "but Y2K never happened, they must have been exaggerating" or "but nobody talks about the Ozone hole or acid rain anymore so it must have never been a real problem".
How much plausible deniability would Iran have if they gave a nuke to Hezbollah who fired it over the border at Tel Aviv?
"That was Hezbollah, not us!"
You might say using a proxy would be a hopelessly transparent ploy, but Hezbollah has been firing other Iranian supplied weapons at Israel for years and yet many people swear up and down that Iran has "never attacked Israel". So apparently the proxy ploy does work on a lot of people.
This is a statement that's fairly ignorant of Iran's long running military strategy. The military situation is much more complex and nuanced that you're laying it out.
One of Iran's strengths, for example, has always been lots of cheap missiles. People often point out how few of the missiles actually hit their targets in Israel, but that's missing the point: every intercepted missile costs orders of magnitude more to intercept than it does to create and launch. The Iron Dome is very effective, but is both incredibly expensive to run and, most importantly, loses efficacy over time as it's resources are depleted.
Nobody knows exactly how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon, but most analysts that I've read that the time to actually being able to launch a weapon is in terms of weeks. So part of Iran's strategy will always been draw attacks until it is ready to potentially retaliate.
On top of that, this is not a video game. Iran does not want to use a nuclear missile, nobody really does since it like ends, at least regionally, in everyone losing. Part of the balance of the conflict in the middle East in Iran is precisely not putting them in a potion where the use of nuclear weapons suddenly becomes rational. This is exactly why we in America have been nervous about open aggression towards Iran. Not because we might not win, but because it backs them into a corner where nuclear options suddenly become more rational.
> Because it is not liked the Iranian regime does not have any political options either.
Just one tiny example of how this is false: because of US sanctions China gets a enormous (estimated at around 15%) amount of their oil, very cheaply, from Iran. A serious threat to Iran then becomes a serious threat to Chinese oil supplies.
The issue is extremely complicated and nuanced, so any takes that are binary are missing a lot of information. By striking Iran we are pushing this this issue into places we haven't really explored yet, with consequences nobody truly knows.
Exactly.
One of the main reasons for the Israeli attack was the mounting stockpile of missiles. Even the small fraction of conventional missiles that hit Israel created a great deal of damage. They were on route to create enough missiles and launchpads that would make Israels air defense irrelevant. The equivalent of two nuclear bombs.
> does not want to use a nuclear missile, nobody really does
One country already did.
[dead]
They're not going to escalate. They're already getting their ass handed to them by Israel and the last thing they want is to throw down with their other enemies in the region right now. You are correct that there will be no ground invasion, so there is no existential threat to the government. This means they have no incentive to do something stupid that will make anyone change their mind on that invasion.
> so there is no existential threat to the government.
Do you think sitting by and doing nothing will not pose an existential threat to the government by way of constituent discontent?
And now every regime who feared getting regime-changed will have an interest of developing the bomb. Gaddafi effect is real.
This is a fanatic regime. I will have its people eating grass before giving up on anything.
It's a country of 100M people. They're not just gonna be have their "ass handed to them", just like it didn't happen in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq1, Iraq2, Yemen and Afghanistan. Countries do adapt to bombings, especially when there's a superpower nearby.
Also if they "were just about to have the bomb" then they could develop it and use it after. So there is the conflicting position that they are both insane to use it and but both sane to not escalate the conflict. This is where most pro-war arguments fail the basic logic test in the nuclear bomb era.
"just like it didn't happen in korea, vietnam, iraq1, iraq2, yemen and afghanistan."
that's a fancy retelling of history you got there. MILLIONs died in those wars and less than 100K US troops died. Out of those wars, iraq 1 led to iraq defeat and withdrawal from kuwait. iraq 2 had saddam dragged through the streets and a regime change within 3 weeks, yemen was counterterrorism - there's no regime to topple, in afghanistan the taliban regime was removed for 20 years and only once the troops were withdrawn were they able to crawl back.
the current Iranian regime is over.
Possibly, but the cost that regime being over is likely similar to that US paid with war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which, and I am being very, very charitable, was too much blood for too little gain.
Forcing Iran into submission is not going be as easy as it was in Iraq.
One of the key reasons behind why Iraq fell so quickly is that Saddam made all the wrong moves leading up the invasion.
By that point, he had alienated every single potential ally (including Iran) - and virtually all states in the region were supportive of the invasion, regardless of their positions in public.
Not to mention that the invasion of Iraq was ultimately a failure anyways..
> By that point, he had alienated every single potential ally (including Iran)
It's so funny that you can't see the parallels
Iran has been escalating reasonably, and is clearly acting as a sovereign state should. You can project all you want, but Saddam was playing another ballgame.
Unfortunately, international law means nothing these days, so it might have been a mistake to not establish deterrence sooner.
Regardless, Iran is not going to be as easy to topple as some people might think.
You should talk. How much of a coalition do you think the US can assemble right now, after alienating numerous allies over the last 6 months?
KIAs ratio is not what determine a war's success
So do you think the US is going to put the boots on the ground to make that happen? Even Trump isn't that stupid. Or maybe he is. I guess we'll see.
Iran and Libya are very different places both in terms of history and current day.
I would expect Israel to win the political battle as well. The world likes winners and Israel is going to be a winner here. It winning will also enable it to address some of the issues that are a concern. Without Iran backing up Palestinian militants it is going to be easier for Israel to make some concessions that it couldn't otherwise.
You can already see a change of tone in Europe. Especially that Iran is aligned with Russia against Ukraine.
Short term I expect the people of Iran to unite around their hatred for the aggressor, making one of the proclaimed goals of "regime change" impossible.
[flagged]
> Situation: 92,000,000 Iranians harbor a generational hatred for America
Is this supposed to make me feel comfortable about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?
No, if you're familiar with Iranian history it should probably make you wary of interventionism with the goal of regime change. Create a power vacuum and you get the government you deserve, not the one you ask for.
Say, have you ever wondered how exactly Iran came to hate America so much?
[flagged]
> If you're uncomfortable, you should ask your congressAIPACSlave to nuke the entire planet. This way you can make sure there's nobody on this planet left to hate America's rape-culture-based Foreign Policy.
Referring to Congress as AIPAC slaves is textbook anti-Semitic rhetoric; it relies on the old conspiracy theory that Jews secretly control governments. Smuggling in bigotry like this undermines any chance at actual discussion we might have.
I'm flagging your comment because it's counterproductive, feeds a troll comment, and also conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism which is forbidden by HN's guidelines dictating good-faith discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[dead]
Israel is committing a holocaust of Gaza right now, the time for good faith discussion ended a while ago. Accusing anti-zionists of Anti-semetism for pointing out that the sky is blue as a way to protect Israel from scrutiny is manuscript double anti-semetism. One should be ashamed of oneself for trafficking in genocide whitewashing by using the real issue of antisemetism almost as a human shield.
Spare me. Someone concerned about "double anti-semitism" wouldn't be making allusions to the "Jews control the government via AIPAC" trope, and in the same breath accuse that government of fostering a "rape-culture-based foreign policy."
No, mate, the joke is that they already hated us and now there's fewer of them. So this is what low SAT/GRE verbal looks like.
It's my suspicion that most of the 60% enriched material was moved prior to the attack(Edit: which recent statements from Iran seem to support), and now undergoing enrichment to 90% in a facility the US doesn't know about. Enrichment gets easier as the percentage goes up.
I expect (ok, I WORRY) a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years.
It didn't have to be this way, we had a working treaty and inspections regime until Trump pulled us out of it.
Decades of effort to prohibit nuclear proliferation have just gone down the toilet.
EDIT: Ya'll are right, the idea of them doing a test and going public makes a lot more sense.
> I expect a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years.
This absolutely will not happen. Iran will make a nuke, and they will test it very publicly, and then the political math in the Middle East changes overnight. The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence, not attack - if Iran set off a nuke in an American city, the regime would not survive, and it’s possible the country would not.
Edit: to put that differently, the only way an Iranian bomb goes off in an American city is if an American bomb goes off in an Iranian city.
“ The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence”
I hope this is true, but Iran has a hard time convincing people because their theocratic elements are suicidal from a secular standpoint. Eg their religious messaging is confounding.
I think you have a typo, you wrote “Iran” instead of “the United States”.
You are lumping together three very different countries into a western mindset of deterrence.
While Pakistan is Muslim they are not the same as Iran in any way. The current rulers of Iran do not operate by western logic and would be consider a "holy death" as a direct path to heaven.
Iranian populace isn't behind that, the people themselves are reasonably secular and aren't behind that. However, the leadership is dangerous and you should not assume they would use western logic.
I really don't understand why the US didn't continue their talks with Iran. They were clearly open to joining a non-proliferation treaty at the time. They also have a religious law against developing nukes in addition to their other tentative agreements and cooperation with IAEA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
I don't expect Iran to use any nukes that they develop though. Having nukes puts a country in a special diplomatic class. Using them is almost never beneficial. The status quo risks for nuclear programs is stronger sovereignty, which would drastically shift the regional balance of power and possibly tip the scales on a broad international level.
I think Iran’s mercenaries eventually blew up the entire diplomatic strategy. It turns out they should have stop funding entities that shoot missiles at population centers so often. It was a reckless strategy that failed.
You are assuming they’re rational actors, and extremist religious ideologies are by their very nature irrational.
Exactly, they should be rational just like our secular politicians.
"As a Christian growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, ‘Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.’ And from my perspective, I’d rather be on the blessing side of things.”
- Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator
"There is a reason the first time I shook Netanyahu's hand, I didn't wash it until I could touch the heads of my children."
- Randy Fine, a U.S. congressman
And of course, there's the President of the United States who's known to be completely rational.
Iran has shown itself a rational actor time and time again by not escalating against continued provocation by Israel and the US, knowing that to do so would be to enter a conflict it can’t win. That’s not the behavior of an irrational actor who’s willing to fight whatever the cost, even total annihilation (which would be what happened if Iran nuked the US/Israel).
They may be religious fanatics, but they’re not idiots.
Iran funded Hamas who did October 7th. That is the original escalation that kicked all this off. The region was (relatively) quiet until then.
October 7th was a reaction to Trump’s “Abraham Accords” which benefitted Sunni countries at the expense of Iran.
I don't think this makes much sense, due to the scale of the two parties: Iran somehow figuring out how to get a nuke onto a US city would invite complete and total annihilation of Iran -- and the world would largely support it. Iran knows this.
Nukes among peers aren't there to be used. They are there to immobilize and freeze a layer of conflict.
> I expect a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years.
Why would Iran do something so suicidal?
I had the same expectation myself but now everyone will be looking out for that type of attack.
Do you really think that they wouldn’t have done this by now if they could?
Reversion to mean. Pre-78.
I like this answer because of its circular logic (therefore impenetrable).
Simply declare a prior good state to be "the mean," then all we need to do is let mean reversion work its magic!
I like this answer because you pretend you're arguing against the comment without actually addressing anything.
They addressed all substance in the comment though
If only you had some.
[flagged]
The dictatorship that was so hated that it led to a plurality of people supporting an Ayatollah?
Impressively prescient on the part of the Top Gun sequel. This is basically the plot, just with more close calls and less "well that was kinda easy".
Just out of interest are large parts of Iran set to be radioactive for tens of thousands of years? What happens to all the radioactive dust? What is stopping Iran producing dirty ballistic missiles that would make Tel Aviv uninhabitable? Just the threat of nuclear retaliation?
As I understand it, conventional explosives derive their destructive force from using chemical energy to vaporize material so quickly that it explodes forming a destructive shockwave.
With a kinetic energy impacted like the MOP bunker buster, does the material vaporize ahead of the munitions? Is the destructive shockwave the munition casing itself, or perhaps the vaporized breccia being pushed in front of it?
In some ways I imagine it like a nail being driven into the ground but my gut feeling is that, at such high impact energies, something more complicated is going on. For example, with small calibre ballistics you can have many kinds of terminal action: from square edged paper cutting rounds used to make clean holes in targets, to subsonic rounds transferring energy into a target, all the way up to supersonic rounds which drive a shock cone through a “soft” target to cause trauma.
I thought part of Trump's campaign was that he'd distance the US from foreign conflicts and not get involved so much. Is he trying to renege on every single thing he campaigned on?
Which nuclear sites?
https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/1936650574939685121
I have gone from feeling vaguely positive about Israel as a modern center of innovation to believing the Likud government and its many supporters are genocidal child-starving war criminals who massively distort American politics via dirty money (eg Ritchie Torres) and possibly sexual blackmail (eg Maxwell).
I was not very happy with the settlements of West Bank ongoing for decades, but kind of thought every side is to blame and the situation is complex. It's not complex anymore.
I'm concerned by the appearance that the Trump administration was negotiating with the Iranians in bad faith to buy time for an Israeli operation Before America joined the war it was a bad look since it benefits us but it still wasn't outside the realm of possibilities that Israel did this of its own initiative since they're obviously insane. Now that we've taken advantage of the opportunity, it really looks like Trump may have been negotiating in bad faith.
I'm personally of the opinion that the Israeli operation forced Trump's hand and he realized that he can't trust the Iranians going forward since they have no reason to trust us going forward. That's just my opinion; I obviously can't expect anybody else negotiating nuclear non-proliferation (or anything else related to war or peace) with America in the future to have such an optimistic outlook on this turn of events.
If the Israelis did force his hand then I personally can accept that he made the tough call that needed to be made in that moment, but then the next call needs to be distancing us from the Israelis because we can't have an ally that fucks everything up when we're negotiating, *especially* when they literally assassinated the guy who was negotiating with Trump on Iran's behalf.
Bodes well this does not.
There are 4 common misconceptions perpetuated by Israel and its 5th column in US media to skew public opinion in its favor and justify its war crimes:
1. Israel's nukes were provided by US to protect its ally - France secretly armed Israel to help it fight arab nationalists (Morocco, Lebanon, Algeria and Egypt) https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-us-discovery-is...
2. Iran's nukes were Khomeini's fanatical plot to attack Israel and US - U.S. Atoms for Peace program and the late Shah started the nuclear program by funding MIT/Lincoln Lab's research https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-united-states-nuclear-program-k...
3. Highly enriched U-235 is only for weapons - Modern medical, propulsion and research reactors use HEU https://wx1.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps72.pdf https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/expanding-nuclear-prop...
4. NPT Treaty bans production and use of HEU by member states - Article IV of NPT clearly allows production and use of HEU for non-weapon uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
3. You can use highly enriched uranium (HEU) for things other than weapons, but the weapons are the only things that require HEU. Medical isotopes and propulsion can be done with LEU. For instance, Argentina produces medical Mo99 from LEU [1]. US Navy wants to switch to LEU for submarines [2]. One of the reasons for these developments is exactly proliferation risk management.
[1] https://inis.iaea.org/records/fe51q-17w28/files/35015774.pdf
[2] https://fissilematerials.org/library/doe16.pdf
> 3. You can use highly enriched uranium (HEU) for things other than weapons, but the weapons are the only things that require HEU.
OP seems to expect everyone to believe that any regime invests years and small fortunes in research sites built in networks of bomb-proof bunkers buried inside mountains, right next to their network of ballistic missiles, to research medical applications.
You're suggesting that honest countries with no intention of building nuclear weapons would have no reason to ever try and hide or protect their nuclear sites. This is probably the single worst point in history to make that argument.
Australia's future nuclear submarines are planned to use HEU not LEU.
HEU has clear advantages over LEU for submarines – LEU submarines need to be refuelled once every decade (give or take a few years), weapons grade HEU reactors are never refuelled – the initial fuelling is enough to last 30-40 years, and by the time refuelling is becoming needed, the submarine is retired/scrapped.
This was also part of Australia's justification for backstabbing France over AUKUS. Australia was paying France for diesel-electric submarines, but if it wanted nuclear, France can provide that too – but French nuclear submarines are LEU not HEU – the US and the UK are the only nations which have weapons grade HEU subs. [0] Of course, an arguably much bigger factor was Anglosphere strategic alliances versus greater cultural/political distance from France, but it is diplomatically helpful to be able to appeal to a justification which is more objectively technical in nature.
In an attempt to manage non-proliferation concerns, I understand the AUKUS plan is that when they start constructing nuclear submarines in Australia, they'll build and fuel the reactor in the UK (or possibly the US, but the UK is apparently more likely), ship it fuelled to Australia for installation in the submarine, and then at the end of the submarine's life, the reactor will be removed from it in Australia and then shipped back to the UK for defeuelling and disassembly. But, I guess it is an open question to what extent such an exercise is required by the letter of the non-proliferation treaty, versus whether it will be done that way simply to close down a potential line of diplomatic and political criticism.
[0] Russian and Indian sub fuel is HEU by IAEA definitions, but significantly less enriched than the US/UK subs, which use weapons grade uranium as fuel. Some Soviet era subs did use weapons grade HEU
Regarding #3, I haven't kept up with this specific issue lately, but wasn't the issue with their use and creation of HEU, atleast for a while, that they wouldn't allow UN nuclear energy inspectors to monitor what was being created at the reactors? There are AP articles from 2023[1] saying that Iran had barred 1/3 of the most experienced inspectors the UN had there from monitoring it, and a news article from the UN itself from this year[2] says that Iran has been actively impeding their ability to monitor its nuclear program.
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-un-inspectors-b82c92... [2]: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291
Presumably if you allow monitors for non-weapons uses, the accounting of where the material goes is relatively straightforward. Therefore monitoring could not be allowed, ipso facto, they are doing it for weapons.
An other compatible explanation is that they wanted ambiguity about their weapon production.
Besides, wasn't this whole thing triggered by a UN report showing they had made a lot more 50% enriched stuff than expected? I.e. the monitoring "worked"
But ambiguity with respect to weapons production has to be taken as a confirmation of an intent to develop weapons of the opposite side. Which makes this equivalent to just having a nuke program. It doesn't even give you a bargaining chip because there is nothing you can do as a step back (since you didn't do anything in the first place)
I suggest you wrap the misconceptions in quotation marks to make it clearer what is the misconception and what is not. Took me two passes to realize what was what.
> 3. Highly enriched U-235 is only for weapons - Modern medical, propulsion and research reactors use HEU
If you genuinely have no interest in uranium for weapons, it makes more sense to buy it from a country known to supply it at purities and quantities for peaceful purposes than to build you own centrifuges under mountains. Iran is/was either using uranium enrichment for weapons development or a political bargaining chip.
> Modern medical, propulsion and research reactors use HEU
This blanket statement is so inaccurate it is useless. HEU is a range, medical or research applications usually use 20–30% enriched Uranium, not the >60% Iran is (has been?) currently working on.
What is a fifth column? For that matter, what are the preceding four columns?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column
A fifth column is a group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation.
So like the Trump administration, systematically undermining American democracy in favor of Putin, and sending violent crowds of drooling mouth breathing batshit crazy white supremacist insurrectionists breaking and entering into sacred government buildings, beating the living daylights out of police and stealing their equipment as they lay crying in pain on the ground, driving them to commit suicide, smearing shit on the walls and floors of Congress, proudly parading Racist Confederate Loser Battle Flags around the Capitol, stealing and vandalizing government property, shouting out their support for Trump while correctly claiming and proudly posting to social media that they are acting on his behalf and at his command, and trying to capture and murder American politicians including the Vice President himself.
A fifth column is a group of embedded traitors.
I am not sure the word is suitably used here.
Franco (loosely). "We'll be marching towards Madrid in four columns. The fifth column is already in the city".
I like the implication that Jews control American media. Classic move. Would enjoy again.
To me, the only point that matters is #3 and to the best of my knowledge it isn't true any longer.
Iran has produced a large amount of >60% U-235 (enriched), probably hundreds of kilograms, way more than would be required for any peaceful purpose. I don't think any modern medical uses actually require enriched uranium any more. And anyway, how much medical imaging or radiation treatment could you possibly be doing? And they could be developing propulsion systems, that wouldn't be a peaceful purpose (it would be a military ship).
Put all this together and it seems abundantly clear that the sole purpose of Iran's HEU program is the production of nuclear weapons. HEU isn't required in any significant amount for peaceful purposes.
> Put all this together and it seems abundantly clear that the sole purpose of Iran's HEU program is the production of nuclear weapons.
Not true. One simple reason could be just to keep the appearance of the program ongoing in order to gain leverage in negotiations. Remember that Trump pulled US out of the negotiations on his first term, this could easily just be Iran's response to it.
Ok, but if you bluff in poker and someone else calls it (in this case – US bombing enrichment facilities), you can't really be mad about it, can you?
So declaration of war is now an acceptable negotiation tactic?
E: and is it acceptable when used against Israel/US?
No, these bombings are not a negotiation tactic, they are a response to a dangerous action (violating non-proliferation treaties). The regime hoping that this action might be useful as a negotiation tactic does not somehow strip the action of its consequences.
If I point a gun at my wife during a divorce proceeding and a cop shoots me, that's on me, no? Even if I never meant to pull the trigger and the gun wasn't even loaded.
And when the best available intelligence says Iran was nowhere near close of obtaining a nuke?
The real reason is this: Israel is in a unique position where they have removed all threats at their borders so they can finally attack their biggest enemy. So they do that, and while doing so pull the US with them. We are at the brink of a massive war that will have millions of casualties, with even more millions fleeing to Europe, destabilizing the world even further.
You probably bought the reasoning about Saddam's WMDs as well.
Complete non-sequitur from where the conversation was one comment ago.
This thread started with you saying "maybe they are doing it as a negotiation tactic". And yet simultaneously you think it is everyone else's fault if such a tactic is taken seriously?
You can't have it both ways.
> And yet simultaneously you think it is everyone else's fault if such a tactic is taken seriously?
I don't know how you could read my comment and conclude that.
Sure, we can call it high stakes negotiation tactic if that's what you prefer, but let's not kid ourselves why the attacks started in reality.
Ah yes the old, "It's all a Jewish plot and Jews control the media".
Nevermind the Iranian regime funding terrorists and constantly talking about nuking Israel, attacking the west and using their proxies to actually attack Israel and the West.
The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Excellent refutation!
Come on you gotta at least try
None of the points matter when Iran literally states their goal is nuclear weapons and using them on Israel, over and over again. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Yet it's framed as "misconceptions perpetuated by Israel and its 5th column in US media"
> There are 4 common misconceptions perpetuated by Israel and its 5th column (...)
None of your trivia points have any relevance, and it seems your point was to find a way to make wild baseless claims about "Israel and its 5th column".
Propaganda indeed.
Edit: of course the torrent of downvotes landed within minutes of commenting on a message posted 5-minutes ago.
The torrent of downvotes might be related to the lack of substance in your comment
My point is to underline the fact that the comment had no purpose other than to shoehorn wild claims of "Israel and its 5th column". Do you dispute this fact?
In that reporting stream, at 22:58, "White House releases photos of Trump in Situation Room"[1], I'm struck that we are in a timeline that is not only dark, but surreal.
It sounds trite to say from a position of relative comfort and distance, but I can only hope that someday our better selves will find peace with each other, around the globe.
But we won't be able to undo all the injustices and atrocities that we inflicted upon each other. We know these wrongs as we are doing them, and they will remain upon us.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/sR8YhcY.png
Nothing odd about that. I'm thinking of photos of Obama and Hillary in the situation room, observing the strikes on Bin Laden in realtime.
Remote War photos are now commonplace. The striking thing is that he is wearing his MAGA hat, as if he purposely wants to piss off his base who had delusions of "no wars president"
What is surreal about Trump being in the Situation Room?
As photojournalism, the image is brilliant. Though not entirely candid, that subtext contributes.
Fascinating how this happened merely weeks after Iran-China railway link opened (Reported on May 25, 2025. Link below.). It directly threatens US hegemony by providing a faster and more secure land corridor for trade, particularly Iranian oil and gas exports to China and Chinese goods flowing into Iran and the broader Middle East. This bypasses critical maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca, where the US Navy traditionally exerts significant control, reducing reliance on these US-dominated sea routes. Furthermore, the railway facilitates sanctioned Iranian oil exports to China and enables increased Chinese investment in Iran, undermining the effectiveness of US economic sanctions as a primary tool of foreign policy. It accelerates Eurasian integration under China's Belt and Road Initiative, deepening economic and strategic ties across the continent and fostering the development of a US-independent economic bloc linking China, Iran, Turkey, Central Asia, and Russia. The railway physically connects two major US adversaries, China and Iran, enabling easier movement of goods, resources, and potentially military or logistical support, thereby strengthening an anti-Western coalition challenging US global dominance. In essence, the railway erodes US control over trade routes, weakens sanctions, empowers a rival Eurasian bloc centered on China, and solidifies an opposing strategic axis.
https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2025/05/25/3320800/freigh...
Possibly trivial additional point is that the oil traded between Iran and China using Chinese currency, not the US dollar.
doubt it's really game-changing. Rail is more expensive and the three other countries in the middle can be strong-armed and harassed into stalling or cutting this off.
Depends, cutting off strait of hormuz could easily change that calculus a bit. Things can get unpredictable from here on now.
from what i read, the Strait of Hormuz is mostly used for shipping to Asia now, with the US being a net exporter of oil, KSA and others getting more options to ship via the Red Sea instead, and overall blocking this would be a minor annoyance, not lasting long with 2 carrier strike groups on the way, and most to-be-blocked shipments going to China - shooting themselves in the foot. It seems the historical memories of the 70's mideast oil beef are just that. But what do i know.
Futures do not disagree with you atm.
Afghanistan? Probably not. The other two are bordering China. I highly doubt they'll bow to the US instead.
I don't think it's going through Afghanistan. It's probably just re-using Soviet railroads. But it is going through Turkmenistan, which is one of the craziest insane and most bizarre and unpredictable places one can think of, and Uzbekistan, which used to happily host US troops in Khanabad. Just a matter of some cash and some threats of sanctions with either one of those two.
Belt & Road continues to fray as China shows reluctance to help its partners when in need. China seems to only come to the aid of anyone after embarrassment or pressure or if it directly helps them. I'm reminded a few years back when Pakistan was suffering from terrible floods, China initially sent its very best thoughts and prayers but it wasn't until after the US started to send aid that China finally got involved. Ultimately all packages from the US seemed to have exceeded the Chinese total but I am unsure. If countries can get away by playing both the US and China off of each other great, but if you need help just from China, good luck.
> more secure land corridor for trade, particularly Iranian oil and gas exports to China
It will require absurd number of trains that will run empty 1/2 of the time (unless you'll find a way to pack "Chinese goods" into tank cars)
I can't help but conclude the primary rogue state in region is not Iran - it's Israel:
- Did not sign the non-proliferation treaty
- Does not allow IAEA inspectors into their country
- Nuclear weapons program widely believed to have started from material stolen from the US
- Prime Minister wanted by the ICC for war crimes.
Since 2023, they have:
- Invaded and occupied parts of Syria and Lebanon
- Bombed Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen
- Killed nearly 70,000 people in Gaza
The Islamic Republic of Iran appears sane, rational, and peaceful by comparison. Quite an achievement!
even more so, future humans may see Iran as one of the only moral states for doing "something" against Israel
I like how you gloss over the preceding decades of being constantly shot at with rockets (leading to a thing called "Iron Dome"). Being surrounded with countries that every day chant "death to Israel". Also the sane, rational, and peaceful Islamic Republic of Iran is the one that organized and funded those attacks.
US will sell their mother to a devil if that makes good profit. Who cares about Gaza people?
US support for Israel isn't even about profit. It's about corruption.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that very few are pointing this out. People seem to rally against Iran because of some hypothetical scenario where it could become...exactly like Israel.
There are reasons why presidents have avoided attacking Iran.
- massive instability in the ME. Just a few men with shoulder fired missiles can disrupt oil shipments from the biggest oil producers
- the high chance of being sucked into a forever war. Iran can cause a lot of problems with limited resources and can rebuild. They have no reason to give up and the US might have to continue bombing indefinitely, or launch a ground invasion.
- the increased chance of nuclear war in the ME. This action assumes that Iran has no backup facilities, or will never have, to continue building a bomb. Having already suffered the consequences, Iran has no reason not to seek a bomb.
Worse, is that this was done at the behest of Israel. Israel is America’s shittiest ally in the region where the relationship is exclusively one-sided. There are good reasons why, despite all the lies and bullshit from America politicians, America has not executed military actions at their behest before now.
“Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.” — John Sheehan, S.J.
Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. navy to fight the Barbary war (in modern Libya) because he refused to pay tribute to protect our trading routes. This quote is simply false. We've had enemies in the Middle East pretty much since the founding of the American republic.
Where do you think Libya is?
Libya is nowhere near the Middle East. It's not even the Near East. It's in northern Africa.
1) Libya is not in the middle east.
2) This was before our war with Canada and just after our Quasi-war with France.
Before Israel, the middle east was controlled by Great Britain
> “Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.” — John Sheehan, S.J.
Before Israel? Like before 1947? When half the place was under British rule and the oil industry was a fraction of what it was today?
That's about as useful as saying that before the atomic bomb, we had no enemies in the Middle East.
What a dishonest way to make such an inflammatory accusation.
Yes, before 1947, back when the Secretary of State as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all seasoned professionals who had just won WW2, strongly advised AGAINST supporting Zionism in Palestine. They correctly asserted that demands from the Zionists would never end, and that it would sour the US's otherwise solid relations with the entire Arab region.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v07/d5...
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v07/d4...
Yes. Before Israel, when America had no enemies in the mideast. Thanks for confirming.
Who did have enemies in the ME? It was (as stated) mostly a vassal state.
Oil rose to prominence during this same period; Israel is a major factor but is certainly not the only or even most important issue.
It wasn’t, the political pressure from Iran’s neighbors was higher, and it didn’t help that the EU was pissed at Iran for helping kill Ukraine.
This is probably the worst thing about Trump, he's let Bibi lead him around like a dog on a leash.
Any other president would be infuriated with Bibi's actions, because they would know he's cornering the US. But he knew Trump was a pushover.
I guess any other president doesn't include Trump's direct predecessor, under whose watch Gaza was allowed to happen.
A non sequitur followed by a claim that Biden is responsible for Israel's security on the ground against Hamas.
Well Israel's security forces were out to lunch on that score, given how Hamas literately walked all over them, so I can see how you might think that.
But don't let me get in your way while you try to divert attention away from Trump's current recklessness.
Allow Gaza to happen? You mean Biden approved of Oct 7?
He means the genocide and forced starvation of over a hundred thousand innocent Palestinians
No the "self defence" that happened in response to that. 1000s of tonnes of bombs shipped to kill civilians and enact genocide.
Did we live through the same Biden presidency?
A lot of folks were at brunch.
Weekend at Biden’s was just ice cream.
[flagged]
Can we criticize Israel without obvious conspiracy bait.
https://x.com/IvanIvanovichC2/status/1912180077548179478
https://christiansfortruth.com/the-road-to-dealey-plaza-how-...
Good job uncritically posting a fake screenshot. It's edited from the public stats page you can find on third-party 4chan archives. You can even check the numbers at a given date from the Internet Archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201224040114/https://archive.4...
> On April 26, Ben-Gurion sent a letter to Kennedy warning about the forthcoming destruction of Israel due to the Treaty of Federation signed by Egypt, Syria and Iraq on April 17.
then later
> The most ominous part of Ben-Gurion’s letter was when he wrote: “Mr. President, my people have the right to exist – both in Israel and wherever they may live, and this existence is in danger.”
This article is funny. This is set in 1960. 10 years after Israel was attacked by an Arab coalition and 10 years before Israel was attacked AGAIN by guess who, an Arab coalition.
What do you expect, that president of a country lets it to be destroyed to later tell people like you "see, told ya"? Time doesn't allow you to go back. You can hate war but in this case it just seems like if they had no nukes they would be destroyed long ago by neighboring countries.
About 4chan link, Techchrunch basically sums it up:
> One 4chan janitor who spoke to TechCrunch on the condition of anonymity said they are “confident” the leaked data and screenshots are “all real”.
Yeah totally real. because 4chan was hacked by a competitor we can be sure there was nothing planted in the dump. And because the guy who posted the screenshot limits replies we can be sure it is doubly real.
Thinking how much antisemitism there was on 4chan I can only shrug.
> "To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.” President Trump
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-pr...
you have no idea what you're talking about - every single country that experiences domestic terrorism relies on israeli intelligence for counter terrorism. almost all of europe, us, much of the middle east all have very active intelligence partnerships.
if you think it's one-sided you're either severely misinformed or bigoted.
Actually now is different. The axis of resistance that would pop up (asad, Hezbollah, Hamas, houthis) are all basically gone and unable to mount an attack.
Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, HTS, and majority of Middle East is not in favor of Iran getting a nuke.
Hatred of Iran, is a unifying force.
Well put, and an important - and often either overlooked or fully unknown - point, especially in the west.
Many in the west see the middle east as a broadly similar unit, not realizing that there Iran represents a frequently highly-disliked section in the broader area. The neutralization of Iraq definitely has had an impact on that front as well (the two being hard core enemies for a long time).
The children of all the people killed by Israel will continue to resist. The US/Israel has created 100x new enemies in the past year and a half (not counting the billions outside of the ME).
Iran killed too many Ukrainians.
I thought the claim was that Israel was mostly killing the children?
Female child journalists.
Not really. In much of the middle east, Iran is detested and considered an immediate enemy.
It’s less than 1000 Iranians dead as of now and I doubt we hit 1000 by the end of things. Palestinians are such horrible refugees that none of the neighboring Muslim countries want to take them in, not to mention their staggeringly high rates of incest wrecking any potential host’s gene pool.
There aren’t as many new enemies as you think.
I guess that's better than "axis of evil".
Looking forward to the strait of Hormuz shutting down...
Sounds like a good way to make China and Russia angry...
Serious question re Russia: Can they actually get more engaged than they already are...? Because id thought the opposite; Russia is weaker than anyone since initial soviet breakup, isn't now the ideal time wrt to Israeli involvement?
They can, but that would be stupid, because they need all the weapons they have to continue Ukrainian war.
China is the only country that can help Iran.
> the increased chance of nuclear war in the ME.
I disagree, given the high probability they were going to do it anyway. They built Natanz enrichment in secret, they built Arak in secret, they built Fordow in secret, not to mention the more recent violations of the NPT to which they're still a signatory. They've violated the NPT over and over and over again. Why would one more agreement make any difference to their clandestine program?
This is the thing Western liberals need to understand. The leaders of these despotic regimes don't think like you. They don't intend to adhere to the agreements like you would. Their psychology is different to your psychology. And you can't make a unilateral agreement with a party like this. The agreement becomes a weapon to creep forward and present the world with a fait accompli at a future date.
How is "othering" people going to lead to peace? "Western liberals" aren't stupid or naive, they're just seeking a peaceful solution if possible.
And why are people so willing to believe that military force works? It mostly achieves nothing and leads to more violence.
It didn't work in Afghanistan, Iraq or Ukraine, but it will in Iran?
> This is the thing Western liberals need to understand.
First Western liberals needed to understand that Ukraine shouldn't have given up its nukes. Now they need to understand that Iran shouldn't have tried to get them.
The Ukraine situation proves my point, though. Russia was a signatory to an agreement with Ukraine to not do what they're doing. You can't make unilateral agreements with parties that have no intention of holding to them, as much as you would like to wishcast a different reality. The only option is a military one.
> The only option is a military one.
Oh, I've seen this one before! Then you install a police state, back it up with foreign weapons you sell to the police state in exchange for taxpayer money, forcibly "disappear" any disagreeable types and make the entire population hate your country for centuries to come!
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-mag...
Did "western liberals" get all that? Oh, I forgot this line by mistake!The false equivalency of destroying a democracy that had no nuclear ambitions, with attacking the nuclear facilities of a theocratic regime that has violated the NPT multiple times.
Is it really about the treaties. Like US is a world cop and good guy that honours all treaties?
For your first point, that’s not as big of an issue as it used to for the USA thanks to fracking, now the USA is a net exporter of oil.
For the second, I don’t think anything other than an air campaign like it’s been done will happen, it’s not like the USA is out for blood like after 9/11.
For the third, yeah, that’s unfortunately possible, North Korea, Ukraine and now this show that the only way no one messes with you is by having a good enough deterrent. However, even if this hadn’t happened, if Iran got a bomb, they wouldn’t threaten like nk does to get stuff, it would just test it on Israel, so you would get nuclear war anyway.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Blows my mind how people think Iran is building nuclear weapons when nobody in the intel community does... Thought y'all wouldve learned after Iraq but guess not...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/trump-iran-i...
I think there are narrow and broad perspectives to apply here. The narrow view is that this is purely a matter of Iran's nuclear program, whereas the broad view is that Iran does not exist in a vacuum.
First, a refresher on the state of affairs:
* Iran, Russia and China have various military pacts and economic trade deals which bypass western tariffs and sanctions. Some political strategists have characterized these specific countries as an anti-western axis.
* Iran supplies Russia with drones and drone manufacturing technology which plays a crucial role in the war on Ukraine.
* Iran backs terrorist organizations such as the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The US has recently conducted strikes against the Houthis in Lebanon. Israel conducted their pager attack against Hezbollah. Hamas, we understand, was the catalyst of the current conflict in Gaza.
* Iran is on record stating a desire for the destruction of Israel.
The West has enemies.
Given this context, the west has one of two options: do nothing and let their enemies grow stronger, bolder, and more unified, or proactively disarm and disable the coalition in order to avoid a greater conflict (self-fulfilling prophecies not withstanding).
Now let's reexamine today's strike on the nuclear sites:
* Israel and the US have squashed Iran's rebel factions.
* Israel has seized Tehran's airspace.
* Iran is allegedly low on remaining missile supplies.
* Iran does not have a nuke.
* The US just demolished their uranium refinement sites.
At this point you'll ask 2 questions:
Q1. Can Iran retaliate?
The short answer is: probably not. Iran, who typically strikes through rebels and missiles, is in short supply of both, while also being placed in a headlock (enforced by F-35s) they might be inclined to capitulate sooner than later.
Q2. Will anyone defend Iran? And by anyone we mean Russia or China.
Well, China has yet to get involved in a global conflict, and has generally had an opportunistic approach to international relationships. I.e Iran is only good for their oil exports, which are still intact (for now). Plus China is on record supporting the 2015 nuclear agreement, i.e they don't want Iran to have nukes either.
What about Russia? Well, any other day of the week they might be inclined to assist an ally, but what can they spare? They're not exactly masters of their domain at the moment.
In summary, this was a somewhat necessary intervention for the US in both helping an ally in the immediate conflict as well as serving a purpose in the greater geo political context. While this will certainly have unforseeable consequences in global stability, perhaps these small, strategic conflicts are intended to prevent a larger one.
There is a lot of equating "The West" with israel in this. A LOT of the west is not behind what israel is doing , not even americans are. Iran is a very minor threat to europe and US, and very minor threat in general.
There is nothing ideological about this war, nobody seriously believes that. It's 100% power play
Funny how diplomacy is not an option for you.
Could be a good way to boost the economy amidst a trade war while simultaneously doubling-down on protectionism. On the one hand we usually profit from wars, on the other hand we lose trading partners when we do our usual human rights violations shtick.
I predict this is a ploy to try to get us into a war, so Trump can have his third term, rejecting calls to step down "because we're at war". It's a little early, but our kids are already used to being in 20-year-long pointless wars in the Middle East.
> we usually profit from wars
That's a huge lie, if 'we' is to be read as 'Americans' and not 'the 1%'.
78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck [0].
'We' - taxpayers - 'spent' trillions and trillions of dollars on war in the middle east. What was the return on investment? We could have housed every American, eliminated student debt, gone 100% clean energy, and ended world hunger; with change left over.
0 - https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-pa...
On the contrary, nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran. It's been an open not-even-secret for decades that America is very active, on many fronts, in trying to delay or remove Iran's growing capability to create nuclear weapons.
That Trump's own appointed Head of Intelligence denied? The least republicans can do is align their own fucking story.
That would help, but it doesn't change the fact that America and the broader west has been working hard for decades to counter Iran's nuclear weapons program.
[dead]
And now what ?
If the current regime stays in power, it's pretty much a guarantee that they will pursue nuclear weapons by all means available, in the future.
If the US / Israel want to topple the regime... that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan....
Also, isn't it really illegal for a US president to authorize a strike like this without Congress ?
No, it is not illegal for a US president to authorize strikes like this. American hasn't formally declared war since WWII.
Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and no one, especially no one in the middle east - wants a nuclear armed Iran. America and its partners - and quite often its not-partners - have been working to stop Iranian uranium enrichment for a very long time.
As for "guarantees they will pursue nuclear weapons by all means" -- that's the point: they've already been doing so nonstop for decades.
In much of the middle east, Iran is detested, and a nuclear armed Iran is deeply feared throughout the region. Iran with nukes means the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to pursue nuclear weapons as well. Again, in vast swaths of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
"they've already been doing so nonstop for decades" - I would think it's not that complicated to make a nuclear bomb today, is it ? Technology has been there for almost 100 years already.
Your thinking would be wrong, then. Making nuclear weapons is ridiculously complicated, tedious, and requires access to loads of very specific technology.
I would actually love to read a bit about it. Like, let's say a reasonably sized developed country - say Australia for example, decides that making nukes it's a national priority. How long it would take them ?
> that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan....
I think that was the plan. Israeli and american and turkish planes are now freely flying over Syria , iraq, (i assume also afghanistan) to conduct attacks. Iran is being set up as theater for long proxy war. The rest of middle east and libya is controlled by turkey & israel which seem to have complementary interests as proxies of the US. At the moment it appears the US/israeli dominance in the whole former Ottoman empire is strong, but inevitably (and quickly) we will see dozens of unconventional wars in the region (what we call terrorism)
President can authorize precision strikes and special ops if there’s imminent threat justification. I’m not arguing either way if this strike was justified, but there’s legal pathways for it. The congress rule is about declaring war.
> the US / Israel want to topple the regime... that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan....
Then, they wouldn't be organized enough to build a nuclear weapon. That would be a better outcome.
A chaotic broken Iran is going to be a powder keg for the world that keeps erupting unless the US is willing to just glass the entire country. It only looks like a better outcome in the very short term.
Why are people surprised when Trump does things illegally?
In the American body of law and legislation, strikes such as these aren't illegal. Honestly, we've been doing stuff like this for decades.
Did it surprise you when Obama did the same?
Nope. Because he didn't do anything illegal.
Thanks for calling, goodnight.
Are you sure? He certainly engaged in a lot of military operations in several countries without Congress's approval. He also ramped up drone strikes dramatically.
Because acting unsurprised means giving Trump a pass. It means normalizing awful things and normalizing hate and hurt. No one actually wants the world where he has no moral limits.
This information is just a google search away, so I’ll assume you’re willfully ignorant. No it’s not illegal. It can go on for 60 days before requiring authorization by Congress.
How the heck does a US president have military powers so powerful and broad? If congress can only declare war, it doesn't make sense to me that the president can put the entire country at risk of war by directly bombing another country. Like then at that point, congress has to approve right..? Because the damage is already done. It's a big slap on the face at the global stage, with no room for political face-saving. The damage being already done to both global reputation and national sovereignty. There's no going back.
If another country bombed the US, and then their system of government was like, "oh well it isn't technically war cause it was just our single head honcho making his own decision. But good news, our second government entity officially declared not going to war with you, kthxbye srry lol", that logic isn't going to fly in the US. The US is gonna retaliate and consider it an act of war, because it was bombed by a foreign power... damage being already done.
How the heck can Trump do this. I get it if the US got attacked, then it's useless to wait for congress to decide war-or-not-war... but this literally puts the US on a direct war path with Iran. the US literally just bombed another country unprovoked.
And Trump said he hated war, which was his platform when running. He was gonna end the war in Ukraine because nobody wins and war is nasty. What is going on.. why is Congress so spineless too. They probably won't even do anything. This is the worst timeline ever.
Israel declared war on Iran, and now the US has joined Israel's side in it.
There is no other interpretation when bombs and missiles are sent 'in anger' to a sovereign nation, no matter which side is "bad".
Hint: all sides are bad.
> How the heck does a US president have military powers so powerful and broad? If congress can only declare war [...]
It's been this way since the Vietnam war, it not the Korean war. Every president since then has been able to engage in relatively small military operations without congressional approval. And the UN is what ended formal declarations of war, too. Basically Congress can stop military actions started by the President by taking the money away or not providing it to begin with, but if the operation is small then it's a fait accompli before Congress can do anything about it.
See the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, Libya, Syria, etc.
In America, there's nothing unusual here: Presidents can, and very frequently have, decided to do military strikes on targets. This is not illegal in American law.
> And Trump said he hated war, which was his platform when running. What’s going on..
He’s a career con artist, that’s what’s going on.
[flagged]
Iran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
We have all this technology but you can't get a decent overview of any conflict. There is liveuamap which seems to have data and certainly is better than any other website I know of but the ui is a horrific mess.
I think it is important for the people of the world to get an idea how things are unfolding.
It should be an animation of the exchanges both verbally and physically. Have a complete set of news sources for each action.
The BBC is not something you can trust to report on anything. I can't even see a date with the article? Pictures of the situation room??? Trump's name written in gold??What a waste of my time.
Games from the 90's provide better visualizations than anything online today.
It's not in governments' interests to allow their citizens information without taking the opportunity to spin it first.
Is it true that all war = illegal ?
There are literally international legal documents regulating wars.
Perhaps, but even if that's true it doesn't mean both sides committed an illegal act. Defending against and responding to attacks is not illegal.
This is the "Why don't you use diplomacy?" administration, right? So why didn't the great negotiator use diplomacy?
I imagine every reasonably-sized country looking at this and thinking: "well, we'd be idiots not to have nuclear weapons by any means necessary."
This will be one of the single-most proliferation-inducing events in history, maybe save Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The opposite. They're thinking "if we try to do this, we will die, because their intelligence knows where we are at all times".
This war is quite paradigm shifting in multiple ways, and I'm hopeful it serves as a strong deterrent. No longer will soldiers be the first to die. The leadership is now first to die, and within a week. That significantly alters the incentives for pursuing war. This was never the case until today.
Just wait for China to get rich enough to counter American military dominance, and then ally with them for protection. Iran is already half way to becoming a Chinese vassal state, either it falls apart or becomes one completely after this.
Knowing "where you are" is irrelevant. Iraq was invaded under the pretense of having weapons of mass destruction, so the rational thing to do is having them anyway, cause the US can bomb you anytime if you don't. Meanwhile, North Korea is 100% fine.
The rational thing is to be killed in an airstrike when you are 10% into your nuclear program? I don't understand the justification for this opinion.
a rogue nuke can "accidentally slip in" from another evil country. a few more nukes and you're now un-nukeable.
deterrence works. we should admit it
This is the ultimate gamble here. On one path, those considering a nuke could be deterred after realizing the Trump administration is willing to use that as a reason to attack. On the other path, countries could either decide the risk of attack is necessary or estimate the risk of future administrations acting similarly as low enough to go for the bomb.
To be fair. I think what happened in Ukraine did far more to cause nations to think like this.
The US convinced Ukraine to give up its nukes and return them to Russia. Russia was supposed to never attack in exchange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Russia isn't attacking, it's reclaiming it's rightful territory.
According to Putin...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-21/putin-says-whole-of-u...
/s in case it's not obvious.
Putin is a sociopath, which equips him with all the necessary tools to charm the easily flattered.
[flagged]
What actually happened was Ukrainians rebelling against a Putin's puppet. I know because I was there rebelling and absolutely nobody "staged" me.
Yeah, yeah, the same puppet that negotiated between EU and Russia and took Russian deal just because it was much more profitable for Ukraine. And he got toppled for that choice. Cool story bro.
Yep, that's how it ends. I expect, there will be many many countries with nukes in 2030. Even a country like Poland, which is part of Nato, announced that it will seek to acquire nuclear weapons in the future.
South Korea looks like they are pursing nukes already.
I think you put a few too many negatives in that first sentence, and are missing a clause. As-is, you're just imagining them not thinking something.
Thanks. I was missing another negative but I opted to just take them all out.
We started thinking that after seeing Palestine get bombed and US vetoing every attempt at aid. We used to be a neutral country since independence, but Ukraine and Gaza proved that the world will just stand aside and watch the neutral countries get exterminated by nuclear nations.
Strangely (maybe), the US seems to be vassal to Israel.
The extent to which condemning something approaching genocide is accused of being an anti-semitic position is... telling.
Not to say that there aren't ridiculous levels of complexity to the whole situation, but the pendulum is being held very far to one side by the king.
The issue is that a nuclear armed Iran (and remember that Iran is largely detested in the middle east, and is broadly considered to be a destabilizing enemy) would result in the rest of the middle east feeling compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs. No one wants an nuclear armed Iran.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an end to non-proliferation treaty and large nuclear alliances.
The Russia-Ukraine war already did that. Ukraine let us talk them into giving up their nukes, and see what happened.
Iran having nukes would mean peace in the Middle East.
Iran having nukes (and recall that in the broader middle east, Iran is largely considered a dangerous enemy) would result in the rest of the middle east pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran. Iran having nukes is a very bad idea - that's why the west , and even countries beyond, have been working for decades to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Any self respecting dictator could see the writing on the wall after Gadaffi, or for that matter, Sadam. A domestic nuclear program though is still not a simple proposition.
This is obviously correct. Nuclear weapons = sovereignty. UN recognition is a piece of paper.
9 countries exist. So much for self-determination.
I wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea is now doubling its efforts and even offering Russia additional resources to help it acquire nuclear capabilities.
North Korea has nukes, which has seriously changed the calculus in the region. Worse is that they are a vassal state of China.
Doesn't NK already have nukes?
More means better deterrence I guess. Didn’t China decide to build a shitton more to match the US numbers recently?
You're right. Didn't know!
You say that but Iran couldn’t even escalate their rhetoric post-strike because “Every American is now a legitimate target” is now a tired refrain rather than a feared declaration.
The lesson here is not to make idle threats against half of the world that you don’t honestly mean.
Iran can’t project power. Other than employing their terrorist proxies - they are in a no win situation.
Russia and China can’t project power either. Only few countries can and the US is the best at it.
I don't follow your logic.
You're saying that there exists some country capable of a nuclear weapons program (an exceedingly difficult thing), that for some reason has not actually built one, and now that they see Iran pummeled for trying to build theirs... is now incentivized to finally go for it??
Turkey, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Finland and even Switzerland* are all assessed as having the capability but having refrained for political reasons.
* the Swiss nuclear weapons programme ran for over four decades during the Cold War
History disagrees with you, and Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. They were even providing Russia with arms for their invasion of Ukraine. Let's not equate them with many others, such as Poland, etc. Iran absolutely should not be allowed under any circumstances to have a nuclear weapon. If they were as close as what intelligence seems to indicate (though I know that's hard to believe after the Iraq war, but we aren't in a ground war so the burden of proof is understandably less) then I frankly don't think it would have mattered if it were Kamala, Biden, or Trump in office. The facilities were getting bombed.
The scenario was already war gamed during the Biden administration, it was already a possible outcome. The G7 already backed this idea that Iran can't have this before, and they'll do it again. The US doesn't stand alone on this, Saudi Arabia and basically everyone in the region and world doesn't want Iran having a nuke sans Russia/China. I'm not even sure if Russia/China really want it either. It's just common sense.
This is absolutely the case. We've been collectively fighting to stop Iran from getting nukes for decades. In much of the middle east, Iran is considered a serious enemy. Iran getting nuclear weapons would mean the rest of the middle east would instantly feel compelled to get their own.
So is that the end of Iran’s nuclear programme, or is there more to it?
They're committed. They'll rebuild. Just as Stuxnet just delayed things.
Paper are committed to stop them it seems as well.
Terminator Skynet rules, they just delayed it.
This is just another square in my world war three bingo board. Sits pretty close to breaking the nuclear taboo square.
A country doesn't acquire nukes to use them. They acquire them to freeze specific layers of conflict. Actually using them among peers invites annihilation.
Statistics says even if it’s true, unintended use probability sky rockets risking nuclear winter.
It turns out (and I didn't realize this until I looked back into it just a few years ago) that the 70s/80s concept of nuclear winter is discredited and believed not to be something that would arise from a global thermonuclear holocaust.
Annihilation, that would make a good square on the bingo board
https://popular.info/p/what-will-happen-if-the-united-states
This is the end of any hope. Iran will now do everything in its power to get one. And it has all the skills it needs.
Refinement keeps getting easier.
They've been doing anything in their power to get nuclear weapons for decades! This isn't some new trend that just occurred to them last week.
Is there an end to this?
The US actually ends Iran's nuclear program, they quit trying and obey ... because we bombed them?
Most of the recent middle east history doesn't seem to ever end as much as just go through a continuous cycle of violence creating more of what the folks condoning violence claim they're preventing.
fwiw they do seem to have wiped out a bunch of opponents recently, some weakened to the point of giving up, others wiped out entirely. ever since the so-called "arab spring" the trend has been pretty steady.
What do you think all of the children of parents murdered by Israel will do? There will be much stronger resistance in the future.
I wonder that too, with Gaza with the current approach the only endgame seems to be to either just kill everyone or to displace every single person somewhere else, but if those children continue to have living conditions of animals, their resistance will be of no consequence. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but i think this is not inaccurate unfortunately.
preventive genocide
Iraq completely shut down post war so yeh its possible
We fought a war against Iraq, conducted no fly zone operations over them for 12 years, fought another war, occupied them for 9 years, left and came back less than 3 years later for another 7 year long military operation against the terrorist group that filled the power vacuum. We still have about 2500 troops stationed in Iraq.
We still have 55k in Japan and 24k in Korea, what exactly is your point? 2500 troops for a military the size of the US is a rounding error.
Thank you for the additional examples of things not simply shutting down after a quick conflict. Lasting peace requires decades of military involvement. That is my point.
All that is supported by the American public buying defense stocks. Just new war strategies when party in power changes.
It's a completely different story. The roots and branches of Iran and its current leadership go deeper and wider on a different level. Saddam had nothing in comparison. Hamas would be a cakewalk in comparison and that's apparently still going.
Hard to see this being achievable over a just a couple of years if at all.
Iraq wasn't a populist movement. Iran is.
Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. That was the assessment of Trump's own government back in March, according to testimony of his national security advisor under oath before congress.
We knew about these sites because they have been under IAEA supervision for many years.
The smart thing for Iran to do at this point is do what Israel did: not submit to any arms control and develop their own weapons in secret. Clearly this is the only way to be safe when people in Tel Aviv and Washington are openly discussing the "Libya solution."
This is grammar-hacking and misleading.
According to the IAEA, Iran has around 400kg of 60% enriched Uranium. Nobody disputes this. There is zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 5% for civilian purposes, and zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 20% for non-bomb purposes (naval ship reactors typically use higher enrichment to avoid refueling and increase power density). That's enough Uranium to build around 10 bombs if fully enriched. They've done work on designing the actual bomb itself, too, and there's very little dispute about that either.
They have a nuclear weapons program. What Iran hasn't done, or there's no evidence of them having done, is actually start putting one together. But many of the prerequisites to do so are in place, though people dispute exactly how long it would take them to pull it off once they decided to do so.
Gaining the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon is not the same thing as assembling one.
Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, March 2025:
"the IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." [1]
Please explain how "Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program" is grammar hacking the above quote.
[1] https://youtu.be/nOhOqjx1y18?t=701
If you're actively doing the research and design required to build a nuclear weapon, and you're enriching uranium for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon, you have a nuclear weapons program. Whether you're actually physically assembling one immediately or not.
You wouldn't argue that the Manhattan Project wasn't a "real" nuclear weapons program until they started physically building the prototype.
I think his point is: you knew about this 60% because we have visibility into their plants. But if we didn't, we probably have less of an idea of what is going on there.
> There is zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 5% for civilian purposes,
False.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/69513/7643
This is grossly incorrect: Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment for decades - and the west (and even the not-west) has been working to counter it the whole time.
Iran is considered a bellicose enemy in much of the middle east. A nuclear-armed Iran would quickly lead to the rest of the middle east pursing their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran.
A nuclear armed Iran leads to rapid nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east.
Indeed.
I remember an old interview of Robert Fisk where in which his analysis was that the only way to stay safe from attacks like this was to have a nuclear weapon.
I can't think of any other way. Their rhetoric is needlessly belligerent but it doesn't seem like there's anything they can do to guarantee their own safety.
Just yesterday I was wondering when the last time was that the Middle East had a period of peace. I know it hasn't been in my lifetime.
Shortly before the assassination of Rabin?
Not since the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WWI.
One question I have on my mind is: what side will they pick in WWIII?
It was getting pretty quiet leading up to the moment Assad was deposed.
Assad was deposed more than a year after the start of the current Israel/Gaza flare up, which has included conflict in Lebanon and Yemen. He was also deposed nearly 14 years into the Syrian Civil War.
Considering the fact that many US congressmen openly fly the flag of Israel in and around their congressional offices and openly proclaim absolute commitment to this foreign entity, there is no end in sight to the direct interference in US politics and subsequent military intervention and aid supporting these people while our country is sucked dry and our soldiers are ordered to die fighting in their wars.
Seriously, what is the benefit to the US here? I can't understand how this benefits the country at all.
If Iran has nukes, then a nuke race will start in the middle East, especially with Saudis, who will want their own nukes.
Iran getting nukes is the spark that will start a lot of chain reactions.
And islamic populations are radicalized enough that the possibility of a nuke on Israel increases dramatically.
> If Iran has nukes, then a nuke race will start in the middle East
A fair concern, but it is interesting that although "estimates of Israel's stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads" [1], we are not concerned about those warheads as much as we do about the ones Iran might have. Should US bomb Israeli nuclear plants? No. Should they have bombed the Iranian ones? Why?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
Because in Israel they don't chant "death to Iran" for the past 46 year.
Amazingly none of Israel immediate neighbors, whom she has peace deals with, felt the need to obtain Nuclear weapons (Jordan/Egypt).
Israel is 1500km from Iran, people in Israel don't care about Iran they only think about Iran in the context of the weekly threats to destroy Ireal for the past 46 years. Iran on the other hand has a fucked up regime. That's the difference.
> Death to Arabs is an anti-Arab slogan originating in Israel. It is often used during protests and civil disturbances across Israel, the West Bank, and to a lesser extent, the Gaza Strip. Depending on the person's temperament, it may specifically be an expression of anti-Palestinianism or otherwise a broader expression anti-Arab sentiment, which includes non-Palestinian Arabs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Arabs
[flagged]
I forgot that the state of Israel is more important than the lives of a half billion people.
Have you been to Israel? I have cousins there. When I was 14 and visited, my 19 year old cousin told me we need to kill all the Arabs because “if we exile them, they will just come back.” Do you really think (a large segment of) Israelis are less crazy than (a large segment of) Iranians?
Israel has always threatened its neighbors. Remember, it was born as a group of European Jews that attacked Palestine to conquer their land, with arms provided to them by Europe. It will always exist under a state of war.
We have to let Israel die off and change our alliances. An alliance with Iran would be much more beneficial to America than an alliance with Israel.
We didn't want Israel to have nukes either, we tried to stop them and failed. We wouldn't bomb Israel's nukes because they -already- have them, and they have grown in a semi-reliable regional ally since then. We are trying to stop Iran from having them at all to prevent them from being essentially off-limits to retaliation (note Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism / people's fears of supporting Ukraine given Russia keeps threatening nuclear action) and kicking off a regional nuclear arms race.
Maybe it has something to do with Israel being an ally and Iran sponsoring terrorism all over the region
Islamic populations?
Most of Islamic republics are fiefdoms, kingdoms and dictatorships. Most of the populations are radicalized, and have very limited freedom of speech and right to protest.
Have you lived in any of these Islamic countries?
You just have to read a wikipedia article on them. No need to live there.
Is that a pre-condition to know about countries, leaderships and general public?
I have not lived in the US, and I know a lot about the US national character.
Yes, I would say that making sweeping statements about a populace does require actual first-hand experience with said populace.
I think this attack makes it more likely they’ll get nukes, not less. They moved all their enriched uranium already, and now they know that there’s no longer any point in diplomacy.
The next facilities they build will be a few times deeper, and I have no doubt we’ll soon be hearing that ground troops are the only way to stop them.
They had already crossed the line into nuclear tech that's specifically for weapons, i.e. with a 400kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%. Unless we accept explanations like "scientific curiosity", they were already somewhere in the process of building nuclear weapons, even if success wasn't immanent.
I don't know how long these operations will set them back, but if the Iranian regime won't willingly refrain from nuclear weapons work, isn't a delay better than nothing?
60% enrichment is not weapons grade. Weapons grade is 80%. High enrichment is used in certain reactor designs, such as naval reactors.
There are a lot of reasons to be enriching uranium besides building nuclear weapons. Considering the US reneged on its deal to drop sanctions in exchange for Iran to not enrich uranium, it is pretty obviously useful as a bargaining chip, in the negotiations.
The US intelligence community assessed that Iran has not been working on a bomb since the program was shut down in 2003. They didn't want a nuke, they wanted an end to sanctions. They further wanted to avoid provoking exactly this sort of conflict. This did not delay them getting nuclear weapons, it will make them get nuclear weapons.
To quote an ISIS report, "Iran has no civilian use or justification for its production of 60 percent enriched uranium, particularly at the level of hundreds of kilograms". In theory it could be for naval propulsion, but experts (including IAEA inspectors) seem unconvinced.
They had a very obvious use for it: trade it to the US in exchange for sanctions relief.
They “could have” had nuclear weapons for a long time if they’d wanted to, yes, but they didn’t get them. They signed the NPT, allowed inspections, and their ruler issued a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons. Why’d they do all that if their goal all along was to get a nuclear weapon? They could have just done it.
These attacks make it clear that they would have been better off if they had gotten them, so it seems reasonable to assume this will be their new policy. What other strategic choice have they been left with?
Just to clarify, is your position that Iran was never working toward nuclear weapons, or just not until recently? I think enriching uranium to 60% is pretty clear evidence of their intent, even though it's just one component of an eventual weapon.
Being an NPT signatory could be evidence of Iran not working toward nuclear weapons, if they were compliant. But they have violated their NPT obligations on some occasions, with major violations recently.
I think they wanted to be seen as credibly close as a deterrent and bargaining chip in negotiations, but they had no intention of going all the way unless attacked.
Now they likely do intend to get them asap if they’re able to.
Those can be bombed right at the beginning. Israel will probably try to establish a similar status que as in Lebanon right now - "if you make a move we immediately take it out".
And the development of a nuclear sites leaves a significant intelligence trail, not sure it can be hidden.
(Of course they can always be gifted a bomb, but that's a very different story)
Yeah I’m sure it will be a huge success with no unforeseen consequences whatsoever. Since that’s how these things have been going over the last thirty years.
Can't that be said about every path of action in this scenario?
Almost a kind of domino theory, if you will?
And that's something we will have to accept, that Islamic populations will always have nukes.
How do you plan to handle a world with Islamic populations having nukes? Because that's something you will have to plan for. You have no choice. They will not let you not let them have nukes. They will make sure they will have nukes. That's just given.
The US is the leader of the liberal empire which depends on the middle east allowing trade. Iran is standing in the way of this and wants to push back the empire's control away from the middle east... but they have their own plans to establish another empire of their own.
I know "empire" is maybe an outdated term but I'm just illustrating there are bigger incentives than at the national level. Ironically it is conservative nationalists (who are hated by the Left) that want the empire to shrink and for the US to pull back from this leadership position. The risk here is it could also destabilize the entire world, but that's a different matter.
In short, this move is an attempt to strengthen the status quo that began after WW2.If the status quo is maintained it directly benefits the US.
People who were born into, grew up in, and live the current western bubble take it for granted and genuinely believe it is something natural rather than carefully built and expensively maintained - for extraordinary benefit.
I don't take it for granted, but Israel and these trillion-dollar Mid East wars don't seem to help it. China and Russia must be very pleased with the US being so distracted for the past 50 years while they established economic control even in the Mid East.
If I had only one wish, it would be to burst this bubble.
> for extraordinary benefit.
I'm seeing a lot of death and the payoff is... Cheap gas prices? I can't imagine what. But the replies to this laying out all the benefits of blood soaked American hegemony I'm sure will be great for a laugh.
The petrodollar, which largely depends on the US having significant influence over global oil supply, is arguably the main reason why the USD is the global reserve currency and an enormous reason why the US is as wealthy as it is.
The petrodollar is severely overrated by people who claim it's the cause for every foreign policy decision they disagree with. USD is attractive because the US government is stable and US companies are attractive investments, due to a historical track record of competence and rule of law adherence - unlike, say, Saudi currency, or Russian currency, or Chinese currency. The US government doesn't do a lot of currency manipulation relative to those other countries either.
Of course, that historical record is being shat upon currently, and the importance of petroleum is on a downward trajectory from here on.
We aren't even really getting cheap gas prices out of this. Iran is one of the largest oil producers, and we won't allow trade with them, so instead we've built a relationship with other dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, who know we have no other choice. But our actions are also straining that.
This is the opposite of how I see it. This move is a complete repudiation of the post-ww2 order that emphasized the system of international laws and treaties developed by the UN. For the US to blindly follow Israel into a war with a sovereign country without even taking it to the UN or Congress is preposterous and signals the end of the post-ww2 and American domestic order. Both the UN Charter and the US Constitution are trashed and we won't recover from it in our life times. There's a reason Bush W sent Colin Powell to the UN, we still paid lip service to the rule of law 20 years ago. We don't even pretend anymore. We are trashing our laws and institution all at the behest of some a tiny racist religious extremist country.
I don’t envy the position of American diplomats the next time they are asked to negotiate an off-ramp from hostilities while military options are simultaneously being considered. Intentional or not, the diplomatic posture leading up to this point reads like diversion.
This is also how I see it. This child-man has just blown 80 years of careful control and credibility. Who allowed this to happen? A bunch of feckless children, who should never have been allowed to rule. Way to go, people. It all goes downhill from here.
"the system of international laws and treaties" are only effective to the extent that someone is going to enforce it, and that someone is the US and its allies. So ultimately it's military power that matters.
The status quo is only maintained because the US has military bases all over the world. If we retreat from the world and let Iran do whatever it wants (which is more influence and an Islamic empire), the the world order crumbles and that has an even more increased chance of WW3, as multiple nations will fight over the void left behind by the US.
Part of the reason things are unfolding this way is because the US rose to world power with the invention of the nuclear bomb.... which automatically means that toppling the US might mean nuclear war, which spells doom for the entire world. Not sure I would call that luck, but that is why the world cannot change to a new world order easily without existential risk. And as the "world police" the US doesn't want non-allies to get the bomb for this reason (something that Trump has been saying for years, which proves he is just maintaining status quo).
I hate how much I agree with this assessment.
You realize we (us) are a large, religious, racist country? Generally speaking, anti muslim, anti Iran sentiment is EXTREMELY high in the parts of the US that voted for Trump, at least based on my personal network.
Trump has undermined the status quo at every opportunity. He feels the US hasn’t been compensated for its efforts.
Nonsense. The history of the US is one of regime change wars and genocide.
It doesn't. It's all because Israel has extreme influence over US politicians.
Keeping the Arab world from building their own nuclear weapons has long been contingent on Iran not having a nuclear weapons program. It only benefits the US to the extent it prevents the situation where half the countries in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.
Good lord, it benefits far more than just America if the broader middle east doesn't enter into a rapid nuclear weapons proliferation stage. Iran is considered to be a very serious enemy throughout much of the middle east. A nuclear armed Iran is a very bad idea.
This paper from 1999 provides some context about the US and Israel relationship in the context of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
The third temple's holy of holies : Israel's nuclear weapons
https://dp.la/item/525bc46d51878c5e285d9069a80246d0
It benefits the MIC, this is unlikely to be the end of this conflict.
the dude needs a PR win of some kind. I guess he gave up on the Nobel prize and decided to try something else. Aside from that, could really be a chance to end the nukes there and try to topple the regime, who knows what's going to happen, but time-wise now is the best opportunity.
Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism. They cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. No country that doesn't have a nuclear weapons program enriches uranium to 60%. Iran must be forced to come to a diplomatic negotiation.
I understand Iran is a headache to Israel, but did it have to be an enemy of USA? Isn't Iran's ambition, and its proxies, are all regional in nature? Have they ever attempted to harm an american living in America?
Israel has led an amazingly succesful campaign in presenting their problems (often arising out of their territorial ambitions) as a problem for the entire west.
Letting a death cult of religious zealots have nukes is an awful idea for the entire world.
Agreed, I also support the denuclearization of Israel.
And hopefully also keeping US religious nuts away from power.
I agree which is why we need to get all these evangelical nuts actively trying to destroy the world so that Jesus come back out of power. No more death cults!.
Religious zealots close to power also exist in Israel and the US.
Israel definitely, but the US? Ehhh we have religious zealots but they're very tame as compared to zealots elsewhere. Not a lot of beheadings or executions going on here.
So, Israel then?
Iran has killed a bunch of Americans, but typically not inside America.
Here’s a list, make of that what you want: https://x.com/chalavyishmael/status/1936107345093996775?s=46
The US has many economic and strategic interests in the Middle East.
The US is leaving many moments for Iran to come to the table to stop building towards nuclear power.
Khamenei is largely popular, even though the youth of Iran largely doesn't support the regime at a whole.
The root problem is the military is controlled by various factions of lunatics that want to see the end of Israel. It's these people ought to be mercilessly killed and I have no qualms once so ever advocating for brutal violence and (preferably) murder against them.
The Netherlands and Germany both produce highly enriched uranium despite not having nuclear weapons programs. 60% enrichment is insufficient for use in nuclear weapons. Iran's enriched uranium is its main bargaining chip in the diplomatic negotiations that the US walked away from. Iran was assessed by the US intelligence community to not be developing nuclear weapons.
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorist groups. The key word being “state”. There are many well known terrorist groups that are not sponsored by Iran.
Iran was willing to "come to a diplomatic negotiation" before Israel pre-emptively and unilaterally attacked. In fact, Iran and the US had found a diplomatic solution before Trump tore it up and promised to get a better deal (and then repeatedly failed to do so).
> Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism.
How much does Iran spend sponsoring terrorism?
Iran did come to a diplomatic solution: the JCPOA [0]. Unfortunately, it was Obama who did it, so Trump tore it up in his first term. Why would Iran believe that any diplomatic outcome is meaningful?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
[flagged]
Why must we stop Iran's terrorism? Their terrorism is directed at Israel, not America.
We can in fact just as easily support Iran's attacks against Israel. No reason to pick either side.
Right now the American people are coming to the consensus that Israel are the bad guys. Everybody under 50 already recognizes that, purely based on the thousands of Palestinian toddlers they see on Instagram that Israel kills and injures (the popular post today on Instagram is of a toddler with his legs severed). And the people over 50 will eventually die off, causing Israel's base of support to disappear.
There is no hope of Israel's permanent existence. We should remove our support for Israel immediately and prepare for the long term.
You see the Gaza child missing limbs. They see the Israeli civilian massacred by Hamas. The quantity is far less relevant than the quality of Instagrams (and any other) algorithm.
What is the realistic path to Israels demise exactly? This country, which literally JUST voted in Trump knowing full well he would approve this approach, is going to change course that much?
I'll believe it when Texas finally goes blue, such ive been hearing about for 11 election cycles now.
The world is better off if a theocracy whose leadership believes in jihad doesn’t have nukes.
We should probably keep nukes away from these NAR whackadoodles and their puppets as well.
Why do you highlight that the theocracy "believes in jihad" and not that the theocracy has issued a religious decree opposing weapons of mass destruction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
they are trying to cut off chinas oil, settle a score, and defend "greater israel"
they are also punishing iran for selling oil in their national currency
imperialism run amok
If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island? More generally, you don't think its likely that, regardless of what you think of Israel, their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
> If they wanted to disrupt China's oil wouldn't they have hit the main export terminal on Kharg Island?
They aren't ready to directly start that war. They are trying to cut off the alliances first. Iran is a much smaller country (90M vs over a billion) with a lot of oil. Conveniently, Iran is already so dehumanized many Americans don't even recognize their rights to sovereignty.
> their main motivation is they don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
No. They have been trying to attack Iran since the revolution. It's similar to how Cuba embarrassed America and was never forgiven. If Iran wanted a weapon they'd have one. However, these attacks may force Iran to get one because countries with nuclear weapons appear to actually have sovereignty. Iran of course retains the possibility of making one, hoping that will have the same effect, but it appears that doesn't do it.
If this was about the benefit to the United States, then we would have had months of public buildup and debate like we did with the war in Iraq. It is hardly an example of a good decision, but history shows that it was at least a popular one; the majority of poll respondents and of legislators were both in favor of the initial invasion of Iraq. I was only eleven at the time, but I remember most moderate Democrats and independents who I knew (including, particularly, my seventh-grade history teacher, who was no fan of Bush) were in favor of the war.
Contrast that to the situation today, when polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to involvement [1] and even some prominent Republican legislators (Gaetz, IIRC) were against the war. This is the Trump show: it's motivated by his ego and hopium. He's more erratic than ever. Historically, American presidents almost never started a major war without popular support (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all popular when they started, and I think Libya and Kosovo were too). I can't even think of a case where the country was dragged into a war that was opposed 60% to 16% in favor. I would be very interested to hear if there ever was one.
1: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/19/israel-iran-war-americans-p...
[flagged]
Re: Death to America.
Why don't you go die!
I don't mean it literally, read: https://www.mypersiancorner.com/death-to-america-explained-o...
Isn't it great when people take things out of context? In this case the context that wishing death is quite common in Iranian expressions of frustrations?
> Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003
Where did you get that info? Makes no sense. South Korea has been consistently against starting another war with NK for at least 30 years or so, and besides, in 2003 South Korea was ruled by Kim Dae-Jung, famous for he's staunch support of improving relations with North Korea (he got a Nobel prize for that), and then Roh Moo-Hyun, from the same party and largely following Kim's foreign policy.
Thanks to them we had no wars, and of course now we have some young whippersnappers complaining about their "pro-NK" policies, saying we could have totally bombed NK, starting a war, and burning the peninsula to the ground, but at least North Korea won't have nukes today!
This was during the 2002-03 standoff during which the Yeongpyeong crisis occured.
It was after the Six Party Talks started in Aug 2003 that tensions started cooling down, before North Korea stunned the world in 2006.
Edit: though now that I think about it, I might be confusing this incident with the 1993-94 incident.
While I understand not wanting countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes, it does protect them from invasion. We've seen what happened after Ukraine gave up their nukes. Less we forget, the Neocons of the Bush era wanted to remake the entire Middle East, not just Iraq and Afghanistan.
> nukes ... protect them from invasion
Israel has nukes and Hamas still invaded them.
Perhaps nukes protect you from invasion by rational actors, but I don't think they work on zealots.
And yet Israel does not denuclearize.
I certainly hope Iran's adversaries are rational actors.
Nukes alone do not prevent invasions.
You need to have delivery mechanisms like medium/long range ballistic missiles and second strike capabilities like SLCMs.
Which country with nukes has been invaded?
Iran has been amply demonstrating their missile capabilities on the city of Tel Aviv for the past week.
[flagged]
It seems like we're already seeing people here attempt to manufacture consent for a war with Iran.
Frankly you're not going to have a very strong chance of convincing me given Israel's actions over the past few years.
Disarm Israel. And bomb it too if it will resist.
The actions of the US and Israel are only proving an unfortunate trend of reality: The only deterrence against invasion from other countries is nuclear deterrence. We had a comprehensive deal with Iran to limit their nuclear program which Trump tore up in 2017 and which Israel is taking advantage of today.
[flagged]
The source is mossad, in case anyone gets fooled by the presence of a citation like me.
Truly the source which is currently attempting to drag us into a war with Iran (and succeeding) is one to be trusted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Oil for starters. Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east. By proxy they are participating in every conflict.
A nuclear iran would be completely intolerable, never mind that their regime might just be lunatic enough to use them.
Add that war is bad for the whole world.
So the us benefits that it protects her economic (and strategic) interests in the ME, which are real and extremely important, at the low cost of a limited air campaign.
There are further moral arguments, but i'm answering your question in the most direct way.
> Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east
Says Israel, the nation who tore up every single international laws, directly led campaign against UN and ICC, and whose right-wing (ones in power now) have been dreaming about a Greater Israel that threatens territorial integrity of like 10 different ME countries.
It's seeming more and more like Israel, which propped up Hamas for example, is the principal destabilizing element in the region, and therefore really it's America, which spearheaded the original overthrow of Iranian democracy, alongside all its other middle eastern meddling for the last fifty years.
>Oil
If we want their oil, we can buy it like reasonable people do. What you're referring to is armed robbery.
>Iran is the principle destabilising element in the middle east
Is this a joke? The country that has not started any wars in its 300 year existence is not the "destabilizing element". That would be the country that has attacked Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran this year alone.
This is a strange comparison. Iran funds the Houthis, for example, who commit plenty of acts of war. And if you’re talking about starting wars, it’s worth noting that the present war in Gaza was started by Hamas. (I’m making no statement about whether the actions of either side or justified — I’m just pointing out that, in the present shooting war, the first shots were fired by Hamas, not Israel.)
You misunderstood me. I was talking about oil from the other gulf states. About 25 percent of the global oil supply goes through the straight of Hormuz. If iran were to disrupt that it would be disastrous for obvious reasons.
It's logical for the West to work to prevent that from being a possibility.
Iran/persia is far older then 300 years old. But again you somehow missed the point. I was talking about the current 40 year old regime, which while not having directly started any wars, have since the beginning declared their intentions to do so against America and Israel.
Really you are being deliberately obtuse.
The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This wouldn’t be happening if they had a credible, survivable nuclear deterrence. QED this forces Iran to acquire nukes.
Ukraine and Iran have showed that if a country doesn't have nukes they don't have sovereignty.
I think Pakistan is the example you're looking for.
US spend a decade fighting in Afghanistan and 0 years in Pakistan despite UBL being in Pakistan.
Osama Bin Laden could have turned up outside the White house to hand himself in and they still would have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq.
9/11 was used as an excuse to for these regime change wars. There are old videos where they were talking about doing this in the 2000s.
North Korea is another example.
Well, it’s not really that simple. Plenty of countries are still sovereign without nuclear weapons.
And even nuclear armed nations aren’t exactly able to use their weapons to devastate an opponents military - see Ukraine and Russia.
Thats because they have friends with nukes (or thought they did).
Which country? Do you think Canada is sovereign? Do you think it will be able to defend itself if Trump gives the military an order to make them the 51st state by any means necessary?
Well, Afghanistan defended itself for a bit. As did Vietnam, as clear examples. Neither possess nuclear weapons.
Today countries as various as Brazil and Australia are independent, sovereign nations. Even Ukraine which was invaded by nuclear-armed Russia is still sovereign and fighting. Iran for that matter still has its sovereignty, they just lost some military assets.
Canada is sovereign because of its proximity and interconnection with US. If your economy is large enough, you can "nuke" your opponents by using mutually assured poverty.
But I largely agree, if you aren't a giant economy and you don't have nukes - then if the US or Russia accesses you of building nukes, you need to start building nukes ASAP.
> Do you think Canada is sovereign
Well the prime minister who was elected promising not to bend the knee to Trump has bent the knee to trump.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/06/20/Carney-Elbows-Down/
I was looking forward to an interesting argument, sadly it's just a very badly written opinion piece.
Ok and so now Canada isn’t a sovereign country? That would be astonishing news to Canadians everywhere! Can someone tell them??!
Taiwan has no nukes, and still has not been invaded by China.
Taiwan has a good friend with nukes though.
Most countries have good friends with nukes. Iran included.
I don't expect this to stay true for very long :(
Next would be manufacturing your own smartphones. Sad that not making weapons and enslaving your own populace makes you subject to external countries.
That is until some country proves that developing nukes means you no longer have a country.
It looks like it might even be Iran.
Russia was the first nuclear armed state to lose territory to a retired comedian.
Iran will definitely continue pursuing uranium enrichment. IRIB claims that the enriched uranium stockpile was moved away from those locations - which makes sense, so they probably didn't lose their stockpile. They will build new enrichment sites, which means bombing again.
I think it's too early to say that the Fordow facility has definitely been destroyed. So far I've only heard Trump make the claim and I'm not inclined to take his word for it.
True, Trump's words are worthless. I'm hearing that the Iranian state media is claiming no irreversible damage at Fordow / only entry points were targeted - but ofcourse that doesn't carry much weight either.
FWIW one take on all of this that I have considered is that Israel and the US have been looking for an out that allows them to claim to have successfully achieved their objectives. I wouldn't be surprised if this attack was unsuccessful but won't be followed up if that becomes apparent later.
Israel only just (before this US bombing) claimed they had set Iran's nuclear program back by 2-3 years. I found the timing of the announcement curious.
This after suffering extensive damage from direct missile strikes (Haifa port/refinery, Mossad headquarters, Wiezmann institute, C4I/cyber defense, etc). I think the missile strikes have been much more damaging than expected and understandably under-reported. Weapons expert Ted Postol of MIT claims Israel's missile defense is only intercepting around 5%.
I think Israel will be very unhappy if things continue to escalate without further US involvement. Depending on how Iran retaliates against the US, further involvement might not be forthcoming. We've seen seen Iran attack a US base in Jordan without causing escalation from the US. Could expect something similar.
> Weapons expert Ted Postol of MIT claims Israel's missile defense is only intercepting around 5%
Do you have a link to this? I’m curious to read more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvjyKAr3-Y
From about 2:50
Also talks about the likely success of the 'bunker busters' at Fodrow.
refinary will be back operational this week
mossad hq - miss. hit sewage instead https://imgur.com/a/L3PUqCi
weizman - bombed wing that contains cancer and rare deceases research labs. amazing
C4I/cyber defense. missed. hit soroka hospital.
I'm not sure what you mean - Iran has been full-tilt pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. And America, its partners, and even its definitely-not-partners, have been working to counter that the whole time.
Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
The other irony being it starting out with claiming a country has WMDs on questionable evidence.
I hope the US can use hindsight right now to guide the next decisions.
Then it might be better that the country really has WMD.
Otherwise uncle Sam will let you know you have them
I've wondered how much of a deterrent dirty bombs are or aren't outside of nukes and curious if they might be in the cards for retaliatory moves by Iran.
My understanding is those don't accomplish much militarily since they just give people cancer 30 years later. So you commit a war crime for no military advantage, then what? The other country just hits back with a dirty bomb of their own?
Israel would say if Iran just stops attacking and threatening Israel then they wouldn't need to defend themselves.
As controversial of a figure he is, the Hasanabi Doctrine at play.
Precisely, Trump could only do this terrorist attack because he knows for certain that Iran does not have nukes. Nukes are an abomination to the Islamic Rules of War - which is why there is/was a long standing fatwa against it.
Bombing a mountain spinning uranium around to find the right isotopes to make death spheres is an act of terrorism against uranium spinning around.
I guess this fatwa doesn’t apply to Pak Army?
Why would Sunni leaders adhere to another sect's fatwas?
You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This was their only leverage in negotiation. Trump is about to make a speech in 30 minutes. It's over for them. The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. Israeli intelligence and bombing for the past week was setting up for this final act.
They can continue to bomb Israel at will. These minimal attacks will not stop that and there will be no regime change.
lol remind me in 2 weeks
[dead]
> The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work.
I'm old enough to remember when we (the US) ran this exact playbook, except the last letter was 'q' instead of 'n'.
Spoiler: the B-2 played a part in both of the big wars we lost in the last couple of decades. The problem hinges on the definition of "work": yes, the bombs hit what they are aimed at. No, that does not result in operational success without a coherent theory of victory.
I'm old enough to remember that Iraq had its entire government toppled in about 3 weeks after the US invasion so this is not the example you think it is lol. You conveniently redefined what we are talking about. You must not remember saddam getting dragged through the streets.
I do remember all of that.
What happened next? Did it go to plan? Nearly to plan? Close enough to plan that one could kind of squint and give partial credit? Worse than that?
Did the US lose more lives in Iraq (and kill more Iraqis) before or after "Mission Accomplished"?
you don't have to squint to see reality.
saddam is gone and there was a regime change.
that's it. that's what we were talking about.
no need to go into other areas of the conversation that didn't exist before you came along to insert some reason why you feel justified defending a regime that oppresses women through a "morality police" force. i don't care why you think they should be allowed to have nukes. i'm sure you can argue for it all day. you don't need to get philosophical about what is "winning" or "working".
if you can't agree on objective reality and what we are discussing, we have nothing to discuss. move on
Yes, the regime changed. Objectively, that is true. We agree on that. And then...
the US lost nearly 5,000 service members in Iraq. We are still paying for the $3 trillion the war cost. Americans derived no benefit whatsoever from the change of regime in Iraq, a country that had not attacked us.
As an American who lives in a US city not currently under attack by Iran, it is reasonable to ask why we should sign up for this again. This has absolutely zero with defending Iran. How they manage their domestic affairs has no bearing on me.
If there is a case to be made that we should curtail our urgent domestic policy goals in favor of another war thousands of miles from the US, it has not been made.
My concern is this: I have no dog in this fight, but now I am going to be asked to pay for it. And it working like it "worked" in Iraq is my primary concern on that front.
Isolating the first 3 weeks or so from an 8-year war to say that it "worked" is obviously a special kind of sophistry. I'm not sure what purpose is served by such an analysis, honestly.
Don’t forget the $20T in entitlement spending/debt that the boomers paid themselves. War is small beans!
And I'm old enough to remember the previous war with Iraq which left Iraq's government intact, and the 12 years of no fly zone operations before attempt 2. I also remember attempt 2 costing around $3 Trillion.
I remember that being caused by a massive US ground invasion, not by sustained bombing. Has the US spent the last six months building up ground forces on Iran's borders?
It only works if you think victory was hitting the target.
What makes you think a ground invasion is likely?
When I look at Russia invading Ukraine, and I see how Israel is behaving, and I listen to the American president talking about annexing my country, I can see why a country might believe it needs nuclear weapons.
Whether this is good or bad is something people can discuss. But I think it’s fleetingly difficult for me to see any sort of righteous high ground these days.
With Trump in office, everybody should be seeking them out, Canada included.
I'm not sure what wise national defense policy would be. But I can't argue with anyone who might reach that conclusion.
If they don’t understand math and risk, they should. The US nearly nuked itself multiple times during development and learning. It will happen when everyone else races to build them.
Yes, I hear nukes are dangerous.
I mean if Russia can just walk into Ukraine, why can't Israel terrorize Iran from the sky. Why can't China just waltz into Taiwan?
The thing about Trump's isolationism is that it's actually a passive aggressive position. Imagine you know which kids in your classroom are likely to fight and you take a policy of "I won't stop it if it happens", that's basically telling some of the kids "go ahead", so how is this isolationist?
Now, literally joining in on the fight when the kids pop off, that is uniquely Trumpian.
In the case of Taiwan, because there's not really a path to victory from straight up invasion that accomplishes anything really meaningful, unless Xi is down for his legacy to be 5 million deaths and the sudden burden of tens of millions of infrastructureless refugees that are apparently full throated PRC citizens now.
The PRC's only realistic hope is a soft power takeover which it seems mildly competent at progressing on. About to have a serious setback with the KMT recalls though.
I can only see China invading after SMIC has matched the capabilities of TSMC. China wouldn't need TSMC anymore and if the rest of the world' tech sectors collapse then sucks for them but not China.
It’s horrible that the president can start a war without even asking congress.
"Accountability is the essence of democracy. If people do not know what their government is doing, they cannot be truly self-governing. The national security state assumes the government secrets are too important to be shared, that only those in the know can see classified information, that only the president has all the facts, that we must simply trust that our rulers of acting in our interest." ~ Garry Wills
Never heard of Wills? Whet your appetite with his masterpiece and best work (in my humble opinion): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29435.Nixon_Agonistes
Horrible, and illegal, but Congress has repeatedly refused to do their constitutional duty.
It's, unfortunately, not illegal unless the military action continues for more than 60 days without Congressional approval. This is due to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
These strikes are not illegal in the American body of legislation and law. We've been doing things like this for many decades.
The strong do as they will while the weak suffer what they must.
I’m glad that trump has returned us to a world where quotes from the 5th century bc seem like commentary on current affairs, since it means that all my time learning about power dynamics in political systems during antiquity is now completely relevant to dealing with current events, rather than a giant waste of time.
My impression was that this wasn’t how the US worked?
The last formal declaration of war by the US was during World War 2.
We got very good at gray area nonsense. The Korean War is not a war, it's a conflict. The Vietnam War is not a war, it's an engagement. We have police actions, "peacekeeping" operations, and a hundred other things...but not "wars".
We have the "global war on terror" and the accompanying Authorization for the Use of Military Force, created in the wake of 9/11 and still in effect today.
Congressional approval of military action is fundamentally dead.
Congress has been happily shedding its powers for decades. They don't want to be held responsible if a war turns out badly, so they haven't declared a war since 1945, I believe.
WWII ended in 1945. The last time the US officially declared war was June 4, 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
The last US declaration of war was in 1942, against Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania (allies of Nazi Germany).
You’re right; it’s how the US malfunctions.
Congress does not have a spine.
It wasn't supposed to be how it worked but our legislature is basically dysfunctional and either vaguely gave away or just won't protect its own power.
This administration has been great at finding bugs in the code where the devs refuse to do shit
That said this particular bug for starting wars without congress has been exploited for decades with no patches in site
...and don't forget Gödel's Loophole (from Wikipedia):
> Gödel's Loophole is a supposed "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit America's republican structure to be legally turned into a dictatorship.
Generally no, but if you gaslight yourself into thinking you're the greatest democracy in the world with no equal and you need no patches or bugfixes, you can achieve a lot without any real checks or balances.
It's been like that for more than 20 years.
That requirement has been honored rarely or skimpingly at best.
name one instance where congress wasn't involved in decisions around war powers.
when were they involved in the past 30 years?
not once, but twice with iraq in 1990 and 2003 (just to name one). but you still haven't fielded my question.
This hasn't been a rule since WWII?
I'm not even American and I know that this act was passed after the Vietnam War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
> The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.
So it seems he's allowed to do this? It's still within 48 hours, so he has time to officially "notify" Congress, if he hasn't done so already. And since this was an aerial bombing, no armed forces remain there, so the 60-day bit is irrelevant.
He notified the opposition leadership prior to the announcement on his social media website so he actually complied with that part.
He didn't. The war was already started, he lent brief assistance.
As is tradition: Israel says jump, the US responds "How high?"
Suppose we should congratulate Bibi on his ascendancy to the US presidency.
Elon is out, Bibi is in.
If it were legal, Russia probably would surpass Israel in political influence...legally.
Russia’s main drone supplier is about to be knocked offline
They've got a bunch of other facilities dotted around the place: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/16/ukraine-war-br...
According to a Ukrainian friend Russia is now producing them themselves. They got the design plans from Iran.
Russia's drones are primarily domestic production, not imported. The original Shaheds and their design were imported, but now the Russians are on the Geran-3 version and are cranking them out at the cyclic rate.
Ukrainian sources still insist on calling them "Shaheds": https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/06/4/7515633/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/29/russia-iran-...
Not the situation as it stands. If it ends here its a disaster for Netanyahu.
As concerns global stability a single precision strike from an untouchable platform with zero marginal increase in obligations on strained naval assets is basically the best case scenario. If we had dropped a bomb, took a picture in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and gone back to playing chess with peer adversaries in any conflict since the Korean War it would have been the smart move. The United States military is designed to protect global trade and win high intensity conflicts against peer adversaries and be seen preparing for it as a deterrant. It does this job extremely well. It was not designed for assymetrical quagmires with no possible palatable exit strategy.
Likud may be willing to fight Iran to the last American, but I'd rather we didn't.
Israel is "too big to fail" at this point. Netanyahu knows he can provoke every country in the world and if he ever meets real resistance the US government and military will take over. There's literally no way this cannot end well for him.
Maybe, but I think that in the cold calculus of geo-realpolitik, TSMC is more important than Israel in a world where WTI is unlikely to ever trade above 150 and will never break 200 [1]. APAC is influential, but not in the same way it was when the entire economy was weeks from collapse without Israel dominating the region.
And the Trump Administration understands that we can't defend them both at a cost the public will accept. I think. Even MAGA diehards are like 70% opposed to another quagmire in the Middle East even if Trump endorses like a downticket primary radical.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm
That may be the perception from the outside due to theater (Trump holding Netanyahu's chair for the cameras etc.), but these plans have existed forever. Here is a plan from the Brookings Institute from 2009:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg
"CHAPTER FIVE Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike"
There are many people around the world who are relived with Iran denied nuclear weapons, not just Israel. There are many countries in the Middle East, some openly hostile to Israel, who are very happy that Iran will not get immunity like North Korea.
Israel did most of the dirty work, US just came in to drive the final nail.
I would trust the Ayatollah with nukes much further than I would trust Stephen Miller.
Trust him to what? Do what he says he would do with them?
> Do what he says he would do with them?
Like what? Declare a fatwa against them?
When you answer, please provide sources for your claims. I'll be eagerly awaiting your response.
Ali Khamenei: "The situation between America and Iran is this: When you chant 'Death to America!' it is not just a slogan – it is a policy.
https://www.memri.org/tv/iran-supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-k...
I don't care about his opinion on America. Tell us about his policy on nuclear weapons.
My trust with either of them having nukes is so low it's not worth comparing.
A truly sad indictment of the state of US government...
> There are many people around the world who are relived with Iran denied nuclear weapons, not just Israel.
Even more people would be relieved if trump bombed israel's nuclear facilities. But that doesn't make it right or justified.
Do you really want military attacks based on popularity or feelings? I don't think israel would enjoy living in such a world.
Yea, why don't we let the most destabilizing state sponsor of terrorism obtain a nuke? Surely that's only in Israel's interest...
You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
If Iran had a nuke, they are crazy enough to use it by slipping it to their cells.
"If someone says they are going to kill you, believe them."
Iran: Death to Israel Iran: Death to America Hamas: Death to Israel Hamas: Death to America
So, hugs and pallets of cash? ...or you destroy their ability to kill a million of your civilians.
If their enrichment wasn't for weapons-development, why was it being done in a hardened under-ground bunker?
In 2023, unannounced inspections uncovered uranium particles enriched near weapons-grade. The so-called agreement was toilet paper to the terrorist state.
> Yea, why don't we let the most destabilizing state sponsor of terrorism obtain a nuke? Surely that's only in Israel's interest...
Well, the Democrats had a very good plan to deal with this: diplomacy. They agreed a deal where Iran agreed not to build nuclear weapons, and in exchange they removed sanctions on Iran. A win-win scenario for everyone (except Bibi). Trump then - completely inexplicably - decided that he could do better at negotiating a deal, ripped up Obama's one, and then decided to... plunge the Middle East into chaos.
> You know, none of this would have happened if Hamas didn't attack Israel on Oct 7. Iran should know. They paid for it.
Surely the man who decided it was a good idea to alllow Qatar to give Hamas lots of money is at least partially to blame? [1] Or perhaps the person who decided to advocate to the US government that they should sell weapons to Iran [2]
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... [2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8d75baf6-6756-4d52-a412-bc90bbbde...
Nearly all of Iran's neighbors in the region except Jordan and Syria supported our withdrawal from the agreement. The only complaining was done by Iran, European nations and the UN.
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, Egypt, etc all supported us.
I really don't understand why you think this makes this a good idea. Saudi Arabia also decided to launch an extremely ill-fated and brutal invasion of Yemen, which worked out terribly for them and for the Yeminis. I don't think they have good judgement on this.
Ah so merely our most important and powerful allies disagreed with the move?
The Middle East is not strongly in the sphere of influence that Europeans have yes.
I promise you that the boots on the ground of the rest of the nations listed by the other person here is far more important here than strongly worded letters by the aging bureaucracy that governs the EU.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
all those countries are effectively US vassals. Most of them have US military bases on their soil. Of course they’re going to do exactly what the US wants
[flagged]
This will surely reduce government spending.
I mean I don't think anyone is still taking that goal seriously.
Not since after they immediately started rounding up immigrants and citizens alike and putting them in foreign and domestic private prisons without cause or due process. That alone makes anything DOGE does irrelevant twice over.
It was originally serious only in shutting down the aspects of government that are a hinderance to large enterprise, and that part is just as serious as it ever was.
A superpower being beholden to Netanyahu's impulses beggars belief. Israel, their client state, acts out in aggression against its neighbour against US advice. The US bails them out and takes the fallout now. Astounding.
Some in the U.S. want peace. I guess no one else gives a shit and is just going to jettison us into a war for millennia.
Preventing Iran from having a nuke is IMO a good way of preserving peace. The allies tried appeasment and most historians agree that approach was one of the main causes of WWII.
Huge difference here IMHO is that the west has been using this line for 40-50 years. At some point it's not "appeasement" and just "diplomacy between countries with differing values are complicated."
Put another way: if you want to call it appeasement, fine, it has worked for a long time. On the other hand, "peace via war" has a terrible track record.
What if Iran simply didn’t develop nuclear weapons? Have you considered that option?
What if the U.S. simply stopped interfering with other nations[1]? Have you considered that option? But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes.
And there's the answer: on the world stage, you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes, have your own, or be forced into a client state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
> But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes.
Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask.
> you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes
This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates.
> Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask.
It's a very big ask to not proliferate nuclear weapons, because nukes correlate with sovereignty. You didn’t address that point at all.
> This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates.
US friendship in the case of Iran means a puppet ruler (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran). And now Europe is in the process of decoupling itself from the US. Not to mention how the US completely dropped support for Ukraine. Turns out relying on an "ally" for defense like this is not such a great idea.
Israel also understands this, and so has multiple nukes in its arsenal. Why did Israel "simply" not proliferate nuclear weapons even when it enjoyed the protection and support of the US?
If I was Iran, or any country on the US's naughty list, I would be trying to build a nuke as quickly and quietly as I can. It seems to be the only way to not get bombed.
Has anyone credible said/demonstrated that they have developed nuclear weapons?
The US clearly does not believe they have operational nukes, or we would not have bombed them today. The actions undermine the official statements.
Put in realpolitik: would it be worth the US spending an Iraq War's expenditure of lives and $3 trillion to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?
Why?
What makes this moment the place where the working approach of the last half-century simply cannot work another day?
If they had already developed them, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because nobody is going to war with a nuclear armed state.
The question is only, did they have the means to, and was there an indication they were? The answer is yes. They were enriching uranium at levels that go beyond anything non-nefarious. Their lead nuclear scientists were going to be meeting with their ballistic missile scientists (according to the dossier.)
On would it be worth it: nuclear proliferation is probably the most dangerous existential threat that humanity faces that is completely preventable. Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region and the cascade of nuclear proliferation that would occur if they succeeded would be a nightmare. That is easily worth $3T.
If I’m a head of state in a contested region, I would read your post as an urgent appeal to make acquisition of nuclear capability as the top priority of the state.
Nonproliferation via war is not a viable approach.
This reminds me to read more on the game theory aspect of nuclear states. But I do find it fascinating that no nuclear-armed states have ever been in a shooting war. Interesting to speculate whether the Middle East could have seen less bloodshed over the decades if all the players had been armed since near the beginning of the nuclear age.
One often under-appreciated aspect of proliferation is accidental detonation.
It is not safer for more states to have nukes simply because it introduces more variables that are hard or impossible to control.
And accidents/mistakes/miscommunications account for most (all?) of our closest calls with nukes.
I agree with you about accidental detonation and nonproliferation in general.
But it is also clear that enforcement of nonproliferation without similarly muscular enforcement of sovereignty in general creates a huge incentive for proliferation.
If we truly want nonproliferation, it simply follows that powerful nations must stop actions like the Russian conquest in Ukraine and whatever Israel is doing in Iran. Every government at base has an incentive to do everything possible keep bombs from falling on its cities, and a demonstrated nuclear capability is the only proven way to do that in a regime where nuclear powers are allowed to act with impunity.
I think one thing Iran could do would be to stop funding terrorism in the middle east and perhaps also not threaten the complete destruction of Israel while simultaneously pursuing nuclear weapons. That seems to have sent the wrong message by the looks of it.
Conflating things with nonproliferation detracts from the effort to prevent that singular threat. Now we are weighing the global, persistent threat of more nuclear weapons against regional terrorism and proving unable to decide which is more important. This, in a case where by nature of the problem, “both” is not an acceptable answer.
Maybe we are detracting from some regional terrorism at the margins while increasing incentives for nuclear proliferation. I don’t think that’s a smart trade off, but that’s where we are headed.
> Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region
You misspelled Israel, and a reminder that Israel is the only nation in the region with multiple nuclear warheads.
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/06/israel-iran-w...
They tried that. Saddam gassed them.
Doesn't seem to have worked in this case. They did not have nukes, they got attacked. How you explain that? How do these good guys protect them against evil guys if not with nukes?
Some people say Iran having a nuke isn’t the threat some think it is.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
Appeasement for an imaginary weapons program our own director of national intelligence just said they don’t have.
Copy and paste this nonsense argument for Iraq 3 trillion dollars ago.
[flagged]
Interesting that you have more intelligence on Iran than our director of national intelligence.
Tulsi Gabbard isn’t exactly a high bar.
She does have the combined resources of all of the US intelligence services.
I just wouldn’t put much stock into anything she says about anything.
Why, because she’s not a DNC loyalist / bloodthirsty chickenhawk?
I must've missed the part where Iran invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
I think GP's point was that it's better to act now, before Iran does the equivalent of invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.
Israel has been doing that for almost 80 years and they have nuclear weapons.
What would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia and Poland and this scenario?
Ah yes, like when we prevented Germany from ever being a problem again with the Treaty of Versailles.
A nuclear armed Iran is a horrible idea. America an many other countries have been countering that for decades.
A nuclear armed Iran - and remember that in vast swathes of the middle east, Iran is considered a very dangerous enemy - would lead to the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing their own nuclear weapons.
Nuclear proliferation is best way to world peace. Anyone saying else is just pure evil who want to subjugate and genocide other nations. More nukes the better and safer world is.
I was told trump was the peace president.
He promised to end a war but instead started another one.
We will know shortly whether bombing 700 spinning motors that we’re building death spheres is an act of war…
Well if someone did it to our enrichment plants, it would be an act of war.
I am a little confused. Is bombing a sovereign country under far-fetched excuse considered ok or not today?
For the world I want to live in it is not. Seems surreal but maybe it’s not that world anymore, and I fear it will get worse.
There is nothing far-fetched about countering Iran's nuclear ambitions: they have been actively and blatantly pursuing it for decades.
A nuclear armed Iran would quickly lead much of the middle east to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs to counter Iran: in that part of the world, Iran is considered a very serious enemy.
It's OK.
[flagged]
Why not take moral upper hand and first destroy all of your own nuclear weapons?
Lack of nuclear weapon.
You can’t prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon if you wait until they have it.
They were enriching uranium near weapons-grade levels. What more evidence do you need without seeing an actual assembled nuclear weapon?
I mean do you think the Iranian government is more incentivised to build a nuclear weapon before or after??
They've been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades, and bit by bit getting closer. A nuclear armed Iran would result in the rest of the middle east - most of which considers Iran a serious enemy - to pursue their own nuclear weapons program.
The goal was to stop their progress, not reduce/increase incentives.
This is definitely a bold movement, I pray for peace, And hoping US stops jumping in conflicts that are not theirs
Praying for peace will definitely help.
This absolutely is a conflict that the US has been involved in from near the start [1]. This a continuation of that, not something entirely new.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsJPrHcaBs
This is a conflict America and its allies have been fighting for decades: to ensure Iran does not get nuclear weapons.
Much of the middle east considers Iran to be a very significant enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would lead to much of the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs.
Vietnam -> Gulf War = 15 years
Gulf War -> US invasion of Iraq = 12 years
US invasion of Iraq -> USA, Iran & Israel = 22 years
Looks like it's time for USA to feed a new generation of grunts into the PTSD grinder again.
Certain 'people' aren't going to get rich off of the suffering of others out of nowhere.
Damn, but have they so blatantly cut vet benefits and support right before the need for massive recruits in the past?
Why would anyone sign up for military service after dump has personally pissed in their faces?
Well one better goes for the bomb if one decided to go above 60% (because whatelse do you plan?). Apparently using it as a bargain doesn't work out as expected.
[dead]
Declaration of War vs. Authorization for Use of Military Force: How America Goes to War
https://govfacts.org/explainer/declaration-of-war-vs-authori...
War is a racket, move along we got bombs to sell. All I can hope is that somehow someway the Iranian people will be better off in the future. Well at least America has its enemy again, the immigrants as enemy wasn’t going over as smoothly as expected. Religion and culture wars are just so much easier.
Just about every intelligence agency and expert agrees on nearly all the data. The debate and the 'conflicting' reports are mainly a matter of definitions.
The data is that Iran has some weapons research, and have/had about 400kg of 60% enriched Uranium (no civilian use), an higher amount of lower grade enriched Uranium, and a certain number of centrifuges for enrichment.
The interpretation bit is regarding what's called 'weaponization' (aka taking all the materials and converting them to a bomg):
A modern bomb would use >90% (preferably >95%) Uranium and an implosion mechanism and be light and small enough to put on a common ballistic missile. While getting to 90% would have been easy for them (at one time they 'accidentally' enriched to 88%), they haven't done it yet, and it isn't entirely clear how close they are on miniaturization.
A hacky bomb could use a lower grade of Uranium (60% would barely do if they pooled all of it), be much heavier (it comes with the lower grade), possibly use a simpler gun-type mechanism, and would have to be delivered with some custom mechanism.
So 'weapons grade' could mean '90% and above', or it could mean 'enriched to a level that has no use apart from building weapons'. 'Distance to a bomb' could mean 'distance from what can be easily delivered' or 'distance from any fissile explosive'.
they tested implosion devices back in 2003 https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-carried-implosion-tests-nucl...
for totally civilian purposes...
[dead]
Seems like a lot of spin comments here that are turning people away from the political subservience of the united states that got the world into this mess
America, the west, much of the not-west, and even much of the middle east, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
In large swaths of the middle east, Iran is considered a dangerous enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would quickly lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east.
This isn't some recent initiative thought up for the heck of it: it's been on ongoing focus for a very long time.
This is astonishing. Our intelligence concluded Iran wasn’t moving towards a nuke and we hit them anyway, using peace negotiations as a ruse. No authorization from the representatives of the people who actually fight in the war, no thought of what this will do.
If the comparison with how we treat hostile forces with nuclear weapons wasn’t more stark. N. Korea is basically left alone, their leader praised. Libya gives up nukes and then the state falls in on itself.
This is proving to any state that nuclear arms are really the only protection. The world is less safe, and the next generation of young men like me (20 years ago) are about to be thrown into the meat grinder, sent by a ruling class that doesn’t even answer to the people anymore.
We’ve really lost our way.
This strike didn't happen to protect Americans from nukes, this happened to protect a rogue politician who was about to be impeached by his countrymen, and to make the Greater Israel project come true.
Reminder, a recent survey found 16% American supported an offensive strike against Iran.[1]
[1] https://www.axios.com/2025/06/19/israel-iran-war-americans-p...
America and the west (and much of the not-west) have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Iran is considered a dangerous enemy in much of the middle east. A nuclear armed Iran would quickly lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east. No one wants an Iran with nukes.
The intelligence was that Iran was moving toward a nuke, they just weren't there yet.
The intelligence said the opposite, that they had not decided to develop a nuke.
If not to build a nuke, why have a secret uranium enrichment facility built over 250 ft under a mountain?
That argument only works when normal aboveground civilian infrastructure won't get bombed anyway on suspicion.
Then both kinds require the same protection, and protection can't be used to distinguish between them.
"She's obviously a witch, because she's been living deep in the forest all suspicious-like ever since we burned down her cursed house."
60% enriched uranium is not quite considered weapons-grade, but also has no civilian applications. Hiding the facility is immaterial if the facility is doing stuff that isn't useful for non-weapon work.
Iran did not expect to be bombed back at all, which is why their defenses were so shoddy around nearly everything. The _only_ thing having this level of protection is the enrichment facility.
It would have worked if Iran had stopped also paying people to shoot missiles so often and donating to kill Ukraine.
There is no non-nuclear weapon purpose valuable enough to build such a facility. It's obviously for nuclear bombs.
So every country which has facilities to enrich uranium, needs to be bombed, correct?
That's a separate question. I am just responding to the people saying we don't know they are enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. Of course they are.
If you honestly think Iran is enriching uranium for clean energy, I have a bridge to sell you.
The publicly revealed, internationally inspected secret uranium enrichment facility?
Credible deterrent against stuff like this?
> Our intelligence concluded Iran wasn’t moving towards a nuke
> Credible deterrent against stuff like this?
You mean the credible deterrent is moving towards a nuke?
That is the point of what I was saying, yes.
Look I dgaf about what Iran was doing, there is no wool over my eyes about what that state is capable of. I saw the IEDs with copper cones used to kill and maim my friends, they almost certainly came from Iran.
What I care about is: congress declares war, not the executive. The people should decide, and we just stepped 10 steps closer to the monarchy we tried to depose 250 years ago.
This has been happening my entire 40+ years of life. I agree it shouldn’t, but this ain’t anything new. If this makes Trump a monarchy, then every president since 2000 was a monarch.
Straw, camel, back.
2024 Trump is using the power of the executive in ways even more grotesquely than 2016 Trump.
They could have simply had IAEA inspections.
Trump ripped up JCPOA and you know this. Israel could also do that. Oh but wait then the inspections would find stolen American nuclear material.
Communication lines are always open for discussion and negotiation; the end of one agreement doesn't mean no more agreements.
Agreement requires 2 sides doesn't it? Who's agreeing on the American side?
Gee, I dunno. Because some berserk moron might attack their country, maybe?
Countries without nukes get victimized by countries with nukes. If you haven't noticed this pattern yet, there's not much hope for you.
In the middle east, Iran is considered a serious enemy, and is widely detested. A nuclear armed Iran would immediately lead the rest of the middle east to pursue their own nuclear weapons program.
The premise of going to war with a country because that country may have the capability to win/end it is quite demonic circular reasoning. In this case IL/US should preemptively bunker bust every person in the region that has sovereign will. I think only when the entire region is replaced by Tesla Robots loyal to western chauvinism then IL/US can finally feel safe from the consequences of their own actions like committing genocides.
I visited Nagasaki/Hiroshima a few years ago, at the end of both memorials there are celebrations of NPTs and denuclearization efforts with veneers of 90's nostalgia - as if the job were done. How wrong we all were, today 2 non-NPT nuclear powers bombed a NPT non-nuclear power to prevent imaginary WMD Nukes, triggering a possible regional conflict that will kill millions. The only country that shouldn't have nukes is America - they dropped 2 for vibes because the Nazis already surrendered and they wanted to try out their new toy. IL\US project their genocidal tendencies onto others then claim preemptive strikes. Both countries a threat to world peace. It's clear now the only way these two countries leave you alone is if you have a nuke. Any sovereign logical leader will now pursue them. IL/US have made the world a much more dangerous place just because they want to continue the holocaust of Gaza.
Shame.
Gabbard has recently stated that's not true, that she was quoted out of context.
Her statement directly contradicted her testimony. After recent Trump's open dismissal of her remark, she had to say this to keep her job.
My understanding is that actually making a bomb once you have the material for it just isn't that hard. Her statements are only contradictory if it is hard (and slow).
She stated they had unprecedented levels of enriched uranium for a country without weapons.
So much for humanity learning from its mistakes....
"But this time it's different!"
IMHO the Israeli policy of punching everyone so hard they're reeling is a massive mistake for Israel in the long term. It works great short-term, but 50 years? 100 years? Who knows what the world will look like then, and being surrounded by enemies is not going to work well when you no longer have your fancy US-backed missile shields and whatnot. The best long-term bet is for normalised relationship with its neighbours, and every time something like this happens that gets set back 20 years at least.
Then again, they had already given up on that with how it treated the Palestinians both in Gaza and West-Bank...
This doesn't mean military action is never an option under any circumstances, but no nation can perpetuate hostilities forever. Whether it's 50, 100, or 200 years: this has a massive risk of coming back to bite Israel hard.
Yeah IMO the last 2 years (and especially 5 hours) have pretty much permanently shattered Israel's privileged child status in the US. Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support, and dragging the US into this war have fractured rightwing support.
Hope they're building other friendships in the region, I don't see the unquestioning US patronage lasting much longer.
Would be nice if that were the reality, but it couldn't be further from it. US support for Israeli is stronger than it ever has been.
Among the political class, which is the only group that matters now that senators don't really answer to voters any more
> Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support,
Chuck Schumer still supports killing and maiming toddlers though.
Much of humanity has learned, and so aggressively pursues anti-proliferation.
America, the west, and many countries beyond the west, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Iran is detested in much of the middle east. If they get nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
Trump doesn’t seem like the kind of person to learn from his, or anyone else's mistakes.
That remains to be seen and, in another universe, could have been said about someone not keeping a nation from creating nuclear weaponry which it subsequently used against its opponents.
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
They didn't finish manufacturing consent yet. Novice mistake.
It's Trump. He could bomb LA and 30% of Americans will cheer for it. I'm not sure consent matters.
Hopefully the ensuing economic meltdown will sour enough Americans before too many people are killed, but who knows.
A large portion of Trump's base are very unhappy about bombing Iran and are very critical of any comments that are pro-war in general. I see it in a lot of comments sections and social media message to the effect of "I voted for Trump, and I didn't vote for this (war in Iran)".
Generally, Any prominent pro-Israel republican if they post anything pro-war will have hundreds of negative replies.
It is incredibly depressing to see people constantly falling into the trap that their political opposition are dumb / brainwashed.
Either they believe it is no longer necessary, or they are facing some other set of constraints that is making it less feasible.
I've got to imagine the israel lobby is putting an enormous amount of pressure on DC to attack.
Well, CSOCs are likely to get busy this week.
Yeah there was no good reason for that. The main thing I liked about Trump is that he didn't start any wars his first term, if he gets us into a war I'm going to be fucking mad.
I know he likes to insinuate that, but it’s simply not true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike
While you are correct it wasn’t a war, but neither is this technically.
which was widely believed to be a mere gesture to appease warhawks and that's why they only hit a few empty landing strips
It is fascinating. He lies so much, keeps repeating those lies and somehow people start believing those lies.
They have to believe it to have a reason to like Trump
He did strike Syria during his first term
> if he gets us into a war I'm going to be fucking mad
Maybe Trump will claim the airstrikes were just a joke, like he does when he tells his supporters to use violence towards other Americans. Otherwise, the United States is definitely, unambiguously at war with Iran.
11/29/11: "In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."
1/17/12: "@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected."
9/16/13: "I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order save face!"
11/10/13: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled!"
"If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace." - Presidential debate, 2024
If you voted for Trump, you voted precisely for this. Every accusation from him is either a confession in disguise or an unfulfilled wish.
Every accusation from Trump is some random line he pulled out of his ass on the spot, and people like you keep falling for it and trying to divine some grand strategy out of it.
Every accusation from Trump is something he himself is doing or thing about doing.
It's not random.
I fell for the "two more weeks" meme...
Ngl.. so did I.
[dead]
[dead]
Weird how this is front page but a post for the wiki page of the Northrop B-2 Spirit gets flagged.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44341958
Here's the interesting wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
A discussion of a major world event makes a lot more sense than a discussion of something tangentially related to a major world event. People sensibly flag the tangential stuff as effective dupes - it wouldn't really make sense to have a front page discussion about the event as well as a front page discussion about a plane.
According to Trump Fordow is gone.(https://x.com/Osint613/status/1936577812866945296)
Is “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE” about to become the new “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”?
Did I miss the part where Congress declared war or is that passe?
Even Vietnam wasn't formally declared as a war. Last formal declaration was WWII.
As I understand it, congress still authorized the use of force. Nowadays, the president effectively bypasses congress using the 2 decades old authorization for the use of force against the overly broad threat of "terror."
It's not a war, it's a limited engagement or whatever.
A “special operation”
A "special military operation", perhaps?
A declaration of war is an invitation for the other side to attack. Rather than being a restraint against war, empowering Congress to declare war allows them to force a potentially unwilling president into war.
Imagine if Putin got Trump to bomb ukraine for him. Imagine if Xi got Trump to bomb Taiwan for him. There would be a crisis in this country as the media would be attacking trump for being a stooge to a foreign power.
How is it possible that a foreign leader, Netanyahu ( who has lied in the past to get us to attack iraq ), can get Trump to bomb Iran and nobody, especially in the media, bats an eye.
The media is focused on the bombing, but shouldn't the focus be on foreign control over much of the US government? After years of soul searching over the iraq fiasco and the lies can we still be in this position again?
I sympathize with people thinking Israel is wagging the dog but I don't think it's true.
Israel exists in the way that it does and does what it does because we allow it to. It is a toolf our imperial interests, not the other way around. To argue otherwise absolves us of our responsibility and can often descend into antisemitism (which I oppose).
We have described Israel as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in a region we want to destabilize becuase it has resources that are important to us.
Oh and this is uniparty too. Don't kid yourselves if you think things would be different if the Democrats were in power. It would not. There is universal agreement on US foreign policy across both parties. The events in Gaza began under a Democratic president who did absolutely nothing to rein Israel in where he could've ended it with a phone call.
There is no opposition to what Israel is doing. Even now, Democratic leaders in Congress aren't complaining about what the president is doing and has done. They're complaining that they weren't consulted. And not to oppose it but to have the opportunity to express their support.
And yes, the media is absolutely complicit in what's going on too.
[dead]
[flagged]
The bunker busters will not have worked on Fordow.
(It will be the first time a GBU-57A/B has been used in war, which is interesting)
They needed troops on the ground. Israel was going to do this.
It's possible they have just collapsed the entrances.
Trumps comments - https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump You have a loop, @Osint613 reposted Trump as "Fordow is gone" which Trump reposted. Neither of them have any idea.
(Natanz, Isfahan were already hit and damaged by Israel, the US didn't bother to bunker bust them, it was Tomahawks from subs )
3D model of Fordow - https://x.com/TheIntelLab/status/1398716540485308417
You need a tactical nuke to destroy Fordow, but the USA considers tactical the same as strategic, so it would be very unlikely. Russia could, since they put tactical in a different category.
Expert opinions seem to differ on this. We will know once enough satellite and signal intelligence data has been analyzed for US leadership to ascertain whether further strikes may be required.
[dead]
Saw reports that natanz did get 2x too
[dead]
[flagged]
Both parties wilfully fund genocide and mess around with regime change. Trump does seem more restrained than most presidents, but it's hard to agree with this move.
All the Middle East calamities have begun with targeted and limited operations. Not believable anymore.
While it is hard to predict what the future will being and while the middle east has been a hotbed for conflict since times immemorial it is likely that taking the Theocratic regime in Iran out of the equation is a net-positive when it comes to limiting the amount of conflict in the region. I intentionally do not use the word 'peace' because I do not see peace ever breaking out there given the historical record and the many sources of conflict.
Destabilizing Iran will make another migration crisis in Europe, will divide it politically because of the rise of anti immigrant far right, and finally set up the scene for a big european war for which russia is preparing.
If US hopes to not be involved in it, it will be up for the surprise.
You think migration of refugees will lead to... civil war in Europe? There's a lot of space in Europe – it could accomodate even all 90 million Iranian refugees and not collapse (let us hope Iranian civilians not made into refugees by Trump and Netanyahu).
Colin Powell, is that you? How have you been, man? Have you been keeping in touch with John Yoo? That guy has been on fire lately! btw how'd those things with the Taliban and Saddam work out?
One of the things he was good on was being generally more against wars than other US presidents. That unfortunately is no longer true.
Trump was never against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius". He was just generally critical of everything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country. There are a boat load of earnest good-faith criticisms of our society and government. Trump excels at tapping into that frustration across the whole spectrum, which is how his cabinet is a circus of malcontents with no actual constructive ideas.
> Trump wasn't against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius"
I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war.
Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action.
e.g.
I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag.
However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude.
> He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country
You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it.
I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
People with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like".
That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him.
Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California.
> Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it
Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
[flagged]
Always amazes me how right leaning this site's populace seems to be
contrarian-leaning
Right-leaning is giving them too much credit. It's just self-leaning and, like many other political groups, Trump just said the transparently false stuff that he needed to in order to appeal to them.
The dumbest and/or most self-interested of many demographics, it turns out, were happy to be tricked!
It amazes you that the popular viewpoint in America is also found on HN?
Yes because I would not expect HN populace to be the same distribution as the general US. Just like how I would find it strange if medical professionals had more anti-vaxx than I expected.
Unlikely for a forum have a single opinion.
Hence “popular”
Asking HN for political analysis is like asking Politico for an in depth analysis on ML capabilities.
There are a handful of users on HN who have domain experience or knowledge in policymaking due to professional adjacencies (IP Law, High Finance, Space/Defense Tech VC, etc) but get drowned out.
I agree completely. Try to mention that on this site though and you get replies such as "we're not the same as other social media sites!", or some variant of the community here being the smartest in the room.
At tech? Maybe. At everything else? Not so much.
I think it’s fair to say you need another kind of domain experience to explain Trump.
the kind of domain expertise you describe results in a different kind of imperialist psychosis. you should look to analysis coming from communists, Brazil, China, Iran, Palestine, Yemen, etc. These groups have a much more clear-eyed view of US policy.
He did order the commander of the IRGC to be taken out during his last term while simultaneously pushing the Abraham accords with several Sunni nations. The "peace through strength" concept is only believable when it is clear that strength will be used - call it Chekhov's gun of international relations.
As putins water bearer Trump will likely sign a meaningless peace agreement
[flagged]
He wanted a better deal! Don’t you understand?!
Either there will be an _extremely_ bloody and long disintegration of government in Iran, or Trump will probably agree a slightly worse version of the Iran nuclear deal (and now the Iranians will know - once and for all - that the only way for them to remain in power is to get the bomb as soon as possible).
Admittedly, I was one of the people who wasn’t impressed with the deal Obama made in 2016. I didn’t like that it allowed Iran to keep enriching uranium or that we paid them.
In recent years, that deal has been looking better every day. We are undoubtedly worse off today than we would be had Trump left the deal in place. This is a bad situation.
It was just not a good deal. It was more like kicking the can down the road and funding the regime. That's not good for Iranians and not good for anyone else.
Human problems are always in conflict, in cycle. How was that a bad deal? Never let perfect be the enemy of good
It also just as well could have been us making another deal to extend the time, but just because Obama's deal was "not good enough" this the outcome we want?
What kind of argument is that
The Iran deal was far from perfect, especially taking into account the ancillary payments to Iran. I find it hard to believe that the oil-rich country of Iran is interested in nuclear energy for purely altruistic means.
https://apnews.com/united-states-government-fd4113419276444e...
It wasn’t a good deal. It was also probably the best deal that could have been achieved at any point in the past 20 years. More importantly, it would have kept things on an even keel and kept us talking to each other for as long as we both honored the deal. It was an opportunity to see if we could build a little bit of trust and make another deal later. Yes, it kicked the can down the road. It also represented a willingness on the part of both countries to try to avoid a conflict even though we both had reasons to want one.
It’s possible it would have been a complete failure. We will never know. What we do know for sure is that we have had fewer options for dealing with the situation since we pulled out of the deal and now we are at war.
Our country’s handling of Iran has been nothing short of a spectacular blunder. Two administrations have tried to negotiate out of the hole Trump got us into when he tore up the deal. The buffoon actually thought he would cancel the deal and make a better one. Now, after 20+ years of criticizing the Iraq war and campaigning three times on not starting new wars, he is the trigger man getting us into a new one when we are least prepared for it.
I guess we'll see what the fallout from this attack is, but if there isn't anything major (and that's where my money is) then it would seem that just dropping bunker busters on their nuclear facilities and then going home was actually the best solution all along.
The problem in Iran is the government or shall we say the dictatorship. I'm not sure how the US could have/should have handled Iran since the revolution. You're naive if you think the current Iranian regime has any interest in aligning itself to western views via deals. It wants to cement its control, broaden its sphere of influence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_policy_of_exporting_the_Is...
Deals are tactical. They're not about shifting world views.
I'm not sure the US and Iran are really "at war right now". This is very different than Iraq. But I do agree intervention has risks. The problem is that no intervention also has risks. Take for example Obama's lack of appetite to intervene in Syria. Contrast to Turkey and Israel that effectively intervened recently in Syria and force a regime change that at least so far is more or less holding out.
> I'm not sure the US and Iran are really "at war right now"
It’s amazing what decades of propaganda has done to Western discourse. Now somehow bombing another country isn’t war.
I think there's a difference between one attack and a full blown war.
The US has had many bombings of other countries without a full out war:
https://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html
Most recent big example is Yemen. Would you say the US is at war right now with Yemen?
Was this already the start of this war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
I guess you could say that during the bombing campaign in Yemen until the ceasefire (and maybe now) they were at "war".
Were Israel and Iran "at war" when they exchanged blows a year ago?
Yes - all of those instances count as war to me.
What to you counts as “war”? When the countries fire back?
Something like is going on between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Iran (borderline). The Iraq war. The Afghanistan war. A prolonged period of hostilities.
Something you would look back at and call "The US Iran War". I don't think the previous acts of violence, or the current one, between these two meets the mark yet. And it's not clear if this one will. Iran can't really do much right now and it's not clear whether the US will go a lot further here.
E.g. we probably aren't going to look back at the hostilities with Yemen and call them the "US-Yemen war" or the "US Houthis war" like we look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Or as Putin would put it, it's a special military operation (yeah yeah, that one is a war).
> I'm not sure the US and Iran are really "at war right now"
Curious about this. Are we not technically at war because they haven't retaliated yet?
Americans definitely believed we were at war with Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
My common interpretation of a war is that it involves the continuous exchange of violence on both sides over some time. An isolated bombing operation isn't what I think of as a war. Israel and Iran are at war for sure. The US and Iran, we'll see. It's possible Iran will calculate that it is not in their benefit to wage an open war on the US.
There's is already a history of violence between Iran and the USA. Was that a war? When Iranian funded militias attacked American bases is that war?
Anyways, that's how I think about it.
>You're naive if you think the current Iranian regime has any interest in aligning itself to western views via deals.
You are going to have take a step back and convince me why I should care about US hegemonic interests in the region. Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place. If you really care about the profit margins of Aramco and ExxonMobil (the whole reason were in this mess in first place) you should lead with that so that others know why you care about what a sovereign country does.
> Iran is it's own nation - I don't see why we should be "dealing" with them in the first place
Iran spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders. Pretending that Iran is its own country and can thus be ignored is not an effective policy.
>spends rather large amounts of money funding various groups that are adverse to US interests and operate well outside Iran’s borders.
1. This describes many countries that we haven't invaded that I'm not sure you are being serious.
2. You will need to be specific. Which US interests? The interests of Californians or of Saudi Aramaco?
3. America is propoganda giant number one, and China has seemed to come up just fine despite America spending hundreds of billions trying to convince the world the communists in China are eating dirt.
I'm not convinced that this is a good use time or money for the American tax payer. I'm fully convinced American hegomonic decline is fully self-inflected and the trillions wasted in Afghanistan did more to hurt American than any backwards goat farmer in the middle east could ever accomplish.
I honestly don't care about the oil companies. I'll lead with that.
I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.
A regime like Iran's that has killed Americans, is openly calling the US "The Great Satan", is supporting militias in places like Iraq that attack Americans. That funds, supports and trains organizations the US considers terrorist organizations. Is abusing its own citizenry and actively seeks to export its values to other countries. Is supplying weapons to Russia for attacking Ukraine. This sort of regime can't just do whatever it wants under the label of "its own nation" since what its doing impacts others.
The US is the big superpower of the "west" and the "free world". For the most part it is its deterrence against Russia and China that is standing in the way of those doing whatever they want (e.g. China taking Taiwan by force). I don't think the world would be a better place if the US just stands back.
All that said, intervention, and use of force, needs to be sensible/reasonable/calculated. It's not easy to say where this is going. But it's also not easy to say where it would have gone otherwise. I can also understand Americans not having an appetite for any of this after Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. But to contrast that I think failure to intervene in the Arab Spring led to pretty bad consequences, prolonged civil wars, a refugee crisis, etc. So perhaps some intervention and support would have helped. Also the US withdrawal and lack of support to democracy in Russia were probably factors in the reversal of that country back to where it is today.
Anyways, that's my very long opinion on this topic. But I can totally understand Americans not wanting any part of this. But don't think that you can just hide, things that happen in the world impact you.
>I'm not an American but my argument would be that a free and stable world is better for the US.
You aren't arguing for a free and stable world. You are arguing for a total hegemonic power for US interests - and thats my point. You are taking the position of "this is what is good for US companies and interests" and working backwards from there.
It's remarkable you use the "were stopping China from doing whatever they want", but you don't stop and think that there are other people who have legitimate concerns in stopping the US from doing what they want. Replace China with the US and Taiwan with Palestine. Aren't we doing to Palestine what you claim we should stop China from doing to Taiwan? At the very least it comes across hypocritical to claim you are in it for a "free and stable world" when that actually means "the US should get to invade whoever it wants".
Furthermore, the same things you say about Iran, you could argue about North Korea. North Korea has killed Americans, they have an entire month dedicated to hating America (it starts next month!) and openly funds corporate espionage attacks that drains billions from Americans. Despite that do you honestly believe, that the world would be safer if we started dropping GBU-43s on North Korean children? Honestly answer me that.
Despite what you can say about North Korean regime - don't you believe a North Korea, with Nukes mind you, is far more preferable than the alternative? Where America is dropping bombs on North Korean every 5 years? Which do you think is actually better?
Why does North Korea - who again, has done all the same, and more, than Iran get a pass from the military industrial complex? Isn't North Korea clearly the bigger threat when it comes to peace as defined by the parameters you laid out? Once you interrogate this line of thinking it makes 0 sense - and anyone who thinks candidly realizes the contradiction: ironically, once our so called "enemies" have nukes, children stop being vaporized by bombs.
[dead]
No US politician will ever get support from the public to send ground troops anywhere for a very long time unless its literally against Hitler.
[flagged]
They use the template for everything. It’s an odd thing to get worked up about.
[flagged]
China is doing really fine right now, why would it destabilize its own region? Free PR, outstanding manufacturing capabilities, a lot of manpower, most amount of trades, US being written off as unreliable partner and etc.
This. I spent 6 weeks in Taiwan last year traveling around the island. Unless there is a US President as brave as Bill Clinton who put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland in support of democratic elections, it will take 3 days to take over the island and not a single shot will be fired. Since the chip lithography systems can be shut remotely, there isn't any reason to attack the island.
Pretty much. My understanding of current US realpolitiks is that leadership finally realized that they can't really do much about Chinese superiority in every single competing industry, and all these unwelcoming outcomes are just freak outs and bunch of "hail mary"s with the hopes it can somehow reverse something. It's just not acceptable from an American PoV to not perceived as "best and strongest", so everyone is having a hard time coping with it.
Japan kinda went through the same problem in 80s/90s, but from a different angle. The problem is, US can't pull the same on China as it did with Japan.
This is probably the wrong take.
The worst part is, it's only been half a year since Trump took office. We're experiencing crisis after crisis in the world stage, and it's the worst possible time to have someone unstable as him in charge of the world's most powerful military. Who knows what's going to happen in the next, sigh, 3.5 years with this shortage of adults who know patience and diplomacy.
It's almost impossible to imagine Netanyahu acting so emboldened under any previous US president. And it's hard to deny that Trump now looks extremely diminished on the world stage, between his leading from behind with Israel over both Gaza and Iran and his comprehensive failure to have any impact on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
While Trump is a complete pushover, Biden was also well in pocket.
Maybe Harris wouldn't have gone this far, but the democrats were happy to carry water for Israel for a long time.
I'd argue their unflinching support was also a key to priming the American public for this moment.
Fully and unquestioningly supporting whatever Israel does is practically a requirement for all American politicians.
Do you have a world stage palantir?
Israel (not under Netanyahu) stole nuclear secrets from the US and killed a bunch of sailors, damaging a Navy ship in the process.
They have always been emboldened.
This needs a citation. Israel developed their nukes 50 years ago with the assistance of Jewish nuclear physicists from around the world and french materials. They didn't need to steal nuclear secrets.
I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNI7_u99rec
They didn't steal "secrets", but they almost certainly were covertly supplied with US nuclear material with the tacit approval of the CIA.
As for the claim about killing US sailors, here's GDF's vid on the attack against the USS Liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfABflKvFzk
Thanks for the correction. I misremembered secrets vs materials. Regardless, it is not a good look for them.
> It's almost impossible to imagine Netanyahu acting so emboldened under any previous US president
Gaza happened under Biden's watch, and continued under Trump.
Biden probably takes second place, if not sharing first place with Trump. He's still top of this list at least, which interestingly enough Trump isn't on: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind...
Yeah but Netanyahu tried the same shit regarding Iran with the last few presidents, including the previous incarnation of Trump who had better advisers.
This is the first time the lie has worked to this extent.
Worked in what way? Preventing Iran (the country whose motto seems to be "Death to America") from making a nuclear bomb?
Netanyahu has warned that Iran is minutes away from the bomb for the last 30 years. Trumps own intelligence community was telling us that Iran is incapable of producing a bomb just a week or so ago.
Death to America is a great motto, but that's all it really is, they sadly lack the capability to follow through with it. With or without these latest strikes.
If Trump is unstable then how can you predict his actions? How is this an example of not acting in time / for deterrence, when it was in fact a preemptive strike? (And he did the whole "2 weeks" ruse).
In the same way you can predict what will happen to a bridge that is unstable. It doesn't matter which bad option he winds up choosing, the fact he's not choosing the good option is what makes him unpredictable.
We can very easily predict Trump dropping the ball again. No one has gone broke betting against the incompetence of him and his administration.
“It’s over for Trump this time, he’s finished!” - You (2015,2016,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2022,2023,2024,2025)
Stupid people being back by other people doesn't mean they aren't stupid. It actually means the contrary - there's more stupid people than we previously thought...
I'm being a bit mean I suppose, it's not actually stupidity. It's naivety and fierce propaganda campaigns. Everyone longs for a simpler time and the domestic economic struggles of the US are plain.
Being incompetent and being popular are unfortunately not exclusionary. Or are you saying that elected officials doesn't make mistakes?
OP predicted Trump will mess up not that he'll lose an election. His electorate is largely supporting him via emotional response, hence his constant appeal to emotions, morality, demonization, etc - it works very well. The title of the book on my manipulated mothers shelf is "Democrats hate America" not "Iranian nuclear enrichment policy” — because this isn’t about policy, it’s about identity. Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t have to withstand scrutiny; it just has to resonate. And it resonates because it offers a simple moral binary: good vs. evil, us vs. them. That’s why failures, scandals, or even authoritarian gestures don’t shake his base — they’re not evaluating him on outcomes, but on whether he reflects their emotional reality. The real danger isn’t just that he might “mess up,” but that the political incentives now reward this kind of performative grievance over competence.
If Trump is unstable, and Biden didn’t know his family member’s names, what kind of joke is this?
So i don't buy into trumps instability being a factor here nor bidens deteriorating mental health as president being ok. Yet i still think this is false equivalence.
I've watched many people deteriorate mentally and their are many routes. Biden was clearly the "i misplace stuff" route, not "i will now attack an ally".
He definitely shouldn't have been allowed to run for president again but Trump is far more belligerent. I'm not even necessarily opposed to his actions in Iran. But he's now verbally, fiscally, or actually attacked several allies and enemies. He'll likely attack more. I think it's fine to argue for or against his actions. But it's silly to equate the scale of his actions, or risk of mental deterioration, with Biden. The stakes are much higher, the strong allies and enemies are all making reactive bold moves in response. Things are moving fast now.
Yes, thank you. Anyone who has taken care of old people recognized Biden as the passive type that was content to sit in a chair while other people did stuff around him - which wasn't all that problematic given our bureaucratic delegation-based style of governance. Meanwhile Trump is the manic aggressive type. The more you try to get him to recognize his limitations the more he denies he has any and acts out to prove it.
How do you, logically, draw the line from "cavalier use of deadly force" to "our enemies are going to take bolder action against US allies"? That leap of logic doesn't make sense; its a leap of pseudologic someone speaking from fear would make.
If anything, a better standpoint is: Illogical and cavalier use of deadly force should scare our enemies, because it makes expression of our nation's military power more unpredictable. If China invades Taiwan; Trump might just blow up the Three Gorges Dam. Other Presidents might move with care, logic, and intrinsic sanctity for human life; Trump doesn't.
> a leap of pseudologic someone speaking from fear would make
How do you reconcile that with:
> scare our enemies (and they) might move with care, logic, and intrinsic sanctity for human life
I never suggested that our enemies might move with care, logic, and intrinsic sanctity for human life. I suggested that Trump's disregard for many of these cornerstones of national leadership might cause them to not move at all.
It's literally what you wrote and continue to argue for. But anyways, I strongly disagree with the premise that threats and violence results in deescalation.
[flagged]
[dead]
I can see many problems with his plan.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
sigh this is Iraq all over again.
watch as the US is now dragged into 10-20 years of war in the middle east again.
Which stock do I buy
Not TSMC.
Prediction: Iran will fold somewhat quickly and history will remember this as good move.
Alternative prediction: Destabilized Iran will make another migration crisis in Europe, will divide it politically because of the rise of anti immigrant far right, and finally set the scene for a full scale european war with russia, followed by other counties on both sides.
US will be forced to join and millions of its citizen will die in WW3.
Alternate prediction: Iran - a country detested in much of the middle east - getting nuclear weapons will quickly lead to proliferation as other middle east countries feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs to counter the threat of Iran.
This is why the west has been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Why would there be more migrants to Europe from Iran?
The same reason there were millions of refugees from Syria or Libya or Ukraine or because of any other instability in the region.
There is just no much other places for people to run when shit hits fan.
Maybe, but the EU has different policies and a different understanding of immigration now compared to say 2010-2023, right? Also those countries you mentioned are a bit closer to Europe compared to Iran.
But I’m also not sure that the situations are comparable. In the case of Ukraine which is probably most similar to Iran from an economic standpoint, had many refugees who were temporarily fleeing Russian aggression but planned to return to Ukraine. Iran, especially if/when it’s out from under sanctions has a more robust economy and geopolitical forces going for it, versus Libya or Syria, in my view.
It won’t matter what the policies are as the majority of refugees will try to get to the EU illegally.
Economy will matter only if there will be no fallout in Iran which is not guaranteed.
It will matter because they can have policies like “stricter border control” to stop legal or illegal immigration. It’s like Pakistan and how they closed their border to refugees from Iran.
> Economy will matter only if there will be no fallout in Iran which is not guaranteed.
Sure it depends on what all happens, but my point was it is different than Syria or Libya in many aspects.
[flagged]
[flagged]
>but there's actually nothing separating china
Yeah man, nothing except 2000+ miles of the largest mountain ranges in the fucking world. Are you serious man?
Yeah, thanks for the war in Iraq and for the raise of ISIS, and for the war in Syria and now destabilizing Iran.
“self inflicted”
I know that this kind of comment makes sense from the American perspective (based on past US actions in South America) but the EU is not actually responsible for massively destabilising the Middle East.
"Point / Counterpoint: This War Will Destabilize the Entire Mideast and Set Off a Shockwave of Anti-Americanism VS. No It Won’t“
Iran and allies already did what they could during Gaza escalation. Their projection power is rather limited.
Noam Chomsky, "Is Iran a threat?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
(... no)
A nuclear armed Iran is very definitely a threat. Much of the middle east considers Iran to be an enemy, and if Iran gets nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to follow.
The west has been working to counter Iran's ongoing nuclear weapons program for decades.
Since 1945 the United States of America never attacks countries that are actual threats, we should have learned this by now.
They'll do some symbolic attacks against the US bases in ME.
But yeah, I do think history will remember this as one of the few good things Trump does.
[flagged]
You might want to wipe off the foam that’s starting around your own mouth.
[flagged]
“De-Nazification” required every Allied power to commit to years of occupation and decades more of economic support to prevent backsliding. No such agreement is possible today.
Contemporary experience shows the probable outcome of regime change policy is a failed state that remains a hazard to its neighbors.
De-Nazification required the Allies mass-murdering about a million Germans after the war was over. There's a reason why there's a fudge factor of 1M in the POW camps in the years after the war.
During the Civil War, Abolitionists mass-murdered slave owners by way of dueling them. The story of Cassius Marcellus Clay is littered with stories of brutally killing slave owners and we champion Abolitionists as righteous.
De-Nazification as policy essentially evaporated in the west in the earliest years of the Adenaur government. Killing and displacement of Germans in the east certainly occurred, but the example of the west shows this was not essential.
Killing men in personal duels is not comparable or relevant.
[flagged]
Ah yes, the Jihadi fantasy that you learned at the madrassa
Russia will bump up arms shipments to Iran. We'll have no choice but to strike interior of Russia. Russia will not hit mainland US, but will attack US bases across Western Europe. This will be WW3.
Russia needs everything it can manufacture for itself to use in Ukraine, and they have already gotten everything useful there was to get from Iran, so the latter is on their own.
This absolutely will not happen. Iran has been shipping missiles & drones TO Russia, because Russia can't domestically produce enough of either to sustain their war against Ukraine.
> We'll have no choice but to strike interior of Russia.
You really believe Trump would take meaningful action against Russia? He can even make a forceful statement, let alone act.
Exactly what I think will happen. I think it's already inevitable.
The IDF has total air superiority. The regime has very little capabilities left at all.
Okay. But then what?
In Lebanon the state is attempting to reassert itself. In Syria the rebels took control. But with no foreign boots on the ground, and no organized opposition ready to step in, what exactly is supposed to happen after the regime folds?
Iran has been bombing Israeli targets at will, including Tel Aviv. Israel doesn't even have control over their own airspace.
Its actually incredible how this exact thing could have been done by any other President and half the people losing their minds about WW3 in these comments wouldn't have even logged on to comment.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I swear, his signoff sentences are designed to give intelligent people brain aneurysms...
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Diplomatic options include returning to the JCPOA framework (the "Iran deal"), multilateral sanctions enforcement, or establishing a new verification regime with IAEA oversight.
Should US start bombing North Korea too? And Russia too? Can't let them have nukes either.
The initial nuclear agreement that Trump tore up was a good starting point
Iran was interested in another nuclear agreement too.
US just kept insisting on 0% enrichment.
And then actively facilitated an Israeli sneak attack that murdered Iran's chief nuclear negotiator.
We're allegedly a nation of laws and Trump is always barking about law and order. This is properly done by seeking approval from Congress.
This is properly done by NOT doing it.
This is such a weird comment. Yes, no to bombing Iran. What now? He's done it. Following the proper constitutional process might have prevented it.
IAEA, US intelligence said that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon.
It was the only other nuclear armed country of the Middle East crying wolf, which they have since decades before I was born.
The hardest thing in developing nuclear weapons is getting enough enriched uranium, and Iran was doing that.
Quite a few countries take this approach. It’s a sensible one, especially considering how we’ve treated North Korea versus Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya.
Japan has the rockets, the material, and the know how. They’re sometimes described as a screwdriver turn away from a bomb.
if only there were some agreement we could make with them to get them not to do that...
I'll take the IAEA and US' own intelligence instead of Netanyahu and Trump.
IAEA declared that Iran has violated the previous agreements, hides their enriched uranium, and their enrichment is essentially weapons-grade.
> The IAEA report raised a stern warning, saying that Iran is now “the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material” — something the agency said was of “serious concern.”
> The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency — which was seen by The Associated Press — says that as of May 17, Iran has amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60%.
> U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.”
https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-7f6c996...
> "The Board of Governors... finds that Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency," the text said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran...
Anyway, there's a difference between having enough enriched uranium for a bomb, and actually making that uranium into a bomb. But it's not that big of a difference, it's not like enriching uranium to weapons-grade isn't bad.
Yes, absolutely. Iran has never started a war with anyone.
[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
Unlike, India, Pakistan or, say, Israel, Iran is a ratifier of the non-proliferation treaty and subject to inspections making sure they don’t. Meanwhile Israel not only has had nukes for decades but also continually refuses any accountability for them.
Indeed, to venture off-topic, Israel has sought nuclear weapons for as long as it has existed, which one might plausibly construe as further evidence that their state was knowingly and willingly established by military force, without much pretense that it could ever persist otherwise.
Israel did that, are you okay with it?
I have no opinion.
Your questions in here give the impression you do, and that your opinion is in favor of some kind of intervention. Military interventions have all gone poorly for us, while using diplomacy has worked over and over. Results should matter here and results say bombing is the wrong choice.
[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
> I have no opinion.
> I ask mainly to be convinced one way or another.
"Let Iran do whatever?" is not even close to a neutral perspective.
[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
> In any case the intent is now clear with this message.
The intent is not clear. You come across as lying about neutrality.
Man, no wonder this world is screwed up. Never mind then. I’ll just stop asking questions and let trump do as he likes.
> Man, no wonder this world is screwed up. Never mind then. I’ll just stop asking questions and let trump do as he likes.
Or learn how to not write non-leading questions.
Edit: Hey Hey editing all your posts doesn't make you look more sincere, that's just being more antagonistic.
Yes.
The there are broad types of penalties prescribed in the NPT, which Iran is a party to.
[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
USA should not act unilaterally and should abide by the NPT.
They wouldn't be the only country that made nuclear weapons. Or are you proposing that every country that's ever manufactured nukes be bombed into dust? There are a lot of them.
Our own intelligence said they’re not making weapons.
They’ve said they’re not making weapons.
Trump pulled us out of a deal where we lifted sanctions in order to ensure there were no weapons.
This is embarrassing and outright illegal.
Their meddling directly contributed to the current disastrous war in Gaza and lebanon. They also helped prop up the Assad regime in Syria. All so they could threaten a country 700 miles away.
I expect you to deny or water down most of my claims, so to spare a long flamewar, just assume i've given all the generic standard responses everyone here has seen 100 times. I agree with most of them.
But what business is it of Iran whether or not israel exists? They don't seem to care about palestinians too much otherwise they wouldn't be supporting hamas and the war they started.
It's a genocidal regime, despised by most of her citizens. They fund proxy wars across the middle east based on religious extremism. They deserve everything they are getting and with all due respect only an idiot would support them.
It sure sounds like you're talking about Israel.
[flagged]
According to NYT the US is now at war with Iran: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/21/world/iran-israel-tr...
[flagged]
Something like 400 people just died because of a claim about nuclear weapons which is not backed up by evidence. Claims that have been echoed for decades…
Purportedly 400 people just died… Was it because a sovereign country wants to have Nuclear power? Maybe? Maybe not? Was it because Israel already has Nukes? Who knows… But it’s not a simple end of story situation unless lives have no value.
500K-1M Iraqis died because of a proven false claim about nuclear weapons. Not a single perpetrator faced justice.
“The world is a safer place…”
When you hear these words you’re being sold an agenda.
Is there any use for highly enriched uranium other than weapons?
Radiopharmacy / Nuclear pharmacy. While peaceful, it's a delicate science and some kind of inspections are usually enforced. Thankfully, Iran did allow IAEA inspectors and is a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). One could wish that was the reality of the nuclear operations of certain other states which are not scrutinized.
Some developments in this area:
https://tvbrics.com/en/news/iran-presents-15-developments-in...
https://wanaen.com/iran-surpasses-70-locally-produced-radiop...
I read that Iran was enriching weapons-grade uranium for peaceful purposes.
It is all very, even exceedingly simple. Iran’s nuclear program had no civilian explanation or justification. There’s nothing to be done with 60% enriched material other than go for nuclear weapons within a very short timeframe.
True - agreed. Now we need to get rid of Israel's nuclear weapons.
Let's get rid of all nuclear weapons. Why are we picking on Israel here? Unlike the US Israel has never used theirs (or admitted they actually have them). Russia has openly threatened the west with nuclear attack.
Because Israel is the only nation in that region that has nuclear weapons, and the main reason why Iran wants to have nuclear weapons.
It's not really the reason Iran wants to have nuclear weapons though. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel but more generally to be able to act with impunity.
Israel has nothing against Iran. Before the Islamic revolution there were warm relations between the countries and the people. They are pretty distant geographically and until now have never fought a direct war. Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades now and openly claims it wants to destroy it. Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.
I'd rather live in a world without nuclear weapons but I'm a lot more worried about Russia and Pakistan (e.g.).
By the way, we've seen what value security guarantees have to countries willing to give up nuclear deterrence in Ukraine. Not worth anything.
> Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades
I think this framing is incorrect. It’s more like “Iran has helped these organizations fight Israel”.
It’s fairly obvious that Hamas and Hezbollah are not proxies - they arose not because of Irani funding but as a reaction to Israeli actions.
Or at least counterbalance it with
"America arms Israel to attack Lebannon and Palestine"
> Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel
That's often spread by Jewish media, but I see no evidance for this. Iran's supreme leader has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
> Israel has nothing against Iran
Just like Israel has nothing against Palestinians?
> Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.
A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Israel and the Palestinians have a history of violence from Israel's first day as a country. Israel and Iran not really. More recently Israel has been attacked by Palestinians on Oct 7th. Iran was involved in training Hamas: https://ecfr.eu/article/iran-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-a-marri...
"The Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October reflected their own independent calculations. Although they could not have happened without the provision of long-term Iranian support, the attacks likely came as an unwelcome surprise for Tehran, which over the last two months has avoided giving Palestinian groups full-throated support. Whether Hamas and PIJ remain tightly aligned with Iran, however, will depend on the outcome of the war in Gaza and wider dynamics in the Middle East’s fluctuating geopolitics."
Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conf...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...
> A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Exactly.
Israel has been oppressing Palestinians long before Oct 7th.
Israel was involved in supporting ISIS. That's why ISIS never attacked Israel (except that one time accidentally which they apologized for! How crazy is that?)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is...
Israel also supported rebel groups in Syria https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-acknowledges-long-cl...
> Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has a history of hostility towards multiple neighbouring states. US has invaded Iraq for Israel. Iran does not want to be next.
> Exactly.
So you agree Israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons
And Israel is the only country actively fighting it’s neighbor.
Neighbors.
Palestine Syria Lebanon Yemen And Iran
Have all been bombed repeatedly by Israel
Israel wasn't really at war with either Lebanon or Yemen or with the Palestinians. It was with Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas. All attacked Israel with no provocation before Israel retaliated.
Syria is a different story. Israel did bomb military assets in Syria once the Assad regime fell/fled out of concerns they would fall into the hands of Jihadists. It also took territory to expand the zone it controls in case said Jihadists have intentions of proceeding into Israel. It took advantage of a vacuum in an uncertain security situation. During Assad's reign it did not bomb Syria since the 1973 war (where Syria attacked Israel with no provocation, that was Assad the father fwiw).
Sure, by that token the US wasn’t really at war with Germany or Vietnam, it was at war with the Nazis and the Viet Cong. It’s a meaningless distinction to anyone actually affected by the wars.
Additionally, Israel bombed Damascus during Assad’s reign. Here’s one recent example (bombing an embassy building):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Ira...
> no provocation
There’s a long history of violence in that region. To say that either side was “unprovoked” is a bit rich.
E.g https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_cla...
How Israel is supposed to guarantee its existence without nukes? Or is this the idea here?
Replace Israel with Iran and your question remains the same.
Iran doesn't want to end up like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya.
Iran seemed like they were doing fine in the existence department, no? I have a lot of disagreement (to put it mildly) with Israel, but I think they'd be fine letting Iran be if they'd stop funding Hezbollah and the Houthis, and quieted down with the "Israel must be destroyed" rhetoric.
(And before the argument changes subject, I think Iran [and others] are justified in being angry with Israel about what they're doing in Gaza.)
Netanyahu has consistently said he wanted a regime change in Iran, alongside Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iran does not want to end up like the other countries.
How is Iran supposed to "guarantee its existence" without nukes? Or any other country?
I mean, other neighboring countries close to Israel have largely made peace with the country, and they have no nukes. Iran stands out in terms of constantly funding proxies to attack it.
>A world where Iran has no nukes is a safer world, end of story.
Safer for who? Would anyone be lobbing missiles into Tehran if Iran had nukes?
Given how Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine were treated after dismantling their nuclear programs, and given how much grace countries like North Korea are given you'd be an idiot to not have nuclear program, especially when the US accuses you of having on.
Remember, Iran agreed to nuclear deproliferation under Obama, and the next guy tore it up. It's only rational to try and develop nukes and I'd argue its safer if Iran had nukes. Kids wouldn't be dying under rubble in Tehran otherwise.
Nuclear deproliferation is complete joke unless the US and Russia are the first to give up their nukes.
Since when has a conflict in the Middle East been the end of the story?
That world is the world we have always lived in, unless you have evidence otherwise?
Why aren't we allowed to extend this scrutiny to Israel?
Surely this is just as true for the US and Israel, both of which are less stable countries.
Not for Iran.
We were heading into that world until Trump fucked the deal.
https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
I guess this is a half truth- that people were still not happy with Iran- who they were still funding and also continuing to develop non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
Iran was following their obligations. Trump pulled out unilaterally.
But that makes it sound as if Iran was just peacefully chilling out. Which is technically true, but it doesn't actually reflect reality.
Breaking promises with them means we give up the ability to work with them diplomatically on other goals. "They haven't done everything we'd like them to do" isn't a valid response to someone fulfilling the terms of an agreement you've made with them.
Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.
This is the kind of politics that's hard to say which position is the more optimistic or jaded. Or both at once.
At some point we have to try to make things better, and believe that better (even just a smidge at a time, and possibly with great effort) is possible. Or else we might as well just build the suicide booths from Futurama.
It feels deeply cynical and jaded to me to say, well, just let Iran fund armies and encourage ethnic cleansing, as long as they don't do this one specific thing that is more important to Americans. As long as the horrors you create only affect people in the middle east, we can look the other way.
I'd say the cynical position is the one that says "we can't improve everything all at once, so let's not seek incremental improvements."
Heard that about the invasion of Iraq. It was bullshit then it’s bullshit now.
If only there were ways to accomplish this without violence! That would be a really interesting tactic to try some day!
[flagged]
[flagged]
Your question necessitates the idea that the US is some sort of worldwide nanny state, where anything that happens without an action, the US “let” happen. It’s an innocent question but the assumptions are far more drastic. Reflect on some other alternatives besides “the US is in charge of everything”, especially looking at our track record in the Middle East.
In matters of nuclear proliferation, that's kind of close to the truth, whether we like it or not.
The US allowed Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea to get nuclear weapons, but Iran is a step too far? Pull the other one.
I already heard that when the USA illegally attacked and invaded Iraq. Both of these situations, from the point of view of international law, are no different from Russia's illegal bombing of Ukraine.
Yes, but as much as I don't trust Trump or his administration, it's not clear whether Iran has or doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and if they do, how close they are to a serviceable weapon.
Bush Jr and his buddies are IMO unindicted war criminals. It remains to be seen if this current act puts Trump in the same shoes. I hope Iran really did have a nuclear weapons program and that this attack is in some way justified. But I won't believe or disbelieve it until we know more, corroborated by trustworthy sources outside the US.
The premise here is correct only as far as it is true that anyone besides the US possesses the capacity to act. Beyond that point, it is no longer charitable to frame it that way.
Again, just curious - so you believe countries shouldn’t intervene if others decide they want nuclear tech and or weapons?
I see both arguments, but I’m curious what others think
By "others", you presumably mean credible threats from enemy states (since we allow Israel to secretly harbor nuclear weaponry with no problem). But no, I don't think that. I think it's nuanced, and I think that it's wrong to frame it with language like "let", instead of saying it like it is: starting a war to intervene. War in the Middle East is historically a bad idea, and there better be a good reason to justify the senseless death. I think the seriousness of that decision should not be minimized by statements like "well we couldn't just let them do anything". There is a serious chance of this escalating into something far worse.
Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The official concern has always been that Iran signed the NPT, but then at various times seems to have possibly violated the terms. I'm not necessarily in favor of this recent attack, just pointing out that legally Israel and Iran are in completely different situations.
True. I doubt that the US would have this strong of a reaction to a different non-compliant country we were allied with, though. (Can you imagine the US bunker-bombing Germany, SK, AUS, etc?)
Israel signed the Rome statue and has repeatedly violated specific orders from the ICJ to prevent genocide, so let's not pretend that this is somehow about a concern for international law.
The USA doesn't recognize the ICJ so your comment is irrelevant to the article under discussion.
Another great point! The US doesn't recognize the ICJ anymore after it was caught illegally planting mines in Nicaraguan harbors and lost in the ICJ. A verdict the US still has not complied with. Just more evidence that upholding international law isn't a priority for the US.
Curious what the alternative is here? Let the U.S. do whatever? Genuinely curious.
If you trust Iran with nuclear weapons you are not wise.
If you are a leader of any nation, you are an idiot to not have a nuclear program. It's carteblanche for any nuclear power to come in and fuck your shit up.
Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine has nukes. The US would not have dismantled Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran if they had nukes.
You look at a country like North Korea and they get the red carpet despite have an incredibly oppressive regime and spending millions on cyber attacks and corporate espionaige. You know why? Because they have nukes.
It's not a question of "trusting" Iran. Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes. As it stands today, Iran without nukes, means that Lockheed Martin gets to fleece another 10 trillion dollars from the American public for the next decade.
It's perfectly consistent to be against both Iran nuclear development and the US attack yesterday. One does not imply the other.
Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.
[flagged]
Do you have an actual counter-point or are you just immediately going to loop into thought-terminating cliches?
YOU are the one suffering from "thought terminating cliche" by saying something as foolish as that you trust Iran as much as the US with nuclear bombs. It is like saying you trust the Taliban with nukes. I simply don't know how to debate with people whose brains are so broken.
On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting.
Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
Dwight Eisenhower had a different view (from The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953-1956: A Personal Account (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313):
The incident took place in 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.
I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.)
Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
I don’t think there’s a particular moral concern and I’m not sure where that meme has arisen from. An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb than other bombs. There’s nothing special about it besides it being exceptionally large in its destructive capability.
If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb.
I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.
The difference is in targeting cities. Civilian targets. Let me remind you of the paragraph above:
> Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]
A civilian is just a soldier who hasn’t put on a uniform in this scenario, and a soldier is just a civilian who has put on a uniform. You’re making a meaningless distinction in this context. There isn’t some sort of magic status that changes here - the same Japanese civilians were working at shipyards and ordinance factories to build weapons to kill American soldiers - you think we shouldn’t bomb those factories because we would kill Japanese civilians building weapons to kill American soldiers and that’s ok because the Americans were wearing a costume and we call them “military personnel”?
Nuts!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes?wprov=sfti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World...
What does this have to do with Japanese war crimes and violations of the conventions you linked?
If I follow your logic, you believe that other countries should have nuked a couple of major US cities. I think that's.. not a great way to go.
That’s a strawman
Please define a strawman, in your own words. Because I don't think anyone would remotely qualify what OP said as a strawman.
We killed almost as many civilians when we firebombed Tokyo. Is the use of the atomic bomb somehow different in your mind?
I can think of three things off the top of my head, the scale enabled by them, the timeline of the deaths, and the residual effects.
>I've read opinions/theories that suggest
It's not a suggestion. It's a well-supported historical fact.
> the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary
This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war.
There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon:
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
- Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man.
But hey, don't take my word for it:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...
* https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912
I’ve read far too many books and spent too much time on this specific topic to have my mind changed by a random YouTube link and a random quote. You are free to choose the narrative that fits your worldview best, I’ve chosen mine based on my own research and learning.
[flagged]
China and the Soviet Union developing atomic and nuclear capabilities were never a justification to bomb Chinese or Soviet nuclear facilities.
Did those countries vow to wipe another country off the face of the earth?
Not like when Netanyahu pledged to turn Gaza into a "deserted island"¹, but if that's the kind of rhetoric that justifies US bombing campaigns, then why haven't we bombed Israel's not-so-secret nuclear weapon production facilities, too?
[1] https://archive.is/IcLBh
Soviet Union was an US peer, in terms of power, and China was their ally. Bombing their nuclear facilities could result in war that the US could just as well lose, so that's why they had to show some restraint. But believe me, they would bomb those facilities if they could.
Probably not your intent, but this is a very clear summation of why it is is likely understood as critical to Iranian security to develop and publicly test a nuclear weapon.
The development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons has been against Islamic law in the Islamic Republic of Iran since the mid 90s under a fatwa issued by Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. It is well understood that Iran wants the ability to develop nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat that justifies the atrocity of their creation but all of the evidence suggests that they are otherwise uninterested in nuclear weapons.
We do not significantly disagree, but I take umbrage at the repetition of the pernicious lie that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want sovereignty in their land and justice for the Islamic people. This is a reasonable position.
Understood. I am just making the latter argument that any head of state in a conflicted region must, as a matter of baseline sovereignty, pursue a nuclear deterrent.
It’s clear at this point that such deterrent works, and it’s also not clear what other deterrent might work in its stead. Some of the big imperialist wars of the last half-century likely would have been avoided had the invadee been armed with nukes.
So just to be clear, it's only morally acceptable to wage wars against countries that are unquestionably incapable of defending themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
Probably something other than the one thing that would justify lifting the mid 90's fatwa declaring the creation, possession, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law.
How aware is this community of the Supreme Leader's staunch opposition to nuclear weapons?
This is pure imperialism.
They literally printed a bank note celebrating their nuclear program. The SL is not "staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons".
(I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)
Nuclear program != nuclear weapons program, though.
Ok, I will take the bait. Two countries that are frequently noted as having the capability to build nuclear weapons is Japan and Korea. (For the purpose of this post, please assume with good faith that they don't have secret programmes to build nuclear weapons.) Both have world-leading civilian nuclear power programmes and at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. Side note: One thing that I never see discussed: As both countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Act, I assume that they have regular audits of their facilities by IEAE. (If they were consistently failing with major mishaps, or secret programmes, I am sure that we would read about it.) Both of them have incredibly sophisticated national scientific research programmes that could easily pursue nuclear weapons.
What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world.
Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
Israel just attacked Iran. Perhaps the perceived bellicosity of Iran is both justified and overblown?
What is the reason to trust Israel, who engaged in subterfuge to develop nuclear weapons in the 1970s, over Iran?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
Iran attacked Israel with a huge barrage of missiles in October of 2024. No high-horses to ride here.
Indeed. The lowest of the horses, however, is clearly the USA. Our history and our actions (POSIWID is the most effective heuristic in the modern information environment), including the capricious abandonment of the very successful JCPOA, suggest complete dishonesty in this realm. There is zero reason to believe we have any legitimate reason for attacking Iran and every reason to distrust our stated motivations. Iraq was 22 years ago.
We presented outright fabrications to the UN to justify an imperial war after the president campaigned against "nation building." It is hard to ignore the parallels to Iran and Trump, proclaimed "anti war" candidate that you had to vote for to prevent WW3. Here we are.
There are only murderers in this room. And there is only one guarantee: None of us will see heaven.
I am bathed in the light of heaven for my war is in service of justice and peace for all existence. Those who stand in opposition to these goals are an evolutionary dead-end. An answer to the Fermi Paradox.
My father, a middle-class mormon and far-right political enthusiast, once told me in the context of the conflicts in the Middle East, "people will die for their country, but they'll kill for their god." This harrowing indication of his radicalization nonetheless holds as a true and instructive maxim.
Who is your god? For most of America, it is power and the best proxy for power is the demigod of Money. Avarice and greed are in, Christlike works are out. Too woke.
It is literally possible to use all of this incredible technology and productive capacity to enable food security, high quality housing, access to healthcare, unlimited access to the wealth of all human knowledge and digitizable creations, while protecting our only habitable planet and nurturing its biosphere, and so much more, for all of humanity. Yet money and the desire for power will see billions suffer and die in the next century while mass global extinctions will only decelerate due to depletion of species.
Why can't we do better than the current environment of lawless global and domestic violence waged by the US government? It is barbarism.
Iran has been organizing and funding attacks on Israel via proxies for years?
Isn't that subterfuge?
I come in good faith. I don't understand the intent of your reply. Can you explain more?
What has Mossad been up to? Just boolin'?
It is possible that mistakes were made in the aftermath of WW2. It is possible that the victors have rewritten history in a favorable light -- in fact, that is the most reasonable expectation. This must not be used to justify genocide for if our society takes that path the victory against the Axis powers is meaningless and evil will have triumphed in the world.
Israel is more than Netanyahu and less than the Jewish people. Humanity must unite and destroy the power structures that incentivize the hyperscale atrocities we are currently manifesting.
It is remarkable to see such intellectual dishonesty from so highly a respected figure here.
Those of you who received adequate Liberal Arts education will see through him, whether you agree with his intended rhetorical outcome or not.
Did I say the Supreme Leader is a benign figure? Iran has problems. Big ones.
You are disingenuous and malicious when you portray my position in this way. The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons. He is the respected religious leader of the Iranian government. The actions of the Iranian government, including their adherence to the JCPOA that Trump capriciously discarded, are consistent with this fatwa.
You must provide some other justification for your stance than merely accepting the US propaganda.
There were other candidates for supreme leader that had stronger clerical and jurisprudential backgrounds
We can just disagree about this and let the evidence people can find on their own speak for itself. I find the idea that the SL is "opposed to nuclear weapons" to be risible. Iran bought from AQ Khan!
I have provided information and you have provided innuendo.
If you say so. I'm not interested in litigating further.
Thank you for the engagement.
It is extremely important to document the facile and childish level of argumentation within the industry whose hubris seeks to force the world into the period of its greatest calamities. Society failed to highlight the intellectual immaturity of the Nazis and it has yielded the material reality we exist in today.
Again, I appreciate your labor and contributions to the historical record.
K.
You are not providing the complete context.
If someone claims to be providing "the complete context" they are intentionally misleading you.
I did not make such a claim.
Crucially, neither have I.
By making that statement you are implying that I am being misleading. The reality is quite the opposite.
That fatwa doesn’t bind Khan who is a Sunni of the Hanafi school. It’s like the US having other Five Eyes members spy on its own citizens.
It binds the Islamic Republic of Iran. Are you suggesting something like the Israel-US relationship?
I believe you're referring to the former prime minister of Pakistan? If so, truly a derail. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
I think the Shia-Sunni relationship is rather more complex than the post-WW2 anglosphere, quite frankly.
"The Supreme Leader has a longstanding public opposition to nuclear weapons"
He is LYING. Because he is a liar. Who lies. Like about opposing nuclear weapons.
Strict adherence to the JCPOA, capriciously discarded by the man who just bombed Iran in my name, suggests that Iran's position was legitimately held.
In fact, it implies that someone else is lying. Probably the country that just did a complete 180 on its intelligence assessment and attacked another country unprovoked, if you want my assessment.
It's not like the USA doesn't have a documented history of lying and engaging in information warfare to justify wars of choice. This isn't even our first time this century.
I'm down voted for calling the Supreme Leader of Iran a liar?
That is typically how sovereignty works, yes.
No it isn't. Most countries work with other countries under a shared set of principles. Even China and Russia do this to an extent. Where deviation happens, it happens when a country can afford to do it (see: south China sea disputes.) Sometimes, they'll do it anyway and suffer (see: North Korea.)
Doing whatever you want is just opening yourself fully to the full spectrum of game theory outcomes. The leadership in Iran is discovering what that means.
Not ripping up a treaty that was being upheld by Iran would be an excellent start.
It would be great if we had a diplomatic agreement with Iran to monitor and limit its nuclear development!
Oh wait, we did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_...
Part of the reason it was cancelled was because Iran was still funding a bunch of proxy armies and still developing non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
Even if Iran were arming regional proxies, that's an Israel problem, not an america problem. Though AIPAC et el makes sure no american is ever aware of that distinction.
The US was angry Iran had a civilian rocket program?
So you agree they were not exploring nuclear weapons with that agreement in place?
That doesn't seem like a good reason to cancel the only thing stopping them from developing nukes. Of course they fund proxy armies, but that's a reginal problem that can be addressed through conventional means.
Cancelling the Joint Agreement is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In particular, it was clearly an expression of Trump's animus to Obama.
For sure part of it is goading them into looking like the bad guys.
Otoh, ballistic missiles eventually become a western europe/NATO security issue.
Not exactly sure how close Iran would be to that, but that is an element of the situation.
Ballistic missiles are a problem but also why it would be better to keep them from having nuclear bombs to put on those missiles.
Yep, the JCPOA was canceled because 1) Bibi has always wanted to go to war with Iran, and knew very well how to get the US's help to do it, and 2) Trump's ego can be trivially played by just saying it's something Obama got credit for.
The main reason it was canceled is because Donald Trump is a petulant child and he wanted to erase all of Obama’s accomplishments.
Stay in the deal that brought their domestic uranium production to 0. This crisis is entirely Trump's fault for pulling out.
https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
The limits were to sunset starting from 2026 and end by 2031. The deal was to end with Iran being allowed to enrich as much as they wanted to, just a step away from a bomb.
The point was to build trust that Iran would not continue to pursue nuclear weapons. The trust would be built through the multi-year partnership.
The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what." And yeah, if that's your starting place, you've figured out where that path ends up. You're never going to be satisfied with anything Iran says because your fundamental premise is that they can't be trusted to not pursue a nuclear bomb.
By walking away from the deal, we gave Iran a clear message: "you might as well pursue a bomb because we are always going to act like you are, no matter what you actually do."
>The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."
No, it's a position that assumes some people there have an interest in a nuclear bomb, and some suspicion is warranted - which means a safe deal needed to have them some distance away from a bomb.
After all, if they just wanted nuclear power, they could have trivially had it without all this fuss. It was always so much cheaper to buy LEU than endure all these sanctions.
> The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."
Understanding that Iran is religiously opposed to the creation of nuclear weapons with only the caveat that the fatwa declaring the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law may be rescinded in the event of an existential threat to the republic, it naturally follows that people hold that belief because they intend to present an existential threat to Iran.
There's no evidence the fatwa even exists (aside from statements by self-interested parties), much less any details of its contents and any exception it may have. At any point they could point to an exception in subsection 4) c) and do whatever they want. Because the fatwa isn't published, they can add whatever exception they want later. If it really exists and is really meaningful, they would have publicized it in advance and so been bound by it.
I believe the right to "do whatever they want" is one generally valued by sovereign entities. The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them. It does sound like a good reason to not capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium that was discarded to no positive end by Donald Trump, the man who is illegally starting another US war of choice as we speak.
Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA and developed nuclear weapons in 2017? It's worked for literally everyone else who's tried it and it is hard to empathize with a perspective in which the United States has true moral authority over a country that we destabilized and have continuously demonized.
>I believe the right to "do whatever they want" is one generally valued by sovereign entities.
Most theocracies do not declare themselves sovereign over God. If it's truly a religious duty than it exists independently of anything in our world.
>The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them.
I meant that the fatwa proves nothing until it is publicly published. Bombing was due to the nuclear program and no other reason.
>capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium
The agreement had sunsets, it would have very soon expired. It's better to actually solve problems and not leave them to successors.
>illegally starting another US war of choice
Every modern President violated the War Powers act. It's unworkable.
>Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA
The way some people talk, very likely not.
Art of the un-deal
Enrichment to levels suitable for domestic nuclear power (the goal, and follow on decoupling from Russia as the supplier and extractor of fuel for existing Iran nuclear power station) is a magnitude and more less time and effort than enrichment to levels suitable for weapons.
Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns, getting rid of all the uranium variations save the rare target weight takes more and more time as percent purity increases.
"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres and leaving locked and logged "long soak" spectrometer instruments behind. It's hard to enrich to greater levels without leaving a ratio fingerprint behind in the gamma spectrum.
What was to stop Iran from secretly enriching Uranium in sites inspectors have no access to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret...
"The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim."
By unilaterally leaving the agreement, we told Iran "We are going to act as if you are going to build a bomb, so you might as well build a bomb."
That's a tad Descartes before the hordes .. the response that situation in 2002 was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015 which had plenty of carrots, sticks, and ability to peer into dark places .. but not real support from Isreal or the US who scuppered the plan under Trump.
>follow on decoupling from Russia
You are aware the deal was entirely dependent on Russia, and the follow-on Biden wanted to sign (but couldn't since Iran wouldn't fully cooperate with IAEA) involved Russia even more heavily? There's no other place that both sides accept can store the enriched Uranium or supply fuel rods to Iran.
>Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns
It's the other way around. Going from 3 to 20 percent is much harder than 20 to 60 which is harder than 60 to 90. Going to 99.9999% would be tough, but is unnecessary even for nukes.
>"Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres
They were allowed to enrich to that level under the deal starting in 2031, inspections would have tested if the enriched material was diverted.
Even if they could be effective at such short notice, it would have taken the US being distracted by some other crisis and being unable to act in the short period between detection and weaponization to lead to a nuke.
I mean, we could have not torn up the JPCOA for starters
Do we have irrefutable evidence that Iran was that close to a nuke?
The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report in May saying they enriched up to 60% U-235 at one of their facilities[0].
> As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month.
0: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
60% is not weapons grade.
Why would any country enrich uranium to 60% or more?
Radiopharmaceuticals are enriched to 60%. Iran is one of the top producers in the world. Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran
https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-...
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...
Iran imports radiopharmaceuticals from Canada and that import was never restricted. Besides, radiopharmaceuticals are done with cyclotrons and do not require 60% HEU.
There are dozens of elements and isotopes used in radiopharmacology. Highly enriched uranium is absolutely one of them -hence why energy.gov is posting about it- and it's significantly cheaper than using a particle accelerator to create radioactive isotopes.
HEU is not directly used in radiopharmacology for obvious reasons, the energy.gov posting is about a non-fissile isotope of Uranium and not HEU.
It's much cheaper to use a cyclotron than get massively sanctioned - unless you what you really want is a weapon.
Cato institute has argued it was for leverage in talks with the US. Iranians were quite clear about this, setting timelines for enrichment targets to amp up the pressure after the us withdrew from JCPOA.
To negotiate back to a prior deal that was actually pretty great for all parties involved.
No, but it was a significant jump from what they had before. I'm not a fan of what is being done by Israel and the US, to be clear.
True. Weapons grade in approximately 2 months was one estimate given by the Institute for Science and International Security.
I have heard similar estimates. I think what is important: It is less than one year. That is pretty quick from the view of regional geopolitics.
Here is a quote that I found from abc.net.au via Google:
Putting on my black hat for moment: I think Iran's strategy to tip toe up to the line of weapons grade uranium is strategic genius. (Of course, I don't want them to have nuclear weapons!) It provides maximum deniability so they can get as many parts as close as possible before the final 12 months dash to get nuclear weapons.the last bit of refinement is much easier than the initial bits. Natural abundance is 0.7%, so getting to 10% is about halfway to weapons grade and 60% is ~80-90% of the way there.
But weapons are the ONLY reason to enrich that high.
You raise a very good point here, probably the most important consideration if one wishes to defend Israel's and US's recent bombing of Iranian nuclear research sites. I don't know any legitimate civilian purpose to enrich uranium to near-weapons grade... except to eventually produce weapons grade material.
Honestly Iran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
Of course, it is insane to see so many people in this discussion plainly in denial about the intent of this programme.
Not true. Maybe the only plausible reason Iran has to make them, but that's a different claim.
The US only need to claim a country has 'weapons of mass destruction' to start a war. Evidence is not required.
Pretty sure the claim this time wasn't that they had them, but that they could make them too quickly if they wanted to.
No. In fact, there is no (public) evidence at all.
They are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.
LOL Daily Show had a show about it Netanyahu has been saying Iran will have nukes within weeks, since 2008
Well let's not forget stuxnet... Iran hasn't been left uncontested. They have faced considerable setbacks along the way. They've been trying to develop [all of the things you need for nuclear weapons] for some time, and more recently had been accelerating those efforts.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ
Netanyahu may exaggerate the imminence of an Iranian nuke, but the reason Iran hasn't built a nuke is because Israel has been repeatedly setting Iran back in its progress over the years.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-timeline-tensions-con...
The single biggest setback was the JCPOA or the "Iran nuclear deal," which Netanyahu pressured Trump to unilaterally renege on.
Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe.
Off to the races!
The deal was on only for about 3 years. Iran has been enriching to some extent since 2009. I'd would think there was a lot more in setting it back than a failed deal.
You'd be wrong. Iran actively got rid of nearly all of its stockpile under the JCPOA.
10,000kg down to 300.
Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again. The deal worked great. Bibi and Trump failed.
Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work.
>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.
Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
> which is hardly nonproliferation work.
Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?
You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”
> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings
Say more. What's the relevance?
>Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time
The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).
>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich
They could just give up.
>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.
>Say more. What's the relevance?
Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.
Breakout time was not reduced lol. You have a deal, then you get another deal, then you get another deal.
"I just got a 1 year discount with a vendor"
The wise man lowered his head and muttered: "No, you have earned a price increase in 12 months."
> They could just give up.
Which makes literally no sense, as we are seeing. The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
>You have a deal, then you get another deal
>The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
That's in contradiction, no? Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal. Iran would have been in a position where no deal was possible, and all the same arguments against what happened now would actually apply against a x100 stronger Iran.
I get the feeling you're willfully playing dumb, but to take it step by step:
Now, after having proven that deals mean nothing both in Ukraine and Iran, the only sensible move is to develop nuclear weapons.
Prior to us having broken both of these deals, there was a believable argument for the US being an honest broker who can ensure security in lieu of you having your own nuclear weapons.
> Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal
What do you mean? You do the same thing again: economic normalization for non-proliferation.
>Now, Prior
Ukraine started in 2014. Libya in 2011. The truth of the world was already clear at that point, as well as Iranian intentions. The JCPOA was never going to handle a Iranian nuke but would have facilitated it. You cannot use economic incentives to fix a broken world, and Iran had many other motives for nukes.
Facilities deep in a mountain, no IAEA access, refusal to negotiate, October 7th, ... You'd have to be quite naive to think it's all above board. (Instead of under a mountain).
Let's be clear Iran is the bad guy. But so was Saddam Hussein and he didn't have the weapons they said he did.
On Fox News they'll tell you nuclear war is imminent but they say that because they want to bomb, not because it's true or not. They're only justifying their actions, not reacting to a threat.
I don't watch Fox News. Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons. I'm all for prosecuting Blair and Bush, always have been. This is not a matter in which you can just sit back and say "well, hopefully it's all innocent". Iran had to be open - they were the opposite.
> Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons
You're correct. However, Netanyahu also claimed that Iran was behind the two assassination attempts on Trump during the campaign trail. A laughably transparent lie obviously designed to woo Trump. Then there's that this war is politically very convenient for him as it distracts from some Knesset political drama, increasing international criticism of the Gaza situation, and it obstructs Trump's attempts at a politician solution with Iran.
I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons. Clearly they've been playing with fire for a long time but that doesn't mean they actually have nuclear weapons. But I consider anything the Netanyahu government says as deeply and profoundly untrustworthy. So colour me highly sceptical on it all.
Iraq was also not giving sufficient access to inspectors, which was one of the reasons people were convinced he did have WMDs. Things like "you can just sit back and say 'well, hopefully it's all innocent'" is pretty much what people were saying at the time as well.
Wars have unpredictable outcomes, all of this may very well cause more problems than it solves.
The alternatives were that they were enriching well beyond peaceful thresholds primarily for leverage in negotiations, or that they wanted "breakout" capability, so they could build multiple bombs quickly, if they ever chose to. But these alternatives can still be unacceptable from the standpoint of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation.
Iran is one of the top producers or radiopharmaceuticals from highly enriched materials including uranium. This should be unsurprising because Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...
https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-...
There are some ridiculous pro-palestine/anti-israel takes out there that says that the politics of the region are more stable when Iran has nuclear weapons.
How'd any of that be a problem, even if it was true?
I can understand the Iranian reluctance to negotiate with the US. Trump has demonstrated that he is particularly honorable.
That would be pointlessly defeatist. Also, other parties are involved to bear witness.
They have been saying that (at least) since 1995.
Israel has been talking about the threat for some time and Iran over time has broadened its nuclear program and has enriched more and more Uranium to higher and higher levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret...
Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program?
Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that?
Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.
One of the problems is that we became the defenders of Israel. And it's a situation we created when we created a religious extremist government in Iran.
The US and Israel have a long standing partnership. During the cold war the USSR backed Syria and Egypt (E.g.) and the US backed Israel. That was not different than other places in the world where the US pushed back against soviet expansion. Unlike Europe though there was never a formal defense pact. Also unlike Europe there were actual wars with people getting killed.
I'm not sure the US "created" the religious extremist government in Iran. It's a complicated story. But the Shah was hated and like other similar dictators to date the US was happy to support that regime and turn a blind eye to the atrocities against the Iranian citizenry. Just like it is happy to work with other dictatorial regimes today as long as their interests align. When the revolution happened the Ayatollah was already well positioned to take advantage of the situation. Many of the people who rose up were eventually lined up against the wall and executed, like tends to happen in these revolutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
It can be both things that:
- it's disgusting that the USA is always like, oops, my bad, we messed up when we helped you kill all those people, we were doing our best (sometimes in the case of Iraq going back and forth three times!)
- now that we're here, not sure what else we can do (we shouldn't let Iran fund proxy wars and have nukes)
The US messed up a lot of things e.g. in the Americas. Before them the Europeans also messed plenty of stuff up.
But the US has also at times been a positive force.
I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum.
But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.
They said it was weeks away in 2008, 2012, 2017 and 2023... and now we're back here again
Well, it takes about 20 years. Throw in a virus, assassinations, inspections, ... sounds about right.
Who is 'they'? United States, Israel, media outlet?
What’s the OTHER justification for a hardened nuclear program and having a pile of enriched material that can only be used for weapons?
This is the IAEA report [0], claiming enough material for 9 weapons.
[0] https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
[flagged]
A consequential night for Israel: peace for many decades to come. I worry, however, that peace through bombing is not a permanent solution. Peace comes through diplomacy. Ideology does not die in the rubble.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Iran is the aggressor here. Iran has been funding and arming multiple proxies to fire missles into Israel for the past 50 years
This conveniently ignores decades of context. The CIA-backed coup that toppled Iran’s elected government, the sweeping sanctions, support for Saddam during a brutal war, assassinations and cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Painting Iran as the sole aggressor skips the part where outside powers kept breaking the "rules" they imposed. Also forgetting that Iran's current repressive and theocratic government is itself a direct consequence of US interference.
You can let this context paralyze you into feeling that there's no morally right response to any action anyone takes in this complex world. Or, you can just say: what they're doing is wrong, so we're going to stop it. If you don't learn to do the latter, you'll spend the rest of your life beholden to the tyranny of the people who do.
I think my own thought isn't 'what they're doing is wrong' but 'what they're doing is dangerous'.
Thus in my view it kind of doesn't matter whether what they're doing is right or wrong, and the sensible goal is to simply prevent the dangerous stuff without necessarily judging them. Thus limited bombings focused on nuclear enrichment plants, rather than some wider campaign.
The problem as I see it is that it may not work, and that nuclear bomb development might be quite easy.
Can the US say that "this is wrong" to their friends too?
Nope.
It is not about "this is wrong".
It is about "this is in the leading classes interests"
Israel isn't the US, but I can understand being confused about that given the US seems to always do what's in Israel's best interest.
The comment was just saying that its parent was incorrect that Israel was the aggressor.
...in response to Israeli acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity...
...in response to...
Turns out you can't just put your country in the middle of other countries without the shit hitting the fan.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567
Not that they keep to themselves either.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-o...
What? Do you really believe the world seriously beholds itself to "do as I say not as I do"? There's no such thing as international law. There's just self-interested nations who have always only done what is in their best interest. There's no higher authority.
So, in your reality, China says "but, but, you guys got to invade Iraq and attack Iran unprovoked, that means we get to invade Taiwan" and we just have to sit back and let it happen because... reasons. Nope. That's not how it works. We don't hold everyone to the same standards, and we certainly don't hold ourselves to the standards we police the world to hold itself to. That's the way it works.
Life isn't fair. Get used to it.
I don't believe in fair. I do however believe that maybe we can learn and change and expect our leadership to do the same. Cooperation and diplomacy lead to far higher long term returns than might makes right as we have seen time and time again. What we are seeing now however is a policy of maximizing the minimum which will force others to do the same and leads to everyone, including the US, being far worse off.
Please do not lose grasp on what we're talking about here: These were nuclear enrichment facilities with the goal of enriching fissile material for nuclear weapons. These were not civilian, or even conventional military, targets. There is a gulf of difference between one overnight mission to dampen the nuclear prospects of a dictatorial, authoritarian, religious-extremist regime, and China launching a multi-modal invasion of a near-peer ally.
I believe the complete dominance of the preemptive attacks shows how little capability they actually have to use any such weapons and that likely trickles down to any development of those weapons. I no longer believe in the 'They have WMD and will take over the world in days' wolf cries. Iran is not some nice country being picked on, but the entities attacking them also aren't being truthful in their reasons either. I have no love for any of the parties in this fight at the moment. They are all wrong, but one side did throw the first punch so they are, in my view, the most wrong here and the US just backed them.
> There's no such thing as international law. There's just self-interested nations who have always only done what is in their best interest.
If you think about that a little bit more, you may see that internal laws can change the best interests if coencequences are big enough. And maybe that is the point.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Diplomacy was working until the US unilaterally withdrew from the treaty in 2018.
There are solutions other than war to nonproliferation.
So we're blaming the US because Iran chose to pursue weapons-grade enrichment. Have you considered that Iran could simply choose not to do that, like every other paranuclear state?
Ultimately the choice of whether or not Iran gets to build a nuclear bomb is not up to them, and they're finding that out now.
I am blaming Trump. He did this. He withdrew from the treaty which led directly to this action today.
What happened between Trump withdrawing from the treaty and Fordo getting bombed? I feel like you're perhaps missing a few critical steps on the Iranian side.
- Trump murdered top a top Iranian general (Soleimani)
- Israel bombed an Iranian Embassy
- Iran counterstruck Israel but relatively restrained and with warning
- Israel bombed several high ranking Iranians, especially those involved with the nuclear program
- Iran counterstruck Israel.
None of it had that much to do with America.
Trump signaled that diplomacy wasn't going to solve the tension, and they weren't getting what they wanted to in exchange for not building weapons. Of course they were going to build them. Why would they not, whether for offense or defense?
Why would they not build nuclear weapons? I guess they don’t have to wonder anymore. It’s not like they weren’t warned.
You can always stop building nuclear weapons at any time and change course. But they chose not to, and suffered the consequences. Whose fault is that?
Please remind why France, England, Israel are allowed to have weapons and Iran is not?
Stuxnext was quite an achievement, too -- aside from it escaping containment and all. Kudos to ... whoever it was that pulled that off.
Iran regime has been a great destabilizer and war monger. So, may be their nuke development just provided an opening for the regime change operation. The Middle East will be much more peaceful once Iran is de-fanged. This even may help Europe because Iran was helping Russia in the war.
It didn't work in Iraq. Why would it work here?
no boots on the ground and more moderate goals. The current state of Iraq - severely corrupt moderately religious not threatening anybody kleptocracy would be a success here. Not threatening is the key - Iran has been behind sectarian violence in Iraq, behind Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, helping Assad, ... one can see that Iran's regime should have already been taken out yesterday just in order to advance peace in the Middle East.
Note - no boots on the ground wouldn't be a big limitation because in case of say ethnic violence, with Azerbaijani and Persian being the largest groups, or even just great social chaos, Turkey and Azerbaijan, are, as far as i understand, ready to bring their armies into the Iran's Azerbaijani populated provinces, which would leave Persians, who are many don't like that "Arab's Islam", in their provinces to their own devices, probably even restoring the monarchy with the Shah's son, which again would be a good outcome here.
No boots on the ground... yet. We don't know how Iran reacts next. To their leadership, this is a pretty serious existential threat.
They don't have much options. They have only Revolutionary Guard for them. Army hates the Guard. The Guard isn't really a fighting force, it can only launch missiles and beat unarmed protesters. Once it runs out of missiles (with a lot of missiles lost to the bombing), it is done.
I expect a full no-fly zone enforcement, and with that the regime's domestic authority and power will quickly go down the drain.
It does remind me of the North Korean situation, where nobody wanted NK to get nukes, but since nobody was willing to take action on it, and diplomacy went nowhere (because they obviously wanted nukes), eventually NK got the nukes they wanted.
Does anyone think that situation resolved well? If we were able to go back in time, would we choose diplomacy again, knowing it would fail?
> Does anyone think that situation resolved well?
I don't think we've seen the resolution of that situation. We will one day, and I think the chances of it being a good outcome are pretty slim. I'm very much against Iran having nuclear weapons. I just hope we don't get dragged into a long war which will explode our national debt and potentially lead to a sovereign debt crisis.
Iraq and Afghanistan were long wars because we had a ground invasion and then nation building in countries with relatively weak civic structures and identities. It doesn't seem like anybody is seriously considering a ground invasion of Iran here, Israel will probably just continue airstrikes and sabotage/assassination. The US might join in on more airstrikes but it seems extremely unlikely it'd go beyond that, the appetite for nation building is obviously gone ever since Iraq and Afghanistan went terribly. Nobody in the US wants a repeat of that.
North-Korea has had a bunch of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul since the 50s. They've had a "we will completely fuck your shit up"-type deterrent way before nukes, which is also why they've been able to do their nuclear programme: they used their previous deterrent to develop their new one.
There was never really any other option than "ask nicely to not do that", and maybe try some covert sabotage here and there. Everyone knew that and everyone knew that everyone knew.
In Iran the situation is different, because everyone knows that they don't have any such deterrent and they will lose in any real shooting war, with fairly little options to meaningfully fight back. There is a real inventive to actual pursue diplomacy for Iran which didn't exist in North-Korea.
Also the North-Korean regime and population is of quite a different nature than Iran. By and large, the North-Korean regime just wants to be left alone and is quite isolationist. This also doesn't really apply to Iran.
There are lots of people in this thread who are defaulting to "when the US attacks someone that's by default OK, and you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not".
What makes it OK specifically for the US to do this? There is an entire international framework to deal with non proliferation. Bombing another country on the other side of the world because you can is not that.
The people who decide if it's okay are the ones with nuclear weapons. They are the ones who built and enforce the framework for determining what "okay" even means. That's why nuclear weapon acquisition is so powerful. And why it's so fiercely protected.
The framework to deal with non-proliferation depends on the states involved voluntarily participating in the framework. Iran was not doing so.
There are numerous countries that enjoy paranuclear status who have had no problem not lying to the IAEA.
You cannot place blame for this outcome on anyone other than Iran, they made the move entirely of their own volition. Once you open the door for consequence, you don't get to choose how it is handed out.
You completely missed the point. Whether certain actions are "OK" are not is utterly irrelevant in geopolitical affairs. Sovereign states will always act in their (perceived) best interest regardless of legalisms or moral codes. Justifications are then manufactured for public consumption.
Ultima ratio regum.
As for international frameworks, how should the Non-Proliferation Treaty be enforced? If a country violates it then what should the consequences be?
https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/
I agree, we should require Israel to surrender its nuclear weapons or subject them to the same consequences.
They are a nuclear state. They have defacto special privileges. That's how it works. The US doesn't decide that.
North Korea is crazy and diplomacy works just fine with them. This is entirely the foreign policy of another country that has taken American foreign policy hostage. I'm sorry, the America is not safer because of this ... the opposite in fact.
Eh? Diplomatic measures famously failed to stop North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.
That ship sailed but the world was able to manage them. The ship didn't sail with Iran and the world was able to manage it. My point being is that whatever stage the situation is in, diplomacy without war actually works.
So this is a comment in favour of nuclear proliferation? I don't get your point. It sounds like you're saying oh well because NK has worked out so far. So far, by the way, because they're still a rogue state, and they now have nuclear weapons on top of that.
Yes, so far it worked. That's what "it's working" means, like, it will always be "its working so far". Listen, don't bring up the bullshit framework everyone used to get into the Iraq war. I can hear the echoes of it in your commentary. Everything is working so far, that is what a process is.
"It's working" in terms of NK not nuking anyone, but it also means that people are scared to do anything to North Korea even when they're belligerent, because they're a nuclear power now.
> Listen, don't bring up the bullshit framework everyone used to get into the Iraq war.
Ridiculous comparison. No one's talking about a ground invasion here.
I discard any pro-proliferation arguments at face value.
You’re arguing for a greater number of uncontrollable parameters governing the world’s most deadly weapons. I can’t think of a more idiotic position to take. And the “nothing bad has happened yet” belief system is just insane. Stanislav Petrov? Able Archer 83? Read a book man.
How many times has the world’s most capable military accidentally almost detonated a nuclear bomb?
You do realize that there are ways to avoid nuclear proliferation without war? The US had a deal with Iran and multiple other countries that made them limit their nuclear capabilities, but the US withdrew from it in 2018.
Iran needing to be babysat is their choice. Numerous states are capable of building nuclear weapons or enriching weapon-grade uranium. And they don't, because they aren't bad actors.
Iran is an objectively bad actor when it comes to nuclear weapons. They created the problem voluntarily, of their own volition. What comes after is not up to them.
Iran, by the way, broke the IAEA agreement. Fordo was built illegally, without disclosure to the IAEA.
[flagged]
What on earth
https://bsky.app/profile/brma64.bsky.social/post/3ls5ntn5bns...
It could be worse.
But this is still bad, may be illegal, and isn't over yet. We don't actually know what they hit, if those sites were empty, and what's happened to ~1/2 ton of highly-enriched uranium or the regime's ability to produce more.
Illegal? I don’t think that factors into any decision made here.
Very definitely is not illegal in American law.
I voted for Trump. I'd support his impeachment now.
He has betrayed his core by letting Israel suck our country into another Middle Eastern conflict, after promising to do the opposite.
voting a bozo in gets you bozo outcomes.
I can't believe OP is saying this like some "I'm actually smart" moment. Play stupid games to win stupid prizes, except it affects the entire world now
r/leopardsatemyface
It boggles my mind that you ever thought Trump had a principled stand on anything. Most of the world has known since the 1980s exactly who Donald Trump is.
I understand what you mean, but we've been in this conflict for decades already. America and loads of other countries have been working to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would result in the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing nukes by way of defense against Iran - a country most of the middle east views as a combatant and an enemy.
I won't comment or discuss who you voted for - that isn't germane here. What is important is that America has been working for decades - often quite blatantly, sometimes with the thinnest veneer of deniability - to stop Iran from getting nukes. We're now just saying the quiet part out loud.
> America and loads of other countries have been working to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons.
1. America is a continent. You probably mean the USA.
2. What the US has been working to stop Iran from is being independent of its near-control - which it had gained with the 1953 CIA-fomented coup d'etat against the Mossadegh government, and lost again in 1979 when the Islamist-headed faction of the rebellion gained power. While it's true that the US would not like Iran to have nuclear weapons, that has served more as an excuse to try and suppress it rather than actual motivation.
No, America is a country - you demonstrate this by knowing exactly which country I refer to when I say the word. Pop quiz: how many countries have the word "America" in their name?
#2 is not worth responding to, as you didn't feel the need to respond to my broader point: anti-proliferation in the middle east has been a long-pursued initiative by the west and much of the rest of the world for decades.
Is it safe to blow up a nuclear plant? Doesn't that cause bad things to spread?
Yes, but who said that Trump cares about any consequences of his actions?
It sounds like this stuff is underground sound so maybe it doesn't contaminate everything?
I wonder if Iran will now activate the sleeper cells they have in the US?
So russia can not attack a nuclear facility in ukraine, but us can in iran ? What am I missing ?
a) Russia plans to conquer Ukraine and use its resources. Nuclear power plants are very expensive and critical to industry. Russia wants to capture these for their own use, not blow them up and irradiate the countryside that they wish to be a part of their own country!
b) Active reactors contain very "hot" decay products that are very bad for your health if atomised by an explosion and spread around. Chernobyl is the prototypical example of this. Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium, that's the point! Natural Uranium would "trigger itself" prematurely due to its constant background decay radiation.
[dead]
What is to stop Iran from putting their next enrichment facility deep underground in the middle of Tehran?
Seems even Israel might be more hesitant to target it at that point.
Likely the reason to bomb Iran now in the first hand was internal politics of Israel. Controlling party was losing votes. Now, few bombs and problem solved.
For those who think the attack would rally Iranians behind the Ayatollah, can you explain your logic? Israel has been bombing Iranian military targets (while Iran has been attacking Israeli civilian targets in retaliation) for a week, and we haven’t seen the Islamist regime grow stronger.
I have no idea why this is still on the front page of HN. To me, it has become a dumping ground for ideologically motivated individuals to blindly attack Israel and the U.S. with unproven claims and speculation, rather than fostering interesting technical discussions.
People almost always rally behind the political leadership when attacked by another country.
I could even imagine that this has happened before in Iran and that the Iran-Iraq war was an important reason why the Mullahs could consolidate their power.
All the discussion about who is right, wo would win etc. aside. Israel should be a big wakeup call to muslim countries. With so little population and surrounded by so many hostile countries, they manage to be so strong and be able to defend themselves.
It is a big shame that many muslim countries are under dysfunctional governments and struggling to make progress so they can’t even protect themselves.
Personally I don’t agree with any kind of war but it is not realistic to expect everything to be fine while fighting inside your country, with a backwards mindset, discussing religion etc. not working honestly and expecting to prosper.