U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckg3rzj8emjt
4,115 comments
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...
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
Yes.
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.
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.
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 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?
i think its "the core issue to who?"
The core issue to the most of the world is nuclear proliferation, not low level terrorism and militia groups.
The core issue to the most of the world is nuclear proliferation, not low level terrorism and militia groups.
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.
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.
Ah but he’ll get a better deal, just you wait. Did you know he wrote a whole book on deals?
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...
Edit: 3 months, and source: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...
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...
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...
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.
It turns out there's a big gap between most peaceful purposes and weapons grade, and this was in that gap.
When the only purpose of stepping into that gap is to get to weapons grade, it doesn't really work as a gray area.
sorcerer-mar(2)
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
> 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
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.
Also, you can use 60% enriched uranium in the primary stage at the cost of a much larger, less efficient, and dirty device.
> plus a second fusion stage that (as far as I'm aware) Iran is not working to develop.
All modern nukes are two stage designs, Iran would be insane not to have a fusion stage. It would basically be a Hiroshima style dirty bomb with just 1.5% fissible mass actually fissioned.
All modern nukes are two stage designs, Iran would be insane not to have a fusion stage. It would basically be a Hiroshima style dirty bomb with just 1.5% fissible mass actually fissioned.
I'm well aware of the difference in yield, but I thought a second fusion stage required modeling and testing well beyond basic development? Like I take a quick look at Wikipedia for what devices (for example) India has, and it seems to say whether they contain a significant fusion stage is an open question.
Hiroshima was pretty terrible as it was. And I thought the capability that everyone focuses on because it gets nations a seat at the nuclear table was just basic fission weapons. But please correct me if I am wrong.
Hiroshima was pretty terrible as it was. And I thought the capability that everyone focuses on because it gets nations a seat at the nuclear table was just basic fission weapons. But please correct me if I am wrong.
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?
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.
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.
> Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium
Do you have a citation for this?
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%.
60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.
You only get to 60% on the road to 90%. At 60% it has no other useful purpose.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
> Was Iran's activities funding militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which launched attacks against Israel and US forces "legal"?
Is the US funding of Ukrainian militias "legal"?
Is the US funding of Ukrainian militias "legal"?
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.
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.
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.
Geopolitics operates in an explicitly anarchic arena.
bad news about who the US sponsors
I read an interview with a nuclear physicist the other day who said "If you can do 60%, you've nailed the technique, so 90% is not difficult anymore."
Besides, there is no non-military need for enriching uranium beyond a few percent, so it's very clear what those 60% mean.
Besides, there is no non-military need for enriching uranium beyond a few percent, so it's very clear what those 60% mean.
Are there other uses for highly enriched uranium? Wikipedia mentions 'research' I think.
Has the Iranian government ever explained why they are enriching uranium?
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
That’s what their story is.
Well, if you have an expansionist apartheid state nearby, bent on seeking any pretense to sabotage or get your infrastructure air raided, higher enrichment factors would make much easier to safeguard fuel, given not high enough to easily cause a criticality incident.
Say you have 10 ton of 2.5% enriched uranium to safeguard. If you turn it to 60% HEU, now you have only ~400kg of fuel to safeguard against air raids. Density of uranium is ~19 ton/m³, so that would correspond to just 21 liters of HEU, one bucket worth, what would make it very easy to transport and hide. That would make it possible to split it and store in safe locations, for example, inside some deep boreholes, far apart to each other, making it impervious to attack, for the duration of hostilities. Once they pass, it can be recovered and diluted back to 2.5% with natural uranium, reconstituting your original 10-ton fuel amount.
Say you have 10 ton of 2.5% enriched uranium to safeguard. If you turn it to 60% HEU, now you have only ~400kg of fuel to safeguard against air raids. Density of uranium is ~19 ton/m³, so that would correspond to just 21 liters of HEU, one bucket worth, what would make it very easy to transport and hide. That would make it possible to split it and store in safe locations, for example, inside some deep boreholes, far apart to each other, making it impervious to attack, for the duration of hostilities. Once they pass, it can be recovered and diluted back to 2.5% with natural uranium, reconstituting your original 10-ton fuel amount.
or.... they were in the process of building bombs. (or what you said, but probably bombs).
You only need 5% enriched for that.
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.
The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
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)
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.
OK, they never signed up to it, but still.
[deleted]
We made an exception for Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
North Korea left the NPT, Israel never signed it.
the NPT is a joke. the only "authorized" nukes are the ones you can keep
The problem is that these people are religiously unhinged. They are executing Gods will with God on their side.
Unlike the American evangelicals and the Israeli?
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?
So, with that being said - which nuclear-obsessive theocracy do you support?
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")
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")
ddimitrov(1)
Are you referring to Iran or 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.
That's from Islam. Infact the entire point of ISIS was to manifest this prophecy
Evangelical Christianity shares the same belief. That’s why the red heifer breeding program [0] is supported by US Christian orgs [1].
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/red-heifer-temple-institute/
[1] https://cbn.com/news/israel/first-time-after-2000-years-isra...
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/red-heifer-temple-institute/
[1] https://cbn.com/news/israel/first-time-after-2000-years-isra...
this describes both jihadis and the chosen people. the whole region is operating on pre enlightenment notions of diplomacy
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.
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.
> 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.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
But they do have ballistic missiles and can hit US allies
if israel and america actually believed iran was as close to nukes as bibi said it was, then the variance on the prediction, and the chance of iran already having nukes and already being able to deliver them via ballistic/hamas means would be too large to risk something like this
north korea and pakistan actually have nukes. we can be sure of that because of the bullshit they get up to with full impunity from the US. iran doesnt have shit (and it might even have been working in good faith with the nato initiatives, although probably not 100%) thats why it got bombed. and they are gonna learn a fool me once lesson from this. they're gonna go even harder on the anti US pole with china, with the people begrudgingly backing the regime that could have toppled soviet style if the US was patient.
this whole thing was shortsighted from israel and trump should have kept to his "america first" promise
north korea and pakistan actually have nukes. we can be sure of that because of the bullshit they get up to with full impunity from the US. iran doesnt have shit (and it might even have been working in good faith with the nato initiatives, although probably not 100%) thats why it got bombed. and they are gonna learn a fool me once lesson from this. they're gonna go even harder on the anti US pole with china, with the people begrudgingly backing the regime that could have toppled soviet style if the US was patient.
this whole thing was shortsighted from israel and trump should have kept to his "america first" promise
They just hit population centers in Israel with high explosives this week. Clearly if they had a nuke they would be able to deliver it.
This is the pattern of constantly moving the goalposts:
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past nuclear-reactor grade. What's that? They're enriching past 5%?
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past medical purposes grade. What's that? They're enriching past 20%?
- There's no evidence Iran has enough to build bombs. What's that? They have enough to build 10 bomb?
- There's no evidence they have a way to deliver bombs <-- you are here
If Israel doesn't continuously try to stop Iran, they might even have a 10 Megaton ICBM and you'll be saying "there's no evidence Iran has ever said it want's to destroy Israel".
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past nuclear-reactor grade. What's that? They're enriching past 5%?
- There's no evidence Iran is enriching uranium past medical purposes grade. What's that? They're enriching past 20%?
- There's no evidence Iran has enough to build bombs. What's that? They have enough to build 10 bomb?
- There's no evidence they have a way to deliver bombs <-- you are here
If Israel doesn't continuously try to stop Iran, they might even have a 10 Megaton ICBM and you'll be saying "there's no evidence Iran has ever said it want's to destroy Israel".
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.
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)
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.
I hope their new members are midwit western university students not capable of speaking fluent Arabic while extinguishing your consciousness.
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.
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'm skeptical of this; any source?
> 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...
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...
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. 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.
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.
If there was such a thing of an european politician that doesn't just do what USA tells them…
How about Denmark?
Donald Trump has made it very clear that the US should be looked upon as an adversary.
Donald Trump has made it very clear that the US should be looked upon as an adversary.
Article 5 doesn't count since the US very clearly started the war. Even the NATO articles recognize that Iran has the right to defend itself.
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.
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.
Everyone in Iran who decided to follow international law and not pursue nuclear weapons including Khamenei look like clowns right now.
Nobody believes that running a secretive bomb-proof underground bunker full of gas centrifuges is "not pursuing nuclear weapons". We're not stupid.
These sites were under IAEA supervision until recently.
They enrich uranium. Supervising the process doesn't change the process.
however, they were supervised to not be enriching to bomb level concentration.
the purpose of the bomb shelter seems obvious - israel is gonna be bombing because israel likes bombing stuff
the purpose of the bomb shelter seems obvious - israel is gonna be bombing because israel likes bombing stuff
A more accurate way of describing it would be "still enriching, not at bomb level concentration yet". There is no question that they were in the process of "enriching to bomb level concentration". You want to wait until they're done?
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.
The IAEA said they weren't cooperating as of this month. Before that they were cooperating despite the fact that the US had withdrawn from the nuclear deal.
I wonder if anything started happening recently that would make Iran less interested in cooperating with the IAEA?
In fact, I think all evidence points to them removing assets from inspected sites knowing that those sites would soon be targets.
> Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.
For leverage, obviously.
If Israel were Iran's only rival then it would obviously do everything in its power to become nuclear capable because Israel violated international law to become nuclear capable. However, Iran has many rivals and does not want to set off a nuclear arms race in the middle east.
They also hoped to use the nuclear program as a bargaining chip to lift sanctions.
So Iran had reason to set themselves up to be able to get nuclear weapons, without actually getting nuclear weapons.
Now, that whole policy looks foolish and Iran's only real rational option is to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
I wonder if anything started happening recently that would make Iran less interested in cooperating with the IAEA?
In fact, I think all evidence points to them removing assets from inspected sites knowing that those sites would soon be targets.
> Just explain why you have 60% enriched uranium.
For leverage, obviously.
If Israel were Iran's only rival then it would obviously do everything in its power to become nuclear capable because Israel violated international law to become nuclear capable. However, Iran has many rivals and does not want to set off a nuclear arms race in the middle east.
They also hoped to use the nuclear program as a bargaining chip to lift sanctions.
So Iran had reason to set themselves up to be able to get nuclear weapons, without actually getting nuclear weapons.
Now, that whole policy looks foolish and Iran's only real rational option is to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
iaea report saying that they been non-cooperative from 2019 and has been hiding stuff
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pd...
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...
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...
[deleted]
"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.
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 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.
Which shows how much of BS the pro-war argument was to begin with.
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...
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-...
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-...
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
"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
> "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.
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.
“Intelligence community” can be wrong. It’s not as if they are infallible.
[deleted]
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.
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
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
President at the time didn’t need congressional approval to say blow up the EFP factories.
Everyone keeps saying Trump didn’t have approval when Congress authorized this
Everyone keeps saying Trump didn’t have approval when Congress authorized this
> The alternative was to do nothing , let them continue the obvious nuclear weapon nation program.
Or the alternative being the JCPOA. Which was an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions.
An agreement which failed because the US side reimplemented the sanctions while Iran was in compliance with the agreement.
Or the alternative being the JCPOA. Which was an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions.
An agreement which failed because the US side reimplemented the sanctions while Iran was in compliance with the agreement.
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.
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.
I question whether lowering your nuclear latency for strategic purposes is the same thing as building towards a bomb.
Switzerland's nuclear program stayed one step away from actually putting together a nuclear weapon for several decades straight. The fact that they could become a nuclear power, but haven't, and could credibly restart their program if attacked, is of strategic importance to them.
Is it building towards a bomb if your intention is to sit on the precipice of building a nuclear weapon for the rest of time, leveraging your position as deterrence, but never going over the edge? I have no idea! I also have no idea whether this describes Iran. Saying that there's "no question" they were building towards a bomb is ignoring this question, though.
Switzerland's nuclear program stayed one step away from actually putting together a nuclear weapon for several decades straight. The fact that they could become a nuclear power, but haven't, and could credibly restart their program if attacked, is of strategic importance to them.
Is it building towards a bomb if your intention is to sit on the precipice of building a nuclear weapon for the rest of time, leveraging your position as deterrence, but never going over the edge? I have no idea! I also have no idea whether this describes Iran. Saying that there's "no question" they were building towards a bomb is ignoring this question, though.
A small team of skilled physicists relying only on public knowledge can design a nuclear weapon (and did, back in 1964; their work product was classified, the demonstrated futility notwithstanding). The only reason that random grad students don't have the bomb is that enrichment of uranium requires state-level resources. So why focus on the easier part of building a nuclear weapon that they haven't undertaken, while choosing language ("lowering latency", not "building") that minimizes the much harder part that they have? This view is prevalent, but it seems exactly backwards to me.
As to intent, the concept of "deterrence, but never going over the edge" doesn't really exist--if you're never going over the edge, then where does the deterrence come from? At best it's a bluff, like threatening someone with an unloaded gun. But would you really want to bet your life that Iran has put maybe a quarter of their GDP (including sanctions impact; the program itself is much less) into a bluff? We can't read minds, and their costly actions seem like much more reliable signals than our guesses at their intent.
Switzerland is an odd comparison, since they got their capabilities in what they openly described as the initial stages of a nuclear weapons program. Since abandoning that, Switzerland has been divesting its enriched uranium. If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
As to intent, the concept of "deterrence, but never going over the edge" doesn't really exist--if you're never going over the edge, then where does the deterrence come from? At best it's a bluff, like threatening someone with an unloaded gun. But would you really want to bet your life that Iran has put maybe a quarter of their GDP (including sanctions impact; the program itself is much less) into a bluff? We can't read minds, and their costly actions seem like much more reliable signals than our guesses at their intent.
Switzerland is an odd comparison, since they got their capabilities in what they openly described as the initial stages of a nuclear weapons program. Since abandoning that, Switzerland has been divesting its enriched uranium. If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
> As to intent, the concept of "deterrence, but never going over the edge" doesn't really exist--if you're never going over the edge, then where does the deterrence come from?
Exactly the same place as the deterrence in MAD. You don't intend to immediately nuke your geopolitical rivals when you build the bomb, you intend to sit around with a metaphorical shotgun aimed at your door for the rest of time.
> If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
Sure, I agree. I approve of the strikes against Iran in principle. I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
Exactly the same place as the deterrence in MAD. You don't intend to immediately nuke your geopolitical rivals when you build the bomb, you intend to sit around with a metaphorical shotgun aimed at your door for the rest of time.
> If Switzerland were instead building up its stockpile while funding proxies to (conventionally) strike its neighbors, then I'd expect some combination of sanctions and military action there too.
Sure, I agree. I approve of the strikes against Iran in principle. I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
> You don't intend to immediately nuke your geopolitical rivals
I don't see why intent requires immediacy? Perhaps this becomes uselessly philosophical, but I would say MAD requires the defending state to intend to nuke its adversary, conditioned on some future event (a nuclear attack on themselves, an existential conventional attack, etc.). They hope that condition is never satisfied, but intend to strike if it is.
> I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
For clarity, I don't believe that either. By "working actively towards", I mean only that Iran was taking costly steps that bring them closer to a working bomb, and no other rational purpose could justify those costs. I think the distinction of what such steps we count as "lowering latency" vs. "building a bomb" is arbitrary and mostly meaningless, since as the latency approaches zero the latter goal is effectively achieved.
I agree that Iran might just have been saber-rattling; or even if they currently intended to build and test a complete bomb, they might have discontinued the program before succeeding. I just don't think intent is a useful focus (vs. practical capabilities), since it's fundamentally unknowable and could change at any time.
I don't see why intent requires immediacy? Perhaps this becomes uselessly philosophical, but I would say MAD requires the defending state to intend to nuke its adversary, conditioned on some future event (a nuclear attack on themselves, an existential conventional attack, etc.). They hope that condition is never satisfied, but intend to strike if it is.
> I still don't believe there's "no question" that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon if nobody else intervened.
For clarity, I don't believe that either. By "working actively towards", I mean only that Iran was taking costly steps that bring them closer to a working bomb, and no other rational purpose could justify those costs. I think the distinction of what such steps we count as "lowering latency" vs. "building a bomb" is arbitrary and mostly meaningless, since as the latency approaches zero the latter goal is effectively achieved.
I agree that Iran might just have been saber-rattling; or even if they currently intended to build and test a complete bomb, they might have discontinued the program before succeeding. I just don't think intent is a useful focus (vs. practical capabilities), since it's fundamentally unknowable and could change at any time.
[deleted]
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
Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where.
Etc
"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!"
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!"
> 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?
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?
[deleted]
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?
the biggest blocker remains - a religious rule set by the dictator banning all WMDs. not just nukes, but chemical and radiological weapons too.
an iran with a bomb would have to not be the relogious dictatorship anymore, and whatever coup that allowed for the bomb might not have the same opinions about the west as the current one
an iran with a bomb would have to not be the relogious dictatorship anymore, and whatever coup that allowed for the bomb might not have the same opinions about the west as the current one
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
> They chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" every week (on Fridays) in Iran led by the Iranian government.
vs.
> Some band in the USA wrote a song about bombing Iran in 1980.
Yeah, those are completely equal.
vs.
> Some band in the USA wrote a song about bombing Iran in 1980.
Yeah, those are completely equal.
Result 2 of 9 for "Death to America".
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
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.
if iran had nukes, israel and america wouldnt have dared bomb it. iran wasnt even close, and they must be kicking themselves for that now
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
The GBU-57 is dope. Really curious to see how well it worked here
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."
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."
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/
https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/
it's declared to be in violation https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran...
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.
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.
> 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.
Did you have to add that qualifier because otherwise there's at least one other nuclear power in Middle East that regularly bombs civilians.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
Trump sanctioned ICC judges after ICC issued a warrant for Netanyahu. It's a lot more than just PR.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Seems like Saddam didn’t use his WMD even after being attacked to death. So, theoretical projections aside,
- Saddam factually didn’t have WMD to use,
- If he had, they were not powerful anyway,
- Not a reason for groundbreaking safekeeping invasion,
- We all know it was a matter of petrol, not humanitarian causes.
I’m literally all ok with invasions caused by power struggles; I’m not ok with lying. Colin Powell lied and the UN Security Council validated,
…proving the UNSC is a shitbag, and irremediable, hopeless, handicapped pile of corrupt officials.
- Saddam factually didn’t have WMD to use,
- If he had, they were not powerful anyway,
- Not a reason for groundbreaking safekeeping invasion,
- We all know it was a matter of petrol, not humanitarian causes.
I’m literally all ok with invasions caused by power struggles; I’m not ok with lying. Colin Powell lied and the UN Security Council validated,
…proving the UNSC is a shitbag, and irremediable, hopeless, handicapped pile of corrupt officials.
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.
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...
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.
> 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 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.
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."
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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?
What are these documents you are referring to?
https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...
Some of the chemicals qualified as WMD. Almost none of them were properly stored and weren't usable, but a little bit were usable.
Also, I'm not making the claim they were trying to make new ones, just that they had some.
Some of the chemicals qualified as WMD. Almost none of them were properly stored and weren't usable, but a little bit were usable.
Also, I'm not making the claim they were trying to make new ones, just that they had some.
The U.S. didn't launch a war over whether there were some leftovers from the war vs Iran.
It was about ongoing programs, including a whole bunch of horse droppings about yellowcake uranium enrichment.
Pedantically saying but there were some old shells of gas misses the entire point.
The US ginned up a war on false pretenses, leading to millions dying.
Your um actually on some trivia ain't helpful or interesting
It was about ongoing programs, including a whole bunch of horse droppings about yellowcake uranium enrichment.
Pedantically saying but there were some old shells of gas misses the entire point.
The US ginned up a war on false pretenses, leading to millions dying.
Your um actually on some trivia ain't helpful or interesting
You are going off topic. I was only addressing the false claim that they did not have WMDs. They very much did. I am not making any statements on if we should have gotten involved, if there were false pretenses or anything like that.
I don't get why people who are so opposed to the war are the ones who can't admit they actually did have WMD. Making these false claims just makes it look like we, who were opposed to the war, are the liars.
I don't get why people who are so opposed to the war are the ones who can't admit they actually did have WMD. Making these false claims just makes it look like we, who were opposed to the war, are the liars.
Dude, I don't lose any credibility by stating the truth. The contention was there were active programs to make chemical and nuclear weapons and depots ready to use or be handed over to Al Qaeda. None of that was found.
It was all fake. I don't lose any credibility by stating the obvious and using shorthand.
It would be like the FBI saying they raided the world's biggest drug lord, and the only thing they found was a little bit of shake in a backpack in his garage.
You pedantically "but they did find drugs!"
It would be like the FBI saying they raided the world's biggest drug lord, and the only thing they found was a little bit of shake in a backpack in his garage.
You pedantically "but they did find drugs!"
youre still falling for it? these guys knew exactly what they were doing when they said WMDs; they meant nukes and to exploit post 9/11 fears. then they moved the goalposts after their lie was discovered to make bombs "WMDs"
What was the real motivation?
I know they meant nukes. Both Bush and Netanyahu explicitly said nukes. I am strictly talking about potential perjury. If in official testimonies they only said WMD then they did not commit perjury.
They lied. Being pedantic about it only helps them do it again now. The spirit of the matter is that they keep lying and keep getting away with it
> 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.
You forget that it is also US state media. Republicans would be banning their own version of RT.
People really need to stop glossing over the very real differences between state controlled media, and media that you think is aligned with a certain political group.
You can believe Fox News is the worst entity in human history, but Fox News is not RT.
You can believe Fox News is the worst entity in human history, but Fox News is not RT.
Fox News is not a problem as long as there are other voices in the media.
Actually the "other voices" as more numerous.
The GP has a problem with plurality of opinions and media.
"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-...
[0] https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/04/five-...
> 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.
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.
It's not just a Trump thing.
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.
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.
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.
Is this something the German chancellor can say? In countries with an independent judiciary, this is a matter for prosecutors, police and courts.
In most countries state prosecutors are directly controlled by the executive. The US is a bit of an anomaly in having semi-independent elected prosecutors. The government wouldn’t normally get directly involved - the optics are terrible - but in high profile political cases they will.
Why should anybody care what some upstarts with zero moral authority at the ICC think? Nobody voted for them.
> Nobody voted for them.
How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?
How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?
Judges aren't representatives, they exist to interpret the law.
Beefin(2)
[deleted]
FWIW Jon Stewart covered it quite well
In Mondays episodes with clips. Lots of clips. But I completely agree with respect to mainstream news outlets. .
I would’ve thought all the war crimes and genociding would’ve been enough but hey here we are…
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?
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.
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
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.
Why would they not have reactors? Plutonium bombs are more efficient than uranium bombs, so of course they should want to make some plutonium. Remember, they claim they need HEU for civilian reactors.
Plutonium bombs are massively more complex than a U-235 design.
For sure, but a) they have a civilian reactor program, which surely produces spent fuel, and if they run it with HEU then they probably have breeders, and they might think they can figure out how to make Pu bombs. After all, the W88 bomb design got leaked in the 90s, remember?
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.
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.
ahh.. in my mind it was multiple hits spread over an area. This does make more sense.
Media is reporting that 12 were dropped on Fordow
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
[deleted]
Six spread across three sites, two on each site. I highly doubt the deepest site is out of commission.
According to the pentagon briefing this morning they dropped 14. News is reporting that it was in 3 specific locations and they were dropped successively. Assuming most detonated successfully, that much specialized ordinance did some damage. This bomb was specifically designed for this very purpose and you have to realize that capabilities that are reported are probably pretty conservative vs what the bomb is actually capable of doing.
I know a bunch of armchair generals on here are speculating that this was ineffective, but time will tell.
I know a bunch of armchair generals on here are speculating that this was ineffective, but time will tell.
> you have to realize that capabilities that are reported are probably pretty conservative vs what the bomb is actually capable of doing
Why do you believe that to be true?
Why do you believe that to be true?
Because it’s always the case with the US military equipment capabilities that full capability is never disclosed. What possible reason would the military have in divulging actual specs?
Military: We can penetrate up to 200 feet with this new bunker buster bomb that we spent a billion dollars on…specifically for this site and some sites in North Korea.
Enemy: Build the bunker at 300 feet, I hear their best bunker buster is only effective to 200 feet.
Military: Damn, foiled again!
Military: We can penetrate up to 200 feet with this new bunker buster bomb that we spent a billion dollars on…specifically for this site and some sites in North Korea.
Enemy: Build the bunker at 300 feet, I hear their best bunker buster is only effective to 200 feet.
Military: Damn, foiled again!
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.
> It was moved out weeks ago.
Not saying you're wrong, but... source?
And, if so, where was it moved to?
Not saying you're wrong, but... source?
And, if so, where was it moved to?
Only Iran knows.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-858619
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-858619
There were an estimated twenty of these bombs in existence before the bombing; very little head room for throwing more of them down the hole if they haven't done the job.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
> I don't think we have a better option
I'd love help getting on board with this
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.
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?
Like North Korea?
Correct.
And like Ukraine (conversely).
And like Ukraine (conversely).
I mean 20 years ago, mossad literally destroy their nuclear program using Stuxnet
20 years is reasonable time to rebuild
20 years is reasonable time to rebuild
> 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 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.
https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250619-Fordo-...
If commercial satellite photography can keep an eye on the movement of trucks in this area, it's probably safe to assume that spy satellites can too.
If commercial satellite photography can keep an eye on the movement of trucks in this area, it's probably safe to assume that spy satellites can too.
No doubt, but the trucks can split up, switcheroos can be made, and pretty quickly it can be hard to track them all down.
“ 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
Which is why they likely were trying to possess them before and the US and Israel felt the need to strike
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.
They will not stop, and they can't be negotiated with on this, again because they see it as a religious duty.
i think this line of reasoning is just falling for both iran's and america's propaganda
they use theology for political mandate and to further their goals. their goals are fundamentally opposed to israel's existence and go against america's interests in the region but they are geopolitical goals wrapped in theological wrapping paper, not mad ravings. no more than israel's "promised land" and america's "christian duty" are
this dehumanization is only going to lead to US boots on the ground and iran becoming an even worse vietnam/afghanistan. the US needs to bring iran down like the soviets were brought down; from the inside. this invading and sabre rattling hasnt worked before and wont work now
they use theology for political mandate and to further their goals. their goals are fundamentally opposed to israel's existence and go against america's interests in the region but they are geopolitical goals wrapped in theological wrapping paper, not mad ravings. no more than israel's "promised land" and america's "christian duty" are
this dehumanization is only going to lead to US boots on the ground and iran becoming an even worse vietnam/afghanistan. the US needs to bring iran down like the soviets were brought down; from the inside. this invading and sabre rattling hasnt worked before and wont work now
Ok if this is a problem, then surely the ministers in the Israeli government are equally problematic given that they want to annex Gaza and the West Bank?
If you disagree can you help me understand the difference between these issues?
If you disagree can you help me understand the difference between these issues?
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.
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.
> Every country in the world with well organized military is right now working on plans to acquire a nuclear arsenal..
Maybe, but the US and Israel also just demonstrated that Russian air defense assets (as employed in Iran) can be worthless.
The conflict does make me think the F35 might not be that bad. Granted who knows how Israel got air superiority?
Maybe, but the US and Israel also just demonstrated that Russian air defense assets (as employed in Iran) can be worthless.
The conflict does make me think the F35 might not be that bad. Granted who knows how Israel got air superiority?
“Food on the table in nice, Mrs Jones, but nothing beats a beautiful, green, weed free lawn”
But yeah, you’ve got a point. It’s great for general dynamics stock outlook. lol.
But yeah, you’ve got a point. It’s great for general dynamics stock outlook. lol.
> 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.
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.
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.
I don’t wish for more nuclear weapons, but to date, the states with them, usually (a nice apply word) don’t use them.
> It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region. — Ali Khamenei
Does that sound like someone who should have a nuclear arsenal?
Does that sound like someone who should have a nuclear arsenal?
I agree. But also, are the words and actions of Russia, China, North Korea, Israel and the US (and the rest of the nuclear club) the sort you think ideal?
That the US decides who can have them is darkly hilariously.
That the US decides who can have them is darkly hilariously.
Is the US perfect? Of course not. But considering the alternatives, yes - I am glad the US can serve as the arbiter.
I think it would mean nuclear weapons in the hands of Hamas, hezbollah and other organizations who could use them without a state/regime to blame. Iran could say “it wasn’t us, you can’t prove anything” meanwhile city after city in Israel is destroyed. Further, any action to destroy Iran’s stockpile would be met with a nuclear response and the claim of self defense.
This thinking is a perfect example of being too clever by half. North Korea has nukes now because very smart people were paralyzed by just this sort of abstract risk-calculation thought exercises.
>Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil
They just execute 1000 people a year for crimes like not wearing the propper hat. Or letting be raped.
They just execute 1000 people a year for crimes like not wearing the propper hat. Or letting be raped.
[deleted]
awnird(1)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
> 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.
Relative to their last, America-backed regime? I don't think you're looking at this from an Iranian perspective at all.
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.
I would be very interested in hearing an Iranian perspective on how daily life changed for people when the Islamic Republic deposed Pahlavi.
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.
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.
How many of them are in favour of having their cities leveled by a rogue state?
> some proper bombings
and a war that killed 400,000 Americans.
You want to repeat that history?
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.
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.
[deleted]
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 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.
Historians seem to generally think that Hitler's regime never would have existed if the West had not bent Germany over a barrel in 1918 and immediately after.
I mean, if we're going to ruminate over alternate timelines why fast forward to the 1930s..?
I mean, if we're going to ruminate over alternate timelines why fast forward to the 1930s..?
Correct. The western Allies took that lesson to heart at the end of WW2 and rebuilt Germany and Japan. It's almost like we can learn from history!
Not exactly, it was rather that the Treaty of Versailles was painful enough to cause resentment but wasn't harsh enough to cripple Germany. Even so, Weimar Germany managed to stabilize the situation for a decade or so, it's only with the Great Depression that finally broke the Republic's back (and even then, there were all sorts of political shenanigans that could have been manuvered better).
Furthermore, the foreign policy of the Nazis was informed more by their ideological myths than external events. After all, the Nazis admired the Great Imperialist Powers like the British Empire as part of the "Aryan Race". Their enmity was directed at Eastern Europe and the Communists, which had little to do with the enactment of post-war reparations on Germany.
Furthermore, the foreign policy of the Nazis was informed more by their ideological myths than external events. After all, the Nazis admired the Great Imperialist Powers like the British Empire as part of the "Aryan Race". Their enmity was directed at Eastern Europe and the Communists, which had little to do with the enactment of post-war reparations on Germany.
There is alot of paralllels between the mindset of the populace then and today, especially in this thread that enabled Hitler's confidence. The famous Oxford Union "King and Country Debate" in 1933 declared with 275 for and 153 against that "This House under no circumstances would fight for King and Country". It was stated to have a tremendous impression of Hitler's decision-making when generals pushed back against his aggresive actions, and his bluff was rewarded well.
Well, skip forward in 2023 and here we are again...
https://cherwell.org/2023/05/28/oxford-union-votes-not-to-fi...
Well, skip forward in 2023 and here we are again...
https://cherwell.org/2023/05/28/oxford-union-votes-not-to-fi...
I don't think the issue is whether the history in the comparison is correct, but rather whether or not it is an apt comparison at all.
So we should bomb Israel now as they're fucking around?
I think the post war political movement in America that produced the Martial Plan was exceptional. The situation now in terms of institutions, leadership and doctrine is nothing like that. It is difficult to believe that America of today could help a country in that way. Accountability is too fractured. Profiteering has become a way of life. And fundamentalism is too strong.
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.
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.
See also: Russia
Yes, but that name refers to a leader from decades ago. There is a similar-named leader today, but people who conflate the two tend not to be well-informed on the topic.
Yeah sorry for the typo - I obviously didn't mean the dude from the 80s. I'm not a scholar but have been paying attention for at least the last few years, so mea culpa.
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.
That is literally the ultimate ambition of this war.
There's a long list of middle eastern countries where we've installed our stooges.
I'm sure if we keep trying we'll get it right eventually.
Bombings will continue until morale improves?
The plan is working as intended I think. They are not optimising for humanity.
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.
And Iran executes plenty of journalists too.
Saudi Arabia has killed and dismembered a journalist in their own embassy in Istambul, Jamal Khashoggi.
3 years ago Saudi Arabia set into its law (on the international women’s day) that a male relative always have control on a woman. A few years ago only, women were allowed to drive but as of today they are very few female drivers. But that’s not the point, the point is the hypocrisy to point at a political regime because he his not aligned with your views while having as a best friend the worst absolute monarchy.
#56 vs #113. They're both bad, but one is worse, and famously murders women for showing their hair. And that's Iran.
You can find many videos of people walking around cities in Iran - not only are plenty of women not covering their hair, there's plenty of dyed hair too. Dress is a bit more conservative than western countries, but not by much, and women are obviously free - and feel safe - to leave the house unescorted. Iran has liberalized a lot compared to the post-revolutionary period.
Mahsa Amini was famously beaten to death by Iran's morality police in 2022 for the crime of not wearing a hijab. Even modern-day Iran is incredibly oppressive to women, and is currently ranked #113 on the Gender Inequality Index.
In Saudi Arabia they just disappear or are even executed in total secrecy. They even execute women that were raped… https://reprieve.org/uk/2023/01/31/saudi-arabia-and-the-deat...
And please have a look at your index, if there a broken one it is this one https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/...
In 2013 Saudi Arabia went from almost last to ahead of countries like Cuba… Cuba may not be a great country but female don’t need a perpetual male tutor to do anything.
> A few years ago only, women were allowed to drive but as of today they are very few female drivers.
Maybe. But overall Saudi Arabia has been undergoing pretty dramatic changes in recent years: Women can now drive, are no longer required to wear a hijab, are allowed to work, can meet with male friends/non-relatives without the police stopping them, etc. Yes, it's still a far cry from what women are allowed to do in western countries, and absolute change is still slow, but relatively speaking it's still quite impressive and gives me (and apparently people there) hope.
Source: I was in Saudi and talked to people.
Maybe. But overall Saudi Arabia has been undergoing pretty dramatic changes in recent years: Women can now drive, are no longer required to wear a hijab, are allowed to work, can meet with male friends/non-relatives without the police stopping them, etc. Yes, it's still a far cry from what women are allowed to do in western countries, and absolute change is still slow, but relatively speaking it's still quite impressive and gives me (and apparently people there) hope.
Source: I was in Saudi and talked to people.
Did you talk to any Saudi women about this?
Yes, quite a few actually. I do have to mention, though, that the women I talked to were from the cities, usually very well educated (studied abroad, spoke English / grew up with Netflix, etc.), and/or used to tourists. I didn't dare talking to women in the smaller, more rural towns as I wasn't sure about repercussions (for them). Plus there would have been the language barrier, anyway.
Overall, there seemed to be a rather pronounced divide between the cities and the country side: In the cities you did see the occasional woman without hijab, some women working (particularly in the hospitality industry), and a few women driving (though still not many). Meanwhile, in more rural areas tradition strongly prevailed. So none of the things I mentioned are really commonplace yet (not even in the cities) – it's just that at the very least they're legal now and people (women) are making their first baby steps towards enjoying their newfound freedom.
Overall, there seemed to be a rather pronounced divide between the cities and the country side: In the cities you did see the occasional woman without hijab, some women working (particularly in the hospitality industry), and a few women driving (though still not many). Meanwhile, in more rural areas tradition strongly prevailed. So none of the things I mentioned are really commonplace yet (not even in the cities) – it's just that at the very least they're legal now and people (women) are making their first baby steps towards enjoying their newfound freedom.
[deleted]
> They don’t care about the regime, they only want it to be aligned with the US and Israel.
So they want to either change the regime or change the regime, and don't much care which one?
So they want to either change the regime or change the regime, and don't much care which one?
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
This is true but that happened mostly after Hamas already took Gaza. Israel would have greatly preferred for the PA to control Gaza. The regime change in this case was done by the Palestinians themselves. The Israeli right wing did to some extent strengthen the division once it was in place. The Wikipedia article reads like a propaganda piece and I would not trust it at all. I've lived in Israel through this period so I have a pretty good first hand knowledge/experience of the events.
The PA didn't really come close to negotiating peace and given Hamas were not able to. See Hamas' suicide bombing campaign during the Oslo peace process. The PA, somewhat as a response to Israeli policy, decided to pursue trying to force Israel to yield via a combination of armed and political struggle and not negotiate with it. Strangely enough security cooperation did continue throughout (and the PA is basically supported by the IDF otherwise it would likely have been toppled). This all happened after the Oslo peace process collpased due to Hamas.
The PA didn't really come close to negotiating peace and given Hamas were not able to. See Hamas' suicide bombing campaign during the Oslo peace process. The PA, somewhat as a response to Israeli policy, decided to pursue trying to force Israel to yield via a combination of armed and political struggle and not negotiate with it. Strangely enough security cooperation did continue throughout (and the PA is basically supported by the IDF otherwise it would likely have been toppled). This all happened after the Oslo peace process collpased due to Hamas.
Bush pushed for an election as he wanted to have solved the middle east situation before his presidency was over, against both Israel and PAs wishes. Then Hamas won and Bush again pushed PA to do a coup which failed and PA was kicked out of Gaza.
Interesting. I don't remember the Bush involvement but it's quite possibly true.
The Wikipedia article does not mention this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect... but that doesn't mean anything given the current sorry state of that site, and this article supports this idea: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-electe...
This is relevant to the coup: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/04/usa.israelandt...
Thanks for the extra colour here.
The Wikipedia article does not mention this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect... but that doesn't mean anything given the current sorry state of that site, and this article supports this idea: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-electe...
This is relevant to the coup: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/04/usa.israelandt...
Thanks for the extra colour here.
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.
This is more likely to be the end of the American empire than an actual change in Iran.
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.
You think we need to occupy them? This isn't Iraq.
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-...
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-...
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 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...
A few bombs, everyone comes out of closet, unconditional surrender, democracy, live happily ever after... Sounds like American movie...
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...
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.
This survey is heavily weighted towards emigres and people who know emigres.
Not arguing your point. Just thought I’d share that of the emigres I know (big families that left starting in the late 60s) all are either Christian or Zoorastrian (to some degree). To them the Islamic conquest of Persia is not old news!
Not even any Bahais? I know plenty of emigres from the 70s in the US (LA even) who are still culturally Shia and observant
Maybe! We mostly just discuss things like, “Do you want more food? Take more food!”
So only stupid people believe in islam got it.
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.)
(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.
Your numbers are way off: there are between 10k and 20k Jews in Iran. There are also 5 parliament seats in Iranian parliament (out of 290 members) that are reserved for religious minorities, of which two seats are for Armenians, one for Syrians, one for Jews and one for Zoroastrians.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One way of looking at last week's ballistic missile attacks is that they were a way of demonstrating Iran's ability to retaliate in the wider region.
If Ramat Gan is not safe, then the UAE's resorts and airports, Saudi's oil processing facilities, the US installations in Iraq and in the Gulf, etc are not even remotely safe.
If Ramat Gan is not safe, then the UAE's resorts and airports, Saudi's oil processing facilities, the US installations in Iraq and in the Gulf, etc are not even remotely safe.
Israel reportedly took out >50% of the launchers. With complete control of the air space a launcher becomes a single use rather than its intended multiple use. The USA can defend its positions with Aegis/THAAD and its detection capabilities give early warning.
Israel has taken a lot of damage but relatively little loss of life.
Iran would be foolish to expand the war and they know it. They're not going to attack the UAE or Saudi. Iran's bluff has been called.
Israel has taken a lot of damage but relatively little loss of life.
Iran would be foolish to expand the war and they know it. They're not going to attack the UAE or Saudi. Iran's bluff has been called.
well israel would, because israel's existance depends on them.
from an israeli perspective, things cant be going better. if the US gets pulled into invading iran, then their only effective opponent in the world is vietnam'd. which is great if your soldiers arent the ones dying to IEDs.
without iranian funding/management, Hamas shrivels up and palestine is open to be ethnically cleansed. israel wins a 3000 year old war, and only has to deal with sternly worded letters from the UN for it.
from an israeli perspective, things cant be going better. if the US gets pulled into invading iran, then their only effective opponent in the world is vietnam'd. which is great if your soldiers arent the ones dying to IEDs.
without iranian funding/management, Hamas shrivels up and palestine is open to be ethnically cleansed. israel wins a 3000 year old war, and only has to deal with sternly worded letters from the UN for it.
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.
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.
> or it's going to get crippled to the point of irrelevance or removed.
how are you gonna do that without boots on the ground?
Trump talking about annexing canada made them go from being sick of the liberal party becuase of trudeau to swinging back around to supporting it to an upset victory because they were the only ones standing up to america. and thats america's closest ally, iran is their most bitter foe
this is either gonna end any chance of cooling things off with iran (and make them realize they need a nuclear deterrent yesterday), or turn into another vietnam/afghanistan
the regime was unpopular, the US could have collapsed them slowly like they did the soviets, but instead they let israel's "trust me bro" on nukes pull them into another quagmire.
how are you gonna do that without boots on the ground?
Trump talking about annexing canada made them go from being sick of the liberal party becuase of trudeau to swinging back around to supporting it to an upset victory because they were the only ones standing up to america. and thats america's closest ally, iran is their most bitter foe
this is either gonna end any chance of cooling things off with iran (and make them realize they need a nuclear deterrent yesterday), or turn into another vietnam/afghanistan
the regime was unpopular, the US could have collapsed them slowly like they did the soviets, but instead they let israel's "trust me bro" on nukes pull them into another quagmire.
So you are betting on a quick regime change? Perhaps a 3 day special military operation? What if that does not happen?
Can't compare Ukraine, which is a democracy where the government enjoys broad support, to Iran, which is a dictatorship where 80% of the population wants the government gone and rules by an iron fist and public executions.
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.
i doubt israel cares. if they can get the US to invade iran for them, then no matter what happens, their only effective opponent is dismantled. you can definitely hope to springboard that to regional dominance and guaranteeing your existance
US is not interested in invading Iran
does that matter to whether the US invades Iran? as long as the right price is paid in TrumpCoins, the US will do whatever
This is true, no Americans have the desire to invade Iran after Iraq and Afghanistan. If Trump goes in then the next politician that runs on ending the invasion would win in a landslide. Further, there’s just nothing to justify an invasion. Regime change or not, Iran’s nuclear program and militias can now be destroyed from the air uncontested, why invade?
No, it's damn near geographically impossible or would require cooperation from countries who would be absolutely be opposed to it, and the Pentagon knows it even the small brained people in fancy suits in Washington don't.
The US occupied Japan and West Germany after WW2. Admittedly mostly with the support of local authorities. But that was the US with a pop of ~133m and Japan with a pop of ~70m. So yes, if the US had the political will it could occupy Iran.
Does it have the political will? No way!
Michael Shurkin-- a former rand analyst and I strongly recommend his podcast-- says that politicians say "there is no military solution" when they mean there is no military solution that people would politically support. The US could do all sorts of things in Iran but the US people would not accept the casualties or the human rights abuses.
Does it have the political will? No way!
Michael Shurkin-- a former rand analyst and I strongly recommend his podcast-- says that politicians say "there is no military solution" when they mean there is no military solution that people would politically support. The US could do all sorts of things in Iran but the US people would not accept the casualties or the human rights abuses.
Well we had plenty of practice with Iraq and Afghanistan, so we know what to do to turn these countries around! /s
Sure. It's nice to hope though. The Iranian establishment is even more rabid now.
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.
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.
Well if you ignore all the refugees and the messing up of European politics for a decade then yeah it was ok.
Good ol US was fine though, if that's what you mean.
Good ol US was fine though, if that's what you mean.
Actually, Iran's GDP peaked in 2012 and is currently 30% lower than that peak. Nice try though.
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 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.
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.
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.
people didnt think the US would support this bombing. the "nothing ever happens" bet isnt looking good right now
Israel can't execute regime change by themselves, so US will definitely get involved.
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
Again, no bombing campaigns led to a change of regime. This theory is proven again and again
The troops on the ground were only able to act because the regime has been weakened. But yes, someone in Iran would need to somehow actively do something.
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.
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.
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.
I find it hard to believe foreign intervention can do anything other than rally support.
A lot of Americans deeply oppose Trump, but how many of them would support a Chinese invasion with the express objective of overthrowing him and installing a new regime? I suspect very few, and instead you'd probably get a backlash of support for Trump.
A lot of Americans deeply oppose Trump, but how many of them would support a Chinese invasion with the express objective of overthrowing him and installing a new regime? I suspect very few, and instead you'd probably get a backlash of support for Trump.
> The few Iranians I know are against the regime, but I don't know how the wider picture looks.
my experience with Iranians I know are the same. the regime is not partitularly liked by the Iranians but they are no doubt united behind him now because (and for good reason) they likely believe whoever the israelis would appoint as the leader of Iran would be categorically worse.
my experience with Iranians I know are the same. the regime is not partitularly liked by the Iranians but they are no doubt united behind him now because (and for good reason) they likely believe whoever the israelis would appoint as the leader of Iran would be categorically worse.
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
That was an external war initiated through a grave miscalculation by the junta. Apples and oranges.
> through a grave miscalculation by the junta.
Sounds pretty similar to the current situation to me.
Sounds pretty similar to the current situation to me.
Japan
Okinawa and all those pacific island, not to mention China and south east Asia.
Japan was on the verge of being invaded by both the United States and the Soviet Union. The writing was on the wall and the choice to surrender very likely turned out better for Japan, both territorially and in the key priority of persevering the Imperial Dynasty.
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. 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.
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.
The way the world works these days m 60 Days is enough for the president to unilaterally get us into war with literally every country on the planet.
This president has clearly exposed the unarticulated parts of out laws which is supposed to make them work; The hope that the president will essentially act and interpret them in “good faith”
This president has clearly exposed the unarticulated parts of out laws which is supposed to make them work; The hope that the president will essentially act and interpret them in “good faith”
Congress and the US in general has had plenty of time to adjust the powers of the president as US naval, air, and communications capabilities have increased.
not doing so is approval of the change in the president's power to initiate and wage war unilaterally without congressional involvement
not doing so is approval of the change in the president's power to initiate and wage war unilaterally without congressional involvement
to be fair what you see is 6 bombs points of entry, you don't know what happened to the underground compound.
From what I gathered from OSINT types, they have breached the ventilation shafts above the centrifuge halls
From what I gathered from OSINT types, they have breached the ventilation shafts above the centrifuge halls
> a sovereign country was bombed tonight
IRGC isn’t a sovereign country, it’s a designated terrorist organization
You forgot that IRGC already directly attacked Israel twice in 2024 [1,2], and that’s not including countless proxy attacks and terrorist acts, culminating in October 7th massacres & atrocities
You got it wrong: IRGC attacked and Israel retaliated
US is just helped a little bit their ally
> This stuff isn't OK.
UN, ICC, ICG, etc. all became a $hit show, they don’t work. For 40 years IRGC threatened with Genocide of Jews, and they did nothing. Now when Jews retaliated: * This stuff isn't OK.* ;)
—-
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes...
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_strikes_o...
IRGC isn’t a sovereign country, it’s a designated terrorist organization
You forgot that IRGC already directly attacked Israel twice in 2024 [1,2], and that’s not including countless proxy attacks and terrorist acts, culminating in October 7th massacres & atrocities
You got it wrong: IRGC attacked and Israel retaliated
US is just helped a little bit their ally
> This stuff isn't OK.
UN, ICC, ICG, etc. all became a $hit show, they don’t work. For 40 years IRGC threatened with Genocide of Jews, and they did nothing. Now when Jews retaliated: * This stuff isn't OK.* ;)
—-
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes...
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_strikes_o...
huh? iran definitely has a sovereign government. just because you dont like it doesnt make it not true.
Substance over form
or
De facto vs de jure
Pedantic rule-based systems are easy to circumvent with loopholes and lacunas. That’s why we should look at the substance and not merely a [legal] form
Examples:
- form: a cryptocurrency, but substance: an unregistered security
- “medical alcohol” during dry laws / Prohibition
- “medical marijuana” & patients vs drug users
- etc.
—-
Was Third Reich[1] a “sovereign government” or a front for The National Socialist German Workers' Party?
Was USSR a “sovereign government” or a front for a Communist Party?
Is Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) a “sovereign government” or merely a front for IRGC[2]?
And wasn’t Iran/Persia already a “sovereign government” before IRGC staged a coup d'état (aka “revolution”)?
—-
> "De facto" and "de jure" are Latin terms used to distinguish between what exists in reality and what is legally recognized. "De facto" refers to something that exists in practice or reality, even if not officially established or legally recognized. "De jure" refers to something that is legally recognized or officially established
——
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_...
or
De facto vs de jure
Pedantic rule-based systems are easy to circumvent with loopholes and lacunas. That’s why we should look at the substance and not merely a [legal] form
Examples:
- form: a cryptocurrency, but substance: an unregistered security
- “medical alcohol” during dry laws / Prohibition
- “medical marijuana” & patients vs drug users
- etc.
—-
Was Third Reich[1] a “sovereign government” or a front for The National Socialist German Workers' Party?
Was USSR a “sovereign government” or a front for a Communist Party?
Is Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) a “sovereign government” or merely a front for IRGC[2]?
And wasn’t Iran/Persia already a “sovereign government” before IRGC staged a coup d'état (aka “revolution”)?
—-
> "De facto" and "de jure" are Latin terms used to distinguish between what exists in reality and what is legally recognized. "De facto" refers to something that exists in practice or reality, even if not officially established or legally recognized. "De jure" refers to something that is legally recognized or officially established
——
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_...
So China isn't a sovereign government because it's a front for CPP and can be bombed at will...?
If any entity threatens u: u have 3 options: fight back, surrender, or self-destruct
In the first case, u have 2 more options: strike pre-emptively, or wait for them to strike & then retaliate
It doesn't matter what the entity is, it only matters whether they are enemy or not
——
> So China is not a sovereign state because it is a front for the CPP and can be bombed at will...?
I don't see the logical connection here. I never wrote that countries controlled by terrorist or authoritarian entities should be bombed at will. I wrote that some countries are highjacked by them, & if they attack or declare their intention to attack u, u may as well do it first
In the first case, u have 2 more options: strike pre-emptively, or wait for them to strike & then retaliate
It doesn't matter what the entity is, it only matters whether they are enemy or not
——
> So China is not a sovereign state because it is a front for the CPP and can be bombed at will...?
I don't see the logical connection here. I never wrote that countries controlled by terrorist or authoritarian entities should be bombed at will. I wrote that some countries are highjacked by them, & if they attack or declare their intention to attack u, u may as well do it first
The amount of "oh of course we just have to kill them all" I am seeing online in the past day is horrifying.
Yugoslavia.
Can you think of a regime that was bombed by foreigners and quickly fell?
Japan.
Japan.
Ground occupation also don't typically leads to a healthy regime change. Yes the regime can be changed quickly, but not always in the way we want.
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.
That's not to endorse any of these regimes, including the current Iranian one, just saying the variance is enormous around these events.
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.
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.
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
Are they supposed to give up their country just because their nuclear enrichment facilities are damaged?
How do you imagine Iran giving up? If anything, it will radicalize. This would happen even if you did anything remotely similar to your kid (i.e., attacked the kid violently because of an accusation they did something wrong), not to mention to a state that revolted against US political manipulation 45 years ago.
I'm wondering whether Trump knows that Iran won't give up and nevertheless pushes forward, or does he really believe that Iran can surrender? I think that's 99.99999% wrong belief. It feels like he is expressing it only to cover up his actions. He probably knows this will lead to a long-term escalation, but thinks that's the right thing to do for the interests of groups/countries he cares about.
I'm wondering whether Trump knows that Iran won't give up and nevertheless pushes forward, or does he really believe that Iran can surrender? I think that's 99.99999% wrong belief. It feels like he is expressing it only to cover up his actions. He probably knows this will lead to a long-term escalation, but thinks that's the right thing to do for the interests of groups/countries he cares about.
> hope that the destruction of facilities comes with the regime change in Iran
If one were really concerned about the Iranians, the first thing they'd hope for is the containment of radiation not a revolution.
If one were really concerned about the Iranians, the first thing they'd hope for is the containment of radiation not a revolution.
Or bomb the oil routes to ensure the rest of the region collapses alongside them.
As an Iranian, I want it clear: the Islamic Republic has destroyed Iran. For 46 years, they held our country hostage, suppressing us, dictating what we can wear, say, or believe, while chanting death to the West and chasing nuclear power. They’ve brutalized peaceful protesters, raped, imprisoned, and killed our people. Now, their so-called enemies have walked right in, understandably. A regime that has no mercy for us citizens can't be trusted with nuclear power. This is why we’re here: a paper lion with no real strength beyond the people it oppresses.
More to it, I've had personal experience with this brutal regime, they arrested my old cousin during the Mahsa Protests(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests), she was taken to the Evin prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison) and was tortured for 6 months. We had no news from her. When she was finally released, she was so skinny that you could see her rib bones. We managed to bring her to Canada and it took her over a year of medical care until she began to recover. She was only 20.
No one hates this regime more than Iranians.
With all that out of the way, Iranians have no choice now but the defend their homes against hostile forces. They will not simply sit back and watch Israel and United States bomb their land to oblivion and then demand unconditional surrender.
This attack will inflict more pain on Iranians and only serves to grow the regime stronger.
We wanted a regime change, but not at the hands of Israel and US.
More to it, I've had personal experience with this brutal regime, they arrested my old cousin during the Mahsa Protests(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsa_Amini_protests), she was taken to the Evin prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison) and was tortured for 6 months. We had no news from her. When she was finally released, she was so skinny that you could see her rib bones. We managed to bring her to Canada and it took her over a year of medical care until she began to recover. She was only 20.
No one hates this regime more than Iranians.
With all that out of the way, Iranians have no choice now but the defend their homes against hostile forces. They will not simply sit back and watch Israel and United States bomb their land to oblivion and then demand unconditional surrender.
This attack will inflict more pain on Iranians and only serves to grow the regime stronger.
We wanted a regime change, but not at the hands of Israel and US.
Thank you. Its refreshing to here perspective from an Iranian.
Honest question, do Iranians want foreign help for regime change? If so, what would be the nature of this help?
Honest question, do Iranians want foreign help for regime change? If so, what would be the nature of this help?
"We wanted a regime change, but not at the hands of Israel and US."
You've had decades to change the regime and you didn't do it. If not now, when?
You've had decades to change the regime and you didn't do it. If not now, when?
What a crazy take, I'm sure they love Kim Jong Un in North Korea too. In their shoes you'd manage to bring about regime change of course?
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.
The GBU-57 is dropped from a high-altitude B-2 Spirit bomber, which can fly at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet. This high drop altitude is crucial for the bomb to reach a very high terminal velocity. Some sources suggest it reaches supersonic speeds, potentially around Mach 1.29 (approximately 440 m/s).
Let's conservatively assume a terminal velocity (v) of 400 m/s (approximately 895 mph).
Calculating Kinetic Energy (KE):
The formula for kinetic energy is:
KE = 0.5 * m * v²
Plugging in our values:
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * (400 m/s)²
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * 160,000 m²/s²
KE ≈ 1.088 billion Joules
This is an enormous amount of energy that must be absorbed by the ground to stop the bomb.
---
Resistive Force of Soil (60m penetration estimation):
To simplify, we can use empirical formulas developed from extensive testing. One of the most well-known is Young's empirical formula, which provides a way to estimate penetration depth based on the projectile's characteristics and the soil's properties.
resistive force is as a pressure (force per unit area) acting on the front of the MOP. Let's call this the dynamic soil resistance. The total resistive force (F) would be this pressure multiplied by the cross-sectional area (A) of the bomb.
The cross-sectional area of the MOP (with a diameter of 0.8 m) is
A = π * (radius)² = π * (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.5 m²
---
Calculating Penetration Depth (d):
The work done (W) by the soil to stop the bomb is:
W = F * d
Setting the initial kinetic energy equal to the work done:
KE = F * d
Therefore, the penetration depth is:
d = KE / F
To achieve a 60-meter penetration, the average resistive force would have to be:
F = 1,088,000,000 J / 60 m
F ≈ 18,133,333 Newtons
This is equivalent to a force of over 4 million pounds. While this seems immense, it's plausible given the energies involved.
---
Now, we can calculate the resistive force:
Convert PSI to Pascals (Newtons per square meter):
15,000 psi(assuming) × 6,895 Pa/psi ≈ 103.4 Million Pascals (MPa)
Calculate the MOP's Cross-Sectional Area:
Diameter = 31.5 inches (0.8 meters)
Radius = 0.4 meters
Area (A) = π × (radius)² = π × (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.503 m²
Calculate the Total Resistive Force (F):
Force = Pressure × Area
F = 103,400,000 N/m² × 0.503 m²
F ≈ 52 Million Newtons
So we see that 18 Million Newtons is not enough and the bomb would have to be significantly supersonic, or my calculations are too conservative, or they are overestimating the 60m soil penetration, but we ARE in the same ballpark.
---
now, you might ask how can an object achieve over 1 Mach terminal velocity?
At high altitudes (like 30,000-50,000 feet): The air is much colder and less dense. For instance, at 35,000 feet, the temperature can be around -54°C, and the speed of sound drops to about 295 m/s (about 660 mph).
In this high-altitude, low-density environment, the MOP's terminal velocity is incredibly high. It can easily accelerate past the local speed of sound (which is already lower due to the cold) and go supersonic, then slowing down when near ground.
The bomb is also likely designed like a super aerodynamic dart to achieve maximum terminal velocity.
Let's conservatively assume a terminal velocity (v) of 400 m/s (approximately 895 mph).
Calculating Kinetic Energy (KE):
The formula for kinetic energy is:
KE = 0.5 * m * v²
Plugging in our values:
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * (400 m/s)²
KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * 160,000 m²/s²
KE ≈ 1.088 billion Joules
This is an enormous amount of energy that must be absorbed by the ground to stop the bomb.
---
Resistive Force of Soil (60m penetration estimation):
To simplify, we can use empirical formulas developed from extensive testing. One of the most well-known is Young's empirical formula, which provides a way to estimate penetration depth based on the projectile's characteristics and the soil's properties.
resistive force is as a pressure (force per unit area) acting on the front of the MOP. Let's call this the dynamic soil resistance. The total resistive force (F) would be this pressure multiplied by the cross-sectional area (A) of the bomb.
The cross-sectional area of the MOP (with a diameter of 0.8 m) is
A = π * (radius)² = π * (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.5 m²
---
Calculating Penetration Depth (d):
The work done (W) by the soil to stop the bomb is:
W = F * d
Setting the initial kinetic energy equal to the work done:
KE = F * d
Therefore, the penetration depth is:
d = KE / F
To achieve a 60-meter penetration, the average resistive force would have to be:
F = 1,088,000,000 J / 60 m
F ≈ 18,133,333 Newtons
This is equivalent to a force of over 4 million pounds. While this seems immense, it's plausible given the energies involved.
---
Now, we can calculate the resistive force:
Convert PSI to Pascals (Newtons per square meter):
15,000 psi(assuming) × 6,895 Pa/psi ≈ 103.4 Million Pascals (MPa)
Calculate the MOP's Cross-Sectional Area:
Diameter = 31.5 inches (0.8 meters)
Radius = 0.4 meters
Area (A) = π × (radius)² = π × (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.503 m²
Calculate the Total Resistive Force (F):
Force = Pressure × Area
F = 103,400,000 N/m² × 0.503 m²
F ≈ 52 Million Newtons
So we see that 18 Million Newtons is not enough and the bomb would have to be significantly supersonic, or my calculations are too conservative, or they are overestimating the 60m soil penetration, but we ARE in the same ballpark.
---
now, you might ask how can an object achieve over 1 Mach terminal velocity?
At high altitudes (like 30,000-50,000 feet): The air is much colder and less dense. For instance, at 35,000 feet, the temperature can be around -54°C, and the speed of sound drops to about 295 m/s (about 660 mph).
In this high-altitude, low-density environment, the MOP's terminal velocity is incredibly high. It can easily accelerate past the local speed of sound (which is already lower due to the cold) and go supersonic, then slowing down when near ground.
The bomb is also likely designed like a super aerodynamic dart to achieve maximum terminal velocity.
Thanks for showing your work, I guess my intuition just doesn't involve objects of this size often enough to be accurate.
It does seem like we're nearing the limit of what can be done with aircraft though. The challenge of hitting the ground much harder seems to be greater than just digging your facility a little deeper (that said, I've nevler dug a hole that deep either so perhaps I'm wrong about that also).
It does seem like we're nearing the limit of what can be done with aircraft though. The challenge of hitting the ground much harder seems to be greater than just digging your facility a little deeper (that said, I've nevler dug a hole that deep either so perhaps I'm wrong about that also).
I imagine they could put a propulsion system on the bomb to increase the speed when it hits the ground, massively. I'm no arms expert, though.
Your calculations are wrong, since the strength of the rock is more like granite or concrete.
This is not what I was claiming. I was talking about soil. Concrete, I believe they claimed 18 meters. Obviously, different ground types will be more complex/easier to penetrate.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
And honestly I'm ok with Israel attempting to force regime change. I think they'll fail but whatevs.
The problem is that the US government appear to support them in whatever craziness they aim for. That's the part that makes this a lot more problematic.
The problem is that the US government appear to support them in whatever craziness they aim for. That's the part that makes this a lot more problematic.
Regime change in Iran is not going to happen under duress, if anything, this will unite Iranians to defend their homes.
There was regime change against the Russian Tsar in response to his failures in WW1. The rally around the flag didn't count for anything. If the weakness and failures of Khamenei becomes a reality strong enough to pierce through the perceptions shaped by state run media then I am putting my money on regime change. Maybe not right now but soon.
Happened with Japan in WW2, too, although that was a surrender rather than bottom up. But still a form of regime change. There are many ways it could play out.
Happened with Japan in WW2, too, although that was a surrender rather than bottom up. But still a form of regime change. There are many ways it could play out.
It's close to unknowable. The entire 500 kg stash of highly enriched uranium that we're fighting this war over has a volume of about 20 liters- not easy to track. Bombing the uranium doesn't unenriched it either unless you do something like drop an equal mass of depleted uranium and then hit it with enough explosives to thoroughly mix the two
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.
> 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)
…
> 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.
Whether they had the theoretical ability to complete enrichment or not last week, does not matter, because they likely do not have it now.
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-...
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
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.
[deleted]
60% can be weaponized and it’s not a huge leap to go to 90%
> I think Netanyahu belongs in prison
We're working on it, 10-20 more years of legal proceedings and it's done.
We're working on it, 10-20 more years of legal proceedings and it's done.
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.
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.
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.
This keeps getting repeated all around the comments, but it's absolutely false.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are monotheistic and all claim to be the religion of the One God, yes.
But the Jews rejected the God the Christians believe in, and the Muslims describe/portray a god that is absolutely incompatible with the Christian God.
So essentially no, they can't possibly all believe in the same God.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are monotheistic and all claim to be the religion of the One God, yes.
But the Jews rejected the God the Christians believe in, and the Muslims describe/portray a god that is absolutely incompatible with the Christian God.
So essentially no, they can't possibly all believe in the same God.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the US and Europeans should stop meddling in the middle east if they don't want to be their enemies
Is the EU meddling? I though it was U.S. and Israël that were the driving force of those crusades.
Mostly UK, less so in recent years though.
Iraqi invesion was aminly driven by US, UK and Poland, but some countries was involed too(i.e. Ukraine for some reason)
>Oh we stopped them? They’ve steadily advanced towards being a nuclear state regardless of all the diplomacy deployed.
Yes, we stopped them. How many nuclear weapons does Iran possess today? 0? Despite having a vast, VAST head start on North Korea - like decades worth of experience and capabilities. The ONLY reason they don't have one today is the diplomacy that convinced them to not move forward faster.
>How many countries don’t have nukes that aren’t being invaded. Canada, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica etc.
I think my favorite part is when the first country on your list is one who has been threatened repeatedly by the current US administration.
What exactly do you think Canada is going to do should Trump decide to follow-through on his threats of making them the 51st state? Make some strongly worded notices of condemnation with the UN while Ottawa is being razed?
Costa Rica has nothing anybody wants. If the US tomorrow declared they are no longer protecting Japan, they would likley find themselves invaded by Japan before the end of the year. The only reason Italy is safe is because they're part of the EU, and the EU has... you guessed it... access to nuclear weapons.
Yes, we stopped them. How many nuclear weapons does Iran possess today? 0? Despite having a vast, VAST head start on North Korea - like decades worth of experience and capabilities. The ONLY reason they don't have one today is the diplomacy that convinced them to not move forward faster.
>How many countries don’t have nukes that aren’t being invaded. Canada, Italy, Japan, Costa Rica etc.
I think my favorite part is when the first country on your list is one who has been threatened repeatedly by the current US administration.
What exactly do you think Canada is going to do should Trump decide to follow-through on his threats of making them the 51st state? Make some strongly worded notices of condemnation with the UN while Ottawa is being razed?
Costa Rica has nothing anybody wants. If the US tomorrow declared they are no longer protecting Japan, they would likley find themselves invaded by Japan before the end of the year. The only reason Italy is safe is because they're part of the EU, and the EU has... you guessed it... access to nuclear weapons.
> The ONLY reason they don't have one today is the diplomacy that convinced them to not move forward faster.
Yet, if they had moved faster, force would've been used to stop them earlier.
Yet, if they had moved faster, force would've been used to stop them earlier.
Israel has been using force for multiple decades to no avail, it ultimately was delayed by diplomacy.
If force alone could stop a nuclear program, why does North Korea have bombs? Many nations could have attacked them without any concerns of recourse for decades.
If force alone could stop a nuclear program, why does North Korea have bombs? Many nations could have attacked them without any concerns of recourse for decades.
Ok the assumptions in this thread are now officially out of hand
This.
Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia after the collapse of the USSR with a treaty-promise that Russia will never be an aggressor.
Iran has now been bombed into regime change for trying to even get to that point.
If there's one thing every 2-bit aspiring dictator now knows, it's the only way to protect yourself is to get nukes.
This wasn't a non-proliferation enforcement action, this was the nail in the coffin of all future non-proliferation efforts.
Ukraine gave up its nukes to Russia after the collapse of the USSR with a treaty-promise that Russia will never be an aggressor.
Iran has now been bombed into regime change for trying to even get to that point.
If there's one thing every 2-bit aspiring dictator now knows, it's the only way to protect yourself is to get nukes.
This wasn't a non-proliferation enforcement action, this was the nail in the coffin of all future non-proliferation efforts.
Also: Khadafy. We asked him to not pursue nukes (and for whatever reason he didn't). When there was unrest in his country the European powers (first) and the US (later) struck him. They would have never done that if he had a nuke.
Now we have regime change and Libya is a paradise. /s
One of the problems with all of this is we may hate the government, but in getting rid of it we don't get anything better.
Now we have regime change and Libya is a paradise. /s
One of the problems with all of this is we may hate the government, but in getting rid of it we don't get anything better.
This needs to be repeated over and over every time it comes up:
North Korea is poised to level Seoul with conventional rocket artillery. A military solution has never been an option. Threats of violence in Korea are transparent.
North Korea is poised to level Seoul with conventional rocket artillery. A military solution has never been an option. Threats of violence in Korea are transparent.
Iran has killed, threatened, or killed-through-proxy many Americans in the last 50 years. They have created and sown instability throughout the region threatening Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia just to name a few. Notice that none of their regional neighbors have come to their defense.
They have consistently and openly threatened US leaders.
There was no diplomacy here.
They have consistently and openly threatened US leaders.
There was no diplomacy here.
What a bunch of assholes, you're right, there's no talking to them. I wonder why they're so angry at us?
"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
No, can't imagine that causing any bitterness.
We reaped what we sowed with Iran.
"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
No, can't imagine that causing any bitterness.
We reaped what we sowed with Iran.
>"The last 50 years", you say? Oh, so right around the time when the US and Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister to install a religious nutcase, because that nutcase would agree to sell them oil at a better price?
When people are mixing up basic facts like this you know the mainstream's knowledge of Iran is heavily propagandized. Really would help if people actually read a history textbook for once instead of believing everything they hear from someone else.
When people are mixing up basic facts like this you know the mainstream's knowledge of Iran is heavily propagandized. Really would help if people actually read a history textbook for once instead of believing everything they hear from someone else.
There are many countries who easily avoid becoming the target of Russia, the US, or Israel without maintaining a nuclear arsenal…
Stuxnet and the constant assassinations of scientists is diplomacy?
> 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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
But it's not their terror web that is being attacked. Hezbollah and the Houti are fine, today anyway.
I'd love to see a UN resolution calling for the dismantling for this terrorist network. Or if not that, at least some kind of multilateral, or even hell, unilateral declaration on this - "end this or else". But no, it's a western style drive-by shooting. It just so happens the guy who got shot is a baddie.
I'd love to see a UN resolution calling for the dismantling for this terrorist network. Or if not that, at least some kind of multilateral, or even hell, unilateral declaration on this - "end this or else". But no, it's a western style drive-by shooting. It just so happens the guy who got shot is a baddie.
Hezbollah has been completely neutered by Israel.
Funny thing, they used to say that about Hamaz before 7 October 2023.
This is nonsense. Iran spent decades funding proxies to specifically isolate their region economic competitor: Saudi Arabia. Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening.
No middle east expert but wouldn't you call Turkey a competitor?
Iran does not view Turkey as their primary regional competitor. You could argue that Turkey is not an oil economy and is closer to Europe. There is also an ethic and religious factor. Iran is majority Persian and Shia while Saudi Arabia is majority Arab and Sunni.
Sorry, what? You're literally [edit: figuratively] flying in the face of... well, just about anyone who has any knowledge or expertise in the middle east.
It also flies in the face of anyone with general knowledge:
Two of Iran's main proxies are Hamas, that has been shooting rockets at Israel for the last 15 years, and launched a major invasion planned (in their mind) to destroy Israel?
And Hezbollah, which fought multiple wars with Israel, also launched hundreds of rockets at Israel since the Gaza war began, and had thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, as well as tens of thousand of ground troops hidden in caves and tunnels on the border of Israel, with plans to launch an invasion into Israel?
This is all on top of the Iranian regime saying over and over again that one of their goals is to destroy Israel?
It also flies in the face of anyone with general knowledge:
Two of Iran's main proxies are Hamas, that has been shooting rockets at Israel for the last 15 years, and launched a major invasion planned (in their mind) to destroy Israel?
And Hezbollah, which fought multiple wars with Israel, also launched hundreds of rockets at Israel since the Gaza war began, and had thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, as well as tens of thousand of ground troops hidden in caves and tunnels on the border of Israel, with plans to launch an invasion into Israel?
This is all on top of the Iranian regime saying over and over again that one of their goals is to destroy Israel?
I have 5 complete US military CENTCOM deployments (about 5 years living there). What is your expertise?
What does that matter? Are you saying you are more of an expert than everyone else?
Would you at least agree that yours is at the very least far from a mainstream opinion? I feel like you at least need to back it up with some evidence given that.
For the record, I have no formal expertise in anything related to this. I do live in Israel, have been living through the bombing campaigns, invasions etc of Iran's proxies for most of my life. The country that just "happened to be in the way".
Except in the case of Hezbollah (first Google result for "why was Hezbollah founded": "Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon."). And except in the case of Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, on the border of Israel. This is the first time I've ever heard Hamas referred to as not mainly having to do with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia.
(In any case, differences in opinion aside, thank you for your service!)
Would you at least agree that yours is at the very least far from a mainstream opinion? I feel like you at least need to back it up with some evidence given that.
For the record, I have no formal expertise in anything related to this. I do live in Israel, have been living through the bombing campaigns, invasions etc of Iran's proxies for most of my life. The country that just "happened to be in the way".
Except in the case of Hezbollah (first Google result for "why was Hezbollah founded": "Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon."). And except in the case of Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, on the border of Israel. This is the first time I've ever heard Hamas referred to as not mainly having to do with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia.
(In any case, differences in opinion aside, thank you for your service!)
It matters because you suggested you asked for it.
So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel?
You are doing a really bad job of presenting anything coherent.
So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel?
You are doing a really bad job of presenting anything coherent.
> So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel?
No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure why you're switching to talk about this.
I was specifically refuting this idea from the GP of this thread:
> Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless.
This and other parts of that comment implied that, up until now, there was a rules-based order, but this attack somehow goes against that.
I was pointing out that this doesn't make much sense to me, because Iran has been breaking that rules-based order for years and getting away with it. Saying that enforcing the order is the problem, and not the attempt to circumvent it, is IMO incorrect.
You're free to correct me on that idea if you disagree, it's certainly a debatable opinion. But the only thing you disagreed with me on (or at least the thing you called out) was that Iran wasn't funding proxies against Israel, it was to contain Saudi Arabia. That, unlike my alternative view of what the war signifies, is something that is at odds with reality.
No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure why you're switching to talk about this.
I was specifically refuting this idea from the GP of this thread:
> Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless.
This and other parts of that comment implied that, up until now, there was a rules-based order, but this attack somehow goes against that.
I was pointing out that this doesn't make much sense to me, because Iran has been breaking that rules-based order for years and getting away with it. Saying that enforcing the order is the problem, and not the attempt to circumvent it, is IMO incorrect.
You're free to correct me on that idea if you disagree, it's certainly a debatable opinion. But the only thing you disagreed with me on (or at least the thing you called out) was that Iran wasn't funding proxies against Israel, it was to contain Saudi Arabia. That, unlike my alternative view of what the war signifies, is something that is at odds with reality.
[deleted]
I think austin-cheney's point is largely right. Iran has fought a series of proxy wars against Saudi, ever since the Islamic Revolution.
The Iran-Iraq war was the first one, with Iraq funded and supported by the Gulf states.
Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is strategic in this context. The Saudi regime wants rapprochement with Israel and to remain aligned with US interests. But neither of these are remotely popular in the Saudi population. By funding guerrilla warfare against Israel, Iran and to a lesser extent Qatar, keeps the Sauds discredited and unpopular among at home and in other Arab countries. The same applies to Egypt, another regional rival of Iran, whose government have never been off the defensive with the Egyptian people and wider Arab opinion since normalisation with Israel.
Obviously Hamas and Hezbollah themselves are only interested in fighting Israel and not the wider regional conflicts. But Iran itself uses that conflict, quite cynically, for wider geopolitical goals. Its stance is the reason that, from Afghanistan to Turkey to Tunisia, it can always find allies who want to challenge the Gulf states vision for the Middle East. Iran supplies the weapons and the know how, but there's never a shortage of locals to drive the car bombs.
There is an interpretation of Iran's behaviour which sees it as a source of Muslim pride for standing up to imperialism, and suggests in contrast that the Saudi leaders are too decadent, too corrupt, and bring shame by ignoring injustice and exploitation done to Arabs. I would certainly question this, but it's not an unpopular discourse in Saudi and other Arab countries.
If you have never come across the idea of the conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine etc being part of a long game of proxy war and influence between Iran and Saudi, I would question how broad your sources of analysis are.
The Iran-Iraq war was the first one, with Iraq funded and supported by the Gulf states.
Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is strategic in this context. The Saudi regime wants rapprochement with Israel and to remain aligned with US interests. But neither of these are remotely popular in the Saudi population. By funding guerrilla warfare against Israel, Iran and to a lesser extent Qatar, keeps the Sauds discredited and unpopular among at home and in other Arab countries. The same applies to Egypt, another regional rival of Iran, whose government have never been off the defensive with the Egyptian people and wider Arab opinion since normalisation with Israel.
Obviously Hamas and Hezbollah themselves are only interested in fighting Israel and not the wider regional conflicts. But Iran itself uses that conflict, quite cynically, for wider geopolitical goals. Its stance is the reason that, from Afghanistan to Turkey to Tunisia, it can always find allies who want to challenge the Gulf states vision for the Middle East. Iran supplies the weapons and the know how, but there's never a shortage of locals to drive the car bombs.
There is an interpretation of Iran's behaviour which sees it as a source of Muslim pride for standing up to imperialism, and suggests in contrast that the Saudi leaders are too decadent, too corrupt, and bring shame by ignoring injustice and exploitation done to Arabs. I would certainly question this, but it's not an unpopular discourse in Saudi and other Arab countries.
If you have never come across the idea of the conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine etc being part of a long game of proxy war and influence between Iran and Saudi, I would question how broad your sources of analysis are.
Well, that's fair, and a pretty good analysis. And obviously I view the situation with an Israeli bias.
Still, I think you (or austin-cheney) go way too far in seemingly completely dismissing the idea that the proxies are to fight Israel. Yes, there are a lot of larger strategic implications here, and yes, this is sometimes seen as part of Iran positioning itself as the leader of the Muslim nation that will restore honor to Islam, etc.
But "Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening." doesn't make much sense, given the consistent statements of Iran for the last 40 years, given the fact that they're pouring so much of this funding into Hamas and Hezbollah which, as you say, are only interested in fighting Israel themselves.
(Btw, in some sense, Israel is probably the most powerful regional power in the Middle East.)
In any case, none of this makes my original point "nonsense". The point that it's Iran that's disrupting the rules-based order, not the US, still stands, even if the proxy wars were not "really" to destroy Israel (most evidence to the contrary) and even if it's only funding these proxies which have spread terror and war in the region to try and destabilize Saudi Arabia.
Still, I think you (or austin-cheney) go way too far in seemingly completely dismissing the idea that the proxies are to fight Israel. Yes, there are a lot of larger strategic implications here, and yes, this is sometimes seen as part of Iran positioning itself as the leader of the Muslim nation that will restore honor to Islam, etc.
But "Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening." doesn't make much sense, given the consistent statements of Iran for the last 40 years, given the fact that they're pouring so much of this funding into Hamas and Hezbollah which, as you say, are only interested in fighting Israel themselves.
(Btw, in some sense, Israel is probably the most powerful regional power in the Middle East.)
In any case, none of this makes my original point "nonsense". The point that it's Iran that's disrupting the rules-based order, not the US, still stands, even if the proxy wars were not "really" to destroy Israel (most evidence to the contrary) and even if it's only funding these proxies which have spread terror and war in the region to try and destabilize Saudi Arabia.
Iran has spent 100x more (1000x) preparing for and battling Israel than it has Saudi. You are clearly not counting Iranian-funded rockets in the region or where they point. (Hezbollah had 15,000 of em... zero pointed at Saudi... ditto arms in Syria... ditto arms in Gaza...)
Saudi Arabia does not threaten to fire rockets at Iran on a daily basis or encourage others to do so. That is a striking distinction that cannot be ignored. And also Israel has nuclear weapons.
Hezbollah is not Iran. Israel has gone to war with Hezbollah in the past completely without military intervention from Iran.
Hezbollah is not Iran. Israel has gone to war with Hezbollah in the past completely without military intervention from Iran.
This strongly reminds me how naval warfare had period where participants was supposed to act according to certain fair rules. First they would fly the right color, then they would request the attacked ship to surrender, then they would attack if the other party declined surrender, and then they would pick up any surviving sailors that ended up in the water. World war 2 (and to a degree, world war 1) kind of ruined all that.
> Iraq invation was pushed through the UN.
Well, sort of. They tried, but when the UN gave an answer that the US and UK didn't like, they went ahead anyway.
> You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it.
I'm not quite cynical enough to wholly agree with that, but given enough motivation and power the façade does crack pretty easily.
Well, sort of. They tried, but when the UN gave an answer that the US and UK didn't like, they went ahead anyway.
> You might argue that this was always a façade only, and the powerful did whatever they wanted, bending the law around it.
I'm not quite cynical enough to wholly agree with that, but given enough motivation and power the façade does crack pretty easily.
There was at least a façade. That's the thing: today you don't even need to pretend to care.
The head of the UN, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. [1] The US tried to pass a resolution legalizing the invasion of Iraq through the UN, but it failed. The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always. But it was used as a pretext for hostile actions with relatively gullible populations.
Democracy doesn't really work when people think the US invaded Vietnam attacked they attacked us, that the US invaded Iraq because they have or are building WMD, that we invaded Libya to "liberate" it, and so on. And as for Iran, here's [2] a montage of Netanyahu claiming Iran will imminently have nuclear weapons, and so they should be invaded. The claims started 30 years ago and generally had a timeline of 1-3 years at most.
If the justifications for wars were more honest, even if that entails completely dropping the facade of morality, it'd have enabled populations within countries to have a better understanding of how the world "really" works, and also to make better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s
Democracy doesn't really work when people think the US invaded Vietnam attacked they attacked us, that the US invaded Iraq because they have or are building WMD, that we invaded Libya to "liberate" it, and so on. And as for Iran, here's [2] a montage of Netanyahu claiming Iran will imminently have nuclear weapons, and so they should be invaded. The claims started 30 years ago and generally had a timeline of 1-3 years at most.
If the justifications for wars were more honest, even if that entails completely dropping the facade of morality, it'd have enabled populations within countries to have a better understanding of how the world "really" works, and also to make better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s
>The entire "rules based order" is, I think, part of what caused the world to go to chaos. Because there were never any rules besides might makes right, just as always.
I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-History-Stanley-Meisle...
The UN isn't working very well right now, but it's worked considerably better in the past. In the wake of WW2, I think there was a genuine sentiment that war was really horrible and it should be avoided at all costs. Sadly most of the people who saw WW2 have passed away by this point.
In terms of populations "making better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support" -- I think international law is, if anything, helpful in this regard. Foreign policy is complex, and human nature is such that people are always predisposed to see their own interests as just, or at least cloak their interests in the language of justice. On the other hand, total pacifism is also ideologically unworkable for various reasons. (Even most leftists are against "America First" style isolationism for WW2 or Ukraine.) So international law is valuable in the sense that, at least in principle, it helps you figure out who the bad guy is: Who is breaking international law? That may sound rather academic, but in practice it seems to carry more weight than you might expect.
To state my position another way: I think having some sort of international law is a good idea, even if the current scheme needs to be reworked. A better scheme might be: Have some ritualized, non-lethal way for nations to test strength against each other, e.g. through athletic competitions or wargames, as a binding method of resolving disagreements. This could be game-theoretically stable, if success at the "ritual test of strength" is thought to correlate strongly with real-world war performance. Furthermore, any state which initiates lethal, kinetic confrontation after losing the "ritual test of strength" (sore losers who refuse to abide by the outcome) should become international pariahs subject to secondary sanctions.
I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-History-Stanley-Meisle...
The UN isn't working very well right now, but it's worked considerably better in the past. In the wake of WW2, I think there was a genuine sentiment that war was really horrible and it should be avoided at all costs. Sadly most of the people who saw WW2 have passed away by this point.
In terms of populations "making better decisions on the sorts of foreign policy views to support" -- I think international law is, if anything, helpful in this regard. Foreign policy is complex, and human nature is such that people are always predisposed to see their own interests as just, or at least cloak their interests in the language of justice. On the other hand, total pacifism is also ideologically unworkable for various reasons. (Even most leftists are against "America First" style isolationism for WW2 or Ukraine.) So international law is valuable in the sense that, at least in principle, it helps you figure out who the bad guy is: Who is breaking international law? That may sound rather academic, but in practice it seems to carry more weight than you might expect.
To state my position another way: I think having some sort of international law is a good idea, even if the current scheme needs to be reworked. A better scheme might be: Have some ritualized, non-lethal way for nations to test strength against each other, e.g. through athletic competitions or wargames, as a binding method of resolving disagreements. This could be game-theoretically stable, if success at the "ritual test of strength" is thought to correlate strongly with real-world war performance. Furthermore, any state which initiates lethal, kinetic confrontation after losing the "ritual test of strength" (sore losers who refuse to abide by the outcome) should become international pariahs subject to secondary sanctions.
The point is that there is no meaningful understanding of 'who is breaking international law' when everything is based on lies. For instance at this point in time most of everybody claims they didn't support the Iraq War, yet in reality the overwhelming majority did. At the peak of propaganda and lies, 80% of Americans approved of Bush's actions with regards to Iraq. [1]
And the thing about war is that there's no real way to tell who's going to win. For instance I think many people believe that the war in Afghanistan basically simmered down once the media coverage of it simmered down. But that couldn't be further from the truth. The Taliban was killing US proxies and soldiers alike, by the tens of thousands. The only way we could have even possibly won would have been a full-on ground invasion which would have entailed at least tens of thousands of US deaths, which Americans would never tolerate so it wasn't even an option. We withdrew because we were losing - the Taliban defeated the US. No sort of proxy you could ever create would predict that.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...
And the thing about war is that there's no real way to tell who's going to win. For instance I think many people believe that the war in Afghanistan basically simmered down once the media coverage of it simmered down. But that couldn't be further from the truth. The Taliban was killing US proxies and soldiers alike, by the tens of thousands. The only way we could have even possibly won would have been a full-on ground invasion which would have entailed at least tens of thousands of US deaths, which Americans would never tolerate so it wasn't even an option. We withdrew because we were losing - the Taliban defeated the US. No sort of proxy you could ever create would predict that.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It’s not that people were just too dumb or too scared to do something about it.
I think Russia invading Ukraine, after signing a treaty to respect their borders if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, let this particular cat out of the bag a long time ago.
I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their power, which in the end encourages all countries to get nuclear weapons to protect their own safety and interests.
As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons.
As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons.
> As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet.
The scenario you concocted here is Disneyland. It’s not just challenging, it’s just an oppressive version of the UN, but it won’t be impartial because it will be the most powerful organization on the planet and a target for every extremist and ideologue that seeks to acquire power. You haven’t changed the game, you’ve temporarily changed the battlefield.
The scenario you concocted here is Disneyland. It’s not just challenging, it’s just an oppressive version of the UN, but it won’t be impartial because it will be the most powerful organization on the planet and a target for every extremist and ideologue that seeks to acquire power. You haven’t changed the game, you’ve temporarily changed the battlefield.
You can ridicule this idea, but we're already having the US (partly through NATO) taking the role of a global sherif, except without aiming for neutrality, accountability, nor justice, so we end up living in a geopolitical world in which "might makes right". If we continue like this, we will have another World War, but learning by mistakes is sometimes the only realistic way forward.
What you are proposing is not a change, it's still might makes right. You're just changing the letterhead.
No. What I'm proposing is to make these processes purposefully and explicitly neutral, accountable, and just. This implies democratic and decentralised governance and decision-making. Clearly this isn't happening now.
As long as you’ve got humans in the mix, it’ll also be political. What you’re describing is a political organization and wishcasting that it’ll be as neutral as you envision according your values of neutrality. It’ll also be the most powerful political and military organization on Earth, so in other words, same shit as we have now, different letterhead. You may as well be describing America, you just don’t want it to be America, and I can respect that perspective even if I don’t agree with it, but your hypothetical organization is not as different as you think it is.
It's 100% different. The institution I envision should represent all countries, or at least member countries, so that it has global democratic legitimacy. Simply put, interests of one country are not equivalent to interests of all countries. If one country tries to take the role of that institution, sooner or later it will run into a conflict of interests.
> This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons.
This speaks like someone who has never been outside of a heavily bureaucratized regime. People don't get "approval" for things, they just do them.
This speaks like someone who has never been outside of a heavily bureaucratized regime. People don't get "approval" for things, they just do them.
> 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.
Agreed. Let's start with US and Russia first.
Agreed. Let's start with US and Russia first.
> 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 contradiction is that by relying on militarism instead of diplomacy we keep demonstrating that countries are safer from aggression once they have the bomb. You think the situation you’ve described provides a negative incentive for nuclear development, but it does not.
The contradiction is that by relying on militarism instead of diplomacy we keep demonstrating that countries are safer from aggression once they have the bomb. You think the situation you’ve described provides a negative incentive for nuclear development, but it does not.
Or more realistically: both war and diplomacy. I don’t know why it’s being framed as one or the other, but the fact is when diplomacy fails, and it is a must-achieve goal, war is an option.
With regard to the "mafia boss power politics" you were talking about, the mafia boss keeps doing things like withdrawing from the JCPOA (back then) and abandoning negotiations to follow Israel's lead in war (today). Maybe approaching things at the mafia boss level isn't the way to go.
Yeah what I was talking about doesn't exclude diplomacy, but at one point or another you've got to be clear that under no circumstances will the development of nukes by $country be tolerated either if you're going to keep the number of nuclear powers tamped down.
Or maybe that is the wrong approach, but the policy we've had that let North Korea develop nukes and Iran at least get very close also isn't working.
Or maybe that is the wrong approach, but the policy we've had that let North Korea develop nukes and Iran at least get very close also isn't working.
North Korea is the place where foreign policy hawks go to die. It's embarrassing to watch. Every now and then over the past seven decades we have had politicians who think they're clever because their trusted advisors told them "we'll find a new way to threaten them," "let's offer them something," "you're really smart, you've got this, and nobody has noticed that you're orange" and so on, and they issue some tough talk about North Korea. It's hard to describe how inadequate their diplomacy has always been to the task. Their diplomacy is like the Visigoths trying to pull down the hated remnants of the Roman Empire, like bridges and aqueducts and so on, using oxen and ropes and inevitably failing. Something like that. North Korea is a tough problem.
Iran is more straightforward. I don't know why we've been so reluctant to make real diplomatic effort, especially after so many of Iran's proxies were significantly weakened in the last year or two, and Iran's sway was at a minimum. There seems to be an unwritten rule that once we've categorized a country as an enemy we're obligated to deal with them in the dumbest ways imaginable.
Iran is more straightforward. I don't know why we've been so reluctant to make real diplomatic effort, especially after so many of Iran's proxies were significantly weakened in the last year or two, and Iran's sway was at a minimum. There seems to be an unwritten rule that once we've categorized a country as an enemy we're obligated to deal with them in the dumbest ways imaginable.
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.
You 100% know why.
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"
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"
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.
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.
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.
Considering that his own population was vehemently opposed to his authoritarian regime, I don’t think it’s fair to say Gaddafi’s fate was tied to the end of the nuclear programme. I certainly hope he wouldn’t leash nuclear weapons on his fellow countrymen.
His authoritarian regime was broken by Western air power and the natural consequence was ending up dead in a ditch.
Also, you probably mean "unleash".
Also, you probably mean "unleash".
Thanks for picking up that minor spelling mistake. Can’t correct it now, unfortunately, but at least the message is understandable.
I do disagree with your premise that Gaddafi’s death was a natural consequence of the Western intervention. Whilst watching the events unfold at the time, I’d say he would be ousted and killed irrespectively of any intervention — either by the populace or by the various factions vying for power.
I do disagree with your premise that Gaddafi’s death was a natural consequence of the Western intervention. Whilst watching the events unfold at the time, I’d say he would be ousted and killed irrespectively of any intervention — either by the populace or by the various factions vying for power.
well, we'll never get to know that because he was killed because of western intervention
Rockets?
Seoul is in artillery range of the border.
Seoul is in artillery range of the border.
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.
Attacking North Korea would result in millions of refugees pouring into South Korea and China. Nobody wants that
Hahaha, and what do you think's going to happen to Iran if this stuff is successful? They already have more refugees living there than in any other country in the world except Turkey [1], owing to US adventures in other parts of the world. And they have more than 3x the population of North Korea on top. For that matter they also have more than 3x the population of Syria.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_re...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_re...
If what stuff is successful?
The goal is to overthrow the Iranian government (again) and try to install a puppet regime (again). Conveniently enough, even if you happen to think the nuclear pretext is the goal - it still entails the exact same thing. Destroying some facilities is obviously not going to change their nuclear skills, capabilities, or ambitions. On the contrary - if there was internal doubt about developing a nuclear weapon within Iran, that doubt is now completely erased.
There was never any doubt about developing a nuclear weapon within Iran. You don't enrich to beyond 60% in a secretive bomb-proof bunker with any other goal in mind. This "oh now we've convinced them to build a bomb" line is nonsense.
They began enriching to 60% as a response to Israeli attacks on the country in 2021. Before that it was never higher than 20%. 60% is just below weapons grade and was meant to send a message. Similarly, the reasons their nuclear program is completely underground should be completely obvious at this point. Israel has been trying to get somebody to invade them for decades, has been assassinating anybody they can find, and so on.
Before this there was every reason to doubt Israel's claims, which they've been making for 30 years, about Iran imminently having a nuclear weapon. But at this point there's a practically 100% certainty that they will be aiming to create nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
Before this there was every reason to doubt Israel's claims, which they've been making for 30 years, about Iran imminently having a nuclear weapon. But at this point there's a practically 100% certainty that they will be aiming to create nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
It's a gruesome thought, but I don't imagine very many refugees crossing the (heavily mined) DMZ into South Korea...
> 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.
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
Except the police cannot instantly teleport to your location if you are in trouble, hence you have guns to protect yourself until the police arrives.
[deleted]
the calculus that I, everyone I know and care about, and everyone that i've ever heard about, relies upon is that you're far less likely to need to police to teleport instantly to you if our divorced angry next door neighbor don't have a gun for his self defence
Maybe not a gun, but an axe or a chainsaw tend to get the job done pretty well. Not as fast, but still.
And why a divorced guy living in his house be an issue with your friends or neighbors?
And why a divorced guy living in his house be an issue with your friends or neighbors?
> if our divorced angry next door neighbor
Why is “divorced” relevant. Maybe he should be the one worried about NIMBYs.
Why is “divorced” relevant. Maybe he should be the one worried about NIMBYs.
it's literally a hypothetical person. He studied marketing and made okay money for a while, but he's been out of a job for a bit over a year and a half now too :) His one good friend died a little while ago too.
I made a profile of a person that fits the profile of somebody that might be a little angry at society. Clearly I've struck a nerve here, and maybe thats something worth interrogating.
For what its worth, there are plenty of guys I know who are divorced, and it was probably the right decision, and they're great people. Most marriages end that way, in fact. It doesn't mean the "divorced jaded man who lost his social place in the world, struggles to find kindness or peers, and lashes out" is a stock character that will go away. It's a real problem
I made a profile of a person that fits the profile of somebody that might be a little angry at society. Clearly I've struck a nerve here, and maybe thats something worth interrogating.
For what its worth, there are plenty of guys I know who are divorced, and it was probably the right decision, and they're great people. Most marriages end that way, in fact. It doesn't mean the "divorced jaded man who lost his social place in the world, struggles to find kindness or peers, and lashes out" is a stock character that will go away. It's a real problem
Fun fact: The divorce rate spikes to about 60% for second marriages, but only about 40% of first marriages end in divorce.
Yeahbut, 60% + 40% = 100% :-)
> Clearly I've struck a nerve here, and maybe thats something worth interrogating.
Oh god… please fix me.
Anyways it read to me like an obvious generalization. My bad if you weren’t. After all, some of your best friends are “x”.
Oh god… please fix me.
Anyways it read to me like an obvious generalization. My bad if you weren’t. After all, some of your best friends are “x”.
[deleted]
That's based on a misleading "fact." Many people claim that most victims of homicide knew their killer. That's true only when the relationship between the two was known. The most common relationship, by far, is "relationship unknown". [1] You are much more likely to be killed by a stranger or somebody who is "relationship unknown" than anybody else.
And furthermore most gun crime is committed by people who do not legally own the firearm being used. [2] I'm loathe to link to that site, but this is an issue that is poorly reported and so it requires exploring a web of data sources, which they actually competently do, on this issue at least.
You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates.
[1] - https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crim...
[2] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/...
And furthermore most gun crime is committed by people who do not legally own the firearm being used. [2] I'm loathe to link to that site, but this is an issue that is poorly reported and so it requires exploring a web of data sources, which they actually competently do, on this issue at least.
You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates.
[1] - https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crim...
[2] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/...
>You can also kind of sniff test this claim by considering that homicide rates are much higher in urban than rural areas, yet urban areas have dramatically lower gun ownership rates.
You should take a refresher on statistics and the difference between correlated and causative
You should take a refresher on statistics and the difference between correlated and causative
And you should read the post I am responding to. The claim was that there was a correlation between gun ownership a region and your chances of being killed by a gun. When in reality the correlation that exists there is the exact opposite.
On paper that could work if people didn't have children.
Problem is it is impossible to combine: - responsible storage of firearms - immediate availability of firearms anywhere at home when faced with hostility
Also most gun violence is domestic so having firearms at home do not solve a problem but creates it.
Problem is it is impossible to combine: - responsible storage of firearms - immediate availability of firearms anywhere at home when faced with hostility
Also most gun violence is domestic so having firearms at home do not solve a problem but creates it.
Strong disagree. Education is key, as are not leaving children that are too young to be educated alone where a weapon (not just a gun) is.
Curiosity is the number one problem with kids and guns, and that's because we hide them behind a mystique and don't make them understand. But talk to any redneck kid, and guns aren't a big deal, because they've had the mystique removed through education and familiarity.
Curiosity is the number one problem with kids and guns, and that's because we hide them behind a mystique and don't make them understand. But talk to any redneck kid, and guns aren't a big deal, because they've had the mystique removed through education and familiarity.
Not redneck here, but introduced and taught fun safety at a young age. Recently, my kids came down to ask me if they could play with their nerf guns. They had the guns aimed down, finger off the trigger, and already put on the safety glasses. I wiped away a tear knowing that they are responsible with toy guns.
Nice anecdotal stories aren't worth anything against statistics.
Also people can be responsible for years until they aren't. As much as you believe you couldn't hurt someone you love, there is no way you (pr anyone else) can be 100% sure that reality will never change. If there was a way to know, people would be stopped or would surrender their weapons before they commit crimes.
Also people can be responsible for years until they aren't. As much as you believe you couldn't hurt someone you love, there is no way you (pr anyone else) can be 100% sure that reality will never change. If there was a way to know, people would be stopped or would surrender their weapons before they commit crimes.
Like anything else, it's about safety. There's all sorts of dangerous stuff in a household, like a stove. You don't lock them up, you teach kids thst stoves are hot and not to touch them.
That said: lock up your guns. Your mid will probably survive a stove burn.
That said: lock up your guns. Your mid will probably survive a stove burn.
Except you’ve been tricked if you think the ruler of police is to protect you. Despite the little sticker on their car, the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the police HAVE NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect you out anyone. That’s just not their role nor responsibility. To think otherwise is to linger in a fantasy world.
Not all countries are like the US
That is true in the U.S., but there are plenty of country where the cops do protect civilians.
In most case, it is the same countries that give adequate training to their cops, a not-so-surprising correlation.
In most case, it is the same countries that give adequate training to their cops, a not-so-surprising correlation.
I expect that the frequency of violent crime is predictive of police behavior towards crime.
When it's rare, then it's easy and reasonable to take a highly idealistic approach. When it's frequent you have to deal with uncomfortable practical issues like whether an officer should prioritize your survival, or their own. There's a line where heroics turn into suicidality, and that's largely driven by frequency.
When it's rare, then it's easy and reasonable to take a highly idealistic approach. When it's frequent you have to deal with uncomfortable practical issues like whether an officer should prioritize your survival, or their own. There's a line where heroics turn into suicidality, and that's largely driven by frequency.
[deleted]
The state will only protect you under certain circumstances. You're far better off being able to protect yourself, and pray you never have to.
The police aren’t here to protect citizens, courts here have ruled on this. Police are an extension of corporate power & the wealthy. The LA Sheriff’s Department is filled with police gangs.
We’ve seen the footage of the police brutalizing peaceful protestors beating them with clubs, riding over them repeatedly with horses.
The police in this country are woefully undertrained compared to the rest of the industrialized nations.
We’ve seen the footage of the police brutalizing peaceful protestors beating them with clubs, riding over them repeatedly with horses.
The police in this country are woefully undertrained compared to the rest of the industrialized nations.
> The police in this country are woefully undertrained compared to the rest of the industrialized nations.
It takes more time and training to be certified as a hairdresser in most parts of the US than it does a cop.
It takes more time and training to be certified as a hairdresser in most parts of the US than it does a cop.
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.
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.
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.
> Sometimes even a minute or two is the difference between you being alive or dead.
This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home. I'm countries with virtually no private ownership of guns, it is extraordinarily unlikely to be in life threatening danger in your home.
Nobody has knives? Axes? Baseball bats? Where do you live, I wanna come visit.
> This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home
Citation needed, because I highly doubt you're correct.
> This is especially true when you are likely to have guns in the home
Citation needed, because I highly doubt you're correct.
People who rob you with baseball bats and axes, and don't even think about the possibility that you'll have a gun, don't feel the need to kill you at any suspicious twitch. The axes and knives and baseball bats are there to have clear superiority, and they know you can't really harm them. So, unless you actually try to fight, you're quite safe from a physical perspective.
Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension.
Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery.
You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
Conversely, if people with guns think there's a decent chance you have a gun too, they'll be terrified of any move you make and have a high chance of misinterpreting any gesture you make into violence. So there is much higher tension.
Of course, there is a possibility that you're being attacked by a crazed murderer - in which case you're probably going to die either way. But this happens vastly, vastly less often that robbery.
You can take a look at crime stats from even the poorest European countries. The proof that lack of gun ownership in no way causes more violent crime is evident. Everything I just added above is an explanation of why this happens, but the fact it happens is not up for debate.
The stability of society and the law based facilitation of peace are absolutely within the mission of police forces and highly facilitative to the prosperity of a society.
I was once involved with a project that returned determination of land ownership from people's physical custody to the courts and the resulting drops in assault and homicide rates (for the entire country) was in the double digits over a period of months.
I was once involved with a project that returned determination of land ownership from people's physical custody to the courts and the resulting drops in assault and homicide rates (for the entire country) was in the double digits over a period of months.
Wow, super interesting! Where was this if I might ask?
Sorry for the delay but this is such a public setting. The governments involved never approved the release of that information.
Out of curiosity, where do you live that your perception of life is one of SHTF constantly & unending murder in your city?
Hah ez. Syracuse or Rochester NY my boy. Sounds like it must be nice to live in a bubble and retort at your keyboard.
> Out of curiosity, where do you live that your perception of life is one of SHTF constantly & unending murder in your city?
If you re-read what I've wrote carefully you can observe I didn't refer once to my lived experience.
If you re-read what I've wrote carefully you can observe I didn't refer once to my lived experience.
A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does: but not for a simple reason like “because we have the police which is meant to give security to people”
A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
People in such a community lack guns but they do have things like a working public health system, decent education, daily encounters with other people that are positive and so on.
The threat of police shootings is not what makes a safe society safe.
Constructive, open and fair trade is the equivalent at an international level. Cooperative and trusting. Not staring down the barrel of each other’s guns.
A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
People in such a community lack guns but they do have things like a working public health system, decent education, daily encounters with other people that are positive and so on.
The threat of police shootings is not what makes a safe society safe.
Constructive, open and fair trade is the equivalent at an international level. Cooperative and trusting. Not staring down the barrel of each other’s guns.
> A community where every household does not have guns is safer than one that does
Except this isn't borne out in the data. Look at deeply conservative places where guns are literally everywhere, and you'll see very low crime rates compared to cities with strict gun control.
And why? Well, as a criminal, I'd be loathe to try something when there's a good chance the victim is armed.
In your perfect community scenario, a single armed criminal would wreak havoc, completely unopposed.
Except this isn't borne out in the data. Look at deeply conservative places where guns are literally everywhere, and you'll see very low crime rates compared to cities with strict gun control.
And why? Well, as a criminal, I'd be loathe to try something when there's a good chance the victim is armed.
In your perfect community scenario, a single armed criminal would wreak havoc, completely unopposed.
Sounds more like urban vs rural with respect to crime rates than guns or not.
These hypothetical places have "low" crime rates because they have low population density, not because people are armed.
Why do Canada and Europe have dramatically lower violent crime rates despite having a mostly unarmed population?
Why do Canada and Europe have dramatically lower violent crime rates despite having a mostly unarmed population?
Canada is in no way "mostly unarmed". ~20% of households have a gun. Some countries in Europe also have high ownership rates as well (like Finland).
Rifles. For hunting. Not handguns and AR15s.
Grew up rural Alberta with rifles around the house all the time, in plain view. For shooting game. Not a word was ever uttered about "defending ourselves" with guns... From who?
Hell, we left our door unlocked when we left the house unless it was overnight.
Good grief. Nothing is sadder than people valorizing social/cultural breakdown.
"Peace, order, and good government."
Grew up rural Alberta with rifles around the house all the time, in plain view. For shooting game. Not a word was ever uttered about "defending ourselves" with guns... From who?
Hell, we left our door unlocked when we left the house unless it was overnight.
Good grief. Nothing is sadder than people valorizing social/cultural breakdown.
"Peace, order, and good government."
AR-15 is relatively popular for hunting in the US though?
I don't lock my house or my car habitually, never had a problem, never felt the need to keep a weapon either, but I know plenty of people that live in the city that have been robbed or assaulted and do feel the need to carry though. I can't really blame them for not relying on police.
I don't lock my house or my car habitually, never had a problem, never felt the need to keep a weapon either, but I know plenty of people that live in the city that have been robbed or assaulted and do feel the need to carry though. I can't really blame them for not relying on police.
Refers to data, doesn’t reference data.
I'm citation heavy, but it's also a fact I wouldn't cite as I think/thought it was fairly common knowledge. Here [1] is some random report on it. There's a huge difference in criminality rates between urban and rural, and this applies to most of everywhere in the world.
[1] - https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/...
[1] - https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/...
As someone with roots in a rural area, there’s a lot of crime in such places that is simply never found out (sparse population == fewer opportunities to be caught), is an “open secret” that never gets resolved, is quietly swept under the rug, etc, sometimes even involving local law enforcement. As a result, there’s plenty in the data worth questioning.
This is definitely true, and that report works to control for it. The reason there's no homicide data listed on that report is because it's based on the National Crime Victimization Survey. It surveys people on their victimization instead of relying on police reports. Police reports would make the differences appear even larger.
Although on this topic I'd also add that urban areas have a similar issue. Criminals know that the overwhelming majority of crime goes unpunished, while people have a reality deluded by shows like CSI. Homicides, for instance, have the highest clearance rate, by far. And it's 47.5%. [1] Vehicular theft has the worst at 6.6%. If you end up with your window busted out and everything that's not strapped down stolen, there's no real point reporting it to the police unless necessary for an insurance claim because you're never getting that stuff back, and the thief is never getting caught.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_rate#In_the_United_S...
Although on this topic I'd also add that urban areas have a similar issue. Criminals know that the overwhelming majority of crime goes unpunished, while people have a reality deluded by shows like CSI. Homicides, for instance, have the highest clearance rate, by far. And it's 47.5%. [1] Vehicular theft has the worst at 6.6%. If you end up with your window busted out and everything that's not strapped down stolen, there's no real point reporting it to the police unless necessary for an insurance claim because you're never getting that stuff back, and the thief is never getting caught.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearance_rate#In_the_United_S...
Why are we assuming that rural areas have more gun per capita than urban areas? Nothing in that report goes into that topic.
Speaking of data: States with shall-issue conceal carry permits see higher rates of gun violence than may-issue states.
Source: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.3040...
Source: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.3040...
> A safe community isn’t one where people are held in check by police. People are not roving around thinking “oh I’d break and enter and murder and rape but for the fact a police officer might shoot me.”
That's also not necessarily the point I'm making. Suppose you are in a society where a small part of people are bad actors, for whatever reason. They will break and enter, murder, and rape. You want to protect the rest of the society against these bad actors. You can now equip everyone with weapons so they may defend themselves. That also enables the bad actors to use said weapons because we don't know who really know who is a bad actor (at least not the ones that didn't commit any crimes yet). Or you give weapons only to a small part of society, where you enforce strict gun laws.
The alternative is to reduce the number of bad actors and this is, in part, fulfilled by the conditions that you are describing. But how do I reduce the number of state leaders that are willing to shoot each other? I guess it's what you are saying, namely constructive, open, and fair trade. But we're not really making progress in that direction it seems.
That's also not necessarily the point I'm making. Suppose you are in a society where a small part of people are bad actors, for whatever reason. They will break and enter, murder, and rape. You want to protect the rest of the society against these bad actors. You can now equip everyone with weapons so they may defend themselves. That also enables the bad actors to use said weapons because we don't know who really know who is a bad actor (at least not the ones that didn't commit any crimes yet). Or you give weapons only to a small part of society, where you enforce strict gun laws.
The alternative is to reduce the number of bad actors and this is, in part, fulfilled by the conditions that you are describing. But how do I reduce the number of state leaders that are willing to shoot each other? I guess it's what you are saying, namely constructive, open, and fair trade. But we're not really making progress in that direction it seems.
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).
If someone knows you are heavily armed will they be more or less likely to attack you?
[deleted]
Please note ICE is doing operations in blue cities against law abiding immigrants at hearings because to go after either actual criminals or the gun infested red areas would be a danger to life and limb.
Turns out, making yourself a more dangerous target works to an extent.
Turns out, making yourself a more dangerous target works to an extent.
ICE must cast a wide net in blue cities because they are not sharing data on the criminal undocumented residents. They are shielding the illegal migrants who are already in jail or released on bond. Red areas are not shielding their criminal element and there is less need for such a wide net. Sanctuary cities ignoring the constitution and delegation of powers to do whatever they want is causing much of the escalation.
Can you clarify which part of the constitution is being ignored here?
You will love this amendment (14th) from the US Constitution then, it’s a banger with it’s opening text that describes how states are responsible for protecting the people in their borders and giving them due process, citizen or not:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You know because it’s hard to make a case about being a country of rights, due process, law and order if you don’t extend that to the people within it’s borders.
The blue cities are enforcing the Constitution as sanctuary cities are legal laws of those states. The red states and federal government are violating it.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You know because it’s hard to make a case about being a country of rights, due process, law and order if you don’t extend that to the people within it’s borders.
The blue cities are enforcing the Constitution as sanctuary cities are legal laws of those states. The red states and federal government are violating it.
>” The blue cities are enforcing the Constitution as sanctuary cities are legal laws of those states. The red states and federal government are violating it.”
There’s a supremacy clause, and it’s quite clear.
There’s a supremacy clause, and it’s quite clear.
The 14th Amendment is federal law that the States must protect the people within their borders through rights, due process, etc. by their own state laws. The Supremacy Clause is irrelevant.
Glad to see this downvoted into oblivion until it’s barely readable. It’s like I’m reading the ramblings of one of Jesse Watter’s writers.
> against law abiding immigrants
That's a lie. They broke the law when they entered the country illegally. Then some of them committed more crimes.
That's a lie. They broke the law when they entered the country illegally. Then some of them committed more crimes.
Most immigration offenses are specifically not crimes, so that the government doesn't have to give the people involved legal proceedings.
The immigrants in thr court houses are breaking the law? Sounds like a judge should determine that.
If they crossed the border illegally, yes, they broke the law. You don't need a judge to determine that.
Just like you don't need a judge to determine if someone drives without a driver's license.
Just like you don't need a judge to determine if someone drives without a driver's license.
The judge determines whether or not they crossed the border illegally. Who did you think does that?
a different reason is that the red areas are currently in power, and have a say in where ICE deploys. its explicitly a civil war styled attack on blue state sovereignty, rather than anything about guns
The federal government has exclusive and full power over immigration laws.
The states don’t have any sovereignty to make their own decisions about immigration.
The states don’t have any sovereignty to make their own decisions about immigration.
> operations ... against law abiding immigrants ...
Putting aside ICE tactics, if their immigration status is not legal, then by definition they are not law abiding citizens.
Unless you are privy the status of any planned or ongoing ICE operations against criminals, you have no idea what they are doing in that regard.
Law enforcement at all levels needs checks along with better direction in carrying out their duties. However, allowing people to continue living in an immigration limbo is not a solution. Sanctuary cities leave illegal immigrants unprotected.
Putting aside ICE tactics, if their immigration status is not legal, then by definition they are not law abiding citizens.
Unless you are privy the status of any planned or ongoing ICE operations against criminals, you have no idea what they are doing in that regard.
Law enforcement at all levels needs checks along with better direction in carrying out their duties. However, allowing people to continue living in an immigration limbo is not a solution. Sanctuary cities leave illegal immigrants unprotected.
I get the point but that’s not true at all.
There are plenty of guns in LA, and any ICE agent or cop would be dumb to assume those they are arresting are unarmed because “it’s against the law”.
The red cities don’t have sanctuary city rules in place, so local law enforcement helps ICE and the arrests don’t make the news.
There are plenty of guns in LA, and any ICE agent or cop would be dumb to assume those they are arresting are unarmed because “it’s against the law”.
The red cities don’t have sanctuary city rules in place, so local law enforcement helps ICE and the arrests don’t make the news.
That's why they're doing arrests at court houses instead of going after gang members
The point parent is in making is that this strike against Iran demonstrates, that yes indeed you do need nukes to be safe and that's one of the major risks of this action.
Going with your analogy, this would be the same as if police basically ignored all home invasion/trespassing laws such that the only houses that criminals entered were in fact those of undefended home owners. In this scenario, it would be demonstrated, by this policy, that yes home owners need to own guns to be safe.
To your point, if you don't want a world where it's safer for home owners to own guns, than you need to ensure there are policies in place to create a world where that was true. The lesson of Ukraine and Iran is that, if you don't have nuclear weapons, your sovereignty is always at the mercy of nations that do.
A world where every country needs nuclear weapons to remain sovereign is similarly undesirable (on a larger scale) to a country where every home needs to have guns to be safe. However we're on a path with nuclear weapons where that is unfortunately not the reality we are creating.
Going with your analogy, this would be the same as if police basically ignored all home invasion/trespassing laws such that the only houses that criminals entered were in fact those of undefended home owners. In this scenario, it would be demonstrated, by this policy, that yes home owners need to own guns to be safe.
To your point, if you don't want a world where it's safer for home owners to own guns, than you need to ensure there are policies in place to create a world where that was true. The lesson of Ukraine and Iran is that, if you don't have nuclear weapons, your sovereignty is always at the mercy of nations that do.
A world where every country needs nuclear weapons to remain sovereign is similarly undesirable (on a larger scale) to a country where every home needs to have guns to be safe. However we're on a path with nuclear weapons where that is unfortunately not the reality we are creating.
A handful of nuclear weapons won't keep a country safe. They would also need a credible second-strike deterrent.
Relations between sovereign states are fundamentally anarchic. There are no world police. The UN and other international institutions have little or no real power, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty is only enforceable through kinetic action by other countries when it suits their interests.
Relations between sovereign states are fundamentally anarchic. There are no world police. The UN and other international institutions have little or no real power, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty is only enforceable through kinetic action by other countries when it suits their interests.
NK can have a handful of submarine-based missiles that threaten to wipe out say Seoul or LA for example, even after the first strike. It's not a guarantee by any means but it does raise the bar and would probably prevent a situation like the current one.
NK kept itself safe for decades with just a lot of artillery aimed at Seoul.
Second strike weapons are in some ways a holdover from Cold War strategic thinking which it's sort of acknowledged probably overestimated the penchant of any side to engage in a first strike.
The practical reality of nuclear war planning has generally been that no one will accept even a single city-buster landing - and no first strike option is really reliable enough to guarantee you didn't miss one.
Second strike weapons are in some ways a holdover from Cold War strategic thinking which it's sort of acknowledged probably overestimated the penchant of any side to engage in a first strike.
The practical reality of nuclear war planning has generally been that no one will accept even a single city-buster landing - and no first strike option is really reliable enough to guarantee you didn't miss one.
>To your point, if you don't want a world where it's safer for home owners to own guns, than you need to ensure there are policies in place to create a world where that was true
So achieving monopoly on violence first. Which requires forcefully disarming all opposition just like what is happening right now. Is the Sovereign hypocritical because they arrest and potential kill people they don't like but they do not others to do so? According to many mainstream political theories, not neccessairly so.
The matter of fact is that if a major power really wants to destroy a smaller power, there's nothing a smaller power can do even if they develop a handful of nukes, especially at the cost of their economy. Much better just to work diplomatically with said major powers so that interests are aligned rather than demanding a absolute respect for sovereignity which does not exist in reality. So then the question is, why can the Shah or the Gulf States work with Israel and America, but not the Islamic Regime? Even worse so, it's one to turn a cold shoulder that America or Israel wouldn't care much, but to actively fund proxies that destabilize other allies is just warranting a response.
So achieving monopoly on violence first. Which requires forcefully disarming all opposition just like what is happening right now. Is the Sovereign hypocritical because they arrest and potential kill people they don't like but they do not others to do so? According to many mainstream political theories, not neccessairly so.
The matter of fact is that if a major power really wants to destroy a smaller power, there's nothing a smaller power can do even if they develop a handful of nukes, especially at the cost of their economy. Much better just to work diplomatically with said major powers so that interests are aligned rather than demanding a absolute respect for sovereignity which does not exist in reality. So then the question is, why can the Shah or the Gulf States work with Israel and America, but not the Islamic Regime? Even worse so, it's one to turn a cold shoulder that America or Israel wouldn't care much, but to actively fund proxies that destabilize other allies is just warranting a response.
6 months ago I woildnt have disagreed. Be ause law enforcement had guns for you.
But if law enforcement is not only not doing their job but actively threatening you: well, I guess 2A won this time.
But if law enforcement is not only not doing their job but actively threatening you: well, I guess 2A won this time.
That analogy fails due to the sheer power of nuclear weapons. A comparable analogy would be that every household should have an Abrams tank.
Kinda sorta in some ways, vastly different in others.
The differences are so extreme it's a waste of time to discuss the analogy further.
The differences are so extreme it's a waste of time to discuss the analogy further.
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".
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".
> 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?
How do you explain India vs Pakistan?
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
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.
Your original point was that nukes prevented attacks. India vs Pakistan rejects your hypothesis.
You then proceeded to move the goalpost from "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" to "yeah countries with nukes get attacked, but attacks don't escalate" which is also an absurd argument to make.
It's a particularly silly point to make in light of India Vs Pakistan because it was described as an electoral stunt to save face, which means nuclear nations still attack themselves even for the flimsiest reasons.
> is also an absurd argument to make.
It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments. Nukes certainly act as deterrent for escalating a war. yes , attacks will exist , but we are not escalating with russia for a reason. you are being pedantic , but the argument for deterrence still stands strong.
> It's not. the world is not a binary system to make simplistic black/white arguments.
I agree, simplistic comments on the line of "$(country_without_nukes) got attacked because it didn't [had nukes]" are silly and don't pass the smell test. Don't you agree?
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?
Well then you should explain how it doesn't make sense. Focusing on how he didn't mention the case where both countries have nuclear weapons is not convincing.
If neither India nor Pakistan had nukes, they would be at war today. Their nukes saved a lot of lives.
So far… trading a more devastating consequence for a decreased likelihood on average will always appear to work until it doesn’t. There may become a time when the use of nukes is tolerated and expected and the only way to win a conflict is to carpet nuke your enemy.
The whole point of MAD is that you can't prevent a second strike from also eliminating your own country. This was all worked out 70-80 years ago.
As a peer mentioned, nukes not being used has nothing to do with them not being tolerated. It's all about there being no win condition. A single modern nuke can wipe a city out of existence. Even more so when you consider that most are on rockets that split into multiple warheads both to increase destruction and to sidestep any sort of missile defenses. Scale that up and you can wipe entire countries out of existence.
If you enter into a scenario against a nuclear opponent where they go nuclear (which you going nuclear would certainly do) then you may well defeat them, but they're simultaneously also defeat you. This is a big part of the reason that Russia is so paranoid about the US surrounding it with military bases. The only possible way to treat to sidestep this problem is with a massive decapitation strike where you try to nuke your enemy into oblivion before they have any chance to respond with their own nukes. Realistically, it's probably impossible, but but it remains the Achille's Heel of MAD / mutually assured destruction. And drones/internal strike issues are certainly going to be causing some consternation.
Well, there's also missile defense, but I think that's a dead end. We're talking about the offensive goal being to shoot a bullet at the side of a massive barn, and the defensive goal being to shoot down that bullet. It seems impossible to imagine a state of technology between near peers where the latter becomes easier than the former.
If you enter into a scenario against a nuclear opponent where they go nuclear (which you going nuclear would certainly do) then you may well defeat them, but they're simultaneously also defeat you. This is a big part of the reason that Russia is so paranoid about the US surrounding it with military bases. The only possible way to treat to sidestep this problem is with a massive decapitation strike where you try to nuke your enemy into oblivion before they have any chance to respond with their own nukes. Realistically, it's probably impossible, but but it remains the Achille's Heel of MAD / mutually assured destruction. And drones/internal strike issues are certainly going to be causing some consternation.
Well, there's also missile defense, but I think that's a dead end. We're talking about the offensive goal being to shoot a bullet at the side of a massive barn, and the defensive goal being to shoot down that bullet. It seems impossible to imagine a state of technology between near peers where the latter becomes easier than the former.
Others have explained why MAD has nothing to do with "tolerating" the use of nukes, and is instead more about game theory.
But let me put it in familiar worlds from pop culture:
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
(Because Iran doesn't have nukes, it's currently being forced into playing and making losing moves.)
But let me put it in familiar worlds from pop culture:
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
(Because Iran doesn't have nukes, it's currently being forced into playing and making losing moves.)
I completely understand MAD and game theory.
What I’m saying precisely is that quite often things will appear to be one way for a long time even if the underlying premise is wrong. E.g. the chicken who thinks the farmer is nice because the farmer feeds, houses, and provides safety until the inevitable untimely end for the chicken.
Similar situations which are assumed to be impossible have risks pushed right up to the edge until it becomes inevitable. Sure Pakistan and India narrowly averted this time but what if they didn’t. Take for example the concept that US housing market couldn’t crash simultaneously across the US, this enabled cheap debt which pushed the market to the edge until one day it went over the edge.
There is additionally the problem of victory disease, it looks like you’re winning right up until you fail.
There is a survivability bias, we wouldn’t be discussing the viability of MAD had it not worked out thus far.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon they’ll be able to avoid being invaded while being able to constantly needle Israel, to the point the survival of Israel would be at stake. Similar to how Israel is needling Iran now but with proxies. At that point Israel must make a choice, peacefully collapse or escalate and I’m confident they’ll escalate. I don’t think it’s a question of if but a question of when, once the threshold has been crossed the once unthinkable becomes routine.
Additionally the inaction of a strong adversary is often seen incorrectly as sign of weakness, but it is the cornered rats that lashes out. We can cross Russia’s and Chinas red lines all day every day, right up until they think they’re a cornered rat and then we can’t. How confident can we really be that we know exactly where that limit is. Because the bellicose are more often promoted the people marking these assessments are more likely to have an overly optimistic on the location of that limit. It appears to me China and Russia have a wait and see approach to the US which appears to be in terminal decline, and yet again the west is taking that as a sign of weakness.
When you have morons in charge not even MAD can save you.
What I’m saying precisely is that quite often things will appear to be one way for a long time even if the underlying premise is wrong. E.g. the chicken who thinks the farmer is nice because the farmer feeds, houses, and provides safety until the inevitable untimely end for the chicken.
Similar situations which are assumed to be impossible have risks pushed right up to the edge until it becomes inevitable. Sure Pakistan and India narrowly averted this time but what if they didn’t. Take for example the concept that US housing market couldn’t crash simultaneously across the US, this enabled cheap debt which pushed the market to the edge until one day it went over the edge.
There is additionally the problem of victory disease, it looks like you’re winning right up until you fail.
There is a survivability bias, we wouldn’t be discussing the viability of MAD had it not worked out thus far.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon they’ll be able to avoid being invaded while being able to constantly needle Israel, to the point the survival of Israel would be at stake. Similar to how Israel is needling Iran now but with proxies. At that point Israel must make a choice, peacefully collapse or escalate and I’m confident they’ll escalate. I don’t think it’s a question of if but a question of when, once the threshold has been crossed the once unthinkable becomes routine.
Additionally the inaction of a strong adversary is often seen incorrectly as sign of weakness, but it is the cornered rats that lashes out. We can cross Russia’s and Chinas red lines all day every day, right up until they think they’re a cornered rat and then we can’t. How confident can we really be that we know exactly where that limit is. Because the bellicose are more often promoted the people marking these assessments are more likely to have an overly optimistic on the location of that limit. It appears to me China and Russia have a wait and see approach to the US which appears to be in terminal decline, and yet again the west is taking that as a sign of weakness.
When you have morons in charge not even MAD can save you.
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
with the lack of a war happening between them? neither side invaded or killed 800 of the other's citizens and US/china didnt step in to back their horse with bombs
> with the lack of a war happening between them?
What was this, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co...
What was this, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co...
thats what a "war" looked like when both parties have nukes
ukraine is what a war looks like when both parties dont have nukes
ukraine is what a war looks like when both parties dont have nukes
In case of Ukraine one party has nukes, the biggest nuke arsenal in the world actually
That's what they meant: that's what war looks like when both parties don't have nukes. It's usually the defending party which benefits from nukes the most; and both parties having nukes makes every war a very dangerous affair (if it goes unchecked, as opposed to limited like India-Pakistan).
I think it was meant like not (A has nukes and B has nukes) rather than (not A has nukes) and (not B has nukes). Strange wording, I felt the same way too.
Thats what i meant. Unles both parties have nukes, it will become a proper war where countries are destroyed
Looking at india pakistan, and ukraine russia, its clear whether you should give your nuclear arsenal up or not
Looking at india pakistan, and ukraine russia, its clear whether you should give your nuclear arsenal up or not
The thing that lasted 4 days and had less than 100 people killed?
Nukes make individual countries safer, but every additional country with nukes makes the world as a whole less safe.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. We naturally always try to paint the "enemy" as an unhinged maniac ready to unless destruction on the entire world at a whim, but in reality I don't think this is pretty much ever the case. A population with the industrial and intellectual capability to develop a nuke in the first place is going to have grander ambitions than going out in a blaze of glory. I think even ultra-fundamentalists like the Taliban mostly just want to build up their own little vision of a utopia.
I think a part of the reason North Korea plays crazy is because they have to. If the US didn't think they'd push the big red button, then we'd invade them in a heart-beat. Mutually assured destruction only works when you believe the other guy will push the button. So you need the bomb and then you also need to make sure everybody thinks you're willing to actually use it.
I think a part of the reason North Korea plays crazy is because they have to. If the US didn't think they'd push the big red button, then we'd invade them in a heart-beat. Mutually assured destruction only works when you believe the other guy will push the button. So you need the bomb and then you also need to make sure everybody thinks you're willing to actually use it.
Sorry for the repetition but I'm just going to repeat this every time it comes up. Maybe some day I'll make it a bot.
North Korea has enough conventional rocket artillery within range of Seoul to level the city. This is how Kim was able to run his nuclear program to completion in the first place. It also hasn't changed.
North Korea has enough conventional rocket artillery within range of Seoul to level the city. This is how Kim was able to run his nuclear program to completion in the first place. It also hasn't changed.
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.)
(Probably the risk to S. Korea, and the risk of pulling China into a war.)
The DMZ is 35 miles north of Seoul and there are enough NK artillery pieces aimed at Seoul to level it.
Iran has been attacking Israel for the last 30 years and everyone seems to agree that Israel has nukes… so clearly nukes don’t actually work as a deterrent, unless (again according to many comments here) you attack a genocidal state who’s only goal is to kill everyone but not use the only weapon at your disposal that can actually accomplish that goal.
Iraq also attacked an allegedly nuclear capable Israel without fear of a nuclear reprisal.
Iraq also attacked an allegedly nuclear capable Israel without fear of a nuclear reprisal.
> Iran has been attacking Israel for the last 30 years
Please give dates, locations, and number of casualties. Iran has made many aggressive statements and funded and armed Palestinian resistance organizations, but actual conflict between Israel and Iran has been mostly clandestine and not officially acknowledged, with a few exceptions where Israel and the US unilaterally attack Iran.
Please give dates, locations, and number of casualties. Iran has made many aggressive statements and funded and armed Palestinian resistance organizations, but actual conflict between Israel and Iran has been mostly clandestine and not officially acknowledged, with a few exceptions where Israel and the US unilaterally attack Iran.
Houthis and Hezbollah are both arms of Iranian regime, acting directly under IRGC direction.
Libya giving up its nukes is the precise reason Iran doubled down on its program.
>recent events show that instead, every country should have nukes if they want to be safe.
More recent events show that it doesn't matter. India-Pakistan endless fight.
And Ukraine. Imagine they had nukes in 2022 and russian army advances. Should they nuke russian cities? It would not stop troops and give them more motivation to fight, to revenge. Should they nuke russian troops? To many nukes need for such large frontline.
More recent events show that it doesn't matter. India-Pakistan endless fight.
And Ukraine. Imagine they had nukes in 2022 and russian army advances. Should they nuke russian cities? It would not stop troops and give them more motivation to fight, to revenge. Should they nuke russian troops? To many nukes need for such large frontline.
Why would they hit the front line?
The only nuclear weapons Ukraine would need is enough to reliably ensure Moscow and St Petersburg cease existing.
Do you really think the US would trade Washington and New York for a chunk of Mexico?
The only nuclear weapons Ukraine would need is enough to reliably ensure Moscow and St Petersburg cease existing.
Do you really think the US would trade Washington and New York for a chunk of Mexico?
What do you think happens once Ukraine takes those two cities out with theoretical nukes in an alternate timeline?
Does it matter? The Russian parliament, most of it's wealthy citizens and all the critical industries would be dead.
Like...that's the whole point of MAD. You might as well ask "well why didn't the US and Soviet Union go to war? Obviously they won't launch..."
The entire point of a nuclear deterrent is it stops people asking those sorts of questions, because ultimately it's a gamble. The only guarantee you get is "don't invade my territory and I won't launch". As soon as you start not doing that, you get to ask if you think it's a 1% chance, or a 2% chance, or or or... You get to find out when your capital and most populous city do or do not explode. And you get to roll those dice over and over again.
Like I said: what % chance of Washington DC, and New York City being obliterated would you take for a chunk of Mexico? Obviously if Mexico launch you're going to blow the hell out of it's capital and probably some other targets, but you aren't going to be doing that till after those two cities are gone.
Like...that's the whole point of MAD. You might as well ask "well why didn't the US and Soviet Union go to war? Obviously they won't launch..."
The entire point of a nuclear deterrent is it stops people asking those sorts of questions, because ultimately it's a gamble. The only guarantee you get is "don't invade my territory and I won't launch". As soon as you start not doing that, you get to ask if you think it's a 1% chance, or a 2% chance, or or or... You get to find out when your capital and most populous city do or do not explode. And you get to roll those dice over and over again.
Like I said: what % chance of Washington DC, and New York City being obliterated would you take for a chunk of Mexico? Obviously if Mexico launch you're going to blow the hell out of it's capital and probably some other targets, but you aren't going to be doing that till after those two cities are gone.
Probably because the country you live in has one or is under unconditional protection of one.
I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their position. As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission is to maintain peace and prevent large-scale conflict on the planet. This should be the only entity that is approved to have nuclear weapons.
what do you think could be a first step that moves us in that direction?
In a reasonable world, the first step would be reforming NATO so that it becomes more neutral and focused on preventing wars rather than countering Russia. I'm saying this as a Pole, so definitely this isn't self-serving, since Poles are second most hated by Russians after Ukraine. This step should, however, happen in parallel with the EU developing its European army, to defend itself from Russia if that's needed, which is another challenging and non-obvious step, but we're closer to this now than we were before Trump.
However, we don't live in a reasonable world, so I suspect the first step will be, as much as I don't want it, World War III.
However, we don't live in a reasonable world, so I suspect the first step will be, as much as I don't want it, World War III.
Let’s be honest - like most international law, it’s just a coat of paint over the stronger demand the weaker do what they say.
If it wasn’t the US as the world’s leading power, but rather China, the list of countries forced to give up nuclear programs would be entirely different.
I’m not against trying to limit nuclear proliferation, but trying to paint it as some democratic legal process is naive.
The US loves to use the UN as cover for their own strategic goals, but happy to ignore the UN if it benefits them. Same with those talking nuclear non-proliferation.
If it wasn’t the US as the world’s leading power, but rather China, the list of countries forced to give up nuclear programs would be entirely different.
I’m not against trying to limit nuclear proliferation, but trying to paint it as some democratic legal process is naive.
The US loves to use the UN as cover for their own strategic goals, but happy to ignore the UN if it benefits them. Same with those talking nuclear non-proliferation.
> 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.
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 suppose what "approved" means is in the eye of the beholder.
Iran is a signatory of the NPT so - not approved.
> signatory of the NPT
>> A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them.
you're both correct.
Also note the Iranian monarchy signed the NPT in 1970, while the Iranian Revolution was in 1979. When your national origin story is built on the illegitimacy of the previous government, why would you consider yourself to be constrained by the actions of your illegitimate parents?
When the west has had such overthrows, we've tended to declare the acts of the previous administration null-and-void https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_9_August_1944
Not saying the current Iranian government is good, just acknowledging that legitimacy is determined by the victors, and the current regime has been victorious over the previous, just as last night's B2's were victorious against the air defenses. Might makes right, morality is increasingly a propaganda story, and history really is written by the victors.
>> A bunch of countries got them, then decided that no one else is allowed them.
you're both correct.
Also note the Iranian monarchy signed the NPT in 1970, while the Iranian Revolution was in 1979. When your national origin story is built on the illegitimacy of the previous government, why would you consider yourself to be constrained by the actions of your illegitimate parents?
When the west has had such overthrows, we've tended to declare the acts of the previous administration null-and-void https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_9_August_1944
Not saying the current Iranian government is good, just acknowledging that legitimacy is determined by the victors, and the current regime has been victorious over the previous, just as last night's B2's were victorious against the air defenses. Might makes right, morality is increasingly a propaganda story, and history really is written by the victors.
It's not about "authorized" or "unauthorized". If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind. The problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism getting nukes.
There was a hope that once they acquired nuclear weapons, rogue countries would become responsible, because they didn't need to worry about their own existence. Pakistan has proven this theory wrong, sponsoring terrorism in in its neighbouring countries and abroad while being immune from the consequences.
There was a hope that once they acquired nuclear weapons, rogue countries would become responsible, because they didn't need to worry about their own existence. Pakistan has proven this theory wrong, sponsoring terrorism in in its neighbouring countries and abroad while being immune from the consequences.
What marks a state out as being religiously extreme? Or sponsoring terror? Stuff like killing politicians of the opposing side? Pardoning insurrectionists on your side? Sponsoring organisations that badger mothers in foreign nations as they attempt to get an abortion?
Pretty sure it is the fundamentalist theocracy.
>problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism getting nukes.
Yes, tell me more about the US please
Yes, tell me more about the US please
Ha, I read that sentence and thought "huh, but the US already has nukes". And Israel for that matter.
> If Switzerland or Brazil acquired nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone would really mind.
I think all current nuclear-weapon states would very much care, because it diminishes their status. Also Switzerland or Brasil would be breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would make even more countries and the UN and IAEA care.
I think all current nuclear-weapon states would very much care, because it diminishes their status. Also Switzerland or Brasil would be breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would make even more countries and the UN and IAEA care.
I don’t see any B2s flying over Israel.
Treaties between nations, Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and would be in violation. [1]
In general many sanctions around nukes are based on many many treaties and the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs. [2]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferat...
[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
In general many sanctions around nukes are based on many many treaties and the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs. [2]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferat...
[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
A bunch of countries joined the non-proliferation agreement, including ... Iran. Which makes those nukes illegal in the eye of Iranian own laws.
Israel is not a singer of the treaty.
Israel is not a singer of the treaty.
As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program. It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.
> As a counter-point, South Africa is unique as the only country to develop and subsequently dismantle a nuclear weapons program.
Several countries have voluntarily dismantled nuclear weapons programs (the participants in the South American nuclear arms race of the 1980s being examples), and several countries have voluntary disarmed of actual nuclear weapons. South Africa is not unique in doing either.
It is arguably unique among the latter group in not having inherited the weapons as a successor state from a distinct preceding regime, but even if we were going to draw broad conclusions from n=1 examples, its quite arguably that that is less relevant to the difference in experience versus that of (say) Ukraine than other geopolitical factors.
> It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.
Kind of hard to specifically isolate the loss of regional power South Africa experienced from nuclear disarmament from the loss of regional power it experienced from other causes concurrently, but it certainly had less after than before.
Several countries have voluntarily dismantled nuclear weapons programs (the participants in the South American nuclear arms race of the 1980s being examples), and several countries have voluntary disarmed of actual nuclear weapons. South Africa is not unique in doing either.
It is arguably unique among the latter group in not having inherited the weapons as a successor state from a distinct preceding regime, but even if we were going to draw broad conclusions from n=1 examples, its quite arguably that that is less relevant to the difference in experience versus that of (say) Ukraine than other geopolitical factors.
> It built 6 nuclear weapons during the apartheid era, but then voluntarily dismantled them and joined the NPT. This decision was influenced by international pressure, political changes, and a desire for greater global integration. Despite that, it suffered no negative consequences to its sovereignty or regional power projection abilities.
Kind of hard to specifically isolate the loss of regional power South Africa experienced from nuclear disarmament from the loss of regional power it experienced from other causes concurrently, but it certainly had less after than before.
Well don't you know? In the worldview of certain people there are major powers and all other countries have to lick their boots or perish. Whether that major power is the US, China or Russia depends on the particulars, but a surprising amount of people hold that opinion, probably without even being aware of it.
What made me realize that was the people who jumped in defense of Russia, because the people of Ukraine aren't allowed to join EU or NATO, because for some reason the people of a sovereign country have to respect the will of a paranoid neighbour, who wants to keep a "buffer zone" for completely irrational reasons. Who would have invaded? The Belgians?
And I mention the Ukraine because they will surely think:"We should have kept those nukes". And wo can blame them, one of the powers at the Budapest memorandum attacked them while the other two reluctantly sent weapons. So with nukes they would have had better cards.
After this episode the Iran is probably more motivated than ever to get nukes. And who can blame them, they had a good deal with the west, Trump comes along tears it up, can't deal with the consequences of tearing it up, Israel is so comfy the US will dance to its tune they attack and surely the clowns dance. Lesson: don't make deals, these idiots just listen to raw power.
Who loses? Everybody.
What made me realize that was the people who jumped in defense of Russia, because the people of Ukraine aren't allowed to join EU or NATO, because for some reason the people of a sovereign country have to respect the will of a paranoid neighbour, who wants to keep a "buffer zone" for completely irrational reasons. Who would have invaded? The Belgians?
And I mention the Ukraine because they will surely think:"We should have kept those nukes". And wo can blame them, one of the powers at the Budapest memorandum attacked them while the other two reluctantly sent weapons. So with nukes they would have had better cards.
After this episode the Iran is probably more motivated than ever to get nukes. And who can blame them, they had a good deal with the west, Trump comes along tears it up, can't deal with the consequences of tearing it up, Israel is so comfy the US will dance to its tune they attack and surely the clowns dance. Lesson: don't make deals, these idiots just listen to raw power.
Who loses? Everybody.
[deleted]
here is more about that bomb : https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-b#394257unker-buster-a...
Looks like your URL got munged. Try: https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-exper...
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).
If Netanyahu stepped down tomorrow, apparently the most likely successor would be Israel Katz. He would maintain basically the same foreign policy.
But his corruption trial would go ahead. Lots of recent Israeli government decisions appear to be best understood through this lens.
It's unsurprising but very, very depressing.
It's unsurprising but very, very depressing.
In this specific case of the Iranian nuclear program, I believe the highly-enriched uranium weights more in the balance than any other domestic reason for Netanyahu to act. There’s no way any Israeli government will willingly let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
Sure, but he's been complaining about Iran getting nukes for 30 years now. It's interesting that this happened round about the time there was a split in his coalition about the Orthodox and IDF service.
I think that every person I dislike belongs in prison
These people don’t deserve fair trial
Source: Because I said so
—-
"Might makes right"
"The stronger always blames the weaker"
"My need of food is guilt enough of yours" ("Ты виноват уж тем, что хочется мне кушать")
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_and_the_Lamb
These people don’t deserve fair trial
Source: Because I said so
—-
"Might makes right"
"The stronger always blames the weaker"
"My need of food is guilt enough of yours" ("Ты виноват уж тем, что хочется мне кушать")
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_and_the_Lamb
smcl(1)
> I think Netanyahu belongs in prison
For those who didn't know: There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of. But as long as he can lead Israel in a state of emergency, he can have those delayed, or perhaps even work around them.
This new war against Iran also diverts attention away from what is happening in Gaza. The starvation has entered a new critical phase. The populace has been concentrated, so they can no longer work the fields. The number of sites that are handing out food aid have been greatly reduced, and dozens of people are killed every day by Israeli soldiers while they are trying to get to the sites.
For those who didn't know: There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of. But as long as he can lead Israel in a state of emergency, he can have those delayed, or perhaps even work around them.
This new war against Iran also diverts attention away from what is happening in Gaza. The starvation has entered a new critical phase. The populace has been concentrated, so they can no longer work the fields. The number of sites that are handing out food aid have been greatly reduced, and dozens of people are killed every day by Israeli soldiers while they are trying to get to the sites.
ICC also has an arrest warrant against Netanyahu.
For events in Gaza last year, yes. The corruption charges are older and domestic only.
Yes, but it does significantly limit any "flee the country" options for escaping domestic charges.
Not all that much. Practically speaking, NATO countries will not arrest him.
ICC is being hosted by a NATO country ...
Netanyahu has visited countries which are signatories and not been arrested. Even politicians in the Netherlands have said that they will not arrest him if he comes.
Those visits only happened because he was given the guarantee of not being arrested. I.e. they happened in the name of diplomacy.
Also, don't mix up a politician's personal opinions and official policy.
Also, don't mix up a politician's personal opinions and official policy.
beepbopboopp(1)
That is too broad. There are NATO countries who will not currently arrest Netanyahu, but not all. The tide of public opinion has turned against Israel in even the countries most supportive like Germany and the US, so it's only a matter of time.
Wasn’t there some sort of the parliamentary issue with his government that this new war will push off as well?
> This new war against Iran also diverts attention away from what is happening in Gaza
my interpretation is: disable Hamas (who embeds amongst civilians), then go after Iran (the true head of the dragon).
my interpretation is: disable Hamas (who embeds amongst civilians), then go after Iran (the true head of the dragon).
What is the difference between chasing an imagined "Hamas" among the civilians and just starving and killing civilians?
> chasing an imagined "Hamas" among the civilians
what do you mean by this? that there is no Hamas, or that they aren't embedded amongst civilians, or something else?
what do you mean by this? that there is no Hamas, or that they aren't embedded amongst civilians, or something else?
that what israel is targeting is unrelated to hamas being at some point embedded amongst civilians, or whether they exist at all.
israel is instead making up its own hamas, and then bombing the food aid to target the civilians.
israel is instead making up its own hamas, and then bombing the food aid to target the civilians.
Israel is clearly capable of targeted attacks, like hitting one bedroom in a large apartment building in Iran. Yet they continue to use block sized bombs in Gaza.
They released footage of Hamas leaders being assassinated by drones to prove that Hamas really does exist. But they gotta bomb those hospitals to be extra sure.
Where is Hamas? How come I see Ukraine vs Russia combat footage every single day but only dead children out of Palestine? Where’s the IDF/Hamas combat footage? It’s because the IDF is just bombing kids.
There is no Hamas and if there is there’s barely any
There is no Hamas and if there is there’s barely any
avip(1)
lol. Embeds among civilians? Like the IDF does, with military underground bases? Disable Hamas via genocide? By destroying every hospital in Gaza? By raping Palestinian women & girls? By looting their homes? By bombing and starving them?
Exactly who is the Dragon here? You think Israel’s bloodlust is done with Iran? They want much more Territory across the Middle East. They are occupying parts of Cypress right now, And have craving for parts of Egypt and more.
Exactly who is the Dragon here? You think Israel’s bloodlust is done with Iran? They want much more Territory across the Middle East. They are occupying parts of Cypress right now, And have craving for parts of Egypt and more.
billy99k(2)
Territory?! What the hell are you talking about?! They offered to retain a tiny portion of territory some decades ago, and that was rejected. You can say whatever you want, but this is not about land. That is ignorance. Sorry.
Israel has already this year claimed a chunk of Syria, and has destroyed over 100,000 (!!!) homes in Lebanon with the clear intention of taking that land too.
Could you please give a source for that information? I mean what chunk of Syria, and how was the claim done?
Sure, here's stories from the Guardian in March, and Al Jazeera from last December: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/12/israel-to-occu..., https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/9/qatar-saudi-arabia-...
And here's HRW and France regarding Lebanon - Israel even destroyed the fields: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/17/lebanon-destruction-of-i..., https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250218-returning-leb...
And here's HRW and France regarding Lebanon - Israel even destroyed the fields: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/17/lebanon-destruction-of-i..., https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250218-returning-leb...
[deleted]
But they don't claim that territory is now Israel, do they?
Multiple Israeli ministers have publicly made the claim. But no, for now they are only saying that they will stay there for as long as they want. I'm sure destroying all those homes has nothing to do with it either...
Ok. I just misunderstood several comments, which say it is about gaining territory. And I see no evidence to support that. There are military operations, occupations, but nothing really solid that show intention of taking territory for later civilian use, or anex to Israel. Those are very different things. E.g. Russia is invading with a clear goal of annexing land; but Israel not ao much.
I am not saying is good or bad, just that the goal seems different here.
I am not saying is good or bad, just that the goal seems different here.
“Head of the dragon” what’s that supposed to mean? Reminds me of language used by Israel citizens and government to describe the regime without pointing to hard facts. As far as I can see there’s many aggressors in that area. Israel is a main one.
You’re going to be brow beaten and down voted but you’re speaking the truth.
What other country is attacking or has attacked its neighbors as Israel has? What other country has been executing a live-streamed genocide that you can see the outcomes of on Instagram?
Just yesterday I saw a video of a mother comforting her infant whose leg was blown off by Israeli bombs. And yet these religious fanatics are the ones we call our “allies”.
What other country is attacking or has attacked its neighbors as Israel has? What other country has been executing a live-streamed genocide that you can see the outcomes of on Instagram?
Just yesterday I saw a video of a mother comforting her infant whose leg was blown off by Israeli bombs. And yet these religious fanatics are the ones we call our “allies”.
stickfigure(2)
> disable Hamas (who embeds amongst civilians)
Hamas recruits among civilians. Radicalized civilians. And Israel has just radicalized even more Palestinians, creating even better recruiting ground for Hamas.
Israel has supported Hamas because it's a very convenient enemy for them. Hamas wants to wipe Israel from the map, and to Israel, that means a powerful Hamas controlling Palestine justifies their wiping Palestine off the map.
During the 1980s, when the PLO was the dominant force in Palestine and wanted a two-state solution, Israel supported the much less influential Hamas in order to undermine PLO's position. And I think in 2017, Israel asked Qatar to support Hamas.
Note that the Netanyahu government only goes after the people on the ground, not the leadership abroad. And they clearly have no problem killing and radicalizing more Palestinian civilians.
Hamas recruits among civilians. Radicalized civilians. And Israel has just radicalized even more Palestinians, creating even better recruiting ground for Hamas.
Israel has supported Hamas because it's a very convenient enemy for them. Hamas wants to wipe Israel from the map, and to Israel, that means a powerful Hamas controlling Palestine justifies their wiping Palestine off the map.
During the 1980s, when the PLO was the dominant force in Palestine and wanted a two-state solution, Israel supported the much less influential Hamas in order to undermine PLO's position. And I think in 2017, Israel asked Qatar to support Hamas.
Note that the Netanyahu government only goes after the people on the ground, not the leadership abroad. And they clearly have no problem killing and radicalizing more Palestinian civilians.
I kinda miss those secular Palestinian militants...
xdennis(1)
This is exactly what's happening and I wish people would say it more often. Plenty of reporting showed the IDF had indication oct 7 attacks were about to happen and warnings were ignored.
> During the 1980s, when the PLO was the dominant force in Palestine and wanted a two-state solution, Israel supported the much less influential Hamas in order to undermine PLO's position. And I think in 2017, Israel asked Qatar to support Hamas
You have got that the other way around. Hamas was founded in 1987 during the Intifada, before the PLO started supporting a two state solution in 1988. The reason the PLO made that shift was that it was in exile and a new leadership in Palestine was formed (including Hamas), and they were afraid they will lose relevancy.
In 1987 and going forward Hamas fought Israel, so claiming Israel supported it is paradoxical.
Qatari money was transferred to Hamas prior to any Israeli involvement as early as 2007, sometimes in cash through the tunnels.
In 2017 the Palestinian Authority refused to transfer taxes collected to the Hamas Gaza government or pay Israel for Gaza's electricity, leading to an economical downturn in Gaza.
Because of the pending humanitarian crisis that would probably end in starvation due to Gaza less than stellar economy, whose blame would be put on Israel as is accustomed, Qatar was used as a lesser evil solution. It allowed Israel not to directly fund the Hamas government, which except for its military wing, is also its schools, hospitals, municipal and all other civilians functions.
The narrative you are repeating also repeats itself as Israel created Hezbollah or even as far as the US created ISIS, 9/11 was an inside job etc
The source of this narrative in my opinion is the old racist imperialist narrative where the so-called natives are merely children incapable of agency. Here in the post colonialist sense, if there is any evil actor around, its actions or mere existence must quickly be attributed to the West/Israel, or else cognitive dissonance abounds
You have got that the other way around. Hamas was founded in 1987 during the Intifada, before the PLO started supporting a two state solution in 1988. The reason the PLO made that shift was that it was in exile and a new leadership in Palestine was formed (including Hamas), and they were afraid they will lose relevancy.
In 1987 and going forward Hamas fought Israel, so claiming Israel supported it is paradoxical.
Qatari money was transferred to Hamas prior to any Israeli involvement as early as 2007, sometimes in cash through the tunnels.
In 2017 the Palestinian Authority refused to transfer taxes collected to the Hamas Gaza government or pay Israel for Gaza's electricity, leading to an economical downturn in Gaza.
Because of the pending humanitarian crisis that would probably end in starvation due to Gaza less than stellar economy, whose blame would be put on Israel as is accustomed, Qatar was used as a lesser evil solution. It allowed Israel not to directly fund the Hamas government, which except for its military wing, is also its schools, hospitals, municipal and all other civilians functions.
The narrative you are repeating also repeats itself as Israel created Hezbollah or even as far as the US created ISIS, 9/11 was an inside job etc
The source of this narrative in my opinion is the old racist imperialist narrative where the so-called natives are merely children incapable of agency. Here in the post colonialist sense, if there is any evil actor around, its actions or mere existence must quickly be attributed to the West/Israel, or else cognitive dissonance abounds
[deleted]
Let’s not forget that Benjamin Netanyahu even said once (that I know of from a recording) that the best thing for Israel is a strong Hamas.
I would really want to see that. Do you have a link?
Found it! For reference, I originally heard this in the Some More News episodes about “Uncomplicating the complicated situation in the West Bank”, but I can’t find those episodes at the moment.
> As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
> As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
Thanks! I now understand the context.
Israel under scharon has given gaza back including the settlements and got for that 700 civilians who followed the hamas members to murder, rape and kill children on the 7th October. Fuck all those fanatics ..
> Note that the Netanyahu government only goes after the people on the ground, not the leadership abroad.
Israel says it killed Iran's military co-ordinator with Hamas - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9yxrxwzzzo
Israel says it killed Iran's military co-ordinator with Hamas - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9yxrxwzzzo
> But as long as he can lead Israel in a state of emergency, he can have those delayed, or perhaps even work around them.
Well, that's kind of true. The Iran war has certainly stopped proceedings against Netanyahu, because the courts are shut down - along with much of the country.
That said, this can't last much because the economy is completely shut down, and the trials against him were ongoing, eve amidst the Gaza war.
So he can't just indefinitely put off the trial against him.
Well, that's kind of true. The Iran war has certainly stopped proceedings against Netanyahu, because the courts are shut down - along with much of the country.
That said, this can't last much because the economy is completely shut down, and the trials against him were ongoing, eve amidst the Gaza war.
So he can't just indefinitely put off the trial against him.
> So he can't just indefinitely put off the trial against him.
Unless he changes the law, which he's tried on multiple occasions
Unless he changes the law, which he's tried on multiple occasions
avip(3)
War crimes are only crimes when the war ends… start another war.
Recently, I read about the Qibya massacre [1]. Sometimes, even the end of war does not seem to bring any justice, and you wonder what kind of people manage to become prime minister...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre
Oh I’m definitely not defending the man. He’s scum. And you’re totally right - so many atrocities are swept under the rug.
>There are multiple charges of corruption against him, which he is probably guilty of.
For anyone who is not following the trial, as soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.
The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.
During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the presocution had the evidence to show it could not have occurred.
Don't assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.
https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/409910/ (use Google Translate)
For anyone who is not following the trial, as soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.
The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.
During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the presocution had the evidence to show it could not have occurred.
Don't assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.
https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/409910/ (use Google Translate)
Why are people getting in the weeds about these specific cases? Isn’t, you know, all the genociding a good enough reason for us to want him to be imprisoned? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading this thread.
is the destruction of gaza awful? yes. is it a genoicde? no. flippantly tossing words around devalues them and debases the conversation. https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/palestine/gaza
the 20 years leading up to trump, calling every republican a nazi, has completely destroyed the meaning of the word. trump is actually doing a lot of fascist leaning stuff this time around, and you could possibly use that word appropriately but it is currently meaningless.
the 20 years leading up to trump, calling every republican a nazi, has completely destroyed the meaning of the word. trump is actually doing a lot of fascist leaning stuff this time around, and you could possibly use that word appropriately but it is currently meaningless.
It's genocide. And the reason we were using the word nazi for twenty years was to try to warn everyone what was happening, but nobody listened, and now you got nazis.
mylons(1)
Calling everyone Nazis wasn’t to warn everyone. Fairly sure it was mostly just virtue signalling. Everyone using the word wasn’t around when WWII happened.
The result probably just desensitised people to what was going on since every little infraction the right did seemed to make them a nazi.
The result probably just desensitised people to what was going on since every little infraction the right did seemed to make them a nazi.
"flippantly tossing words around devalues them and debases the conversation." Agreed- and that's exactly what you are doing with the word, "no."
Soldiers are murdering an entire population- or as many of them as they can, seemingly- for political purposes that desire that population to simply not exist anymore. To say that is _not_ a genocide devalues the meaning of the word.
Soldiers are murdering an entire population- or as many of them as they can, seemingly- for political purposes that desire that population to simply not exist anymore. To say that is _not_ a genocide devalues the meaning of the word.
to say that is what is happening is completely disingenuous. seemingly something happened by the democratically elected government of Gaza on 10/7
What happened on 10/7 was terrible but a terror attack doesn't make what Israel does to Palestine less of a genocide.
There is a reason officials of both Hamas and Israel have been charged by the ICC.
> seemingly something happened by the democratically elected government of Gaza on 10/7
Gaza doesn't have a democratically elected government, and one of the reasons Palestine (of which Gaza is a region) does not have a democratically elected government is that Israel has exercised its power as an occupying power administering large parts of Palestine directly and controlling the rest indirectly to prevent elections which have been jointly agreed on by the two main factions.
And they’ve done that specifically to maintain the current violent and divided status quo, which they leverage as pretext to continue their long policy of genocide.
Gaza doesn't have a democratically elected government, and one of the reasons Palestine (of which Gaza is a region) does not have a democratically elected government is that Israel has exercised its power as an occupying power administering large parts of Palestine directly and controlling the rest indirectly to prevent elections which have been jointly agreed on by the two main factions.
And they’ve done that specifically to maintain the current violent and divided status quo, which they leverage as pretext to continue their long policy of genocide.
A democratically elected government invaded Iraq and killed a lot of Iraqis.
If Iraq got some sort of super advanced technology that made them the superpower in the world, would they be justified if they:
- Started bombing US cities, including hospitals, schoolsetc and killing US civilians?
- Would they be justified in cutting off food and water supply to all of the US?
- Sniping kids and people waving white flags in the head?
If Iraq got some sort of super advanced technology that made them the superpower in the world, would they be justified if they:
- Started bombing US cities, including hospitals, schoolsetc and killing US civilians?
- Would they be justified in cutting off food and water supply to all of the US?
- Sniping kids and people waving white flags in the head?
You are missing that:
* Hamas keeps its missiles, arms and other military equipment inside or underneath schools and hospitals
* UNRWA was functioning as an arms dealer by putting arms inside of bags of flour or other food items
* Hamas generally has its fighters not wear uniform, but instead wear civilian clothes or even niqabs (where only the eyes are visible). Making it extremely difficult for the IDF to determine who is a combatant and who isn't- and guaranteeing mistakes will be made.
* Hamas also uses child soldiers or orders children to throw stones at IDF soldiers - again ensuring IDF soldiers have to always be afraid the person in front of them is going to kill them and that they have to make split second decisions on what to do about it
* Hamas keeps its missiles, arms and other military equipment inside or underneath schools and hospitals
* UNRWA was functioning as an arms dealer by putting arms inside of bags of flour or other food items
* Hamas generally has its fighters not wear uniform, but instead wear civilian clothes or even niqabs (where only the eyes are visible). Making it extremely difficult for the IDF to determine who is a combatant and who isn't- and guaranteeing mistakes will be made.
* Hamas also uses child soldiers or orders children to throw stones at IDF soldiers - again ensuring IDF soldiers have to always be afraid the person in front of them is going to kill them and that they have to make split second decisions on what to do about it
Ah yes, the human shield argument. Like the "tunnels" and graphics provided by the IDF. Convenient isn't? Every hospital, apartment block, school and refugee camp has hamas in them, so everything is fair game.
ya it's pretty FUCKED UP that HAMAS does that, and Iran funds it, isn't it? or do you think Israel just wants to slaughter people weaker than them because they can? if that was their aim why did they wait until 10/8 to start doing it? they could have done it any time in the last 30 years.
Do you ever interrogate your own biases? do you tend to think of them as being justified and logically sound?
They're not "murdering an entire population"; although many thousands of Palestinians have been killed, it's still a tiny percentage of the total population.
But it's not necessary to murder an entire population for it to count as genocide. Any attempt to destroy a people counts, including forced sterilization, re-education, mass deportations, etc.
But it's also clear that Israel has explicitly targeted civilians, help workers, journalists, refugee camps, food distribution, and I've even read about them shooting people hiding in churches. None of those are valid targets.
But it's not necessary to murder an entire population for it to count as genocide. Any attempt to destroy a people counts, including forced sterilization, re-education, mass deportations, etc.
But it's also clear that Israel has explicitly targeted civilians, help workers, journalists, refugee camps, food distribution, and I've even read about them shooting people hiding in churches. None of those are valid targets.
The current campaign against Gazans satisfies the criteria for genocide.
Here is the UN definition for genocide. While you normally can't prove a negative, each jot and tittle of the definition is clear in the Gazans' case, so I leave it to you to figure out why you're so cautious to call a spade a spade and call a genocide a genocide.
> The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime.
> Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has been ratified by 153 States (as of April 2022). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. This means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.
> The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.
> # Definition
> Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
> ## Article II*
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> Killing members of the group;
> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> *Elements of the crime*
> The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
> The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
> 1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
> 2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
> 2a. Killing members of the group
> 2b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
> 2c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
> 2d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
> 2e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
> The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
> Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
Here is the UN definition for genocide. While you normally can't prove a negative, each jot and tittle of the definition is clear in the Gazans' case, so I leave it to you to figure out why you're so cautious to call a spade a spade and call a genocide a genocide.
> The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime.
> Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has been ratified by 153 States (as of April 2022). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. This means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.
> The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so.
> # Definition
> Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
> ## Article II*
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> Killing members of the group;
> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> *Elements of the crime*
> The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
> The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
> 1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
> 2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
> 2a. Killing members of the group
> 2b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
> 2c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
> 2d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
> 2e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
> The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
> Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
Well said.
ath3nd(1)
I love how no one mentioned trump or nazis in this immediate thread but the fact that you brought it up unprompted paints a perfect picture of exactly what kind of person you are. I don’t need to call you any names, you’ve outed yourself all by yourself.
Why you were downvoted for this is beyond me except in assuming this site to be full of fanatics for defending anything Israel's government does regardless of rationality or moral reasoning. I've long defended Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but when those policies mutate into deliberately starving a tiny, poverty stricken and crowded strip of land until you're knowingly causing the deaths of who knows how many little children and civilians through essentially deliberate starvation, it becomes a deeply, grotesquely criminal act. This deserves legal punishment, however unlikely that seems to be given the Israeli government's powerful backers and their absurd stubbornness in justifying monstrosities.
sometimes people who operate within rules-based systems mistakenly project those same rules outside of the same systems which they are operating within
Without commenting on your characterization of what is happening as "all the genociding", I want to actually answer your actual question - why are "we" talking about the weeds of this case.
There are a few completely separate issues here. GPs comment is talking about the internal-to-Israel, state-level trials against Netanyahu. These have been ongoing, started several years before the Gaza war, and are being adjudicated in Israeli courts right now. These actually have the power to force Netanyahu out of office or actually make changes to how he behaves - because they are internal to Israel, and if the court decides something, presumably the police and military will follow the courts. (Unless there's an actual coup and Israel stops being a democracy - which I don't think is even remotely likely, btw.)
There is no ongoing trial within Israel against Netanyahu related to the conduct of the war. In general, Israelis view the current war as being fought legally.
Regarding what you call "genocide" or other accusations of war crimes or illegal conduct in war - that's something that gets adjudicated by international courts like the ICC and ICJ. The ICJ has a case open against Israel, claiming it is committing genocide, and the ICC has a warrant out against Netanyahu for war crimes. Those are completely unrelated matters. They also have less immediate impact - because there is no real way to force Netanyahu to comply with those warrants.
There are a few completely separate issues here. GPs comment is talking about the internal-to-Israel, state-level trials against Netanyahu. These have been ongoing, started several years before the Gaza war, and are being adjudicated in Israeli courts right now. These actually have the power to force Netanyahu out of office or actually make changes to how he behaves - because they are internal to Israel, and if the court decides something, presumably the police and military will follow the courts. (Unless there's an actual coup and Israel stops being a democracy - which I don't think is even remotely likely, btw.)
There is no ongoing trial within Israel against Netanyahu related to the conduct of the war. In general, Israelis view the current war as being fought legally.
Regarding what you call "genocide" or other accusations of war crimes or illegal conduct in war - that's something that gets adjudicated by international courts like the ICC and ICJ. The ICJ has a case open against Israel, claiming it is committing genocide, and the ICC has a warrant out against Netanyahu for war crimes. Those are completely unrelated matters. They also have less immediate impact - because there is no real way to force Netanyahu to comply with those warrants.
I was speaking more to the desire for him to be put away, rather than the practical means of how to get there, but I appreciate your comment regardless.
This is HN. Half of the people here are Zionists and 45% don't care about anything except AI, Rust, and Rockets.
I am learning this. And to think I thought this place might be better than some other notable forms of social media. People need to remember what they do and don’t know about and learn not to comment so strongly on things they know nothing about…
after how many years in power one can assume that the prosecution is simply ineffective in uncovering something resembling the truth when it's directly about those in power?
Why investigate if we can simply assume the accused is guilty.
Why assume innocence when the accused has de-facto executive control over the prosecution?
This is simply not the case.
Edited: removed some inflammatory language I shouldn't have used.
Edited: removed some inflammatory language I shouldn't have used.
We should be clear about these cases that are brought against him (I'm not saying he isn't guilty, but context is important here):
Case 1 - as Minister of Communications he, allegedly, tried to get a tax extension for a company whose owners had given him expensive cigars and jewelry to his wife (worth $3100). The extension was not granted. He also tried to get a US visa for one of the owners.
Case 2 - One of the newspapers in Israel said that if he gave them advantages over a competing newpaper they would paint Bibi and his family in a positive light in their coverage
*Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
Case 1 - as Minister of Communications he, allegedly, tried to get a tax extension for a company whose owners had given him expensive cigars and jewelry to his wife (worth $3100). The extension was not granted. He also tried to get a US visa for one of the owners.
Case 2 - One of the newspapers in Israel said that if he gave them advantages over a competing newpaper they would paint Bibi and his family in a positive light in their coverage
*Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
Then you know… there’s the whole crimes against humanity thing from the ICC too…
Based on their heavily biased view of the Gaza conflict, based on their Arabic affiliations and the Hamas-run Gaza government’s reporting.
ezbie(1)
They're starving 2 million people in broad daylight and basically everyone in the highest levels of the administration has said blatantly genocidal shit, but yeah it's all just bias.
They used a computer program to target hamas members based on signals and other intelligence inclusive of people who are not in any way combatants.
Bombs including and especially large not particularly sophisticated bombs were dropped on entire buildings preferentially at night to ensure the target would be likely to be home with their wife and family and you know any other families in the same building.
Previously such strikes with very large numbers of collateral damage were authorized to kill top members of Hamas. Now they were authorized to hopefully an 18 year old cook irrespective of the 7 children that would burn to death painfully in the fire.
They recovered around 150 hostages at the cost of 50,000 children being killed or injured.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unimaginable-horrors-m...
Remember that Gaza isn't a democracy. Hamas is 50k people out of 2M of which the number of people that actually have decision making power would fit in a small room. Most people in Gaza aren't Hamas.
Israel is presently starving a large city full of people under the pretense of forcing them to leave knowing that can't do so. Starving people isn't morally different than herding them all into gas chambers.
If there is a place that needs immediate intervention it is using force to enforce peace in Gaza before all the remaining people in Gaza die.
Bombs including and especially large not particularly sophisticated bombs were dropped on entire buildings preferentially at night to ensure the target would be likely to be home with their wife and family and you know any other families in the same building.
Previously such strikes with very large numbers of collateral damage were authorized to kill top members of Hamas. Now they were authorized to hopefully an 18 year old cook irrespective of the 7 children that would burn to death painfully in the fire.
They recovered around 150 hostages at the cost of 50,000 children being killed or injured.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unimaginable-horrors-m...
Remember that Gaza isn't a democracy. Hamas is 50k people out of 2M of which the number of people that actually have decision making power would fit in a small room. Most people in Gaza aren't Hamas.
Israel is presently starving a large city full of people under the pretense of forcing them to leave knowing that can't do so. Starving people isn't morally different than herding them all into gas chambers.
If there is a place that needs immediate intervention it is using force to enforce peace in Gaza before all the remaining people in Gaza die.
> Case 3 - seemingly similar to Case 2, a large news website offered to portray Bibi in a better light if he would push through regulatory changes as Minisiter of Communications.
Favorable coverage was the original charge (סיקור אוהד). However, since this website was exteremely hostile to Netanyahu, the charge was changed to being unusually responsive* to requests from Netanyahu's spokespeople (הענות חריגה).
Favorable coverage was the original charge (סיקור אוהד). However, since this website was exteremely hostile to Netanyahu, the charge was changed to being unusually responsive* to requests from Netanyahu's spokespeople (הענות חריגה).
Side note to dang:
Please don’t delete this thread. Yes it’s getting pretty heated, but it’s by far the most rational discussion of this topic I’ve seen in a while. Plus I’ve learnt a few things, which tends to be a positive signal for quality
Please don’t delete this thread. Yes it’s getting pretty heated, but it’s by far the most rational discussion of this topic I’ve seen in a while. Plus I’ve learnt a few things, which tends to be a positive signal for quality
As long as he can deliver a checkmate.
>Israel
>The populace has been concentrated
>in a camp
ummmmmmmmmm
>The populace has been concentrated
>in a camp
ummmmmmmmmm
> unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility
Who authorized Manhattan Project?
Who authorized Manhattan Project?
"a genocidal smart evil man convinced a stupid evil man to attack a country with an evil regime" (paraphrasing)
[deleted]
Nice justification of illegal bombing. On point with Western values and racist attitudes.
The US Airforce specs for the GBU-57, and the independent assessment from Jane's are that is able to penetrate about 60 m (200 ft) of earth or 18 m of concrete.
Fordow sits beneath a thick cap on a limestone–dolomite mountain, whose compressive strength rivals granite, and the facility is at least at 90 to 100 meters. If a warhead detonates the carbonate stack fractures and absorbs the pressure wave, calcite dissociation soaks up heat, keeping the cavern wall below all braking thresholds and leaving the target probably intact.
And they had hundreds of trucks in and out the days before the attack: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/satellite-images-show-activi...
Maybe Iran will not retaliate, not because the attack was successful but because it was not.
This one is probably the highest resolution, publicly available picture post attack. It's notable how the fence is still perfectly aligned...
https://static-cdn.toi-media.com/www/uploads/2025/06/AFP__20...
Fordow sits beneath a thick cap on a limestone–dolomite mountain, whose compressive strength rivals granite, and the facility is at least at 90 to 100 meters. If a warhead detonates the carbonate stack fractures and absorbs the pressure wave, calcite dissociation soaks up heat, keeping the cavern wall below all braking thresholds and leaving the target probably intact.
And they had hundreds of trucks in and out the days before the attack: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/satellite-images-show-activi...
Maybe Iran will not retaliate, not because the attack was successful but because it was not.
This one is probably the highest resolution, publicly available picture post attack. It's notable how the fence is still perfectly aligned...
https://static-cdn.toi-media.com/www/uploads/2025/06/AFP__20...
As expected...
"U.S. strikes failed to destroy ‘core pieces’ of Tehran’s nuclear program" - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/24/israel-iran-ceasefire-live-u...
"U.S. strikes failed to destroy ‘core pieces’ of Tehran’s nuclear program" - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/24/israel-iran-ceasefire-live-u...
"unauthorized" is a weird description. the iranian government is the sovereign regulator in iran, and prsumably they did authorize it. they dont need anyone else's authorization, same as nobody authorizes what happens in the US except the US government
I think it's reasonable to use "unauthorized" to include international law and treaties. It is true that the US (and maybe every country?) also does "unauthorized" things, by that definition. But I still think it is a reasonable word to use.
>They should have shaped it like a giant piano.
I immediately thought about Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner.... wasted youth
I immediately thought about Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner.... wasted youth
Gonna need a source for that whole "weapons-grade uranium" claim, otherwise you sound like the New York Times for the last 30 years.
It's also very likely, and so far an exact figure is yet to be reported, that several smart, kind, and non-hostile scientists working towards a clean energy program were killed by this strike.
Celebrating death for the sake of a hypothetical is a very dangerous attitude, and is frankly repugnant to see as a top comment.
It's also very likely, and so far an exact figure is yet to be reported, that several smart, kind, and non-hostile scientists working towards a clean energy program were killed by this strike.
Celebrating death for the sake of a hypothetical is a very dangerous attitude, and is frankly repugnant to see as a top comment.
Could you maybe sync up with this person and hash this all out and come back to me with what it is I believe? Thanks!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44349794
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44349794
This seems like a tacit admittance of failing to have evidence for your claim of weapons-grade enriched uranium.
Work through the cognitive dissonance; it’ll be okay.
Work through the cognitive dissonance; it’ll be okay.
Here, I’ll help you out - there isn’t any. Wow. Oh my. Who ever could have seen that coming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/iran-uranium-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/iran-uranium-...
unathorized? they have let more nuclear inspectors into their country than israel. just because you don't agree with them having something doesn't mean you can bomb them.
FYI every credible expert agrees that Iran aren’t making bombs yet. They are enriching to 60%. Far from what’s needed for a weapon. They have been capable of making bombs for decades and have chosen not to. They even adhered to the JCPOA when Trump tire it up.
It’s odd to have a country that illegally proliferated treating a neighbor who isn’t doing that yet as the greatest threat to world piece. Backed by the only country that’s used nuclear weapons in anger.
It’s very possible that in a decade the Us will be at war in Iran. Trump and Netanyahu will be off the world stage. The cost to the US will be thousands of lives and several trillion and China will have taken Taiwan while we aren’t capable of stopping them.
These wars always seem to start well because destroying things is the easy but.
We don’t know if we’ve done much damage to the buried facilities. Bunker busters don’t dive very deep, they can be deflected via engineering, and concrete is cheap.
Conflict like this are what will definitively end “The American Century” and we are currently witnessing that.
You cannot bomb your way to peaceful coexistence.
It’s odd to have a country that illegally proliferated treating a neighbor who isn’t doing that yet as the greatest threat to world piece. Backed by the only country that’s used nuclear weapons in anger.
It’s very possible that in a decade the Us will be at war in Iran. Trump and Netanyahu will be off the world stage. The cost to the US will be thousands of lives and several trillion and China will have taken Taiwan while we aren’t capable of stopping them.
These wars always seem to start well because destroying things is the easy but.
We don’t know if we’ve done much damage to the buried facilities. Bunker busters don’t dive very deep, they can be deflected via engineering, and concrete is cheap.
Conflict like this are what will definitively end “The American Century” and we are currently witnessing that.
You cannot bomb your way to peaceful coexistence.
They are enriching to 60%. Far from what’s needed for a weapon.
83.7%, according to the United Nations: https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-g...
Only 6.3% short of weapons-grade.
As for the rest of your comment, you might find information about modern-day bunker busters interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/20/world/middlee...
The ones used for this operation go 197 feet, including 25 solid feet of high-strength concrete, with just one bomb. The idea is to use multiple bombs trailing one another to achieve extra depth. It's too soon yet to tell if that worked, or not.
83.7%, according to the United Nations: https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-g...
Only 6.3% short of weapons-grade.
As for the rest of your comment, you might find information about modern-day bunker busters interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/20/world/middlee...
The ones used for this operation go 197 feet, including 25 solid feet of high-strength concrete, with just one bomb. The idea is to use multiple bombs trailing one another to achieve extra depth. It's too soon yet to tell if that worked, or not.
From the image you describe it sounds like you think the situation is a bit of a cartoon, maybe a black and white one. Do you ever reflect on why that is?
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.
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.
Dunno - better than the alternative of Iran getting nukes.
It was not one or the other. Don't buy into that bullshit.
We’ve been “on the verge” of Iran getting nukes for decades. They’re about as credible as Saddam’s WMDs at this point. And even if they did I’m not sure that’s so bad. The fact that India and Pakistan both have nukes may help provide a deterrent due to MAD. Might do the same for Iran and Israel (which has nukes already).
> the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war
A lot of people saying this, what would this actually entail? My money is much more on this being a "1 and done" exchange. Iran poses very little threat now, launchers being taken out everyday, leadership chain wiped out, seemingly no other Iran allies getting pulled into the fold
A lot of people saying this, what would this actually entail? My money is much more on this being a "1 and done" exchange. Iran poses very little threat now, launchers being taken out everyday, leadership chain wiped out, seemingly no other Iran allies getting pulled into the fold
This only happens if Iran sits there and takes it. What if they close the strait? Or shoot missiles to US bases?
I have mixed feelings about the current state but is that a legitimate question. I imagine Iran would fire once on the US and then all heck would reign down on them from the skies. I don’t see a situation where Iran can hold on. Most of the people do not support the government.
> Most of the people do not support the government.
You're implying that a foreign power bombing Iran would make the people less likely to support their government. Do you have justification for that?
You're implying that a foreign power bombing Iran would make the people less likely to support their government. Do you have justification for that?
Iranian people hate the Ayatollahs. They execute any opposition. The populace is literally dying for change.
Yes, they do but they love IRAN even more. Defending the country against hostile forces is going to be their priority.
Which hostile forces? The US has attacked nuclear sites which they're using to build Nuclear bombs, not sent a warhead into Tehran. I think you're underestimating the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people people with the death cult in charge.
How about you Google SAVAK and then get back to me on how receptive you think Iranian citizens are of American "guidance" under "democratic leadership" and all that jazz.
I think you're underestimating how many Iranians the CIA allowed to be tortured and raped in the Shahist regime. Agree to disagree?
I think you're underestimating how many Iranians the CIA allowed to be tortured and raped in the Shahist regime. Agree to disagree?
So they're more concerned about something that was dissolved in 1979 more than the backward theocratic death cult in charge today?
aGrEe tO dIsAgReE?
Yes. Iran did have a democratically-elected Prime Minister before they were removed in a joint US-Israeli coup d'état. Iranians are perfectly justified in viewing America as the enemy of democratic reform. They are also justified in their worry over Israel installing a worse theocratic death cult, as I argued above.
Ah well, let's just leave them be then. The people are upset. You're right. We should just let them enrich a little more uranium and hope for the best.
What would happen to American patriotism if China "pre-emptively" attacked its military research facilities? It would be the only thing on the news, and the only thing people would want would be revenge.
Yeah but the difference is that America isn't a fundamentalist theocratic death cult hell bent on eradicating an entire religion and anyone associated with it. There's a stark difference there isn't there? Or are you trying to put Iran and America on the same plane?
> Yeah but the difference is that America isn't a fundamentalist theocratic death cult hell bent on eradicating an entire religion and anyone associated with it.
Are you sure about that now? Did you miss the part where your president was openly discussing plans on annexing territories from it's allies?
Ah, the American exceptionalism..
Are you sure about that now? Did you miss the part where your president was openly discussing plans on annexing territories from it's allies?
Ah, the American exceptionalism..
> death cult
USA is the most murderous country in the world, by far
USA is the most murderous country in the world, by far
Of course, but it's not a death cult though is it?
There's a difference between a calculated killer and an utterly mindless collective build upon the idea that everyone else should literally be dead.
Do you see my position? Should we just give these maniacs some nuclear bombs and hope for the best?
Being attacked boosts domestic support for leadership, even unpopular ones. If Iran actually attacked the US some how, you can bet Trump's approval rating goes up.
Definitely increases the fervor of the hardliners. Do I have a current pole for a good sample of folks in the country l? No. But have a pretty large number of friends who Iranian and also have been there a couple times. Most of the population do not like the government.
The power delta between The United Stated and Iran is lower than any of our other engagements since WW2, and look at how many resources were spent for questionable outcomes.
I can see this being true but I would be surprised this would ever be a boots on the ground situation for America. Don’t get me wrong, I have mixed feelings of the current state but I also don’t see how Iran would be able to hold any kind of air superiority. They are already being down by the tiny country of Israel.
What if they hit US bases using 'plausibly deniable' cutouts?
The Glorious Revolutionary Militia of country X, using Iranian built and supplied drones or missiles, blows up young American soldiers in a country half the electorate didn't even know there was a presence in. Iran disclaims all involvement, but says they sympathise with the legitimate frustration of the locals. Do you think the United States gets involved in a hot war against Iran based on that?
Remember the Beirut truck bombings. The biggest single day US Marine loss of life since Iwo Jima. Reagan (and Mitterand) immediately says there will be no withdrawal. They shoot a lot of artillery in the general direction of Hezbollah from a boat, then immediately withdraw all troops.
The Glorious Revolutionary Militia of country X, using Iranian built and supplied drones or missiles, blows up young American soldiers in a country half the electorate didn't even know there was a presence in. Iran disclaims all involvement, but says they sympathise with the legitimate frustration of the locals. Do you think the United States gets involved in a hot war against Iran based on that?
Remember the Beirut truck bombings. The biggest single day US Marine loss of life since Iwo Jima. Reagan (and Mitterand) immediately says there will be no withdrawal. They shoot a lot of artillery in the general direction of Hezbollah from a boat, then immediately withdraw all troops.
Reports are that if Iran keeps things going on, Israel is going to run out of interceptors in 10 days or so, at which point they are gonna be seriously damaged. Some missiles are already getting through, there's speculation of hyper-sonic missiles from Iran or just failure to shoot them down.
Either way: This doesn't stop here, and it was never about these bogus nuclear weapons (which are just around the corner since the 80's) just like Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction. They want to place a puppet government...what could go wrong?
Either way: This doesn't stop here, and it was never about these bogus nuclear weapons (which are just around the corner since the 80's) just like Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction. They want to place a puppet government...what could go wrong?
This isn’t accurate. The thing that’s going to possibly be depleted is “Arrow 3” - the first line of aerial defense (excluding operations that target the launchers within Iran). They still have plenty of Arrow 2 and David’s’ slingshot missiles.
this couldn't be more false - jordan and saudi have been shooting down iranian drones. you think america/israel is alone in this dogfight?
Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003 -- it also has extremely motivated backers in China, who are eagar to use it the way the US uses Ukraine: a means to deplete a peer competitor of their military resources. The best outcome for China here is the US blowing its assets in Iran.
The propaganda at the moment is israel is winning, iran isnt using missiles because of "air superiority", and the US is able and willing to detroy the nuclear capacity via the air. All of these claims are false. Iran's capacity to strike back remains vast using only its own resources.
What the US has been dragged into by israel is an amazing opportunity for a US peer competitor (china) to grind down its arms -- it would be remarkable if China doesn't take it. It can hardly afford the US to be a well-armed protector of Taiwan.
The iranian regieme's apparent hesitation at the moment is not as extreme as russia's on the first days of the ukraine war, and look at where we are now. This apparent hesitation is waiting for israel to deplete its missile defense, waiting for a more stable intelligence environment (presumably moving assets, etc. around out of uncovered israeli operations), and most of all, waiting for a moment to strike off-guard.
The propaganda at the moment is israel is winning, iran isnt using missiles because of "air superiority", and the US is able and willing to detroy the nuclear capacity via the air. All of these claims are false. Iran's capacity to strike back remains vast using only its own resources.
What the US has been dragged into by israel is an amazing opportunity for a US peer competitor (china) to grind down its arms -- it would be remarkable if China doesn't take it. It can hardly afford the US to be a well-armed protector of Taiwan.
The iranian regieme's apparent hesitation at the moment is not as extreme as russia's on the first days of the ukraine war, and look at where we are now. This apparent hesitation is waiting for israel to deplete its missile defense, waiting for a more stable intelligence environment (presumably moving assets, etc. around out of uncovered israeli operations), and most of all, waiting for a moment to strike off-guard.
The propaganda
What propaganda ? I’ve seen the footage of Iran firing flak cannons somewhere in the direction of f35s. Not a single Israeli plane has been lost…where is the lie ?
Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003* why assume they want the current leadership to remain in charge? Why assume they wanted nukes ?
You mention China grinding down its enemy ? What about the fact the air force is actually performing real missions being and gaining real experience ? Is a few bunker busters going to grind down the USAF ?
What propaganda ? I’ve seen the footage of Iran firing flak cannons somewhere in the direction of f35s. Not a single Israeli plane has been lost…where is the lie ?
Iran has a population of 92mil and an economy vastly stronger than iraq 2003* why assume they want the current leadership to remain in charge? Why assume they wanted nukes ?
You mention China grinding down its enemy ? What about the fact the air force is actually performing real missions being and gaining real experience ? Is a few bunker busters going to grind down the USAF ?
Neither you or I, and esp. not the media, have any access to facts on the ground. All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them.
All we can work backwards from are the most reliable facts we have before the war, about capabilities on the ground. We know the rough size of the iranian missile programme, of the country, economic, various military assets and similar.
We can work backwards from this to ask, "what would we be able to see had Israel achieved its claim re iran" -- and we're talking extraordinary levels of destruction in iran, across the country, and so on. We don't have any evidence of operations of that scale even taking place, let alone having been successful.
It is most likely, at the moment, that at least some alleged air force victories by israel are actual missiles they've issued from neighbouring states on the land.
However, either way, all of this is speculation. What can be stated with near certainty is that any picture presented in the media is an extremely careful creation of the propaganda arms of our states, and not a credible military briefing.
Our only access to reliable inferences is purely rational and hypothetical: what are X's aims, what are their claims, what are they claimed strategies, what are their capabilities and so on.. and then what would we see *if*...
All we can work backwards from are the most reliable facts we have before the war, about capabilities on the ground. We know the rough size of the iranian missile programme, of the country, economic, various military assets and similar.
We can work backwards from this to ask, "what would we be able to see had Israel achieved its claim re iran" -- and we're talking extraordinary levels of destruction in iran, across the country, and so on. We don't have any evidence of operations of that scale even taking place, let alone having been successful.
It is most likely, at the moment, that at least some alleged air force victories by israel are actual missiles they've issued from neighbouring states on the land.
However, either way, all of this is speculation. What can be stated with near certainty is that any picture presented in the media is an extremely careful creation of the propaganda arms of our states, and not a credible military briefing.
Our only access to reliable inferences is purely rational and hypothetical: what are X's aims, what are their claims, what are they claimed strategies, what are their capabilities and so on.. and then what would we see *if*...
>All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them
The source of most of the videos from both sides is random social media users.
Even the videos and info from the IDF I would regard as credible, since they released similar videos and info from the Lebanon operation last year that was consistently corroborated by evidence from social media (there was no internet blackout in Lebanon so every IDF strike on an urban area had multiple videos from different perspectives).
The source of most of the videos from both sides is random social media users.
Even the videos and info from the IDF I would regard as credible, since they released similar videos and info from the Lebanon operation last year that was consistently corroborated by evidence from social media (there was no internet blackout in Lebanon so every IDF strike on an urban area had multiple videos from different perspectives).
Social media users placed by iran's full missile defense systems? Social media users at the bottom of 100m of granite? Social media users amongst the iranian barracks?
I called the war for Russia ~2 years ago, just as the "counter offensive" by Ukraine was starting. Go back, if you wish, to that time in the news and find exactly what english-speaking western median, and social media, was saying.
What is the picture you get, of Ukraine and its counteroffensive, delivered to you from these sources?
It's always a little stunning just how easy it is for publics to be manipulated. Oh what a world.
I called the war for Russia ~2 years ago, just as the "counter offensive" by Ukraine was starting. Go back, if you wish, to that time in the news and find exactly what english-speaking western median, and social media, was saying.
What is the picture you get, of Ukraine and its counteroffensive, delivered to you from these sources?
It's always a little stunning just how easy it is for publics to be manipulated. Oh what a world.
You called the war for Russia? Did they win ?
Anyway why don’t we see videos from Iran of Israeli jets being shot down ? Why is there no footage of Irans airforce engaging Israel ? Why didn’t the B-2 spirits get attacked ? You can say it’s all lies and propaganda , but it’s not because there is no evidence to the contrary being presented.
Anyway why don’t we see videos from Iran of Israeli jets being shot down ? Why is there no footage of Irans airforce engaging Israel ? Why didn’t the B-2 spirits get attacked ? You can say it’s all lies and propaganda , but it’s not because there is no evidence to the contrary being presented.
I’m sorry in all this noise I’m failing to get to your point. Are you claiming that Iran is shooting down F-35s? Because that would be a pretty important piece of information that a lot of countries who have staked their Air Forces on the F-35 would like to know. It would also be a hard piece of information (damn near impossible) to keep under wraps, given the stakes, and the number of interested parties.
I'm claiming that the alleged air superiority is most likely partial and temporary.
I can make no specific claims as to any actions by any one involved in the conflict, if iran had shot down f35s presently, it'd be highly likely covered up by both sides. Iran to protect knowledge of its capability, and israel to ensure domestic morale is maintained.
Either way, that wasn't my claim.
I can make no specific claims as to any actions by any one involved in the conflict, if iran had shot down f35s presently, it'd be highly likely covered up by both sides. Iran to protect knowledge of its capability, and israel to ensure domestic morale is maintained.
Either way, that wasn't my claim.
I think you make a good point about the facts being heavily skewed in the reporting on the attacks in Iran. But this seems very unlikely to me:
> Iran to protect knowledge of its capability
Protect knowledge against who? Israel will know if one of their planes were shot down, US will know. Besides, Iran claims to have shot down f35s, so they clearly want people to think they have that capability.
> Iran to protect knowledge of its capability
Protect knowledge against who? Israel will know if one of their planes were shot down, US will know. Besides, Iran claims to have shot down f35s, so they clearly want people to think they have that capability.
I was merely giving a reason why Iran may not offer evidence of any given success --ie., , in doing so, it would reveal sensitive military information .
I was not making a claim about F35s anyway, I have no specific information nor have I considered any, on relevant claims about F35s
I was not making a claim about F35s anyway, I have no specific information nor have I considered any, on relevant claims about F35s
Iran claims to have shot down f35s
Propaganda ?
It's like they forgot about photoshop and just went full on AI. Photoshop would've done a much better job (in the right hands).
It's like they forgot about photoshop and just went full on AI. Photoshop would've done a much better job (in the right hands).
Definitely propaganda, but they were so laughable I'm not sure who they were fooling.
You had a hilariously large F-35 in one picture, like 5x normal size. In another picture, you had a downed F-35 was blown to pieces yet somehow the afterburners were still lit.
I guess they convinced some of the very lowest-information members of the populace, but damn.
You had a hilariously large F-35 in one picture, like 5x normal size. In another picture, you had a downed F-35 was blown to pieces yet somehow the afterburners were still lit.
I guess they convinced some of the very lowest-information members of the populace, but damn.
> I'm claiming that the alleged air superiority is most likely partial and temporary.
This is rich. It took minutes to claim the air over Iran, what exactly gives you the impression of strength? Two US carriers parked off the coast is enough to not only maintain that superiority, but to down the entirety of their very aged air force.
> Iran to protect knowledge of its capability
Let’s think this through. You could announce that you’ve downed an advanced fighter without explaining how and unless the US or Israel gets a hold of the wreckage to do an investigation, nobody but the pilot will know how it was downed. This logic that Iran is trying to protect some super secret method of downing advanced fighters doesn’t pass the smell check.
This is rich. It took minutes to claim the air over Iran, what exactly gives you the impression of strength? Two US carriers parked off the coast is enough to not only maintain that superiority, but to down the entirety of their very aged air force.
> Iran to protect knowledge of its capability
Let’s think this through. You could announce that you’ve downed an advanced fighter without explaining how and unless the US or Israel gets a hold of the wreckage to do an investigation, nobody but the pilot will know how it was downed. This logic that Iran is trying to protect some super secret method of downing advanced fighters doesn’t pass the smell check.
> All photographs or videos you have seen have been placed there for you to see them.
For those reading the above, wondering about this phenomenon, read Baudrilliard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Even if you don't agree with Baudrilliard's overall thesis, the facts he brings up are still cogent (e.g. a photo from the Exon Valdez spill was used instead of an actual photo of the Iraqi military's destruction of Kuwaiti oil fields). The media has been a critical aspect of war since at least the Falklands War.
For those reading the above, wondering about this phenomenon, read Baudrilliard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Even if you don't agree with Baudrilliard's overall thesis, the facts he brings up are still cogent (e.g. a photo from the Exon Valdez spill was used instead of an actual photo of the Iraqi military's destruction of Kuwaiti oil fields). The media has been a critical aspect of war since at least the Falklands War.
I am talking about open source and community driven footage and intel. Not CNN or Fox ?
I wonder if the regime is holding back so as to not piss off the remaining JCPOA signatories. They only have until October [1], and after that it's not clear if they can agree on a renewed set of sanctions.
[1] https://iranwire.com/en/politics/136431-how-the-snapback-mec...
[1] https://iranwire.com/en/politics/136431-how-the-snapback-mec...
China buys all their oil so not sure how much the sanctions are a problem
This is serious cope. Iran has never held back, they always go full tilt. They simply are the same paper tiger that Russia is, just now without the ability to produce nukes.
You always know an enemy is a paper tiger if it is at the same time weak and practically defeated and really dangerous and unhinged. Literally propaganda 101.
Just like foreigners who are lazy leeches on the social system and at the same how somehow steal our jobs.
Just like foreigners who are lazy leeches on the social system and at the same how somehow steal our jobs.
You can be a paper tiger and still pretty dangerous if you’re able to acquire nuclear weapons.
We dropped a dozen highly specialized bombs in a single, closed-end operation, and you're arguing that this meaningfully depleted the USAF magazine enough to move the needle on a conflict in Taiwan?
I'd be arguing first that the operation failed, and has made no meaningful impact on the mountain and esp. the nuclear facilities over 100m under granite.
Generous estimates place relevant bomb capacity in the US at 100, though I believe only ~1/3 of that is confirmed. Reports say ~10 were used. So, speculatively, the US has used 25% of its capacity to bust deep fortifications -- and, imv, failed to make a dent.
Credible estimates I'm aware of talk about dozens of bombs (per similar deep fortification), seriously depleting US capacity. It's unlikely the US would be willing to use up more than 50% of its bombing capacity here -- since a very large number of bombs are required for deep fortifications of this kind.
ie., US capacity is about "destroying two mountains", and it really needs at least to retain capacity to destroy one.
A well-designed nuke could take out the mountain, that's really the best air-supplied shot at taking the thing out.
Either way, none of this can be confirmed without ground forces. So one wonders if at least some of this theatre is to provoke iran enough to react in a way that justifies a ground invasion.
To your point, yes, china would absolutely love the US to degrade as much capacity as it possibly can. One images, even, they'd spin up a nuclear programme in iran very quickly again, just to try to drag the US back in. The US has done much worse.
China's geostrategic goal at the moment is stamp on the rope-pins around the US elephant: ukraine, iran, israel, and so on. Have the US blow as much as possible of its rapidly depleting military arsenal everywhere but around china.
Trump was the first president to really take this problem seriously, it's a little unfortunate that he's found himself in the same trap as every US president for the last 25 years.
Generous estimates place relevant bomb capacity in the US at 100, though I believe only ~1/3 of that is confirmed. Reports say ~10 were used. So, speculatively, the US has used 25% of its capacity to bust deep fortifications -- and, imv, failed to make a dent.
Credible estimates I'm aware of talk about dozens of bombs (per similar deep fortification), seriously depleting US capacity. It's unlikely the US would be willing to use up more than 50% of its bombing capacity here -- since a very large number of bombs are required for deep fortifications of this kind.
ie., US capacity is about "destroying two mountains", and it really needs at least to retain capacity to destroy one.
A well-designed nuke could take out the mountain, that's really the best air-supplied shot at taking the thing out.
Either way, none of this can be confirmed without ground forces. So one wonders if at least some of this theatre is to provoke iran enough to react in a way that justifies a ground invasion.
To your point, yes, china would absolutely love the US to degrade as much capacity as it possibly can. One images, even, they'd spin up a nuclear programme in iran very quickly again, just to try to drag the US back in. The US has done much worse.
China's geostrategic goal at the moment is stamp on the rope-pins around the US elephant: ukraine, iran, israel, and so on. Have the US blow as much as possible of its rapidly depleting military arsenal everywhere but around china.
Trump was the first president to really take this problem seriously, it's a little unfortunate that he's found himself in the same trap as every US president for the last 25 years.
I stopped reading after 100 bombs capacity. They are purpose built bombs, we don’t stockpile them as we don’t hit iranian mountain target regularly enough.
The US spends more on military than most of the rest of the world combined. Every conflict there’s a contingent of people claiming the US will soon be out of munitions and can’t continue. Now the statement is made on the first attack. The US is oddly perceived as weak by this contingent, which flies in the face of reason.
The US spends more on military than most of the rest of the world combined. Every conflict there’s a contingent of people claiming the US will soon be out of munitions and can’t continue. Now the statement is made on the first attack. The US is oddly perceived as weak by this contingent, which flies in the face of reason.
> The US spends more on military than most of the rest of the world combined.
In absolute numbers yes, as a fraction of GDP that is currently not true (US ranks 8th place there). US doesn't even spend the 5% Trump demands other allies should spend.
In absolute numbers yes, as a fraction of GDP that is currently not true (US ranks 8th place there). US doesn't even spend the 5% Trump demands other allies should spend.
I’m not sure how this really refutes or supports anything, it’s just random noise.
The US' military supremacy "illusion" comes from an era when the US had no peer competitors of a similar size -- waging wars in this era is really cheap.
It's highly debatable whether the US can contain china at its present size, let alone in a few years. China is vastly large than the soviet union, in comparison to the US, at the height of the cold war -- and merely to contain a smaller adversary, the US had to significantly outspend it.
The US can dominate its region relatively cheaply (ie., the western hemisphere); but if it wants to retain the ability to project power across the world, and be the primary power in theatres of interest (middle east and china esp.) then it's woefully underspending.
The US is armed to take on a world without peer competitors. If it had to fight a proxy war with china, dominate the middle east, and supply a land war in ukraine -- it would loose all three.
The asymmetry of power needed for the US to dominate the world is enourmous -- this was only cheap when the single adversary was a much smaller russia.
The US does not have the manufacturing capacity to replace 50% of its bunker-buster arms "suddenly". It simply cannot do it. So if a war breaks out tomorrow, where it needs these arms, they're gone.
The west is simply not equipped to wars with peer competitors. It's equipped for the taliban, not nations with fleets of air craft carriers.
It's highly debatable whether the US can contain china at its present size, let alone in a few years. China is vastly large than the soviet union, in comparison to the US, at the height of the cold war -- and merely to contain a smaller adversary, the US had to significantly outspend it.
The US can dominate its region relatively cheaply (ie., the western hemisphere); but if it wants to retain the ability to project power across the world, and be the primary power in theatres of interest (middle east and china esp.) then it's woefully underspending.
The US is armed to take on a world without peer competitors. If it had to fight a proxy war with china, dominate the middle east, and supply a land war in ukraine -- it would loose all three.
The asymmetry of power needed for the US to dominate the world is enourmous -- this was only cheap when the single adversary was a much smaller russia.
The US does not have the manufacturing capacity to replace 50% of its bunker-buster arms "suddenly". It simply cannot do it. So if a war breaks out tomorrow, where it needs these arms, they're gone.
The west is simply not equipped to wars with peer competitors. It's equipped for the taliban, not nations with fleets of air craft carriers.
This is more hogwash with the statement:
> It's equipped for the taliban, not nations with fleets of air craft carriers.
The US has more carriers than all other nations combined, times 2.
> The US does not have the manufacturing capacity to replace 50% of its bunker-buster arms "suddenly". It simply cannot do it. So if a war breaks out tomorrow, where it needs these arms, they're gone.
During a time of war every manufacturing plant capable of being reconfigured to make arms or vehicles is. Just like in WW2.
The rest of this is just silly. The US “owns” the oceans. We go where we want when we want any call it “freedom of navigation“ and nobody stops us.
I’m sorry I offended your country’s capabilities vs the US, but there’s a reason the US hasn’t been invaded yet and it’s because it’s an impossible feat.
> It's equipped for the taliban, not nations with fleets of air craft carriers.
The US has more carriers than all other nations combined, times 2.
> The US does not have the manufacturing capacity to replace 50% of its bunker-buster arms "suddenly". It simply cannot do it. So if a war breaks out tomorrow, where it needs these arms, they're gone.
During a time of war every manufacturing plant capable of being reconfigured to make arms or vehicles is. Just like in WW2.
The rest of this is just silly. The US “owns” the oceans. We go where we want when we want any call it “freedom of navigation“ and nobody stops us.
I’m sorry I offended your country’s capabilities vs the US, but there’s a reason the US hasn’t been invaded yet and it’s because it’s an impossible feat.
> but there’s a reason the US hasn’t been invaded yet and it’s because it’s an impossible feat.
This is so irrelevant to the conversation, that it indicates you don't understand what's at issue or the basic geopoltical terms in which to evaluate US strategic capabilities.
The US isnt trying to prevent invasion, it's trying to dominate every region of the world. It's military is extremely over-sized to merely defend america. It's extremely undersized to dominate every region of the world in 2025. This is why comparing sizes of militaries is irrelevant and extremely misleading. Essentially all other militaries are concerned with only local defence and power projection.
From ~90s to 00s the US military was big enough to dominate the world, because it had no rivals. When you have rivals even half your size, to dominate them, you need massively out-class them. Consider that during the cold war the US spent 10% of its GDP, vastly more in real terms than the soviet union.
China can dominate its region of the world very cheaply compare to the US dominating *china* ! because defence is vastly cheaper than offence and geographically local power projection is relatively cheap. China is not designing a military to contain all of south america -- the US *is*
The US is trying to maintain arms to entirely ensure its own defence under any possible threat *AND* dominate russia in eastern europe, china in the south china sea, the middle east, ensure all shipping lanes are open, staff miltiary bases throughout europe, asia, etc. -- and the vast array of proxy countries in which it maintains a military pretence. There are 100k troops in europe, 40k+ in japan, and so on.
The US doesn't evaluate its military capability in terms of "what happens if mexico invades"
This is so irrelevant to the conversation, that it indicates you don't understand what's at issue or the basic geopoltical terms in which to evaluate US strategic capabilities.
The US isnt trying to prevent invasion, it's trying to dominate every region of the world. It's military is extremely over-sized to merely defend america. It's extremely undersized to dominate every region of the world in 2025. This is why comparing sizes of militaries is irrelevant and extremely misleading. Essentially all other militaries are concerned with only local defence and power projection.
From ~90s to 00s the US military was big enough to dominate the world, because it had no rivals. When you have rivals even half your size, to dominate them, you need massively out-class them. Consider that during the cold war the US spent 10% of its GDP, vastly more in real terms than the soviet union.
China can dominate its region of the world very cheaply compare to the US dominating *china* ! because defence is vastly cheaper than offence and geographically local power projection is relatively cheap. China is not designing a military to contain all of south america -- the US *is*
The US is trying to maintain arms to entirely ensure its own defence under any possible threat *AND* dominate russia in eastern europe, china in the south china sea, the middle east, ensure all shipping lanes are open, staff miltiary bases throughout europe, asia, etc. -- and the vast array of proxy countries in which it maintains a military pretence. There are 100k troops in europe, 40k+ in japan, and so on.
The US doesn't evaluate its military capability in terms of "what happens if mexico invades"
I stopped reading after 3 words. You’re clearly part of an anti-US campaign. Your response warrants no further interaction.
[deleted]
The bombs used were literally designed for Iran. They deplete no real capability that matters anywhere else the US is meaningfully engaged.
If the US had lost a B2 during the operation, then sure, that would be a major loss. But as far as I can tell we did not.
If the US had lost a B2 during the operation, then sure, that would be a major loss. But as far as I can tell we did not.
The ground invasion hasn't started yet, the US is supplying israel, and you can see my other comment.
We’re always supplying Israel. I think that cost is basically priced-in at this point.
If we get involved in a ground invasion, sure, that’s a different matter.
If we get involved in a ground invasion, sure, that’s a different matter.
Even if its an israeli ground invasion only, that's still a massive arms injection --- at the same time the US is supplying a ground war in europe.
A ground war in europe, one in the middle east -- all of the US assets in distant seas, its bombs in distant lands. Pretty good time to be a china on tour.
A ground war in europe, one in the middle east -- all of the US assets in distant seas, its bombs in distant lands. Pretty good time to be a china on tour.
Brother take a look at a map. Exactly how does Israel pull off a sustained ground invasion of Iran, even if the US committed to help?
Sure, maybe some targeted commando raids here and there. They’re already doing that.
Large scale invasion though? Almost logistically impossible unless you’re telling me the maps I’ve looked at my whole life are state propaganda too.
Sure, maybe some targeted commando raids here and there. They’re already doing that.
Large scale invasion though? Almost logistically impossible unless you’re telling me the maps I’ve looked at my whole life are state propaganda too.
Where did the US invade iraq from?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-receives-second-o...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-receives-second-o...
Procuring two landing craft means Israel has the capability to sustain a sea invasion of the scale required to subdue a 92 million population? It would require something like a modern day Normandy to pull this off.
This is not a serious suggestion.
This is not a serious suggestion.
Yip, so it would require US support.
As far as I can tell, israel is doing everything it can to escalate the situation to a place where the US is forced into it. We'll have to see if it can be avoided.
The problem for iran is that while they may believe the US is unwilling to escalate, and so be happier to go "arms down" -- they won't be allowed to by israel. So they're being forced up the escalation ladder.
There are very many things that they can do which would destabilise US military and economic interests directly. One imagines israel will do everything i can to provoke such a response.
As far as I can tell, israel is doing everything it can to escalate the situation to a place where the US is forced into it. We'll have to see if it can be avoided.
The problem for iran is that while they may believe the US is unwilling to escalate, and so be happier to go "arms down" -- they won't be allowed to by israel. So they're being forced up the escalation ladder.
There are very many things that they can do which would destabilise US military and economic interests directly. One imagines israel will do everything i can to provoke such a response.
> All of these claims are false.
Source please.
Source please.
Chance of Iran launching a nuclear strike on the US has gone from 0% to 0%.
Chance of terrorist activity on US soil in the next 10 years has increased.
I don’t think it’s improved things for the US.
Chance of terrorist activity on US soil in the next 10 years has increased.
I don’t think it’s improved things for the US.
They could have nuked a neighboring country.
Neighboring countries like KSA have openly declared their intention to get nukes.
They could give the nuke to a proxy (or have it stolen) who then detonates it either at a US military base in the region or on US soil.
Neighboring countries like KSA have openly declared their intention to get nukes.
They could give the nuke to a proxy (or have it stolen) who then detonates it either at a US military base in the region or on US soil.
> Iran poses very little threat now, launchers being taken out everyday
What do Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Dubai have in common?
All of their oil tankers sail through a 20mi strip of water called the Straight of Hormuz, completely bordered by Iran on one side. Saudi Arabia has access to the Red Sea and a bunch of pipelines to take some of their oil there, but most of their maritime ports are in the Persian Gulf.
You don't need hypersonic ballistic missiles to take out an oil tanker. Save those for Israel, all you need is a few drones, speedboats, and mines.
Oh, what's that, a good chunk of attack drones undergoing "field trials" in Ukranian population centers are Iranian-made purchased by Russia? And those drones are designed to be launched from mobile trucks in any non-descript garage instead of static missile silos?
We've seen what a rag-tag group of Yemeni rebels with some light rockets have done to ocean shipping at the chokepoint to the Red Sea, now we're gonna see what the people supplying the Houthi's can do at the chokepoint to the Oil Sea.
Hope y'all enjoyed your sub-$2 gas prices.
What do Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Dubai have in common?
All of their oil tankers sail through a 20mi strip of water called the Straight of Hormuz, completely bordered by Iran on one side. Saudi Arabia has access to the Red Sea and a bunch of pipelines to take some of their oil there, but most of their maritime ports are in the Persian Gulf.
You don't need hypersonic ballistic missiles to take out an oil tanker. Save those for Israel, all you need is a few drones, speedboats, and mines.
Oh, what's that, a good chunk of attack drones undergoing "field trials" in Ukranian population centers are Iranian-made purchased by Russia? And those drones are designed to be launched from mobile trucks in any non-descript garage instead of static missile silos?
We've seen what a rag-tag group of Yemeni rebels with some light rockets have done to ocean shipping at the chokepoint to the Red Sea, now we're gonna see what the people supplying the Houthi's can do at the chokepoint to the Oil Sea.
Hope y'all enjoyed your sub-$2 gas prices.
Bingo.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-urges-china-dissuade-...
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday called on China to encourage Iran to not shut down the Strait of Hormuz after Washington carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Rubio's comments on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo" show came after Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20% of global oil and gas flows.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-urges-china-dissuade-...
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday called on China to encourage Iran to not shut down the Strait of Hormuz after Washington carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Rubio's comments on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo" show came after Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20% of global oil and gas flows.
The problem for Iran is that it also hurts itself as its own terminals are upstream of the straight
houthis been using iran supplied anti ship missiles. not exactly stuff that you pickup in bass pro shops
> My money is much more on this being a "1 and done" exchange
For as long as I've been alive, every action from the US in the middle east been a "1 and done" exchange, and Bush famously hosted a "Mission Accomplished" party two months after the start of the invasion of Iraq.
I'd be surprised if this was the only action from the US' side during this war, based on history, but maybe things are different today, seems highly unlikely though.
For as long as I've been alive, every action from the US in the middle east been a "1 and done" exchange, and Bush famously hosted a "Mission Accomplished" party two months after the start of the invasion of Iraq.
I'd be surprised if this was the only action from the US' side during this war, based on history, but maybe things are different today, seems highly unlikely though.
This. The Iran "nuclear" thing is Iraq "WMDs" MacGuffins all over again, but it's the saber rattling Netanyahu is using to maintain popular and power, and Trump is going along for it, imperiling America's security for decades by asking for more terror attacks in the homeland.
"Fun" fact: Same guy lied in his congressional testimony, claiming that Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons which was the reason for the Iraq invasion.
Shame politicians always seem to lack a spine when it matters.
Shame politicians always seem to lack a spine when it matters.
If there is one value that Trump is able to empathize with, it's lying and then turning it into a political crusade to stay out of prison.
This episode has demonstrated that diplomacy is not a credible option. So with that off the table, the only two options now are 1. A series of "1 and done" engagements every few years or months, as the regime tries to race toward a bomb, or 2. Regime change.
It's possible that #2 will happen via domestic uprising, but not at all clear whether the result of that would be a friendlier regime that is less interested in going nuclear. It could very plausibly instead be hardliners who are pissed the regime failed to put up a strong enough fight. (I think that would be what would predictably happen in the US in this scenario, for instance!)
And if it's not a domestic uprising, it's a bloody regime change war like the ones fought in the 00s, which ... didn't turn out great, if you recall!
Possibly #1 is a better outcome. But I'm very skeptical that "we'll just bomb a big country periodically" is a strategy that will never escalate into protracted war.
It's possible that #2 will happen via domestic uprising, but not at all clear whether the result of that would be a friendlier regime that is less interested in going nuclear. It could very plausibly instead be hardliners who are pissed the regime failed to put up a strong enough fight. (I think that would be what would predictably happen in the US in this scenario, for instance!)
And if it's not a domestic uprising, it's a bloody regime change war like the ones fought in the 00s, which ... didn't turn out great, if you recall!
Possibly #1 is a better outcome. But I'm very skeptical that "we'll just bomb a big country periodically" is a strategy that will never escalate into protracted war.
Unless they find the location of the moved highly enriched uranium, there may be a few follow up bombings to handle that but I suspect Israel would take that on.
Trump is already screaming online about regime change. Your money might be at risk.
You missed the point: this was entirely for show, may not have accomplished any or all of the mission objectives claimed, and, in all likelihood, setup thousands of American civilians for a series of 9/11-like terrorist attacks for the next 20 years. The reality show circus continues.
Yep, the market was already on a precarious footing. Monday will likely be a blood bath.
Futures are up. The market was also up last Friday when the Israel started bombing Iran
Meh, Iran is only an oil provider for the Chinas of the world. Oil prices may go up but it will definitely not be a blood bath. This is a non-event.
I short oil with massive leverage every time this happens. People think the middle east is about oil and it's really not so it's basically free money.
[deleted]
I don't disagree with much of your comment, but I immediately saw this as a bullish sign for the markets, along with oil prices possibly coming down. I saw the B2 bombing as a crescendo to the conflict. I shorted volatility futures on the market open Sunday night and sold a lot more S&P future's put options. I've had a very good week so far.
There will continue to be ordinance flying here and there of course (probably until the end of time being the ME), but Iran has been weakened to the point that Wall Street has more than likely written it off for the near future.
There will continue to be ordinance flying here and there of course (probably until the end of time being the ME), but Iran has been weakened to the point that Wall Street has more than likely written it off for the near future.
>This is going to hit gas prices
Heh. I made more in a day than I get paid in month for my job trading the opposite. The Middle East hardly effects American gas prices.
Heh. I made more in a day than I get paid in month for my job trading the opposite. The Middle East hardly effects American gas prices.
New updates on the estimates of damage at Fordo:
> "A senior U.S. official acknowledged that the American strike on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but said the strike had severely damaged it, taking it “off the table.” The person noted that even 12 bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the site."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/22/world/middlee... ("Assessing the Damage at the Nuclear Sites the U.S. Attacked")
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/world/middleeast/iran-for... ("Iran’s Fordo Site Said to Look Severely Damaged, Not Destroyed")
Linked articles also have new satellite imagery from Maxar and Planet.
> "A senior U.S. official acknowledged that the American strike on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but said the strike had severely damaged it, taking it “off the table.” The person noted that even 12 bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the site."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/22/world/middlee... ("Assessing the Damage at the Nuclear Sites the U.S. Attacked")
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/world/middleeast/iran-for... ("Iran’s Fordo Site Said to Look Severely Damaged, Not Destroyed")
Linked articles also have new satellite imagery from Maxar and Planet.
The only way out of this in the long term is via negotiations.
The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? They have a coal mine going 1200 meters deep.
Iran is technologically far more capable than North Korea, which ultimately succeeded in building the bomb. The US knows this and wouldn't have started this war if Israel hadn't done it first.
The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. If Iran is determined, how many years has this bombing bought? If I had to guess, Israel is back calling doom ~3 years when the US is having new elections.
Israel doesn't want the removal of the Iran sanctions, why would they? This means whatever deal the US makes with Iran, it's not going to be good enough for Israel.
The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? They have a coal mine going 1200 meters deep.
Iran is technologically far more capable than North Korea, which ultimately succeeded in building the bomb. The US knows this and wouldn't have started this war if Israel hadn't done it first.
The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. If Iran is determined, how many years has this bombing bought? If I had to guess, Israel is back calling doom ~3 years when the US is having new elections.
Israel doesn't want the removal of the Iran sanctions, why would they? This means whatever deal the US makes with Iran, it's not going to be good enough for Israel.
There is another way out that may be more likely than negotiations; Iran will now obtain a nuclear weapon.
Iran has had the capability to build one for as long as Netanyahu has been singing about it(20+ years). Now they have the motivation also.
If they had the capability , why was this a bad move and how does taking out their bomb making facilities more likely they can now just produce a bomb ?
The main reason to want a bomb is to stop people from interfering with/attacking you.
It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful country on earth is willing to attack them in order to control them and their region. Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. They’ll find a way now, they can always dig deeper.
It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful country on earth is willing to attack them in order to control them and their region. Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. They’ll find a way now, they can always dig deeper.
They have repeatedly threatened Israel and the US. Nothing good (for western democracies) comes from Iran getting a bomb.
Doesn’t Pakistan and NK do the same? They have bombs. Where is the promised armageddon?
Isn’t the idea to have less NK and Pakistans though ?
Doesn't this prove that nuclear weapons stop the NKs and Pakistans of the world from being bombed?
I have no idea why that's relevant, the point is, it' good to have one less nuclear armed rogue state?
The only nation to use a nuke on another person is the US. Not these “rogue” states but the US.
Israel has also threatened with nuclear weapons:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...
Nothing good comes from Iran getting a bomb for us, doesn't mean it's not good for the Iranian regime.
I’m not sure that’s true. Israel has nukes, so if Iran has them too it help prevent large scale war due to MAD. Like India and Pakistan both have them is better than if only one of them had nukes.
"They only want the bomb to stop others from stopping them getting the bomb."
> Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”.
Or, option 3: totally fine if we don't try to get nukes.
> Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”.
Or, option 3: totally fine if we don't try to get nukes.
It might be splitting hair, but I do agree that if a new regime gained power that was tightly aligned with some world super power, and got some kind of serious protectorate status, then they could be totally fine without nukes.
The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced.
The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced.
lets hope they get replaced and we can have "democratic republic of perse" that would be so much better than what iran is currently
It’s one of the reasons I’m torn on what the US should do here. I think this intervention is the most likely way a regime change occurs, but the least likely way to stabilize the region. So some small chance of a great outcome, much larger chance of a bad outcome.
I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome.
How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it.
I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome.
How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy islamist terrorists and sponsoring all other terrorists around the world (Hutis, Hezbollah, Hamas, ...), with crystal clear public plans to destroy israel, what could go wrong?
I don't see how it could be worst, any other gov in Iran would be better for the world and for the peoples in Iran.
Are you genuinly thinking that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is a good idea?
I don't see how it could be worst, any other gov in Iran would be better for the world and for the peoples in Iran.
Are you genuinly thinking that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is a good idea?
Apparently your rational viewpoint isn’t mainstream , which is wild.
The Iranian regime is literally sending terrorists in Russia equipment to murder innocent people on the daily, but that’s fine for most people…
The Iranian regime is literally sending terrorists in Russia equipment to murder innocent people on the daily, but that’s fine for most people…
Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of crazy Jewish ethnonationalists and religious nuts. Those guys have been going completely crazy for the last two years, carrying out a genocide in Gaza, invading Lebanon and Syria, and attacking Iran.
By comparison, the Iranian goverment looks calm and rational. Israel has attacked Iran three separate times in just the last two years. The first two times, Iran tried to prevent escalation by calibrating its response and informing Israel beforehand.
It's pretty obvious why Iran would want nuclear weapons. The US and Israel have made it clear that they want regime change in Iran. Iran tried making a deal with the US, and what happened? The very next US administration ripped up the deal. Then, the Iranians tried to negotiate a new deal, but Israel and the US attacked them while the negotiations were ongoing. What lesson are the Iranians supposed to draw from that?
By comparison, the Iranian goverment looks calm and rational. Israel has attacked Iran three separate times in just the last two years. The first two times, Iran tried to prevent escalation by calibrating its response and informing Israel beforehand.
It's pretty obvious why Iran would want nuclear weapons. The US and Israel have made it clear that they want regime change in Iran. Iran tried making a deal with the US, and what happened? The very next US administration ripped up the deal. Then, the Iranians tried to negotiate a new deal, but Israel and the US attacked them while the negotiations were ongoing. What lesson are the Iranians supposed to draw from that?
Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes. The only thing they had to do is stop attacking Israel, stop funding terrorist organizations that do and stop threatening Israel with annihilation. Iran is the aggressor here. If they would just chill, they would have nothing to fear.
Both Egypt and Jordan are US protectorates with no regional superpowers threatening their ruling regimes. Jordan couldn’t if they dreamed of it, Egypt might have but the US shows no interest in toppling its regime and mediation between them and Israel has been going about as well as possible given their histories.
You’re right, they could chill and be fine. If they trusted the US, or Russia, or China enough to protect them, or trusted Israel to leave their regime alone for the next 100 years. Do you think it’s reasonable for them (the current theocracy) to have this trust in their current position? I find it much more rational that they do not.
You’re right, they could chill and be fine. If they trusted the US, or Russia, or China enough to protect them, or trusted Israel to leave their regime alone for the next 100 years. Do you think it’s reasonable for them (the current theocracy) to have this trust in their current position? I find it much more rational that they do not.
Who needs protecting ? From what I’ve seen not even the populace really wants the current regime there, if it’s wiped out I’m not sure anyone cares but NK China and Russia (terrorist or terrorist funding countries)
> Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes
I don’t think the Iranian regime looks at Egypt as either totally fine or even in an enviable state, security-wise.
I don’t think the Iranian regime looks at Egypt as either totally fine or even in an enviable state, security-wise.
Wasnt Gabbard saying Iran was not and hasn't been working on nukes since 2003?
What if they weren't working on nukes and got bombed anyway - can you imagine what kind of situation that would put them in?
What if they weren't working on nukes and got bombed anyway - can you imagine what kind of situation that would put them in?
Gabbard is a stooge for the Russia/Iran axis, a faction within MAGA which has recently lost out to the stooges for Israel.
Respectfully, drop the conspiracies, the dept of intel has been consistent on this line since 2003, even if she were some kind of whatever you're hoping for, were all the directors since 2003 in the same position?
The IAEA reported in 2023:
---- 34. During the monthly interim verification (IIV) on 22 January 2023, the Agency took environmental samples from the product sampling point at FFEP, the analytical results of which showed the presence of high enriched uranium (HEU) particles containing up to 83.7% U-235. The Agency informed Iran that these findings were inconsistent with the level of enrichment of the UF6 produced at FFEP, as declared by Iran, and requested Iran to clarify the origin of these HEU particles.
35. In a letter dated 20 February 2023, Iran informed the Agency that “unintended fluctuations in enrichment levels may have occurred during transition period at the time of commissioning the process of [60%] product (November 2022) or while replacing the feed cylinder”. Discussions between the Agency and Iran to clarify the matter are ongoing.
36. On 26 February 2023, the Agency took destructive analysis samples from the cylinder containing the HEU product at FFEP, the results of which showed that the enrichment level of UF6 produced at FFEP remained up to 60% U-235. This cylinder has been collecting the HEU product since the start of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP in November 2022. ----
If Iran "hasn't been working on" a weapons program since 2003, did the uranium just jumped from 5% (required for the claimed purposes) to nearly 83% (not consistent with any purpose besides nuclear weapons as far as I understand)?
Sounds like a strange claim, I wonder if that was really the consensus in the US intelligence community, or an opinion of Gabbard.
[1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8...
---- 34. During the monthly interim verification (IIV) on 22 January 2023, the Agency took environmental samples from the product sampling point at FFEP, the analytical results of which showed the presence of high enriched uranium (HEU) particles containing up to 83.7% U-235. The Agency informed Iran that these findings were inconsistent with the level of enrichment of the UF6 produced at FFEP, as declared by Iran, and requested Iran to clarify the origin of these HEU particles.
35. In a letter dated 20 February 2023, Iran informed the Agency that “unintended fluctuations in enrichment levels may have occurred during transition period at the time of commissioning the process of [60%] product (November 2022) or while replacing the feed cylinder”. Discussions between the Agency and Iran to clarify the matter are ongoing.
36. On 26 February 2023, the Agency took destructive analysis samples from the cylinder containing the HEU product at FFEP, the results of which showed that the enrichment level of UF6 produced at FFEP remained up to 60% U-235. This cylinder has been collecting the HEU product since the start of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP in November 2022. ----
If Iran "hasn't been working on" a weapons program since 2003, did the uranium just jumped from 5% (required for the claimed purposes) to nearly 83% (not consistent with any purpose besides nuclear weapons as far as I understand)?
Sounds like a strange claim, I wonder if that was really the consensus in the US intelligence community, or an opinion of Gabbard.
[1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8...
Is the IAEA working for the DNI?
I think it's not an american org, and you've just shown that an international org talked about iranian uranium - which is a non sequitur.
I do think that you can look at what the DNI has been saying since 2003 on Iran nuclear program and notice they never raised the alarm about Iran making bombs - which would have been a real threat and merited some notice.
As an aside, your personal conclusions on what Iran says it has been doing and what the IAEA says are not very productive unless you have some experience handling uranium production/stockpiling. Is that something you're knowlegdeable on? If not, could you possibly be wrong? Could it be that they are producing uranium normally?
Has the IAEA raised alarms in 2022 when they got that 60% sample?
Could it be that you don't know enough about this?
Edit0: also your 87% is from an environnemental sample - no one saw a uranium product at that concentration anywhere. You just assume that Iran is lying from the get go. What if this was actually byproduct of moving to 60% as they said?
I think it's not an american org, and you've just shown that an international org talked about iranian uranium - which is a non sequitur.
I do think that you can look at what the DNI has been saying since 2003 on Iran nuclear program and notice they never raised the alarm about Iran making bombs - which would have been a real threat and merited some notice.
As an aside, your personal conclusions on what Iran says it has been doing and what the IAEA says are not very productive unless you have some experience handling uranium production/stockpiling. Is that something you're knowlegdeable on? If not, could you possibly be wrong? Could it be that they are producing uranium normally?
Has the IAEA raised alarms in 2022 when they got that 60% sample?
Could it be that you don't know enough about this?
Edit0: also your 87% is from an environnemental sample - no one saw a uranium product at that concentration anywhere. You just assume that Iran is lying from the get go. What if this was actually byproduct of moving to 60% as they said?
I'm not sure what you think the IAEA is, but it's not just some blog of some guy on the interwebs that speculated about things.
> 87% is from an environnemental sample
and we all know, highly enriched uranium occurs naturally and can be found anywhere! Getting almost-weapons-grade uranium is actually a random byproduct when you try to enrich it from 1% to 3%, because that's how math works: you purify something and it suddenly catapults to 30x the purity that would've otherwise taken you months to years to achieve.
> 87% is from an environnemental sample
and we all know, highly enriched uranium occurs naturally and can be found anywhere! Getting almost-weapons-grade uranium is actually a random byproduct when you try to enrich it from 1% to 3%, because that's how math works: you purify something and it suddenly catapults to 30x the purity that would've otherwise taken you months to years to achieve.
Where is the 1-3% coming from?
Again, is the IAEA a US gov. org responding to DNI? Or is ot an international org unrelated to US nat defense?
So why are we talking about them? Do you think DNI is an organ of IAEA?
And if you want to talk about them, can you see what they thought of Iran producing 60% enriched voluntarily (and disclosed to the IAEA)?
Your second paragraph seems to misunderatand both the situation, the process behind uranium enrichement and the IAEA report.
Actually - you seem to cherry pick bits of the report to support your dubious claims - don't you think they would have raised a flag if rhey yought Iran was making nukes, instead of the bits you fished out?
Edit0: this whole thing is you arguing that the US has been "aware that iran was making nukes" before the bombings but you fail to show any evidence of that. You show the IAEA report on Iranian urianium production, which DOES NOT talk about nukes, especially not in the extracts you've put here.
What are we doin' here?
Edit1: it just dawned on me - I don't think you know what en env. sample is. It's not some soil or "environnement" that they analysed - they swabbed surfaces around the plants (probably close to the centrifuges) and on one swab yhey detected up to 87%.
Env. samples are more likely to be contaminated than product (obviously) and the small amounts are prone to error compared to sampling product. It is more likely to get a false positive on an env. sample.
Edit2: Man I loooove reading IAEA's statement on the situation - they unequivocally say that nuclear sites should NEVER be attacked. Isn't that neat?
Again, is the IAEA a US gov. org responding to DNI? Or is ot an international org unrelated to US nat defense?
So why are we talking about them? Do you think DNI is an organ of IAEA?
And if you want to talk about them, can you see what they thought of Iran producing 60% enriched voluntarily (and disclosed to the IAEA)?
Your second paragraph seems to misunderatand both the situation, the process behind uranium enrichement and the IAEA report.
Actually - you seem to cherry pick bits of the report to support your dubious claims - don't you think they would have raised a flag if rhey yought Iran was making nukes, instead of the bits you fished out?
Edit0: this whole thing is you arguing that the US has been "aware that iran was making nukes" before the bombings but you fail to show any evidence of that. You show the IAEA report on Iranian urianium production, which DOES NOT talk about nukes, especially not in the extracts you've put here.
What are we doin' here?
Edit1: it just dawned on me - I don't think you know what en env. sample is. It's not some soil or "environnement" that they analysed - they swabbed surfaces around the plants (probably close to the centrifuges) and on one swab yhey detected up to 87%.
Env. samples are more likely to be contaminated than product (obviously) and the small amounts are prone to error compared to sampling product. It is more likely to get a false positive on an env. sample.
Edit2: Man I loooove reading IAEA's statement on the situation - they unequivocally say that nuclear sites should NEVER be attacked. Isn't that neat?
Iran tried option 3 in 2015, when it agreed to the JCPOA, but Trump withdrew from the agreement and applied "maximum pressure" on Iran.
There were forces in Iranian politics who argued for making a deal with the US. They even won out in 2015. But now, they've been proven wrong, and the hardliners (who should perhaps now be called the "realists") were proven right. The US isn't a reliable partner, and is willing to rip up any deal Iran makes.
There were forces in Iranian politics who argued for making a deal with the US. They even won out in 2015. But now, they've been proven wrong, and the hardliners (who should perhaps now be called the "realists") were proven right. The US isn't a reliable partner, and is willing to rip up any deal Iran makes.
Agreeing to an agreement while continuing the obvious weapon program they've claimed to not even have anymore isn't "trying option 3" though. That's slowing down in exchange for fewer sanctions.
Iran complied with the terms of the JCPOA, which guaranteed that the program was purely civil.
Yes, because agreements guarantee that they are being adhered to, which is why the IAEA always had access to everything (narrator: they did not), Iran did not deploy more and more advanced centrifuges than agreed (narrator: they did), and Iran did not stockpile more enriched uranium than agreed (narrator: they did).
You're making a whole series of false claims.
Iran gave the IAEA access to everything, and reduced its centrifuges and enriched uranium stockpiles to the agreed-upon amounts. Even the Trump administration certified that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA.
The reason Israel did not like the JCPOA was not because Iran was somehow not complying or because the deal wouldn't prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israel didn't like the deal because Israel wanted sanctions to be maintained on Iran and for Iranian conventional military strength to be limited. Israel wants a weak Iran.
Iran gave the IAEA access to everything, and reduced its centrifuges and enriched uranium stockpiles to the agreed-upon amounts. Even the Trump administration certified that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA.
The reason Israel did not like the JCPOA was not because Iran was somehow not complying or because the deal wouldn't prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israel didn't like the deal because Israel wanted sanctions to be maintained on Iran and for Iranian conventional military strength to be limited. Israel wants a weak Iran.
Or regime change. Not saying it's a good idea but I'd give it at least 50/50 of happening.
How do you negotiate with a country(ies?) that blows up your chief negotiators?
[deleted]
Carefully and with submissiveness.
> The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years.
And then what? They have nuclear weapons? Which is what Israel and the US doesn't want.
Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start.
And then what? They have nuclear weapons? Which is what Israel and the US doesn't want.
Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start.
15 years is a lot better than immediately resuming enrichment. Which happened as soon as Trump scrapped the previous agreement. It still took them 7+ years to get to where they are now. So, it would have been 22 years, not 15. Trump is a short-sighted fool.
> Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start.
I should point out that this view is not unanimous. Using Politifact as a source [1]:
"We reported in 2017 that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran. Over the 28 months the deal was in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it found Iran committed no violations, aside from some minor infractions that were addressed."
And from their linked article[2]:
"A complex, technical process like this one is inevitably going to face small hiccups," said Ariane M. Tabatabai, visiting assistant professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. "Just as Iran believes there have been hiccups on the U.S. side."
My understanding is that Iran was largely complying with the treaty by the time Trump decided to scrap it.
[1] https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Iran-nuclear-...
[2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/14/karen-hand...
I should point out that this view is not unanimous. Using Politifact as a source [1]:
"We reported in 2017 that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran. Over the 28 months the deal was in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it found Iran committed no violations, aside from some minor infractions that were addressed."
And from their linked article[2]:
"A complex, technical process like this one is inevitably going to face small hiccups," said Ariane M. Tabatabai, visiting assistant professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. "Just as Iran believes there have been hiccups on the U.S. side."
My understanding is that Iran was largely complying with the treaty by the time Trump decided to scrap it.
[1] https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Iran-nuclear-...
[2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/14/karen-hand...
> The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper?
Most likely Israel would attack even before such a facility became operational. It’s not like they haven’t done preemptive strikes before.
Most likely Israel would attack even before such a facility became operational. It’s not like they haven’t done preemptive strikes before.
That would be so far into the future, the Ayatollah will be far gone by then.
I think it is fantasy to think we can ever get back to a point where we're seen as a credible negotiating partner, after the events of the past decade.
maybe in 11 to 15 years after eventual respective Democratic and a non-Trump Republican governments
This is still very optimistic. The only reason this would work is that America's negotiating partners want to believe the change is real. The American people will remain roughly the same electorate that elected Trump (for a second term, after he incited an insurrection), so the danger will remain.
The hope would be that Trump would be seen as a one-in-a-kind terrible mix of both hyper-charismatic and negative, like Adolf Hitler
Very unlikely. He won twice and fully owns one of our two parties. Any hope for "he was an aberration" died last November.
As long as we're Godwin-ing this conversation, Germany has publicly repented for the whole Hitler thing. Public, unified repudiation of Trump would be minimum bar for America to be taken seriously again. I don't see this happening in my lifetime.
publicly repented? maybe, but what did it worth?
please look at the people voting for AfD, also how many of them are
people are falling left and right for the siren songs of various magical solutions and for the cults behind them.
please look at the people voting for AfD, also how many of them are
people are falling left and right for the siren songs of various magical solutions and for the cults behind them.
Yes, I've noticed AfD and I'm terrified of the future. But America, particularly the American right wing, has not even pretended to repent. And you'll notice I said it was necessary, not that it was sufficient (ed: actually I guess I wasn't super clear about that. This is clearer).
It's going to cut short too many conversations I'm afraid if we stop talking about Trump every time he's compared to a despot
The problem with this is that there is now absolutely no reason for anyone to think that any treaty or other agreement made with any US administration (of either party) will remain in force after the next administration takes power.
Rebuilding any credibility internationally will require concerted effort by the legislative and judicial branches (and maybe states ratifying amendments) to rein in the currently out of control power of the executive.
Rebuilding any credibility internationally will require concerted effort by the legislative and judicial branches (and maybe states ratifying amendments) to rein in the currently out of control power of the executive.
And then the next trump comes in and reneges on all the agreements. Would take a few decades of stability as has been carefully constructed by the US since world war 2.
i don't know. I am fairly sure that - you have 60 days to make a deal or we will bomb the shit out of you. And then on the 62nd day bombing the shit from their crown jewels makes the US pretty credible negotiator.
"You're going to bomb the shit out of us anyway, what's the point?"
They were already having this negotiation, and we started bombing them in the middle of it.
And they already negotiated an agreement a decade ago, and we ripped it up.
It's fine if you think we should have ripped up the JCPOA, or if you think it was good that we joined Israel in this war in the middle of the new negotiation.
But it's simply deluded to think we are a credible negotiating counterparty after this fact pattern.
They were already having this negotiation, and we started bombing them in the middle of it.
And they already negotiated an agreement a decade ago, and we ripped it up.
It's fine if you think we should have ripped up the JCPOA, or if you think it was good that we joined Israel in this war in the middle of the new negotiation.
But it's simply deluded to think we are a credible negotiating counterparty after this fact pattern.
>"You're going to bomb the shit out of us anyway, what's the point?"
So you are saying that if Iran has said one week ago - we will blow up all of the nuclear faculties on Sunday we will give you all of our enriched uranium on Monday, Trump would have still bombed them this Saturday?
So you are saying that if Iran has said one week ago - we will blow up all of the nuclear faculties on Sunday we will give you all of our enriched uranium on Monday, Trump would have still bombed them this Saturday?
I'm saying that there is zero reason for them to believe that entering into a negotiation with us would keep us from attacking them, because they have done that (twice) and we attacked them in the middle of that negotiation.
Don't get me wrong, I think there could be a face-saving announcement at some point, that we've come to some agreement. But it will have no credibility (on either side).
Don't get me wrong, I think there could be a face-saving announcement at some point, that we've come to some agreement. But it will have no credibility (on either side).
Would Trump, a known liar and antognizer, lied and antagonized a foreign nation?
Yeah, probably.
Yeah, probably.
That doesn’t sound like a credible negotiating partner.
You don't understand the difference between negotiation and coercion.
Yes I do, you negotiate with powers roughly equal with you. Iran choose in 1979 to be forever weak and not the regional power they could be.
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.
There is more to be said about the voters than about the military industrial complex here.
The voters don't decide if a president can bomb something or not. Or, in the case of the US, how much it can bomb.
The two party system has captured the government, we voters have no recourse at the polling booths.
Trump pausing, stalling, and threatening to stop aid to Ukraine is proof otherwise.
USA is now an unreliable ally at best and the military industrial complex is a massive loser because of this switch.
USA is now an unreliable ally at best and the military industrial complex is a massive loser because of this switch.
The military industrial complex doesn't care who their weapons are used against. Trump plans to add a trillion to the Pentagon's budget, with most of it presumably going to private contractors. How are they losing?
Trump could've easily done that without alienating the rest of the world.
Also, Trumps budget only spans a few years while a good export relationship ensures decades of business.
Also, Trumps budget only spans a few years while a good export relationship ensures decades of business.
Trump was ever against the military industrial complex? News to me. His first presidency should have been enough to classify him as a huge warmonger forever.
> The military industrial complex always wins in the US
Sounds like learned helplessness. This is only allowed as long as the governed permit it.
> the whole reason why you get elected is because you were against it.
Not every politician is reducible to a single, cliche hivemind. When the person lacks integrity and a record of telling the truth, it's unwise to believe they will keep all of their promises.
Sounds like learned helplessness. This is only allowed as long as the governed permit it.
> the whole reason why you get elected is because you were against it.
Not every politician is reducible to a single, cliche hivemind. When the person lacks integrity and a record of telling the truth, it's unwise to believe they will keep all of their promises.
Trying to deduce general principles from many particular instances is not "learned helplessness". If one wants to understand a system, it's best not to delude oneself with myths, but to spell out the pattern that is confirmed by many observations. A strong myth that keeps the American people in their current state is the idea that the US has a democratic government at the federal level. Once they get over that myth, they might actually be able to make it true.
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.
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.
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.
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
> 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.
> I wonder if the bunker buster was used
Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.
Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.
the bunker buster, if used, will almost certainly be nuclear. estimated tonnage: 300 kt
The GBU-57 was most likely used, which is non nuclear
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
Genuinely surprised that Israel couldn't push one out of their c-130s
Do they even have access to this variant? I thought they had access to the older ones that weren't as advanced.
They do not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
C-130s are very large, slow targets.
The US has B52s that are cheaper, but they used B2s for this operation. It seems they don't believe Iran's air defenses to be toothless.
You are correct but although the B52 can technically carry the GBU-57 MOP, but it was only done that way during the initial testing of the weapon. The B2 is the only aircraft the USAF actually uses for that munition in combat scenarios.
Also the B2 is better suited for extreme endurance missions like this where the plane is in flight for >36 hours. It has a toilet, microwave and a cot for the pilots to use during the more mundane parts of the mission.
Also the B2 is better suited for extreme endurance missions like this where the plane is in flight for >36 hours. It has a toilet, microwave and a cot for the pilots to use during the more mundane parts of the mission.
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...
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/iran...
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.
Israel doesn't have access to the MOP.
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 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.
Wow. That is amazing. 60,000 lbs. combined.
This is nonsense.
> almost certainly be nuclear
Source:
Source:
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-...
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-...
Ok, I see the logic, but nuclear weapon use is the brightest red line in the world. If there's anything a government wouldn't be forgiven for, it's that. I can't imagine how the calculus for the US would work out in favor given the risk. (Of course that assumes rationality, which one could certainly argue is lacking, but even still.)
Also 1000ft is an upper estimate, right? It's certainly possible the MOPs were sufficient.
Also 1000ft is an upper estimate, right? It's certainly possible the MOPs were sufficient.
It’s possible the MOP was sufficient but I suspect not. Probably parts of the facility are shallower and others are deeper, such is the topology of a mountain.
If you ever engage with what Daniel Ellsberg said, or US plans in north korea or vietnam, you’d know just how close the US comes to actual use in war. It’s never off the table. They are currently concerned with peer competition with China. There is likely a faction that would propose to attempt to show american strength on an unarmed target just like we did with Japan.
However at this juncture i’m starting to think this is all a show and they only care about the optics. Iran has already moved its equipment out of Fordow. However if the Iran war continues, expect things to get increasingly ugly.
If you ever engage with what Daniel Ellsberg said, or US plans in north korea or vietnam, you’d know just how close the US comes to actual use in war. It’s never off the table. They are currently concerned with peer competition with China. There is likely a faction that would propose to attempt to show american strength on an unarmed target just like we did with Japan.
However at this juncture i’m starting to think this is all a show and they only care about the optics. Iran has already moved its equipment out of Fordow. However if the Iran war continues, expect things to get increasingly ugly.
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
I'd say the same could be said for 9/11, which didn't really achieve anything positive for anyone but did make for a large bit of "The US hurt itself in its confusion"
> Enrichment is nonlinear
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%.
Yep, https://web.mit.edu/22.812j/www/enrichment.pdf is a good starting point if anybody wants to learn more about the economics/logistics of enrichment. Though, it's a notoriously confusing topic so it could take some reading.
Tl;dr is that the amount of energy required to separate a mixture of gasses (U238 waste and U235 product) is roughly proportional to the logarithm of the ratio of the U238 percentage and the U235 percentage. So as your feed stream becomes more enriched in U235, it becomes much easier to do subsequent separations. This log relationship is an approximation, but arises out of the statistical mechanics of separating two mixed gasses and the resulting decrease in entropy.
Edit: a key point most people I'm guessing aren't aware of: centrifuges don't really care what you feed them, whether the feed is natural or 20% or 89% enriched, they just get increasingly more efficient so that a single "pass" through them produces a greater amount of separation as the feed stock becomes more enriched. They do a fixed amount of "separative work" each pass. The same machines can be used to enrich from natural to 20% as 20%-90% (with some relatively minor caveats), and in fact it takes far fewer machines to do the 20-90 step at the same rate as natural-20.
Tl;dr is that the amount of energy required to separate a mixture of gasses (U238 waste and U235 product) is roughly proportional to the logarithm of the ratio of the U238 percentage and the U235 percentage. So as your feed stream becomes more enriched in U235, it becomes much easier to do subsequent separations. This log relationship is an approximation, but arises out of the statistical mechanics of separating two mixed gasses and the resulting decrease in entropy.
Edit: a key point most people I'm guessing aren't aware of: centrifuges don't really care what you feed them, whether the feed is natural or 20% or 89% enriched, they just get increasingly more efficient so that a single "pass" through them produces a greater amount of separation as the feed stock becomes more enriched. They do a fixed amount of "separative work" each pass. The same machines can be used to enrich from natural to 20% as 20%-90% (with some relatively minor caveats), and in fact it takes far fewer machines to do the 20-90 step at the same rate as natural-20.
You know how Shannon entropy works in CS, compression and stuff? Atoms work the same way: their mixing entropy is that same x*ln(x) sum which is an extremely steep function near its boundaries. That's your non-linearity. That statistical entropy corresponds to macroscopic thermodynamic properties, enthalpy and work. The starting uranium atom ratios, 0.7%/99.3%, are a very unbalanced mixture deep into that non-linearity side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_mixing
(The other half of it is that, as you progressively enrich, you start to discard the "depleted" part of the mass flow, and work only with the, gradually smaller, "enriched" mass flow).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_mixing
(The other half of it is that, as you progressively enrich, you start to discard the "depleted" part of the mass flow, and work only with the, gradually smaller, "enriched" mass flow).
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 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 repeatedly calls for death to Israel and the USA. Israel never did that.
Israel doesn't talk about destroying Gaza, it just does it.
invalidname(1)
They absolutely do talk about it. Maybe you should ask yourself why you never heard about it though.
> Iran repeatedly calls for death to Israel and the USA. Israel never did that.
Calling for it and being actually able to do it are two very different things.
It is similar to swearing at someone "Fuck you". It doesn't mean you're actually able and willing to.
Calling for it and being actually able to do it are two very different things.
It is similar to swearing at someone "Fuck you". It doesn't mean you're actually able and willing to.
So based on your logic we should just let them gain that ability and see what happens?
> It is similar to swearing at someone "Fuck you". It doesn't mean you're actually able and willing to.
Since they conducted decades of terrorism against Israel the USA and our allies a more apt example would be a person who repeatedly stabbed our friends is trying to get a bomb that could kill us all.
It's amazing to me how people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who literally led terrorist attacks against their country. To people who would stone gay people and punish women for the crime of rape. But won't give a similar benefit of doubt to the people opposing them. Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
> It is similar to swearing at someone "Fuck you". It doesn't mean you're actually able and willing to.
Since they conducted decades of terrorism against Israel the USA and our allies a more apt example would be a person who repeatedly stabbed our friends is trying to get a bomb that could kill us all.
It's amazing to me how people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who literally led terrorist attacks against their country. To people who would stone gay people and punish women for the crime of rape. But won't give a similar benefit of doubt to the people opposing them. Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
> Since they conducted decades of terrorism against Israel the USA and our allies a more apt example would be a person who repeatedly stabbed our friends is trying to get a bomb that could kill us all.
I'm going to play a childish game with you: who started it first?
> Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
Are you saying people on the internet lie?
I'm going to play a childish game with you: who started it first?
> Who won't consider that, maybe, just maybe, the stuff you read on the internet isn't the whole truth.
Are you saying people on the internet lie?
> I'm going to play a childish game with you: who started it first?
You can say that the CIA. Not Israel. But again that's a child's game just like you said.
How many Jews conducted suicide bombings in Germany after the holocaust?
We moved on, I can't say forgive and forget but we go to Germany and Austria. We talk and we live.
> Are you saying people on the internet lie?
Yep. And exaggerate and simplify the wrong things.
You can say that the CIA. Not Israel. But again that's a child's game just like you said.
How many Jews conducted suicide bombings in Germany after the holocaust?
We moved on, I can't say forgive and forget but we go to Germany and Austria. We talk and we live.
> Are you saying people on the internet lie?
Yep. And exaggerate and simplify the wrong things.
> 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".
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.
> earthquake bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_bomb for others who haven't heard the term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_bomb for others who haven't heard the term
Kinda reminds me of how depth charges work
> 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).
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).
Whatever about bombing Iran with conventional weapons, being the first president since Truman to nuke another country would split Trumps support base, and also legitimize using nuclear weapons in regional conflicts which would be extremely bad news for Ukraine
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.
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.
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]
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
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...
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...
> 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?
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?
[deleted]
You have the key phrase to Google right there in the text you quoted
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.
Your calculations appear to be off by a factor of ~1000. Not half a kiloton, but half a ton (~500kg), assuming fall in a vacuum (upper bound on impact energy):
Python 3.10.12 (main, May 27 2025, 17:12:29) [GCC 11.4.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.
MOP_potential_energy = 13607*9.8*15000 # E = m*g*h
MOP_potential_energy
2000229000.0
TNT_specific_energy = 4.184e9/1000 # joule/kg
TNT_specific_energy
4184000.0
MOP_potential_energy/TNT_specific_energy
478.0662045889101Oh, yeah, I redid the calculations myself and also got 400-some kg. I didn't notice the tonne vs. kiloton error!
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'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...
giraffe_lady(1)
- 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.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.
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.
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.
They carry 2x each, so 6 planes 12 bombs. And then single plane natanz, 2 bombs
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-...
> 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.
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
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)
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)
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.
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
[deleted]
> then great, we've done some good for the world
Please don't bring this kind of BS to the discussion
Please don't bring this kind of BS to the discussion
> Fordow is 300ft
You seem to believe they really have accurate information about these installations. I doubt it.
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.
Tracking a person actually seems pretty easy to do. Hack their phone, launch ze missiles. Obviously not trivial, but it is pretty easy to imagine a chain of events involving a little social engineering and a little spycraft involving the major tech companies. The Iranians thought they were mid-negotiations and assassinating their leadership seems counterproductive even in hindsight, I doubt they were using heightened opsec.
Getting the layout of an underground facility, on the other hand, is quite hard to do even on purpose. They'd really want the engineering plans I suppose - which should be quite secure even on a bad day. I wouldn't assume it was secure but it'd be harder than finding senior leadership who often go out in public or to their kids school plays in a regular year.
Getting the layout of an underground facility, on the other hand, is quite hard to do even on purpose. They'd really want the engineering plans I suppose - which should be quite secure even on a bad day. I wouldn't assume it was secure but it'd be harder than finding senior leadership who often go out in public or to their kids school plays in a regular year.
Mossad had all the required information, including the schematics for the Fordow nuclear facility {1}
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_infiltration_of_Iranian...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_infiltration_of_Iranian...
German contractors helped the Iranians lots. I would be good money that they have been debriefed and/or spied on.
I imagine Iran will just pick a 1000-meter mountain to dig under then?
no fly or not no fly, but iranian foreign minister had to ask permission from idf in order to fly out to geneva
Why a no-fly zone?
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.
> 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.)
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."
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.
[deleted]
> nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
Well given that we've been trying to stop that for many years, I doubt its within the US's gift to change that.
Also what has iran got to loose now? like its already being bombed to shit. It's lost a generation to the iran/iraq war, why not another one where they take the USA, israel and saudis with them?
> I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran.
that sounds like a forever war. Moreover trump doesn't have the attention span to deploy a nofly zone for any length of time.
also, have you see the size of iran?
> Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them
yup, but the performance of munitions is unknown. Moreover they are not actually going to tell anyone the real results of the strike. Can you imagine generals telling Hegseth that his plan idea has failed because the clearly articulated unknowns came to pass. let alone trump?
Well given that we've been trying to stop that for many years, I doubt its within the US's gift to change that.
Also what has iran got to loose now? like its already being bombed to shit. It's lost a generation to the iran/iraq war, why not another one where they take the USA, israel and saudis with them?
> I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran.
that sounds like a forever war. Moreover trump doesn't have the attention span to deploy a nofly zone for any length of time.
also, have you see the size of iran?
> Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them
yup, but the performance of munitions is unknown. Moreover they are not actually going to tell anyone the real results of the strike. Can you imagine generals telling Hegseth that his plan idea has failed because the clearly articulated unknowns came to pass. let alone trump?
> - nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.
How would they enforce that? It is underground, they can't exactly monitor what is down there with satellite photos. There'd need to be something like a blanket ban on underground mining across the whole of Iran and probably a country-wide occupation to enforce the ban. Otherwise it seems quite difficult to identify where the hypothetical centrifuges are.
How would they enforce that? It is underground, they can't exactly monitor what is down there with satellite photos. There'd need to be something like a blanket ban on underground mining across the whole of Iran and probably a country-wide occupation to enforce the ban. Otherwise it seems quite difficult to identify where the hypothetical centrifuges are.
[deleted]
Right...the GBU-57 having been placed into service in 2011 was surely created to destroy 65-year old bunker designs.
coliveira(1)
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.
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.
Either I'm misunderstanding (or misreading) something, or at least one of these sentences accidentallied a negation.
> 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 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?
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? 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.
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.
You are reading the wordy "silly" incorrectly.
>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.
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.
> Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is?
Honestly, I'd rather you not. For those who are more personally familiar with warfare and combat operations, consistently describing any sort of bomb as "silly" is childish and inaccurate to the point of making me wonder if there's an ulterior motive with your description.
This is not "Looney Tunes".
Honestly, I'd rather you not. For those who are more personally familiar with warfare and combat operations, consistently describing any sort of bomb as "silly" is childish and inaccurate to the point of making me wonder if there's an ulterior motive with your description.
This is not "Looney Tunes".
The typical person compartmentalizes between a weapon's use in military operations and its engineering. You see similar dynamics with things like military aircraft at air shows. Where kids and adults alike enjoy the demonstrative operation of the machines without ruminating on how many human souls were negatively affected by them.
Compartmentalization is a coping mechanism. That children are exposed to similar military engineering in such a way to make it enjoyable does not negate the nature of a bomb, tank, or machine gun.
> 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
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
I guess because many men are needed for the IRGC and related organisations.
I doubt that the intersection of IRGC volunteers and potential university students is too big.
The gender ratio is similar in other Middle Eastern countries. Once women in the Islamic world get the legal right to educate themselves, they tend to make use of it much more than men do. It is a pathway towards personal independence.
The gender ratio is similar in other Middle Eastern countries. Once women in the Islamic world get the legal right to educate themselves, they tend to make use of it much more than men do. It is a pathway towards personal independence.
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 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)
Iran sponsored insurgents in Iraq and provided the training and means to build explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US troops:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/01/03/...
The US assassinated Soleimanis and Iran reponded with direct middle attacks on US bases:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani
Iranian activity agains the US goes back decades and has escalated recently:
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/19/iranian-and-iranian-...
Other than a brief thaw in relations in 2015 there is nothing that would suggest that Iran’s anti-US rhetoric is for domestic consumption and for show.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/01/03/...
The US assassinated Soleimanis and Iran reponded with direct middle attacks on US bases:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani
Iranian activity agains the US goes back decades and has escalated recently:
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/19/iranian-and-iranian-...
Other than a brief thaw in relations in 2015 there is nothing that would suggest that Iran’s anti-US rhetoric is for domestic consumption and for show.
> explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US troops...
Well, it's a good thing Trump completely neutralized retaliatory action against US troops. /s
Well, it's a good thing Trump completely neutralized retaliatory action against US troops. /s
I’m not arguing for or against the merits of the recent strikes. I am disputing the notion that Iran’s anti-US stance is purely rhetoric for domestic consumption.
One of the arguments against limited strikes against the Iranians was that it would be simply stirring up the hornets nest and things spiraling out of control.
One of the arguments against limited strikes against the Iranians was that it would be simply stirring up the hornets nest and things spiraling out of control.
I agree. I was pointing out that these anti-US-troop actions by Iran were related to prior conflicts / actions by the US. There was unlikely any consideration to downstream reactions which will endanger our troops. Completely short-sighted warmongering.
You mean troops from occupying forces that engaged in an illegal war to overthrow the government, based on lies about WMDs, who killed over 120,000 civilians?
As far as I'm aware, you don't get to project military force 8000 miles away and then complain about killed soldiers. Which has been the US' favourite past time since the 60s.
As far as I'm aware, you don't get to project military force 8000 miles away and then complain about killed soldiers. Which has been the US' favourite past time since the 60s.
So, should we have invaded in 2003? Why were the people now calling to just kill the entire country not talking about this just two weeks ago, let alone years or decades ago?
"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.
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump getting Nobel - yes, knowing who all the Swedes have given it to I won't be surprised at all.
Norway's parliament vote who to give Nobel's peace price, not the comittee.
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.
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.
I'm tired of hearing that American support for Israel is about supporting our hegemony, or about bullying for oil. This myth actually gives this relationship more support among Americans.
The truth is it doesn't benefit us at all, we simply do it because pro-Israel lobbies have a ton of power. Trump even diverted resources from Ukraine for this, and that war is really about US hegemony even though there's a moral aspect to it too.
The truth is it doesn't benefit us at all, we simply do it because pro-Israel lobbies have a ton of power. Trump even diverted resources from Ukraine for this, and that war is really about US hegemony even though there's a moral aspect to it too.
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!
- 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!
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.
Many people are blind to what Israel and USA does, or are always making excuses for them and they buy the state propaganda.
even more so, future humans may see Iran as one of the only moral states for doing "something" against Israel
TiredOfLife(1)
A liberal Israeli friend has told me on a few occasions that Iran is one of the safest places in the Middle East for Christians and Jews to live, work, and raise families as long as they don’t publicly protest against the Iranian government.
I have no way of knowing if my friend is correct about this, but with the conflicting news broadcasts in the USA the situation is as confusing as hell. Off topic, but I have started finding news shows on the Internet from different countries like Singapore to try to figure out some semblance of truth about the world.
I have no way of knowing if my friend is correct about this, but with the conflicting news broadcasts in the USA the situation is as confusing as hell. Off topic, but I have started finding news shows on the Internet from different countries like Singapore to try to figure out some semblance of truth about the world.
One way to get some insight into this is to look at the demographic break down of Iran pre and post 1979 revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran#Religious...
Pre-1979, per the 1976 census, Iran had a Jewish population of 62,258 (0.2%). Post-revolution it immediately fell to ~9k, where it has remained - at least until the last census in 2016 (0.0% representation).
While Christian representation didn't decline by the same amount, it took a sharp decline as well. Pre revolution (1976) saw a Christian representation of around 0.5%. 30 years later (2006 census) it was 0.2%.
What conclusions you should draw from that are open to interpretation... and when it comes to life in the Middle East and North Africa, you can also draw relative comparisons (is Iran worse or better for these groups?). But it's usually not a good sign when the population of an ethic or religious minority takes a sharp and sudden decline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran#Religious...
Pre-1979, per the 1976 census, Iran had a Jewish population of 62,258 (0.2%). Post-revolution it immediately fell to ~9k, where it has remained - at least until the last census in 2016 (0.0% representation).
While Christian representation didn't decline by the same amount, it took a sharp decline as well. Pre revolution (1976) saw a Christian representation of around 0.5%. 30 years later (2006 census) it was 0.2%.
What conclusions you should draw from that are open to interpretation... and when it comes to life in the Middle East and North Africa, you can also draw relative comparisons (is Iran worse or better for these groups?). But it's usually not a good sign when the population of an ethic or religious minority takes a sharp and sudden decline.
In the case of the Jewish population, Israel is relatively close, with a comparatively higher standard of living and free entry, and there is a strong incentive for Jews to emigrate there even in the absence of hostility or outside pressure.
It’s not close - Israel is an island, you can’t drive or fly from Iran to Israel … yet
The Iranian Jews had to immigrate via another countries, I guess via Europe. Also boys had first to serve in the army to earn right to travel outside Iranian borders
The Iranian Jews had to immigrate via another countries, I guess via Europe. Also boys had first to serve in the army to earn right to travel outside Iranian borders
> Iran is one of the safest places in the Middle East for Christians and Jews to live, work, and raise families
It is only somewhat safe for token minorities, tiny pockets of remaining Jews, native Christians: Armenians and Assyrians, but not Parsis (Persians who escaped Islamization) or Mandeans (an ancient gnostic sect)
Non-native Christians (i.e. Iranians who converted to Christianity) are severely persecuted. Same for various heterodox sects / offshoots of Islam like Baháʼís, Ismailis, Ahmadis, Yazidis, Shabakis, Yarasanis, etc.
Large non-token minorities (like Azeris, Kurds, Balochi, Arabs) are persecuted. Non Shias are unable to get a government jobs. According to some demographic estimations Persians per se are a minority in Iran, which would make it an apartheid state
Gays are forced to undergo gender reassignment surgeries
Women …
> A liberal *Israeli* friend told me several times that Iran ____
Thinking critically, what makes your so-called "liberal" Israeli friend an authority on Iran? Are they a recent Jewish immigrant from Iran? Do they speak Farsi? Are they an academic researching Iran? Do they serve in military intelligence or the Mossad (or not-Mossad)?
It is only somewhat safe for token minorities, tiny pockets of remaining Jews, native Christians: Armenians and Assyrians, but not Parsis (Persians who escaped Islamization) or Mandeans (an ancient gnostic sect)
Non-native Christians (i.e. Iranians who converted to Christianity) are severely persecuted. Same for various heterodox sects / offshoots of Islam like Baháʼís, Ismailis, Ahmadis, Yazidis, Shabakis, Yarasanis, etc.
Large non-token minorities (like Azeris, Kurds, Balochi, Arabs) are persecuted. Non Shias are unable to get a government jobs. According to some demographic estimations Persians per se are a minority in Iran, which would make it an apartheid state
Gays are forced to undergo gender reassignment surgeries
Women …
> A liberal *Israeli* friend told me several times that Iran ____
Thinking critically, what makes your so-called "liberal" Israeli friend an authority on Iran? Are they a recent Jewish immigrant from Iran? Do they speak Farsi? Are they an academic researching Iran? Do they serve in military intelligence or the Mossad (or not-Mossad)?
I travelled in Iran a bit. I'd say it's pretty safe as long as you don't protest the government or contradict their religious views. My mum is a Bahai and deals with quite a lot of Iranian Bahais who get imprisoned, killed etc for believing in the wrong version of god. Bahaism is kind of an offshoot of islam and are generally more tolerant and less violent so they get killed as heretics by the lovely islamists.
Iran has official discrimination against both ethnic and religious minorities.
On the other hand, Jews had to leave the Muslim countries both in Northern Africa and the Middle East, with the total Jewish population there shrinking from hundreds of thousands to hundreds. Compared to that, Iran, from which only 70-90% of Jews left, looks not that bad. However, there were testimonies that members of Jewish families aren't allowed to leave the country all together, so I'm not sure if everyone is staying there at will.
On the other hand, Jews had to leave the Muslim countries both in Northern Africa and the Middle East, with the total Jewish population there shrinking from hundreds of thousands to hundreds. Compared to that, Iran, from which only 70-90% of Jews left, looks not that bad. However, there were testimonies that members of Jewish families aren't allowed to leave the country all together, so I'm not sure if everyone is staying there at will.
That is an absurd take.
Your friend's statement, that religious minorities in Iran are safe as long as they don't protest, is basically like a situation of domestic abuse.
An abuser might claim their partner is free and happy, as long as they follow the rules and don't speak out. The home may appear peaceful to outsiders, but this "peace" is maintained through fear, control, and the constant threat of violence for any perceived transgression.
Your friend's statement, that religious minorities in Iran are safe as long as they don't protest, is basically like a situation of domestic abuse.
An abuser might claim their partner is free and happy, as long as they follow the rules and don't speak out. The home may appear peaceful to outsiders, but this "peace" is maintained through fear, control, and the constant threat of violence for any perceived transgression.
> The home may appear peaceful to outsiders, but this "peace" is maintained through fear, control, and the constant threat of violence for any perceived transgression
Isn’t it exactly like the present day USA? Where ethnic minorities can be taken out by masked militia and disappear in a concentration camp without any due process for any reason?
Isn’t it exactly like the present day USA? Where ethnic minorities can be taken out by masked militia and disappear in a concentration camp without any due process for any reason?
Can you give some context here? You are saying something pretty wild.
I think they're referring to ICE
Look up the situation in Los Angeles, where a mix of ICE agents and masked unmarked men are targeting Hispanic neighborhoods and taking anyone they believe isn't a citizen (brown). There's been several cases of citizens being taken and detained for weeks. Recently, there's been videos of these men roaming in cars with license plates removed. These men refuse to identify themselves. Its an extremely alarming situation which has, at least in my feeds, not received nearly enough attention.
You really shouldn't need context for things that are happening in your own country and are broadcast on literally every news station. We cannot continue to play stupid about the situation we are in. I understand it's intellectually convenient, but pull it together.
As opposed to what though? Serious protests are always met with threats of violence. We had snipers pointed at us just the other day as we marched over here in the USA. I have seen, in person, reporters beaten, passerbys bleeding out on the street, I've had my entire neighborhood bombed with gas...
Perhaps you have a point but it can only be one of degree! Or perhaps we can try to think of a single state that does not maintain itself through violence?
Perhaps you have a point but it can only be one of degree! Or perhaps we can try to think of a single state that does not maintain itself through violence?
To extend this admittedly awful analogy domestic abuse can be preferable to being murdered.
> happy, as long as they follow the rules and don't speak out
Whateva happened to the strong, silent type?
Whateva happened to the strong, silent type?
As long they’re not women who don’t want to cover their head in rags , they’ll be fine ?
> one of the safest places in the Middle East
Added emphasis
Added emphasis
it seems to be a pretty safe place to be mossad.
As with most religious minorities in the Mid East, this protection is conditional and can also go away on its own at any time. Same kinda goes for Israel but at least it's more stable.
as long as they dont get raped, or refuse to wear their hijab
I know a missionary that serves Iranians. The country is so hostile to Christians that the main, missions strategy is to reach Iranians outside of Iran. Then, they go back in and maybe talk to their own people. Eventually, they get ejected or something worse happens to them, too. There's always a narrow window where people can hear or share the Gospel. Then, discipleship in a high-persecution regime is usually done in secret churches whose meetings are even more difficult.
Under such regimes, the hope is that a sprinkle of people here and there come to know Christ. They immediately have eternal life with forgiveness of sins. Over time, as they share Christ and His Word, more lives will transform as a side effect of the sanctification process. As they do, and people witness it, hearts and minds might change over time in a way that changes the whole country (or its leadership).
Under such regimes, the hope is that a sprinkle of people here and there come to know Christ. They immediately have eternal life with forgiveness of sins. Over time, as they share Christ and His Word, more lives will transform as a side effect of the sanctification process. As they do, and people witness it, hearts and minds might change over time in a way that changes the whole country (or its leadership).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Fordow is widely reported to be significantly deeper than GBU-57 can penetrate (which is just 60 meters). The only way they penetrate is landing two of them in the exact same hole (think Robin Hood splitting an arrow with another arrow). Off by just a little and it winds up with it's own separate 60m hole.
CEP with GPS for our most accurate glide bombs is 5 meters. But GPS jamming is cheap and easy and the best precision we get in that case is 30 meters CEP.
GPU-57 gets its power from gravity. Reaching that 60 meter maximum penetration requires dropping the bomb from maximum elevation, but without GPS, that further increases the CEP.
With just 6 bombs, it seems unlikely that they could reliably penetrate. Actual penetration would likely require nuclear penetrators, but those also break the nuclear prohibition and open Pandora's box in places like Ukraine.
A great example of the problem is Yemen. We tried to get the Houthi to stop by dropping bunker busters on their tunnel systems and completely failed. We were forced to reach a ceasefire agreement (one that likely went up in smoke last night).
CEP with GPS for our most accurate glide bombs is 5 meters. But GPS jamming is cheap and easy and the best precision we get in that case is 30 meters CEP.
GPU-57 gets its power from gravity. Reaching that 60 meter maximum penetration requires dropping the bomb from maximum elevation, but without GPS, that further increases the CEP.
With just 6 bombs, it seems unlikely that they could reliably penetrate. Actual penetration would likely require nuclear penetrators, but those also break the nuclear prohibition and open Pandora's box in places like Ukraine.
A great example of the problem is Yemen. We tried to get the Houthi to stop by dropping bunker busters on their tunnel systems and completely failed. We were forced to reach a ceasefire agreement (one that likely went up in smoke last night).
Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.
> 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?
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 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.
Sooner or later they’re going to run oil of oil and gas
> context of conflict in the middle east.
Conflict in the Middle East is entirely rooted in Israeli ethnic cleansing campaigns and western adventurism and protections of Israeli interests. If Iran went away tomorrow, the region would still have massive support for violent movements targeting Israel.
Conflict in the Middle East is entirely rooted in Israeli ethnic cleansing campaigns and western adventurism and protections of Israeli interests. If Iran went away tomorrow, the region would still have massive support for violent movements targeting Israel.
People are angry because their totalitarian governments invest in bombs and supporting terror and can't build functioning economies. Weird that you wouldn't factor that in. Sure, it's entirely Israel's fault... Oy vey.
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.
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?
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
hopefully I am wrong
There's indeed a lot of transport happening in plain sight,
https://www.twz.com/news-features/u-s-has-attacked-irans-nuc...
> "Prior to tonight’s airstrikes on the three Iranian nuclear-associated facilities, Maxar collected high-resolution satellite imagery on June 19th and June 20th of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility that revealed unusual truck and vehicular activity near the entrance to the underground military complex. On June 19th, a group of 16 cargo trucks were positioned along the access road that leads to the tunnel entrance of the facility. Subsequent imagery on June 20th revealed that most of the trucks had repositioned approximately one kilometer northwest along the access road; however, additional trucks and several bulldozers were seen near the entrance to the main facility and one truck was positioned immediately next to the main tunnel entrance."
https://www.twz.com/news-features/u-s-has-attacked-irans-nuc...
> "Prior to tonight’s airstrikes on the three Iranian nuclear-associated facilities, Maxar collected high-resolution satellite imagery on June 19th and June 20th of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility that revealed unusual truck and vehicular activity near the entrance to the underground military complex. On June 19th, a group of 16 cargo trucks were positioned along the access road that leads to the tunnel entrance of the facility. Subsequent imagery on June 20th revealed that most of the trucks had repositioned approximately one kilometer northwest along the access road; however, additional trucks and several bulldozers were seen near the entrance to the main facility and one truck was positioned immediately next to the main tunnel entrance."
To be frank, it wouldn't be a surprise for Trump to claim "total obliteration" while having achieved nothing substantial.
This would also be a very convenient way to break the current impasse: Trump can claim victory and brag about US weapons, Iranians can continue their program virtually unscathed, perhaps after bombing some minor evacuated US base for show.
After the dust settles, Iran can withdraw fron NNPT and the next day have Pakistan ship them a bomb. Peace (via MAD) achieved! Maybe we should even give Donald his Nobel prize for that.
This would also be a very convenient way to break the current impasse: Trump can claim victory and brag about US weapons, Iranians can continue their program virtually unscathed, perhaps after bombing some minor evacuated US base for show.
After the dust settles, Iran can withdraw fron NNPT and the next day have Pakistan ship them a bomb. Peace (via MAD) achieved! Maybe we should even give Donald his Nobel prize for that.
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
Overthrow and get what? Another Libya?
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 can bomb the IRGC and Basij bases, police and prisons (release political prisoners). They can collapse the regime, restrict its movement, eliminate chain of command. From there the Iranian people can raise and topple the regime
This seems wildly implausible. I've never heard of this happening as the result of foreign attacks. And also, any new regime is very unlikely to be more pro Israel or the US.
This is quite interesting to me - how long can Isreal really continue with such intensity ?
The distance between Israel and Iran is huge - it must be extremely expensive to operate the air bridge allowing their air force to operate as it did last week.
But I would be really surprised if they can go on like that for a month.
The distance between Israel and Iran is huge - it must be extremely expensive to operate the air bridge allowing their air force to operate as it did last week.
But I would be really surprised if they can go on like that for a month.
israel already bombed those things, with exception of prisons
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.
In one month if the Iranian government has not been overthrown by its own people what will you do? Will you change your beliefs or will the goalpost move?
I’d be somewhat skeptical of how much can be achieved just by bombing. It didn’t do much to stop the Nazi war machine in WWII. We have better munitions now, but we also have a lot fewer of them, and the US public won’t tolerate 121,000 dead airmen, either.
I agree. Bombing can only "do" so much....
I'm willing to bet that the Americans can build another one of those GBU-57 bombs every some months if they had to.
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.
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.
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 UK increase was because of how the contracts work but yeah agreed in general. Sustainable energy is good for a bunch of non environmental reasons.
Yeah, but good luck! Been trying to convince people of this for years...
As Sun Tzu famously said: "You really should back your enemy in a corner and ask them for negotiations. Having someone's feet on hot coals really speeds it up. And if they break it, it's a case for using nukes against them. "
Such advanced people, the Chinese are.
Such advanced people, the Chinese are.
"Don't worry, we can just engage in a bombing campaign against a foreign nation indefinitely."
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.
> 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 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!"
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?
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?
Israel has nukes, so why would they be afraid of Iran?
dismalaf(1)
snapetom(5)
motorest(1)
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.
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’?
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’?
A death cult doesn't care about deaths in it's own population as long as it wipes out it's enemy. A death cult prizes martyrdom.
That’s one way to justify the deaths I guess. It’s all Iran’s fault.
Not only that, they were planning to give them to Hezbollah. The brain-dead takes I'm hearing about this shitty war amazes me.
Only the USA has ever used Nukes.
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.
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.
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.
throw310822(6)
[flagged]
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know that isn’t true. Israel could withdraw to the 1969 borders and Iran would be just as dedicated to destroying it.
I'm not sure how that contradicts what I'm saying.
To continue the analogy that's like going back to 1900 and saying Britain could pull out of Ireland except for Ulster and there'd still be people calling for further decolonisation.
To continue the analogy that's like going back to 1900 and saying Britain could pull out of Ireland except for Ulster and there'd still be people calling for further decolonisation.
> 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
Even Iran’s leaders would laugh in your face at such a naive statement, you should reconsider your media diet
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 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?
Islamist majority?
Nope, Islamism is an extreme position so that gets you no further in the answering the question. What set the stage for an Islamist majority? Again I assert that extreme politics don't develop in vacuums.
And here you are continuing to dehumanize and remove all agency for an entire religion now. Truly the bigotry required to hold these beliefs is breathtaking.
I'm not doing that in any way. Islamism != Islam, and I'm not suggesting that the entire population of following Islamist beliefs, only that there's an environment where it can gain traction.
Please explain your reading if you're going to make such personal attacks.
Please explain your reading if you're going to make such personal attacks.
You’re missing the point because you’re so unaware of your own enormous bigotry.
All Muslims have their own agency. They are all humans capable of making their own decisions. And like all humans are happy to be held responsible for the decisions they make.
You do not believe the above.
All Muslims have their own agency. They are all humans capable of making their own decisions. And like all humans are happy to be held responsible for the decisions they make.
You do not believe the above.
The thing is it doesn't help. Yes of course the horrible situation of the palestinians promotes extremism, but you still have to face that there is a lot of extremism. What was Israel to do before October 7 (besides making sure Oct 7 could not happen)? Of course there are ppints where history could have gone in a better direction but I really don't see an easy way for Israel to achieve a better situation. Say they had withdraw from the west bank in 2018 for some reason. Who says that Oct 7 would still not have happened on a much greater scale? In fact I find it quite likely that it would. And then you might be looking at 3000 dead Israelis instead. The only rational reason for the Oct 7 attacks I can see is that Hamas wants to incite as much violence as possible to put as much political pressure as possible on Israel due to the inevitable retaliation. So Oct 7 would have made even more sense, as the deoccupation of the west bank is far from the total of their political goals.
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.
Totally false. Every single palestinian org has been founded by and for Muslims.
Yeah, PLFP was not at all Marxist-Leninist, used islamic arguments and not ethnomarxist ones, opposed women taking a role in politics and forced them to wear the hijab, didnt allow Coptic Christians or Jews in the movement, and talked about god and not oppression of workers /s
You just have no idea of what you're talking about.
You just have no idea of what you're talking about.
This is like complaining that Nat Turner didn't move the needle on moving the US toward universal suffrage.
Right because slaves in the American south were offered freedom tens of times but refused it always bec it might have involved some compromise they didn’t like. These childish comparisons don’t even pass the sniff test.
When were the Palestinians able to exercise their legally affirmed right of return? I must have missed that.
In 1947 when they chose to leave. In 1948-1967 when the Arab states controlled 95% of the land that these Arabs want to return to. Wars have consequences, if you initiate a war and lose, you’re not gonna get everything back. That’s the risk of war.
I have no idea what “legally affirmed” means in the context of sovereign states. The UN, or even the UNSC passing something doesn’t actually mean anything as it applies to sovereign nations. Paraphrasing Andrew Jackson: a law is only as good as the ability to enforce it. A bunch of random people agreeing to something even if they call themselves “The United Nations” doesn’t mean anything if that group of friends doesn’t have the will or ability to enforce whatever they’ve agreed to. They’re akin to you and your drinking buddies passing out edicts after one to many dry martinis.
I have no idea what “legally affirmed” means in the context of sovereign states. The UN, or even the UNSC passing something doesn’t actually mean anything as it applies to sovereign nations. Paraphrasing Andrew Jackson: a law is only as good as the ability to enforce it. A bunch of random people agreeing to something even if they call themselves “The United Nations” doesn’t mean anything if that group of friends doesn’t have the will or ability to enforce whatever they’ve agreed to. They’re akin to you and your drinking buddies passing out edicts after one to many dry martinis.
All of that Palestine resistance to Israel has accomplished nothing except misery for Palestinians.
Hikikomori(2)
If you fight in an active civil war you are not a terrorist (1948 Arab-Israeli war)
If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of guerilla warfare you are not a terrorist. (Many palestinian fighters when there is an active conflict with Israel)
If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of relative peace, and your reignition of violence has no goal of achieving anything for your people, you are probably not a terrorist, but probably doing something wrong and stupid and horrible that hurts your own civilians, driven by nationalism or ideology or whatever. (Palestinian fighters on October 7 that struck military bases for example).
If you strike civilian targets or tage hostages, you are a terrorist. And worse if you do it at a time of relative peace to ignite violence against your own people. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi's have engaged in plenty of the latter since a long time.
By the way, if you level a building with 8 militants and 20 civilians that is brutal urban warcare but not terrorism. If you go to a festival and kill predominantly hundreds of civilians, that's terrorism.
If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of guerilla warfare you are not a terrorist. (Many palestinian fighters when there is an active conflict with Israel)
If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of relative peace, and your reignition of violence has no goal of achieving anything for your people, you are probably not a terrorist, but probably doing something wrong and stupid and horrible that hurts your own civilians, driven by nationalism or ideology or whatever. (Palestinian fighters on October 7 that struck military bases for example).
If you strike civilian targets or tage hostages, you are a terrorist. And worse if you do it at a time of relative peace to ignite violence against your own people. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi's have engaged in plenty of the latter since a long time.
By the way, if you level a building with 8 militants and 20 civilians that is brutal urban warcare but not terrorism. If you go to a festival and kill predominantly hundreds of civilians, that's terrorism.
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.
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]. How does that become suddenly Muslim Land?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus...
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...
https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/8/12/israel-sau...
> 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?
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.
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"?
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"?
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.
That's like saying there is a european culture, it's nonsense.
> 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.
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.
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 all swedish people are steppe barbarians who committed genocide against the local sami people.
Source on Swedes being steppe barbarians? Most historians agree that Vikings originated in Scandinavia. Sami peoples originated in northern Russia and moved to the furthest north regions of Scandinavia. The Vikings were also more concerned with seafaring and raiding to the south and west and all the history I know of is that they coexisted mostly peacefully (Vikings would trade with the Sami). Conflict arose centuries after the Viking age.
> 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?
(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?
> Links to a page that shows the exact opposite
> 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?
> 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
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:
> 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.
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?
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?
"their land."
It wasn't "their" land, it was Ottoman land and they let Jews migrate there because Jews paid for the land.
It wasn't "their" land, it was Ottoman land and they let Jews migrate there because Jews paid for the land.
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.
The jews of Ottoman era were Sephardic and Mizrahi jews of N. Africa, not the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazis of Germany, France and Russia.
> Ashkenazis
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?
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_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...
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 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.
No, Philistine (and all the variants) comes from a Greek word for "uncouth" and is a word for the ancient Philistines given by their neighbours; it's unknown what the Philistines called themselves. The Philistines weren't the Phoenicians, they were more recent invaders (possibly some of the "Sea People"). For one, the Philistines were Aegean and the Phoenicians were Semitic. The Philistines also disappeared (either killed or assimilated) while the Phoenicians spawned Carthage (the ones in the Levant probably just assimilated over time as many powers controlled the area after them).
It only became the name for the land after the Bar Kockba revolt, the Romans named it such specifically to spite the Jews. And then it stuck when various powers controlled the land over time (Romans/East Romans aka. Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, British).
It only became the name for the land after the Bar Kockba revolt, the Romans named it such specifically to spite the Jews. And then it stuck when various powers controlled the land over time (Romans/East Romans aka. Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, British).
Interesting, thank you. TIL.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 a majority agree to rob you, it is no longer robbery?
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
> "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.
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.
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.
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_JerusalemExactly. 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.
The entire north of Africa, as well as the Levante and Asia Minor was still 80-90% Christian when Crusaders came.
> Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN
Who proposed the Balfour Declaration 30 years prior?
Who proposed the Balfour Declaration 30 years prior?
> 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.
Presumably during one of the frequent rounds of forceful expulsion from European states.
> 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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.)
Well that's not my position.
Islam, ie the Koran, recognises the banu Israel (forgive my spelling/transliteration) from c.2500 years ago. Apparent muslims say "Israel has only existed for 50 years" (or words to that effect). The inference made is that they then have no rights to the land.
It seems the basis for the 'lack of rights of Israel to exist' is fundamentally opposed to the origin story of Islam itself.
Personally I find the concept of nationhood a bit ridiculous; but I'm not sure how practical it would be to organise a World without statehood.
Islam, ie the Koran, recognises the banu Israel (forgive my spelling/transliteration) from c.2500 years ago. Apparent muslims say "Israel has only existed for 50 years" (or words to that effect). The inference made is that they then have no rights to the land.
It seems the basis for the 'lack of rights of Israel to exist' is fundamentally opposed to the origin story of Islam itself.
Personally I find the concept of nationhood a bit ridiculous; but I'm not sure how practical it would be to organise a World without statehood.
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?
My point would be analogised to Italy thus: that despite it only having existed since 1946, suggesting that meant Italians have _no_ rights to occupation of that land is rather ludicrous. If it were a Roman Catholic claiming this that would be even closer of an analogue to my view.
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.
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.
about memories of specific properties in specific locations.
this is lovely the atlantic article from 1961 that touches this specific topic
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1961/10/208-4/132...
It would be helpful if you could say what your point is rather that just point me at a 22 page PDF. I didn't even realise you were disagreeing with me until I looked at it. Is your point that no such people exist? Or that they had displaced other people before them in just the same way? Or something else?
i will suggest you to read pdf anyway, it's a wonderful peace showing how things were in 1961 and how things are same today.
back to the point.
Journalist traveled to refugee camps in lebanon/gaza and then to israel to see how arabs that decided to remain are doing.
(following are more or less exact quotes from memory)
He describes how somebody were telling him in great details about giant house that he had had, with veranda surrounding it. how he will sit there in shadow of the orchard and the fertile soil that he had.
when journalists was visiting israel he decided to stop by this location. all what he found is shack barely suitable for cattle, 2 fruit trees and rocky soil that will be really hard to work.
also, while been in refugee camp in lebanon he had a meeting with somebody who managed camp. this person told him that most of those who tell him that they had untold riches actually had nothing: they were workforce for hire and were renting from landlords both housing and in some cases soil to work. he adds that most of them in a heart beat will give up on "right of return" in exchange to $10k and place to settle "anywhere".
additional nice touch in article it's description of UNRWA school (it's 1961) where they teach children that one day as soldiers they will come back kill jews/liberate their country
back to the point.
Journalist traveled to refugee camps in lebanon/gaza and then to israel to see how arabs that decided to remain are doing.
(following are more or less exact quotes from memory)
He describes how somebody were telling him in great details about giant house that he had had, with veranda surrounding it. how he will sit there in shadow of the orchard and the fertile soil that he had.
when journalists was visiting israel he decided to stop by this location. all what he found is shack barely suitable for cattle, 2 fruit trees and rocky soil that will be really hard to work.
also, while been in refugee camp in lebanon he had a meeting with somebody who managed camp. this person told him that most of those who tell him that they had untold riches actually had nothing: they were workforce for hire and were renting from landlords both housing and in some cases soil to work. he adds that most of them in a heart beat will give up on "right of return" in exchange to $10k and place to settle "anywhere".
additional nice touch in article it's description of UNRWA school (it's 1961) where they teach children that one day as soldiers they will come back kill jews/liberate their country
For the record, I was really just looking for a couple of sentences so I understood your point. But I do appreciate the extra effort you went to for an internet stranger, thank you.
I have to say though, it's pretty unconvincing. It reads very similarly to saying: their right to stay where they are, or even not be killed by someone else that wants their land, is less because they're poor and renters (yuck!). I know that's an ungenerous characterisation of what you've said but it's really the core of the objection.
It does seem a bit low for some refugees to exaggerate their past wealth or to accept (essentially) a bribe to forget about atrocities committed against them and their families. But it's a totally incomparable to what was done to them in the first place, and certainly doesn't justify it.
I've never been in anything like that situation, and I imagine you haven't either. If I was totally destitute, forced to live in some camp (and still not safe), could I honestly say I do something similar (lie or take cash to run away)? It's hard to say but I don't think I could rule it out. But I like to think that I can rule out ever forcing people out of their homes, from land that I have no living ancestral claim to, and murdering the ones that don't run quickly enough, on religious (i.e., invented) grounds.
I have to say though, it's pretty unconvincing. It reads very similarly to saying: their right to stay where they are, or even not be killed by someone else that wants their land, is less because they're poor and renters (yuck!). I know that's an ungenerous characterisation of what you've said but it's really the core of the objection.
It does seem a bit low for some refugees to exaggerate their past wealth or to accept (essentially) a bribe to forget about atrocities committed against them and their families. But it's a totally incomparable to what was done to them in the first place, and certainly doesn't justify it.
I've never been in anything like that situation, and I imagine you haven't either. If I was totally destitute, forced to live in some camp (and still not safe), could I honestly say I do something similar (lie or take cash to run away)? It's hard to say but I don't think I could rule it out. But I like to think that I can rule out ever forcing people out of their homes, from land that I have no living ancestral claim to, and murdering the ones that don't run quickly enough, on religious (i.e., invented) grounds.
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.
Revived Hebrew seems to be a child of Ancient Hebrew? Judaism seems to have a continuation? I can't say I know the genetic situation of a while country, but it seems unlikely.
Maybe you've more to add, some sources to convince me?
Maybe you've more to add, some sources to convince me?
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.
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.
If you start from made up premises, the conclusion is also made up.
Try to read a non fantasy sionist history book…
Try to read a non fantasy sionist history book…
There is no conclusion on my part. There is an ask for reasonable ideas how to untangle the mess between jews and palestinians.
If you start from made up premises, you will not be able to judge "reasonable ideas".
So I’m not good enough for you to share your ideas, did I get it right? You realize this is not how people reach consensus? If you cannot give me a compelling argument what makes you think jews and arabs would be happy with your ideas?
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?
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/496386/Pahlavi-and-Israel-t...
so what exact goverment your arr referring?
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.
Land is land. It should never, never be beholden to any one religion.
recroad(2)
... 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.
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.
In which case, I suppose that any resistance I might do would have the state call me an anti-Semite.
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.
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)
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?
Why do you think there was a revolution?
[deleted]
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.
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.
Well I'd argue 50% of the population got a raw deal in the revolution at least.
The Cuban revolution was more of a coup than a widespread national uprising.
It was a blind alley anyway. Zero countries that embraced Marxism-Leninism were able to reach prosperity on that ideology. Meanwhile, a lot of desperately poor countries of the 1950s are nowadays reasonably well of, on the basis of a normal, regulated market economy.
It was a blind alley anyway. Zero countries that embraced Marxism-Leninism were able to reach prosperity on that ideology. Meanwhile, a lot of desperately poor countries of the 1950s are nowadays reasonably well of, on the basis of a normal, regulated market economy.
Do you have sources for all of this fantasy spin on history?
AFAIK Castro had never more than 3 thousand armed men at his side, and often much fewer, down to lower hundreds, spending much of the protracted conflict hiding in the countryside.
A revolution is something in which a significant part of a nation actively participates, not something that almost the entire population sits out passively.
Of course we can debate what is the necessary fraction, but 3000 militants isn't a big deal in a country of several million. Every Iraqi cleric in 2010 was able to put together a bigger militia than that.
A revolution is something in which a significant part of a nation actively participates, not something that almost the entire population sits out passively.
Of course we can debate what is the necessary fraction, but 3000 militants isn't a big deal in a country of several million. Every Iraqi cleric in 2010 was able to put together a bigger militia than that.
> 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
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.)
(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.)
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who calls something genocide needs to care because it has to have some definition or set of examples to mean anything, and those organizations are pretty much where the definitions come from. People love exaggerating political issues by using stronger words, so you have to tune it out, and then there's no information left.
> ? 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.
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.
So it hasn't yet decided if there's genocide or not?
People should just say what they actually mean instead of ambiguous words like genocide. Is the genocide limiting food aid with the aim of demoralizing the population into losing support for Hamas? Or is it directly killing people in the fighting? He could have just said that so his words mean something. Those actions might or might not be genocide but they might still be something worth criticizing.
People should just say what they actually mean instead of ambiguous words like genocide. Is the genocide limiting food aid with the aim of demoralizing the population into losing support for Hamas? Or is it directly killing people in the fighting? He could have just said that so his words mean something. Those actions might or might not be genocide but they might still be something worth criticizing.
So we're just glossing over the fact that you tried to pretend the ICJ had said it wasn't genocide, a blatant lie, in your parent post? Why are you so committed to muddying the waters here?
It wasn't a lie. I really did seem to remember that. It may have been that they didn't reach a conclusion that it was genocide, or something else. I tried to look up the case and still couldn't see ICJ actually labelling it as genocide.
People keep questioning the definition of genocide, as if finding some technical distinction will absolve the perpetrators.
If you actually care about international law, you might be interested to know that the ICC has issued (standing) arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the former Israeli Minister for Defense for various crimes against humanity and the use of starvation in warfare.
If you actually care about international law, you might be interested to know that the ICC has issued (standing) arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the former Israeli Minister for Defense for various crimes against humanity and the use of starvation in warfare.
Shah was a dictator propped up by US. There's no going back to these times.
Don’t forget Iran was defined as a country by the Ottoman Empire and others arbitrarily drawing lines around various groups that hate each other.
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.
Iran has violated the NPT because there were agreements in place for it to respect it, and the agreements have been violated by the other side. An action that must have consequences, otherwise there is no point in making deals with anyone.
> 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.
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?
The uranium enrichment is confirmed by the Iranians, the have published pictures of their leaders inspecting the centrifuges. You can find them with a quick search.
its not circumstantial.
Even Iran has publicly said that they have enriched to 60%. 60% is not needed for civilian uses and only useful for research in how to make it go boom.
Even Iran has publicly said that they have enriched to 60%. 60% is not needed for civilian uses and only useful for research in how to make it go boom.
thats still circumstantial.
they could show research that theyre doing for how to make nuclear power using 60% enriched uranium. nothing says they have to use an existing design
they could show research that theyre doing for how to make nuclear power using 60% enriched uranium. nothing says they have to use an existing design
Sure, they're making weapons grade uranium to exhibit it in the Museum of the Islamic Revolution and the Holy Defense in Teheran.
How about the UN censuring Iran for not complying with the agreement? Was this a manufactured consensus? I don't see anyone mentioning IAEA's decision here.
www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/un-nuclear-watchdog-censures-iran-a-move-that-could-lead-to-restore-sanctions
www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/un-nuclear-watchdog-censures-iran-a-move-that-could-lead-to-restore-sanctions
> Israel fears an economically functional Iran and uses the wmd excuse to sabotage it as much as possible.
Israel couldn't care less about Iran until 1979. It's the Islamists who are obsessed with Israel.
If Iran stopped chanting "Death to Israel" and stopped arming anti-Israeli groups then Israel would have no issue with Iran.
Israel couldn't care less about Iran until 1979. It's the Islamists who are obsessed with Israel.
If Iran stopped chanting "Death to Israel" and stopped arming anti-Israeli groups then Israel would have no issue with Iran.
> If Iran stopped chanting "Death to Israel"
It's a stupid slogan because it gives politicians ammunition, but it can be interpreted various ways. For example:
Ali Al Bukhaiti, the former spokesman and the official media face of the Houthis, said: "We really do not want anyone's death. This slogan is only against the intervention of those governments [i.e. the United States and Israel]."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Israel
Meanwhile, if you judge a country by it's actions rather than it's slogans tell me how Israel is looking right now on the "death to ..." scale.
It's a stupid slogan because it gives politicians ammunition, but it can be interpreted various ways. For example:
Ali Al Bukhaiti, the former spokesman and the official media face of the Houthis, said: "We really do not want anyone's death. This slogan is only against the intervention of those governments [i.e. the United States and Israel]."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Israel
Meanwhile, if you judge a country by it's actions rather than it's slogans tell me how Israel is looking right now on the "death to ..." scale.
> 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.
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.
you do know that jews come from the current state of israel right? and that they lived there before the founding of said state? and that, no, neither group of 7M people are going to pack up and leave.
This is no more relevant than the guys in the OAS banging the table and claiming 2M Frenchmen have always lived in Algeria. It's not the age of exploration any more, you can no more rock up on someone else's patch, declare it terra nullis and start building condos. What's worse again, is trying to make it some religious thing... this book here says I own all you guy's land because the book says God gave it to us guys and not yous.
Even if you believe Israelis don’t have a right to the land, it’s still not a colonial outpost. That’s just lazy European and American self important intellectualizing in my opinion.
First a colony is one controlled by a foreign nation. Next the population of Israel is, or was, about half Sephardim. Meaning Jews from the Middle East, many of whom were unwilling expelled from Muslim countries.
Secondly Arab Muslim Palestinians could also be considered colonizers if ones that’d been there many generations.
The Israel and Palestine conflict in many aspects is more similar to between Turkey and Greece after WWI. In 1923 they “swapped populations” due to the aftermaths of Greeces independence from the Turkish Ottaman Empire and the following wars. Populations which had lived together segregated after the wars and were expelled on both sides in roughly equal numbers.
It was similar after the 1948 war with about 850,000 Middle Eastern Jews and 750,000 Palestinians being displaced.
Except Palestinians were never integrated into Egypt or Jordan. Partly by their own choice and partly by that of the Arab countries. The stated goal was that they’d destroy the new state of Israel and return.
First a colony is one controlled by a foreign nation. Next the population of Israel is, or was, about half Sephardim. Meaning Jews from the Middle East, many of whom were unwilling expelled from Muslim countries.
Secondly Arab Muslim Palestinians could also be considered colonizers if ones that’d been there many generations.
The Israel and Palestine conflict in many aspects is more similar to between Turkey and Greece after WWI. In 1923 they “swapped populations” due to the aftermaths of Greeces independence from the Turkish Ottaman Empire and the following wars. Populations which had lived together segregated after the wars and were expelled on both sides in roughly equal numbers.
It was similar after the 1948 war with about 850,000 Middle Eastern Jews and 750,000 Palestinians being displaced.
Except Palestinians were never integrated into Egypt or Jordan. Partly by their own choice and partly by that of the Arab countries. The stated goal was that they’d destroy the new state of Israel and return.
The Jews are from Judah. It's the Arabs (from Arabia) who colonized the land.
> 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?
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...
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.
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."
Their religious leaders like literally come out and say, "This is based on our religious beliefs."
Does every Shi'ite hold these same beliefs then? What is the religious basis for the belief?
Henry VIII used religious justification for breaking off from the pope as well but surely we're grown up enough to recognise those movements came about from a desire for political autonomy more than disagreements over bible interpretations?
Henry VIII used religious justification for breaking off from the pope as well but surely we're grown up enough to recognise those movements came about from a desire for political autonomy more than disagreements over bible interpretations?
You're looking for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
>In 2024, Ali Khamenei told Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh: "The divine promise to eliminate the Zionist entity will be fulfilled and we will see the day when Palestine will rise from the river to the sea."
In particular check out the "clerics" section of that article for the statements of multiple leading religious authorities in the regime on the religious justifications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
>In 2024, Ali Khamenei told Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh: "The divine promise to eliminate the Zionist entity will be fulfilled and we will see the day when Palestine will rise from the river to the sea."
In particular check out the "clerics" section of that article for the statements of multiple leading religious authorities in the regime on the religious justifications.
Well, to start off I want to reiterate what I said about the reformation era political upheavals in Europe and religion being used as a justification and easy explanation for very real geopolitical concerns.
But just for argument's sake and to respect your position I always want to point out that your quote subtly talks about "the Zionist entity" and not about Israel or Jews. So I can assume that you're equating Israel with Zionism, which is arguably fair. Now the question I would have is do we recognise the inherent violence of Zionism and, if so, why do we decentre that in our conversation and instead focus on the reaction to it?
But just for argument's sake and to respect your position I always want to point out that your quote subtly talks about "the Zionist entity" and not about Israel or Jews. So I can assume that you're equating Israel with Zionism, which is arguably fair. Now the question I would have is do we recognise the inherent violence of Zionism and, if so, why do we decentre that in our conversation and instead focus on the reaction to it?
What geopolitical concerns can Iran have over Israel, that Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia wouldn't have? They're all functionally Israeli allies now.
It is important to understand how we got here, to understand what might be plausibly achievable.
In the 1920s after Britain kicked out Turkey there was a partition proposal. The Jewish leadership at the time agreed saying they would accept a land "the size of a tablecloth". The Palestinian leaders refused absolutely and demanded the expulsion of all Jews. Their leader declared "It is impossible to live alongside the Jews" and threatened "A river of blood".
In 1937 there was another proposal in which 'Israel' would have been the small region from Tel Aviv north to the Lebanese border. The Palestinians rejected it out of hand.
In 1948 the Palestinians were granted considerably more land than they have now for their own independent state, but refused partition as unacceptable. Five Arab nations attacked Israel with the intention to destroy it completely. The General Secretary of the Arab League at the time Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, who personally orchestrated the attack declared the intention of the war was "An extermination and a momentous massacre".
Jordan and Egypt annexed the West bank and Gaza for the next 2 decades during which the Palestinians had no political rights or freedoms. The Palestinian leaders never pushed for the formation of an independent state during this time, and Israel took both regions during the Six Day War.
So if we include the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have been offered an independent state of their own four times, and every time they have rejected it completely as unacceptable. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" literally means free of Jews. Over and over, the Palestinian leadership have made that crystal clear. An independent state of their own alongside Israel in any shape or form, in their own statements and openly declared intentions has persistently been rejected.
Meanwhile Egypt and Jordan have realised that Israel is no threat to them, in fact both states have suffered coup attempts by Palestinians. They are now functionally Israeli allies against the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia has now pretty solidly moved in the same direction.
It is important to understand how we got here, to understand what might be plausibly achievable.
In the 1920s after Britain kicked out Turkey there was a partition proposal. The Jewish leadership at the time agreed saying they would accept a land "the size of a tablecloth". The Palestinian leaders refused absolutely and demanded the expulsion of all Jews. Their leader declared "It is impossible to live alongside the Jews" and threatened "A river of blood".
In 1937 there was another proposal in which 'Israel' would have been the small region from Tel Aviv north to the Lebanese border. The Palestinians rejected it out of hand.
In 1948 the Palestinians were granted considerably more land than they have now for their own independent state, but refused partition as unacceptable. Five Arab nations attacked Israel with the intention to destroy it completely. The General Secretary of the Arab League at the time Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, who personally orchestrated the attack declared the intention of the war was "An extermination and a momentous massacre".
Jordan and Egypt annexed the West bank and Gaza for the next 2 decades during which the Palestinians had no political rights or freedoms. The Palestinian leaders never pushed for the formation of an independent state during this time, and Israel took both regions during the Six Day War.
So if we include the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have been offered an independent state of their own four times, and every time they have rejected it completely as unacceptable. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" literally means free of Jews. Over and over, the Palestinian leadership have made that crystal clear. An independent state of their own alongside Israel in any shape or form, in their own statements and openly declared intentions has persistently been rejected.
Meanwhile Egypt and Jordan have realised that Israel is no threat to them, in fact both states have suffered coup attempts by Palestinians. They are now functionally Israeli allies against the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia has now pretty solidly moved in the same direction.
egypt at least, is bribed by the US on that.
if you include the oslo accords, the narrative that palestinians are the one and only problem breaks down. the only time there was agreeable terms being set, and israelis assasinated their leader for proposing them.
i wouldnt expect america to ever be favourable to carving out a new independent state of Venesuela from colorado because theres a lot of non-citizen refugees. you can see americans today pushing back against having more immigrants, too and removing the people that are here
if you include the oslo accords, the narrative that palestinians are the one and only problem breaks down. the only time there was agreeable terms being set, and israelis assasinated their leader for proposing them.
i wouldnt expect america to ever be favourable to carving out a new independent state of Venesuela from colorado because theres a lot of non-citizen refugees. you can see americans today pushing back against having more immigrants, too and removing the people that are here
To be fair, prior to the Islamic Revolution, Iran was controlled by a US-installed government. Obviously, they were going to be pro-Israel.
> 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.
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.
Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Support for Israel extends beyond religious justifications.
I could really care less what theit form of government is
> 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.
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.
> Where do you think they've got the weapons from?
Ultimately, from the United States taxpayer. Who supply the Egyptian military government, who turn a small proportion over to the Islamists to keep them from too much rabble-rousing. Who smuggle them to Hamas.
Both Qatar and Iran supply money and other forms of support to Hamas. But no RPG makes it into Gaza (across a shorter than 10 mile border) without the Egyptian military sort of knowing about it.
Ultimately, from the United States taxpayer. Who supply the Egyptian military government, who turn a small proportion over to the Islamists to keep them from too much rabble-rousing. Who smuggle them to Hamas.
Both Qatar and Iran supply money and other forms of support to Hamas. But no RPG makes it into Gaza (across a shorter than 10 mile border) without the Egyptian military sort of knowing about it.
And of course one of the reasons Qatar supplied them is because Netanyahu specifically asked them to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
So Hamas used the Quatari funds for kids' food and medical supplies to buy and manufacture weapons. How does that change anything?
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/10/19/hamas-used-iranian-p...
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/10/19/hamas-used-iranian-p...
[deleted]
A shining beacon of democracy.
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.
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
Looks theocratic to me
I don’t think you understand what you linked to. That is about government census forms that track ethnicity, same as any other country. Nationality here doesn’t mean citizenship, but rather something closer to “tribe.”
Some well meaning citizens said “I want to check Israeli rather than Jew, Druze, Arab, etc.” Except Israeli is not a nationality in this sense. Nor is Jewish, on this form, a religious identification. It is a way of tracking, for census reasons, something closer to ethnicity. Not for nefarious purposes, but just to track demographics.
Some well meaning citizens said “I want to check Israeli rather than Jew, Druze, Arab, etc.” Except Israeli is not a nationality in this sense. Nor is Jewish, on this form, a religious identification. It is a way of tracking, for census reasons, something closer to ethnicity. Not for nefarious purposes, but just to track demographics.
That is a very dishonest interpretation not only because the national registry is not a mere question of census but of identity, but because the Supreme Court clearly outlines that it in black and white that it is about the question of Jewish supremacy.
from the article:
> the court explained that doing so would have “weighty implications” on the State of Israel and could pose a danger to Israel’s founding principle: to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people.
from the article:
> the court explained that doing so would have “weighty implications” on the State of Israel and could pose a danger to Israel’s founding principle: to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people.
I think you are dishonestly interpreting it, but I'm not going to engage with a throwaway account.
> The myth of Democracy is just that, a myth. It doesn’t work anymore.
That is a very strong claim that needs very strong evidence.
That is a very strong claim that needs very strong evidence.
You have been provided with a list of items that undermines the claim of democracy, the evidence is also pretty strong. What else do you want?
- There is only one Israeli citizenship. Jews have it. Israeli Arab Muslims have it. Israeli Arab Christians have it. Druze have it. It's the same.
Is there discrimination, in all directions? Yup. The world is a tribal place.
But you should move on from that "tiered" thing. I live here. I have been doing a project with Arabs for the last two weeks. We have lunch together most days. Move on.
- Constitution -- You clearly have not read the constitutions of Syria, Saudi Arabia, or many other countries. Ethnic groups are all over the identities of most of the world's countries.
- Automatic citizenship - How narrow do you define this? African Americans can go to Liberia and other countries of Africa. Until just twenty years ago or so anyone with a German grandparent could automatically get German citizenship. If you are Cuban you can get American citizenship. Are you thinking this through?
- NPT, I am not sure anyone cares, but this is very different than your other topics.
Is there discrimination, in all directions? Yup. The world is a tribal place.
But you should move on from that "tiered" thing. I live here. I have been doing a project with Arabs for the last two weeks. We have lunch together most days. Move on.
- Constitution -- You clearly have not read the constitutions of Syria, Saudi Arabia, or many other countries. Ethnic groups are all over the identities of most of the world's countries.
- Automatic citizenship - How narrow do you define this? African Americans can go to Liberia and other countries of Africa. Until just twenty years ago or so anyone with a German grandparent could automatically get German citizenship. If you are Cuban you can get American citizenship. Are you thinking this through?
- NPT, I am not sure anyone cares, but this is very different than your other topics.
> But you should move on from that "tiered" thing. I live here. I have been doing a project with Arabs for the last two weeks. We have lunch together most days. Move on.
As convincing as your lunch anecdote is, I'm not sure you're can hand waive away the problem so easily.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel
A March 2010 poll by Tel Aviv University found that 49.5% of Israeli Jewish high school students believe Israeli Arabs should not be entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel
An October 2010 poll by the Dahaf polling agency found that 36% of Israeli Jews favor eliminating voting rights for non-Jews
A 2012 poll revealed widespread support among Israeli Jews for discrimination against Israeli Arabs, including 33% of respondents believing Israeli Arabs should be denied the right to vote, 42% objecting to their children going to the same schools as Arabs, and 49% "[wanting] the state to treat Jews better than Arabs"
And on and on and on...
As convincing as your lunch anecdote is, I'm not sure you're can hand waive away the problem so easily.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel
A March 2010 poll by Tel Aviv University found that 49.5% of Israeli Jewish high school students believe Israeli Arabs should not be entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel
An October 2010 poll by the Dahaf polling agency found that 36% of Israeli Jews favor eliminating voting rights for non-Jews
A 2012 poll revealed widespread support among Israeli Jews for discrimination against Israeli Arabs, including 33% of respondents believing Israeli Arabs should be denied the right to vote, 42% objecting to their children going to the same schools as Arabs, and 49% "[wanting] the state to treat Jews better than Arabs"
And on and on and on...
That is polling, that isn't reality.
I live here. In places like Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs are together all day, every day. 40% of the police officers in Jerusalem are Arabs.
What is your problem?
Why do you selectively omit the polls of Arabs and Palestinians... about lots of things.... (attitudes to Jews, support of violent Jihadist groups, etc etc)
If you want peace, push for peace.
If you want violence and blood, keep doing what you are doing.
I live here. In places like Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs are together all day, every day. 40% of the police officers in Jerusalem are Arabs.
What is your problem?
Why do you selectively omit the polls of Arabs and Palestinians... about lots of things.... (attitudes to Jews, support of violent Jihadist groups, etc etc)
If you want peace, push for peace.
If you want violence and blood, keep doing what you are doing.
> What is your problem?
My problem is that Isreal is killing innocent people every day and I want them to stop it. Their horrible record of human rights violations is undeniable.
So I'm sorry if this colors my view of Israelis treatment of non-Jewish people within Israel and makes polls like the one's I cited easy to believe. But you're right I don't live there so I don't know the ground truth.
> If you want peace, push for peace.
That's exactly what I want. How do you suggest I push for it then? Because from where I sit, a good start is to be critical of (or at to least stop supporting) the biggest perpetrator of civilian death on the planet.
My problem is that Isreal is killing innocent people every day and I want them to stop it. Their horrible record of human rights violations is undeniable.
So I'm sorry if this colors my view of Israelis treatment of non-Jewish people within Israel and makes polls like the one's I cited easy to believe. But you're right I don't live there so I don't know the ground truth.
> If you want peace, push for peace.
That's exactly what I want. How do you suggest I push for it then? Because from where I sit, a good start is to be critical of (or at to least stop supporting) the biggest perpetrator of civilian death on the planet.
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?
Iran used to be a democracy in the Middle East until the US got involved
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...
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...
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
Democracy is not some magic word that justifies things
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.
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 can be simultaneously true that Iran is sitting on a huge pike of precursor materials for nuclear weapons, and is not currently actually making bombs. Last week she was emphasising the latter, now she’s emphasising the former. Disingenuous? Sure.
Trump and his people are children in the back of a car that found mummy’s gun in her purse. They have no idea what they are doing. I understand what Israel is doing but the US administration are clueless and rudderless.
Trump and his people are children in the back of a car that found mummy’s gun in her purse. They have no idea what they are doing. I understand what Israel is doing but the US administration are clueless and rudderless.
Israel has elections. So does Russia. Is Russia a democracy?
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.
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.
East Jerusalem is ... not a nut anyone here is going to crack.
What do those folks want for themselves? Be part of the Palestinian Authority? (Not the ones I have been doing a remodel with.) Make them part of Jordan?
Jerusalem is disputed territory. That makes it an uncomfortable mess, for more or less everyone.
The region needs more efforts toward peace, and less black and white, good/bad labeling.
East Jerusalemites are in limbo waiting for peace.
It's Jerusalem. It's a strange place.
What do those folks want for themselves? Be part of the Palestinian Authority? (Not the ones I have been doing a remodel with.) Make them part of Jordan?
Jerusalem is disputed territory. That makes it an uncomfortable mess, for more or less everyone.
The region needs more efforts toward peace, and less black and white, good/bad labeling.
East Jerusalemites are in limbo waiting for peace.
It's Jerusalem. It's a strange place.
> Support for Israel extends beyond religious justifications
Yes, it extends that support to cover apartheid colonial occupation, more-than-likely genocide by all the accepted definitions, and the usual smattering of targeting civilians, executing paramedics in marked ambulances and ethic cleansing.
Yes, it extends that support to cover apartheid colonial occupation, more-than-likely genocide by all the accepted definitions, and the usual smattering of targeting civilians, executing paramedics in marked ambulances and ethic cleansing.
Those with the spirit to strike, will always dominate those with a mind to moderate.
> 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"
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"
>> 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.
How do you even begin to equivocate this? One wants to destroy a country, one wants to protect it from destruction.
> 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?
Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of every Palestinian - and they've had ample capacity to do. The reverse can't be said to be true. If there's a button that the Iraqi or Palestinian leadership that can press that would wipe out the state of Israel and everyone in it, do you think that they won't press it as fast as they can?
> And the US is full of Christo-fascists who believe they have a religious duty to "defend" Israel by any means necessary.
How do you even begin to equivocate this? One wants to destroy a country, one wants to protect it from destruction.
> 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?
Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of every Palestinian - and they've had ample capacity to do. The reverse can't be said to be true. If there's a button that the Iraqi or Palestinian leadership that can press that would wipe out the state of Israel and everyone in it, do you think that they won't press it as fast as they can?
> Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of every Palestinian
They clearly and openly state that they want to force Palestinians off of their land and are using violence towards that end.
If there were a button to get rid of Palestinians, Israelis would “hit it twice”.
https://youtu.be/BkP78hyLl4w
They clearly and openly state that they want to force Palestinians off of their land and are using violence towards that end.
If there were a button to get rid of Palestinians, Israelis would “hit it twice”.
https://youtu.be/BkP78hyLl4w
That is two random youtubers.
You know better than to listen to rants on line... I hope!
You know better than to listen to rants on line... I hope!
I posted that because it was illustrative and the podcasters used the same phrase, without any shame or compunction.
Here’s a survey conducted by Israeli researchers showing that vast majority (82%) of Israelis surveyed support forcibly expelling Palestinians.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-03/ty-article/.p...
Here’s a survey conducted by Israeli researchers showing that vast majority (82%) of Israelis surveyed support forcibly expelling Palestinians.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-03/ty-article/.p...
Israelis are brutalized, by the actions of Hamas and at having no choice but to fight Hamas in horrible circumstances.
Hamas could have ended the war in Gaza a year ago. Or on October 8 2023.
Do they? No. They will fight to the last Gazan child.
Is it nice that Israelis see no alternative to Gazans being resettled elsewhere? No.
Do you have a path for Gazans to go back to the mid 1990's when 100+ Gazans came to Kibbutz Nir Oz for a peace festival?
Hamas could have ended the war in Gaza a year ago. Or on October 8 2023.
Do they? No. They will fight to the last Gazan child.
Is it nice that Israelis see no alternative to Gazans being resettled elsewhere? No.
Do you have a path for Gazans to go back to the mid 1990's when 100+ Gazans came to Kibbutz Nir Oz for a peace festival?
> Israelis are brutalized, by the actions of Hamas and at having no choice but to fight Hamas in horrible circumstances.
No matter how many times I see it, the constant shifting goalposts and lack of self awareness will always startle me.
No matter how many times I see it, the constant shifting goalposts and lack of self awareness will always startle me.
I am not saying it is good or desirable.
Do you live in a place that has a death cult committing daily acts of violence and killing (against people on both sides of the fence, of both "ethnicities")?
Do you live in a place where billions are spent on offensive weapons (tunnels, rockets) and stolen from donated food aid (as Hamas has been hijacking aid for many years and selling it at profit)?
If you do not, do you have any idea how a group of people (e.g. a society) responds to ongoing violence and threats of violence?
Your dismissive "constant shifting goalposts and lack of self awareness will always startle me" is the mark of someone who sits in an armchair and experiences no threat.
Beware of being dismissive. This region needs people who push for the hard work of peace and avoid labels and dismisiveness.
There was a peace movement in the 1990s. It accomplished a lot (a million+ Palestinians live under a Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza was left to its own devices in 2005).
A death cult (probably two) killed that process. By killing people (including the Israeli Prime Minister). Years earlier, that death cult killed Sadat for his peace making work.
Support those who push for peace.
Call out those who don't.
Do you live in a place that has a death cult committing daily acts of violence and killing (against people on both sides of the fence, of both "ethnicities")?
Do you live in a place where billions are spent on offensive weapons (tunnels, rockets) and stolen from donated food aid (as Hamas has been hijacking aid for many years and selling it at profit)?
If you do not, do you have any idea how a group of people (e.g. a society) responds to ongoing violence and threats of violence?
Your dismissive "constant shifting goalposts and lack of self awareness will always startle me" is the mark of someone who sits in an armchair and experiences no threat.
Beware of being dismissive. This region needs people who push for the hard work of peace and avoid labels and dismisiveness.
There was a peace movement in the 1990s. It accomplished a lot (a million+ Palestinians live under a Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza was left to its own devices in 2005).
A death cult (probably two) killed that process. By killing people (including the Israeli Prime Minister). Years earlier, that death cult killed Sadat for his peace making work.
Support those who push for peace.
Call out those who don't.
> Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of every Palestinian
Uh? So can you explain the genocide?
Uh? So can you explain the genocide?
Can you explain a genocide in Gaza or the West Bank both of which have growing Palestinian populations even during wartime?
(If you correct for the 100K+ who left Gaza before Egypt closed its border in 2024)
(If you correct for the 100K+ who left Gaza before Egypt closed its border in 2024)
Inventing is explaining now? Ah…
Inventing what, exactly?
The population growth rate in the West Bank and Gaza is higher than that of Europe.
I ain't the one having the babies... The residents of those places are.
The population growth rate in the West Bank and Gaza is higher than that of Europe.
I ain't the one having the babies... The residents of those places are.
And what is the life expectancy?
What is the life expectancy of a body politic that chooses ongoing offensive war?
That is not a well thought out question. The answer is different in PA controlled areas, non PA areas, and Gaza.
And Gaza's life expectancy is different for members of Hamas vs. non members. And was one thing on October 6, 2023 and October 8, 2023.
Hamas has agency.
They could end the war a year ago or tomorrow.
Why don't they?
That is not a well thought out question. The answer is different in PA controlled areas, non PA areas, and Gaza.
And Gaza's life expectancy is different for members of Hamas vs. non members. And was one thing on October 6, 2023 and October 8, 2023.
Hamas has agency.
They could end the war a year ago or tomorrow.
Why don't they?
I don't think "getting invaded" counts as "choosing offensive war".
>I don't think "getting invaded" counts as "choosing offensive war".
Do you know what Hamas is?
Do you know their charter?
Do you know that they diverted billions of $, meant to build housing for Gazans to their own pockets and to a huge underground fortress under a civilian population?
Do you know that most Gazans support Hamas, and that Hamas has made many offensive wars against the civilians and armies of both Israel and Egypt? (Hamas killed dozens of Egyptian soldiers running wild in Egyptian Rafah in 2014... Know what Egypt did? Leveled hundreds of housing structures)
Hamas has been in a state of war since the day they took power in Gaza.
Hamas has murdered hundreds of Palestinians, including many who worked for peace.
What do you want to see?
More violence and blood?
Or more peace?
Promote what you want to see.
(Digging out the 100's of miles of offensive tunnels in Gaza is slow slow work. Hamas could end the war any time, but they will never surrender. They will fight to the last Gazan child. Do you want that?)
Do you know what Hamas is?
Do you know their charter?
Do you know that they diverted billions of $, meant to build housing for Gazans to their own pockets and to a huge underground fortress under a civilian population?
Do you know that most Gazans support Hamas, and that Hamas has made many offensive wars against the civilians and armies of both Israel and Egypt? (Hamas killed dozens of Egyptian soldiers running wild in Egyptian Rafah in 2014... Know what Egypt did? Leveled hundreds of housing structures)
Hamas has been in a state of war since the day they took power in Gaza.
Hamas has murdered hundreds of Palestinians, including many who worked for peace.
What do you want to see?
More violence and blood?
Or more peace?
Promote what you want to see.
(Digging out the 100's of miles of offensive tunnels in Gaza is slow slow work. Hamas could end the war any time, but they will never surrender. They will fight to the last Gazan child. Do you want that?)
_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?_
Probably pretty badly now after squandering decades on building tunnels, hiding weapons and generally being a backwards fundamentalist cultish death camp. It's a mini Iran, and just as hateful. There's a reasom there's a massive security wall along the Egyptian border. They know what's up.
Probably pretty badly now after squandering decades on building tunnels, hiding weapons and generally being a backwards fundamentalist cultish death camp. It's a mini Iran, and just as hateful. There's a reasom there's a massive security wall along the Egyptian border. They know what's up.
None of what is going on in the Middle East is a "religious war" as such. That's a thought-terminating cliche that you're putting in practice pretty clearly here.
> 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.
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.
Ah, yes, Israel famously publicly declaring that its' holy mission is to destroy Iran. Happened so many times, yes.
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...
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...
I don't think the average Iranian citizen cares at all about Israel, one way or the other, but they don't have any say in Iranian state politics.
There's no natural law setting the mullahs against the existence of Israel, as I said they think and vocally declaim publicly that it is divine law. Don't believe me, just look up what they say.
I do think the way this is being handled is a travesty though. There was a functioning agreement with international monitoring in place in 2016 and Trump tore it up. Since then Iran has increased their enrichment capacity, and their stockpile of enriched material by 22 time above what they committed to in that agreement. Canceling that deal was a foolish blunder that had lead us to this.
Ultimately the only path to long term peace has to be the fall of theocratic rule in Iran, but that's a mater for the Iranian people. It's quite possible the nuclear question could have been managed, but just as with NAFTA Trump saw personal political advantage is scrapping an old deal in order to rebrand it as his better deal, but dropped the ball because he doesn't understand the geopolitics, and here we are.
There's no natural law setting the mullahs against the existence of Israel, as I said they think and vocally declaim publicly that it is divine law. Don't believe me, just look up what they say.
I do think the way this is being handled is a travesty though. There was a functioning agreement with international monitoring in place in 2016 and Trump tore it up. Since then Iran has increased their enrichment capacity, and their stockpile of enriched material by 22 time above what they committed to in that agreement. Canceling that deal was a foolish blunder that had lead us to this.
Ultimately the only path to long term peace has to be the fall of theocratic rule in Iran, but that's a mater for the Iranian people. It's quite possible the nuclear question could have been managed, but just as with NAFTA Trump saw personal political advantage is scrapping an old deal in order to rebrand it as his better deal, but dropped the ball because he doesn't understand the geopolitics, and here we are.
I think it's important, especially so shortly after the fact not to mix up things.
Trump wanted another deal and told Bibi not to attack. Bibi didn't want that and attacked. Trump jumped on the bandwagon and now everybody is talking about him again.
Trump wanted another deal and told Bibi not to attack. Bibi didn't want that and attacked. Trump jumped on the bandwagon and now everybody is talking about him again.
All absolutely true. In fact we're only in this situation because Trump cancelled the nuclear deal with Iran, along with as many treaties as he could get away with so he could get the credit of renegotiating them. Except for the ones he never got round to, like the one with Iran. So, here we are.
I don't particularly blame the Israelis though, and there's broad support for this over there, it's not just Netanyahu.
I don't particularly blame the Israelis though, and there's broad support for this over there, it's not just Netanyahu.
What's the reason of incompatibility of Islam and Jewish religion?
Nothing in most of their beliefs. They’re both monotheistic and similar in many regards as Islam largely inherited its tenants from both Judaism and Christianity.
Jews were often well treated and flourished in the earlier Islamic caliphates.
But with the formation of a Jewish Israel the conflict. Generally in Islamic belief there must be an Islamic caliphate with Sharia Law. Jerusalem is considered one of the holy sites of Islam and therefore belongs to that caliphate.
That’s contrasted with Judaism and Israel being the land promised to the Jews. Though modern Israel was largely founded by secular Jews so it’s a bit more complicated on that front.
Jews were often well treated and flourished in the earlier Islamic caliphates.
But with the formation of a Jewish Israel the conflict. Generally in Islamic belief there must be an Islamic caliphate with Sharia Law. Jerusalem is considered one of the holy sites of Islam and therefore belongs to that caliphate.
That’s contrasted with Judaism and Israel being the land promised to the Jews. Though modern Israel was largely founded by secular Jews so it’s a bit more complicated on that front.
It does not make sense to frame Iran versus Israel as religious war. Religion is so fundamental, when we frame it as this, it becomes a unsolvable problem.
> It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel.
I believe this is very important to highlight, and, unfortunately, many Iranians will suffer because of the Iranian government's views.
But I do believe there are viewpoints held on both sides that can make achieving peace in that region extremely difficult. Consider these two video excerpts (You only need to watch about 10 seconds for each)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYoa9hI3CXg&t=1948s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEiL_5h14pY&t=452s
I believe this is very important to highlight, and, unfortunately, many Iranians will suffer because of the Iranian government's views.
But I do believe there are viewpoints held on both sides that can make achieving peace in that region extremely difficult. Consider these two video excerpts (You only need to watch about 10 seconds for each)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYoa9hI3CXg&t=1948s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEiL_5h14pY&t=452s
Then how is that any different from what the USA has done. Bombing and destroying many countries in the name of spreading democracy?
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.
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?
NK is more of a russian client state, not chinese.
> by having a theocracy they
Religion is just another ideology, and it s not like Islam has a specific position about nuclear energy
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.
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.
Iran's current situation is because their dictator DOES have a position about nuclear energy and nukes.
Energy is fine, but nukes are haram. This is THE reason they haven't built any nukes the last 40+ years.
Changing a religious decree of that nature requires a very big excuse which has never existed. Israel and the US threatening Iran's existence and threatening to kill millions of Muslims is the ONE thing I can think of that would allow Khamenei an "out" to actually build a nuke.
Energy is fine, but nukes are haram. This is THE reason they haven't built any nukes the last 40+ years.
Changing a religious decree of that nature requires a very big excuse which has never existed. Israel and the US threatening Iran's existence and threatening to kill millions of Muslims is the ONE thing I can think of that would allow Khamenei an "out" to actually build a nuke.
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.
Whether this fulfills that goal, we will see, but anything that weakens the regime is good for the Iranian people.
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.
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
And if anything, the last 20 years taught us that revolutions imposed from the outside never work
Not on their heads. On the weapons and heads of the regime. The regime is not the Iranian people.
If this goes to war, it will be their heads. We cannot be so naive to assume the US does not want civilian bloodshed. We love that, that's, like, our favorite thing about war.
This is why US war-mongering is bad and we need to stop doing it. The US is absolutely ruthless. After all, we're the only country that has actually used nukes - and we did it on civilians.
This is why US war-mongering is bad and we need to stop doing it. The US is absolutely ruthless. After all, we're the only country that has actually used nukes - and we did it on civilians.
Israel is bombing cities too[1], and the neighbors of the people who might be associated with the regime are just like you and me.
There are cleaning people and canteen workers in uranium enrichment facilities.
And so on. Once bombs start falling, it’s a silly idea that there’s no innocent casualty and that people won’t fear for their life regardless of their status when they hear bombs falling in the neighbourhood.
[1] and sure, that’s Israel (for now), but I don’t think that you’ll bother with this distinctions once you see bombs falling down
There are cleaning people and canteen workers in uranium enrichment facilities.
And so on. Once bombs start falling, it’s a silly idea that there’s no innocent casualty and that people won’t fear for their life regardless of their status when they hear bombs falling in the neighbourhood.
[1] and sure, that’s Israel (for now), but I don’t think that you’ll bother with this distinctions once you see bombs falling down
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. Not even the biggest dissidents rotting in regime jails would welcome this. Not even a little bit.
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.
Wasn't gonna post examples, but this thread[1] popped up in my Threads feed, so came back to share for posterity.
[1] https://www.threads.com/@djmelodie/post/DLNlE38PTNk?xmt=AQF0...
[1] https://www.threads.com/@djmelodie/post/DLNlE38PTNk?xmt=AQF0...
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.
>People never, ever, under any circumstances, want to be attacked and bombed by another country.
Depends on the effectiveness of the bombing.
Depends on the effectiveness of the bombing.
You write this because you don’t understand what people in Iran have been dealing with for the past 45 years.
It is one thing to not like the political leadership, but another thing if the government oppresses the population.
Those of us in America are privileged that we can’t fathom what that means.
It is one thing to not like the political leadership, but another thing if the government oppresses the population.
Those of us in America are privileged that we can’t fathom what that means.
I'm not an American, and live in country that was under an even more authoritarian regime until fairly recently. While I was born just as the regime was ending, I know plenty from my parents about how they felt. And I stand by what I said: even under the worse circumstances, no one ever desires to be bombarded.
How many Iranians do you know that told you that?
Literally every Iranian I know, which is quite a few. The regime is NOT liked.
[deleted]
Waiting for this (to be bombed out if existence) and "don't like the regime" are very different things.
Indeed, judging by the No King protests, some strong action is in order if we follow this pathetic way of thinking.
This is the big problem. Most of the people who would want a different government enough to take action took the only action they could and left the country.
This also accounts for the bias in people you meet as the ones who like Iran tend to continue living there.
This also accounts for the bias in people you meet as the ones who like Iran tend to continue living there.
Do you know those people in the article and if they are Iranian?
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.
regime change has never worked, not with actual boots on the ground, let alone targeted air strikes.
I don't see Hitler and Mussolini's grandsons ruling Germany and Italy.
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?
where is DOGE when you actually need them?
Are they not there DOGE-ing as we speak?! lol.
Anecdotally Mussolini’s granddaughter has been a member of both houses of the Italian Parliament as well as the European Parliament.
Believe it or not, Mussolini's granddaughter is a fairly influential former politician within Italy
Germany was split in half for 45 years. The Marshall Plan was the largest economic development operation in history. Meanwhile, the GOP has decided that the entire concept of foreign economic aid is bad because a theater somewhere was too woke.
Regime change and nation building worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq. Onward to more death and suffering, I guess.
Regime change and nation building worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq. Onward to more death and suffering, I guess.
yugoslavia?
The bombing campaign united the people against the new enemy: “the west”, and arguably gave Milosevic some more time to rule. I survived this, trust me that even if your regime is shit, people don’t want to be bombed and will unite against the aggressor. This is in part because even if the aggressor claims that they are “bombing the regime” they are usually in fact bombing the country’s infrastructure, industry, urban areas etc.
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.
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.
I personally friends with many IT people and their families from Belarus (the company I used to work for brought whole bunch to Canada). Not a single one wants their country freedom bombed.
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.
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...
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...
It was true in some cases, but it was more "thank you, now please leave." Almost a direct quote from one report from an embedded reporter I'd cite directly if it weren't near impossible to find things online from that far back.
Iraq flash backs , they were sure very happy to greet their liberators , it's amazing to see propaganda's effects working in action
US didn't like it the last time the Iranian people got their regime change.
[flagged]
I believe you that the regime is hated.
But can you define what "this moment" is that they have been waiting for?
I don't think "this moment" helps them along the way. It is rather a reason for more internal repression.
But can you define what "this moment" is that they have been waiting for?
I don't think "this moment" helps them along the way. It is rather a reason for more internal repression.
The moment is that the regime is severely weakened and is struggling to deal with an external war, with very few weapons left. Many heads of their military were eliminated and they are scrambling to put the pieces back together.
Couple that with a population of at least 80 million people who hate the regime and only didn’t fight back because the regime had physical power over them.
Couple that with a population of at least 80 million people who hate the regime and only didn’t fight back because the regime had physical power over them.
Nothing is more effective at unifying a country than being attacked by a foreign power. This is how Bush secured a second term and how Giuliani became America's Mayor, two individuals who were previously disrespected and/or hated by a majority of their constituents.
There is some truth to that, but if it was that important for them to overthrow the regime…why not do it internally but instead they wait for someone to bomb them? 80mill is not a small number. You are saying 87% asked for this lol.
Please don't promote war. Ain't no one going to overthrow the Iranian government now that we attacked them. The US and Israel just screwed up everything there. Thanks.
That's nonsense. This is what westerners like to tell themselves because all they read is western media coverage of Iran.
No, 80 million people don't want to end the regime. Westerners can't fathom the fact that not everyone wants to live in a democratic free-for-all.... so clearly anyone who doesn't deserves bombing.
Pathetic. Imperialism is encoded in the DNA of Americans at this point.
No, 80 million people don't want to end the regime. Westerners can't fathom the fact that not everyone wants to live in a democratic free-for-all.... so clearly anyone who doesn't deserves bombing.
Pathetic. Imperialism is encoded in the DNA of Americans at this point.
It's a bit more complex than that, you have a country with two decades of mass demonstrations that were brutally suppressed and a new generation that no longer sees itself as religious while living in a theocracy.
they do have a massive popular support issue over there
they do have a massive popular support issue over there
None of what you said is true. They still enjoy large amounts of popularity - are you forgetting the entire country virtually coming to demonstrate when we slaughtered their commander a few years ago?
Not sure, how "nothing of what i said is true"
I didn't say there are no supporters, but there is an asymmetry between supporters and protestors. Supporters are being brought by buses, are often members of the Basij or other government functions and generally have incentives to do so. Protestors however risk extremely painful death and torture.
There is support for the regime, usually outside of large cities, but there's a reason there were large protests in almost every single year since 2016
for some reading you can take a look at https://www.taylorfrancis.com/reader/read-online/234eb6fd-85...
There's over 40% of responders that do not claim their religion is Shia, but rather Atheist, Humanist, etc. That's more than the people that define themselves as Shia, in a Shia theocracy. This also correlates with skepticism of government media and rejection of Hijab
I didn't say there are no supporters, but there is an asymmetry between supporters and protestors. Supporters are being brought by buses, are often members of the Basij or other government functions and generally have incentives to do so. Protestors however risk extremely painful death and torture.
There is support for the regime, usually outside of large cities, but there's a reason there were large protests in almost every single year since 2016
for some reading you can take a look at https://www.taylorfrancis.com/reader/read-online/234eb6fd-85...
There's over 40% of responders that do not claim their religion is Shia, but rather Atheist, Humanist, etc. That's more than the people that define themselves as Shia, in a Shia theocracy. This also correlates with skepticism of government media and rejection of Hijab
The same GAMAAN org that in 2020 found 33% of Iran were Shia, and in 2022 reported that number was now 56%?
Religiosity surveys in the middle east are largely bunk. Actual boots on the ground reality is very different. In the 2000s much was made about the rapid secularization of the Arab world. ... in reality, the exact opposite has happened with the youth.
Religiosity surveys in the middle east are largely bunk. Actual boots on the ground reality is very different. In the 2000s much was made about the rapid secularization of the Arab world. ... in reality, the exact opposite has happened with the youth.
I live in a major world city with considerable immigrant populations from many parts of the world, and saw some of the pro-Palestine demonstrations yesterday.
There were numerous groups of Iranians protesting against Israel's actions and in support of the Palestinians. These are Iranians living abroad so can be expected statistically to be less supportive of the current government than the average Iranian resident.
The counter-protest, mainly of pro-Israel demonstrators, this time also had Iranians, demonstrating against the current regime (and broadly in support of Israel). All the Iranian flags in this very small group were the Shah-era design with the lion.
The visibly Iranian groups in the pro-Palestinian demo vastly outnumbered the counter protest. They seemed quite ideologically diverse. There were some people holding pictures of the ayatollah with the words 'No Surrender'. But there were also groups with the sign "don't bomb us and claim it's for women's rights" (can't remember exact wording). Groups including women with headscarves, other groups with only bare headed women. As well as the current official flag with the swords, I saw people holding the lion flag, and others with the neutral tricolour without emblem. So at least some of the people present were anti the current regime, but supported the Palestinians in the current conflict.
Obviously a very selective sampling for many reasons, but far from what you might expect if almost all Iranians were united against their current government.
There were numerous groups of Iranians protesting against Israel's actions and in support of the Palestinians. These are Iranians living abroad so can be expected statistically to be less supportive of the current government than the average Iranian resident.
The counter-protest, mainly of pro-Israel demonstrators, this time also had Iranians, demonstrating against the current regime (and broadly in support of Israel). All the Iranian flags in this very small group were the Shah-era design with the lion.
The visibly Iranian groups in the pro-Palestinian demo vastly outnumbered the counter protest. They seemed quite ideologically diverse. There were some people holding pictures of the ayatollah with the words 'No Surrender'. But there were also groups with the sign "don't bomb us and claim it's for women's rights" (can't remember exact wording). Groups including women with headscarves, other groups with only bare headed women. As well as the current official flag with the swords, I saw people holding the lion flag, and others with the neutral tricolour without emblem. So at least some of the people present were anti the current regime, but supported the Palestinians in the current conflict.
Obviously a very selective sampling for many reasons, but far from what you might expect if almost all Iranians were united against their current government.
People living outside Iran participating in these protests have no idea what they are doing.
On the reddit NewIran sub, they were mocking a picture of somebody at one of those rally’s holding a giant IRGC flag… upside-down.
I wouldn’t use numbers of “useful idiots” showing up at rallies as a way of demonstrating internal support for the Iranian regime.
Surveys suggest around 70-80% are anti-regime, which makes sense considering the regime’s history of hangings and imprisonment for minor offenses. The people of Iran want the regime to end.
On the reddit NewIran sub, they were mocking a picture of somebody at one of those rally’s holding a giant IRGC flag… upside-down.
I wouldn’t use numbers of “useful idiots” showing up at rallies as a way of demonstrating internal support for the Iranian regime.
Surveys suggest around 70-80% are anti-regime, which makes sense considering the regime’s history of hangings and imprisonment for minor offenses. The people of Iran want the regime to end.
> Whether this fulfills that goal, we will see, but anything that weakens the regime is good for the Iranian people.
Oh, enough to look at Libya, Syria, Iraq, to see what happens next:
1. Lots of infrastructure would be destroyed. It's the first thing NATO does in any invasion: bomb powerplants, water treatment plants, airports, hospitals, business centers (remember, that Iraq invasion started with destroying Baghdad business center, it was shown in all Western media). Infrastructure is super-expensive to rebuild, many countries in the world have no resources to build decent infrastructure.
2. At least several millions of Iranians would die. It's obvious. Somebody's moms and dads, somebody's children. The bombs do not choose. And we all know that West is indifferent to the deaths of non-Western non-white population (remember, e.g. killings and war crimes in Afghanistan).
3. In the end the country will end up in half-feudal anarchistic ruins (like Libya) or with "democratic" puppet government. Any outcome will allow selling Iran oil and gas to the West for the price of water, further lowering living standards of Iran.
I fail to see a single benefit for anyone living in Iran.
Oh, enough to look at Libya, Syria, Iraq, to see what happens next:
1. Lots of infrastructure would be destroyed. It's the first thing NATO does in any invasion: bomb powerplants, water treatment plants, airports, hospitals, business centers (remember, that Iraq invasion started with destroying Baghdad business center, it was shown in all Western media). Infrastructure is super-expensive to rebuild, many countries in the world have no resources to build decent infrastructure.
2. At least several millions of Iranians would die. It's obvious. Somebody's moms and dads, somebody's children. The bombs do not choose. And we all know that West is indifferent to the deaths of non-Western non-white population (remember, e.g. killings and war crimes in Afghanistan).
3. In the end the country will end up in half-feudal anarchistic ruins (like Libya) or with "democratic" puppet government. Any outcome will allow selling Iran oil and gas to the West for the price of water, further lowering living standards of Iran.
I fail to see a single benefit for anyone living in Iran.
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.
People lack common sense, but not their appetite to ingurgitate the daily three meals that the propaganda machines prepared for them.
It seems fairly clear that Israel is targeting military sites and not civilians. On this basis alone would should feel hopeful for the 90 million innocent people who long for freedom from their oppressors. Your comment seems to imply that Israel is attacking civilians, and that those civilians are aligned with the theocratic dictators. On both points, you would be entirely incorrect.
Are you seriously suggesting that Israel doesn’t target civilians? Are you following the events of the last 2 years?
Re-read my comment please because it appears you did not.
I think maybe you shouldn't see Muslims as a homogenous block of people with the same taste by saying stuff like "90 million" as if you know what they want.
Your premise of Israel not targeting civilians is not serious. Just turn a TV channel on that isn't US mainstream media (which is actively manipulating to you).
Your premise of Israel not targeting civilians is not serious. Just turn a TV channel on that isn't US mainstream media (which is actively manipulating to you).
Your comment doesn't appear to reference mine. You keep inferring things I haven't written in an apparent attempt to attack a straw man. I'm happy to engage if you'd like to reference when I wrote. Until then you have fun with whatever this is.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
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.
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project#Log...
He probably meant Ukrainian engineers. One of the reasons Moscow is so laser focused and grabbing Ukraine as it used to be Soviet's Union brain.
Is this real? Why would Ukraine be such a concentration of brain power compared to other regions? I'm not super skeptical given the few Ukrainians I've met but still humans are generally equal...
> Is this real?
You can see the link in GP comment by yourself.
You can see the link in GP comment by yourself.
I don't see where in the link it says that.
The rockets, not the nukes (warheads).
Then why would they need a full Budapest memorandum with co-signees if Moscow could just take them back?
This sounds ridiculous.
This sounds ridiculous.
because rockets to be transported to russkies back. if they would not sign, some bad things could happened along the way.
This is a minor distinction. In they end they all set off by pyrotechnic charges. Authorization sequence is nothing an industrial power can't get around.
You seem to completely misunderstand why the entire world wanted Ukraine to get rid of their ICBMs.
1) They could not operate them. It isn't just about authorization sequence, it's about having all of the required electronics. You need satellites that point and guide the ICBMs. All of those were in Moscow hands. Even if Ukraine could ignite them, it could not launch them or set their paths, etc.
2) They did not have the budget to guard them, let alone maintain them, even less reverse engineer. The biggest risk was that rough states with deep pockets would buy those rockets on the black market (and Ukraine notably sold out most of their soviet arsenal).
3) Thus, the only real asset was the nuclear material itself. An asset that was more likely going to end up on the black market than do anything useful for Ukraine's defense.
1) They could not operate them. It isn't just about authorization sequence, it's about having all of the required electronics. You need satellites that point and guide the ICBMs. All of those were in Moscow hands. Even if Ukraine could ignite them, it could not launch them or set their paths, etc.
2) They did not have the budget to guard them, let alone maintain them, even less reverse engineer. The biggest risk was that rough states with deep pockets would buy those rockets on the black market (and Ukraine notably sold out most of their soviet arsenal).
3) Thus, the only real asset was the nuclear material itself. An asset that was more likely going to end up on the black market than do anything useful for Ukraine's defense.
Really?
1) Nukes were built mostly by Ukrainian engineers. They would do just fine. They could also build and launch satellites if needed.
2) So Ukraine couldn't launch them because they needed electronics and satellites, but some rogue state with deep pocket could? Okay.
3) Of course!
Comrade, that is Russian propaganda you are disseminating here.
1) Nukes were built mostly by Ukrainian engineers. They would do just fine. They could also build and launch satellites if needed.
2) So Ukraine couldn't launch them because they needed electronics and satellites, but some rogue state with deep pocket could? Okay.
3) Of course!
Comrade, that is Russian propaganda you are disseminating here.
There's so much wrong you crammed into just three points am at loss to even where should I start.
The value of nuclear weapons is in the warheads not delivery vehicles. Even then Ukraine absolutely could maintain a trimmed down nuclear arsenal with the missiles/engines serviced by Yuzhmash. After all bare ass Russia did it in the 1990s somehow. All the American financing of nuclear security to Russia would have been proportionally redirected to Ukraine.
Then, Ukraine possessed a stockpile of highly enriched uranium all way until 2011. It was indeed sold off under Yanukovich to a rogue state though: Russia.
There is one huge drawback to not signing the memorandum: Lukashenka's Belarus (another signatory) would have also kept the nukes. This is however never brought up by the memorandum fans and non-proliferation enjoyers on the Internet precisely because it's not something they would have minded.
The value of nuclear weapons is in the warheads not delivery vehicles. Even then Ukraine absolutely could maintain a trimmed down nuclear arsenal with the missiles/engines serviced by Yuzhmash. After all bare ass Russia did it in the 1990s somehow. All the American financing of nuclear security to Russia would have been proportionally redirected to Ukraine.
Then, Ukraine possessed a stockpile of highly enriched uranium all way until 2011. It was indeed sold off under Yanukovich to a rogue state though: Russia.
There is one huge drawback to not signing the memorandum: Lukashenka's Belarus (another signatory) would have also kept the nukes. This is however never brought up by the memorandum fans and non-proliferation enjoyers on the Internet precisely because it's not something they would have minded.
> There's so much wrong you crammed into just three points am at loss to even where should I start.
There's nothing wrong, what I wrote literally comes from official declassified documents and reports, you can read what insiders had to say.
Ukrainians didn't want them, feared their meltdown and their inability to even just maintain them. The rest of the world knew they were bound to end up in a rogue's actor hands very soon.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/slate....
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/ukraine-illuminated...
There's nothing wrong, what I wrote literally comes from official declassified documents and reports, you can read what insiders had to say.
Ukrainians didn't want them, feared their meltdown and their inability to even just maintain them. The rest of the world knew they were bound to end up in a rogue's actor hands very soon.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/slate....
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/ukraine-illuminated...
Ukraine was presented a carrot large enough to go along with it. This has nothing to do with its technical ability, as it remained a spacefaring nation throughout the recession years.
Either way you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand Ukraine, then a major owner of former Soviet military industrial complex could not maintain or use the weapons. On the other you insist unspecified rogue actors would be skilled enough to maintain and use them. Make up your mind.
So the rest of the world did not know anything, as the perfect safety record of enriched nuclear fuel in Ukraine illustrates. They did want for the nukes to end up in Russia for the proliferation fears and convenience of negotiating with one power. The decision turned out ultimately misguided, contributing to the unraveling of the postwar world order we see today (ironically including the proliferation of nuclear technology to the rogue states). Bill Clinton, about as insider as it gets have expressed his regrets about it last year.
Either way you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand Ukraine, then a major owner of former Soviet military industrial complex could not maintain or use the weapons. On the other you insist unspecified rogue actors would be skilled enough to maintain and use them. Make up your mind.
So the rest of the world did not know anything, as the perfect safety record of enriched nuclear fuel in Ukraine illustrates. They did want for the nukes to end up in Russia for the proliferation fears and convenience of negotiating with one power. The decision turned out ultimately misguided, contributing to the unraveling of the postwar world order we see today (ironically including the proliferation of nuclear technology to the rogue states). Bill Clinton, about as insider as it gets have expressed his regrets about it last year.
Could they have jerryrigged them?
For example load one into a truck (similar to the recent drone incident), drive it to the Kremlim, and then force a detonation?
> You need satellites that point and guide the ICBMs.
No you don't. Cold war ICBMs all used intertial guidance. The most advanced in the form of the MX had a max CEP of 90 m.
No you don't. Cold war ICBMs all used intertial guidance. The most advanced in the form of the MX had a max CEP of 90 m.
That's a recurring Russian propaganda point, which is easily verifiable as a lie.
Even basic logic - Ukraine had the technical know-how to do whatever they wanted with the nukes. Moscow didn't have control, at best on paper - if they had control, there was no need for the Budapest Memorandum.
I keep debunking this propaganda point over and over again lol
Even basic logic - Ukraine had the technical know-how to do whatever they wanted with the nukes. Moscow didn't have control, at best on paper - if they had control, there was no need for the Budapest Memorandum.
I keep debunking this propaganda point over and over again lol
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?
The US has every incentive to turn Ukraine into Russia’s Vietnam.
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.
I understand and agree with that. But you said "With a heftier backing from the US the Russo-Ukrainian war would be over by now.".
If that was viable, why would Biden not have done so during the years he had?
If that was viable, why would Biden not have done so during the years he had?
[deleted]
>"With a heftier backing from the US the Russo-Ukrainian war would be over by now."
And you know this how? Accordingly to all those initial predictions Russia should be already disintegrated and fallen under heavy sanctions, Putin's regime replaced etc. etc. I suspect all these analytics and think tanks should be cleaning toilets instead.
Also there is a line in that backing crossing which may lead to an all out nuclear war. Rational countries that matter understandably do not want to test it unless their existence is really threatened.
And you know this how? Accordingly to all those initial predictions Russia should be already disintegrated and fallen under heavy sanctions, Putin's regime replaced etc. etc. I suspect all these analytics and think tanks should be cleaning toilets instead.
Also there is a line in that backing crossing which may lead to an all out nuclear war. Rational countries that matter understandably do not want to test it unless their existence is really threatened.
My counter-argument to norms being the main deterrent is simple. It’s never going to get easier to hide an Oak Ridge in your rogue state. The industrial scale of uranium enrichment has a fundamental limit, no matter how you do it.
You have to process massive piles of mass into a very small fraction. And you have to collect all those rocks. And that’s just for fission.
As long as any country with preemptive strike capability exists, and satellites exist… I just don’t see how anyone could do it.
You have to process massive piles of mass into a very small fraction. And you have to collect all those rocks. And that’s just for fission.
As long as any country with preemptive strike capability exists, and satellites exist… I just don’t see how anyone could do it.
Not theirs and you conveniently omit everything what happened in between, including the giant amounts of money directly and indirectly poured into it.
What do you mean it was not theirs? The Soviet Union was dissolved and split into multiple states. Russia is not the Soviet Union, just another part of the former Soviet Union like Ukraine.
sigh
Please, take a 15 minutes to educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces#Structure_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rocket_Forces
Please, take a 15 minutes to educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces#Structure_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rocket_Forces
Russia is not the Soviet Union, except when we need to talk things like the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia or all the other horror stories about the USSR. Then it was indeed Russia, and Ukraine was just a kidnapped state.
> 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.
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.
israel is way smaller and easier to bomb.
why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people to kill whole israel?
why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people to kill whole israel?
Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics?
Hell, in the next 30 or so years oil will disappear from the middle east, and Iran is just about the only country that has a realistic shot at still having an economy after that.
Hell, in the next 30 or so years oil will disappear from the middle east, and Iran is just about the only country that has a realistic shot at still having an economy after that.
> Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics
They're talking about the current regime, from which it isn't clear the population will ever successfully take back their country.
They're talking about the current regime, from which it isn't clear the population will ever successfully take back their country.
Libya was pretty developed with an educated population, decent economy etc too, more developed then Iran I'd say.. look how that turned out. State collapse is no joke.
there are private banks and operations similar to BlackWater, like Osherbrand and many others that steal, murder and take capital from the public by re-enforcing external threats and then providing "rescue" via their private fleet to extract the corrupt politicians for 30% to 70% commissions and murder away anyone hindering them. Collapse my ass, it's foreign influence and internal corruption. Like always.
Be neutral and objective, but America, Ukraine and Israel are currently the most agresively operating forces salivating over WW3. Yes, Russia is also quite brutal, but it's not going to profit from WW3 on the stock market!
Who are the PROFITEERS of this?
How can WE fight this war mongering?
Do we need to get active on the Battlefield? Do we need to sabotage Sattelite Networks, disarm financial incentives etc. etc. to combat those who want a WW3?
Only billionaires are going to become richer from a war. Everyone else will eat radioactive food and their DNA will be wiped out forever from the human gene pool. Seem like an Eugenic goal
Be neutral and objective, but America, Ukraine and Israel are currently the most agresively operating forces salivating over WW3. Yes, Russia is also quite brutal, but it's not going to profit from WW3 on the stock market!
Who are the PROFITEERS of this?
How can WE fight this war mongering?
Do we need to get active on the Battlefield? Do we need to sabotage Sattelite Networks, disarm financial incentives etc. etc. to combat those who want a WW3?
Only billionaires are going to become richer from a war. Everyone else will eat radioactive food and their DNA will be wiped out forever from the human gene pool. Seem like an Eugenic goal
Ukraine is being invaded in a genocidal war to try to annex them and delete them from the map, by Russia. Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine for them to surrender their nukes.
All while Russia is threatning with nuclear destruction of Ukraine and Western countries.
So, how the hell is Ukraine salivating over WW3 and Russia isn't LMAO
All while Russia is threatning with nuclear destruction of Ukraine and Western countries.
So, how the hell is Ukraine salivating over WW3 and Russia isn't LMAO
aggressive and loaded comment you made here.
Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented. You've not made a valid counter argument and have only chose PARTISANSHIP. Which I have not.
I suggest etiquette and neutral speech before spitting hate in internet forums.
Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented. You've not made a valid counter argument and have only chose PARTISANSHIP. Which I have not.
I suggest etiquette and neutral speech before spitting hate in internet forums.
> aggressive and loaded comment you made here.
I disagree, but in light of your previous comment, it doesn't shock me.
> Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented.
You're wrong, they're not. You have pretty clearly chosen PARTISANSHIP by stating a country being invaded and fighting for their lives and sovereignty as the ones salivating for WW3.
It's a remarkable backward-thinking exercise. Russia is clearly:
- violating International Law, the UN Charter, and many other agreements and memoranda;
- all while threatening nuclear annihilation of Ukraine, UK, USA and other European countries;
- Attacking and destroying third countries' civilian infrastructures;
Among other atrocities and crimes.
But somehow, through magical thinking, you deem them as the victims here who have nothing to gain from this.
You are not OK with stock market gains, but you're OK with Russia stealing Ukrainian natural resources, their population, including kidnapped children?
Let me ask you this: according to your logic, were Hitler and Stalin the victims, and was Poland salivating for starting WW2?
I disagree, but in light of your previous comment, it doesn't shock me.
> Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented.
You're wrong, they're not. You have pretty clearly chosen PARTISANSHIP by stating a country being invaded and fighting for their lives and sovereignty as the ones salivating for WW3.
It's a remarkable backward-thinking exercise. Russia is clearly:
- violating International Law, the UN Charter, and many other agreements and memoranda;
- all while threatening nuclear annihilation of Ukraine, UK, USA and other European countries;
- Attacking and destroying third countries' civilian infrastructures;
Among other atrocities and crimes.
But somehow, through magical thinking, you deem them as the victims here who have nothing to gain from this.
You are not OK with stock market gains, but you're OK with Russia stealing Ukrainian natural resources, their population, including kidnapped children?
Let me ask you this: according to your logic, were Hitler and Stalin the victims, and was Poland salivating for starting WW2?
Nothing in their comment was aggressive, nor was it partisan. I think what's happening is you didn't like what they said, and you didn't really know how to approach that so you just decided to resort to ad hominem, much like a small child would.
Libya was also tribal in its core. Nation building takes decades if not centuries and cannot be substituted by quick oil money.
Iran is not tribal, it is a fairly ancient empire with strong continuity over 2500 years. Approximately as old as Rome, but with no collapse.
Iran will almost certainly hold together if the current batch of rulers disappears. It survived even the Mongols.
Iran is not tribal, it is a fairly ancient empire with strong continuity over 2500 years. Approximately as old as Rome, but with no collapse.
Iran will almost certainly hold together if the current batch of rulers disappears. It survived even the Mongols.
> if they take their government back from the clerics?
They took back their government and they “gave” it to the clerics back in C20
The Iranians by and large have the state they want. Strong parallel with Irish history where independence brought about a theocratic Junta. That only went away with deeper integration into the European economy.
They took back their government and they “gave” it to the clerics back in C20
The Iranians by and large have the state they want. Strong parallel with Irish history where independence brought about a theocratic Junta. That only went away with deeper integration into the European economy.
Are we forgetting the pushback against nationalisation of their oil industry, operations involving both CIA and MI6, the propaganda campaign to get rid of their elected president, and other such fun? It's not like the west didn't have some rather significant involvement and incentive here. They have what they have because the west (as is common) messed with another nation.
spwa4(1)
> it would mean mutual destruction.
some religious lunatics would deem that worthy
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.
so it even no need to be lunatic to act some nukes.
> some religious lunatics would deem that worthy
That would be primarily Evangelical Zionists, seeking to hasten the end of days.
That would be primarily Evangelical Zionists, seeking to hasten the end of days.
Evangelical Zionists who fund extremist Jews ...
Film, Til Kingdom Come -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film)
Film, Til Kingdom Come -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film)
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.
is it crazy, sure. is it crazy story to say,no. it seems real.
The same shit NK says about SK and the USA but still I don't see nukes flying. You shouldn't mistake propaganda for the masses with the leadership being crazy fanatics.
Indeed, the only place I see that line being blurred today is in the US.
> gov of iran says israel is little satan
A pretty popular opinion these days
A pretty popular opinion these days
GlacierFox(5)
> 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.
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.
> You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not.
The comment didn't suggest that exactly.
> One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation?
Israel just launched a perfidious pre-emptive defence by assassinating a lot of their top military leadership. They've probably figured out retaliation is a possibility here - if this is Israel's defence when they aren't even being threatened, imagine what they will do in their defence when the Iranians actually do something directly! Even if the Iranians are legitimately stupid at some level the campaign of missile strikes must have registered that they are vulnerable to missiles.
The comment didn't suggest that exactly.
> One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation?
Israel just launched a perfidious pre-emptive defence by assassinating a lot of their top military leadership. They've probably figured out retaliation is a possibility here - if this is Israel's defence when they aren't even being threatened, imagine what they will do in their defence when the Iranians actually do something directly! Even if the Iranians are legitimately stupid at some level the campaign of missile strikes must have registered that they are vulnerable to missiles.
"they [Israel] aren't even being threatened"
Are you even arguing in good faith? Over the years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q
Are you even arguing in good faith? Over the years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q
One of those videos is literally titled "Iran's Ahmadinejad Keeps Up Bluster Against Israel" and another is about treaty negotiations. If countries are going to launch a military response every time a leadership figure starts blustering or negotiations don't go well we're going to be in a lot of wars.
Bluster isn't a threat that the military are going to respond to. Imagine I used the word "credible" above if you want.
Bluster isn't a threat that the military are going to respond to. Imagine I used the word "credible" above if you want.
Iran and Israel were allies before Iran was taken over by religious leaders. Even after that, Israel tried to keep the peace hoping that reasonable people would take over again but they never did. Iran has been supplying and funding Hamas and other enemies of Israel for decades.
In my mind there is no doubt who the good guys are in that particular conflict. Iran started it decades ago for no reason other than religious hate, has kept it up until now and Iran is the one escalating.
In my mind there is no doubt who the good guys are in that particular conflict. Iran started it decades ago for no reason other than religious hate, has kept it up until now and Iran is the one escalating.
Maybe most of this is true, I don't know. I got the impression that both their governments are total shit. But you'll certainly have to agree that most of the escalation is due to Israel's action (not words) in attacking first and at a large scale.
not really, the escalation started on October 7th 2023, which was financed and orchestrated by Iran.[1]
An ongoing war that includes all of Iran proxies.
[1] https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/activities-of-saeed-iza...
An ongoing war that includes all of Iran proxies.
[1] https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/activities-of-saeed-iza...
rusk(2)
Israel has also been funding Hamas and other enemies of Israel.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
Reality is Israel is run by psychopaths who would be in jail if it weren't for their their cynical use of constant war as a misdirection.
Much like the US. And Russia. And numerous other countries, some of which are still pretending to be democratic.
The entire world order is built on greed, lies, narcissistic grandiosity, and violent murder at industrial scales.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
Reality is Israel is run by psychopaths who would be in jail if it weren't for their their cynical use of constant war as a misdirection.
Much like the US. And Russia. And numerous other countries, some of which are still pretending to be democratic.
The entire world order is built on greed, lies, narcissistic grandiosity, and violent murder at industrial scales.
downvoted because truth hurts? lol, tough crowd here my friend.
Cain has truly killed Abel.
> Reality is Israel is run by psychopaths who would be in jail if it weren't for their their cynical use of constant war as a misdirection.
Israeli police began investigating Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for fraud in 2016. Israeli courts indicted him for multiple cases of fraud in 2019.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu
Israeli police began investigating Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for fraud in 2016. Israeli courts indicted him for multiple cases of fraud in 2019.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu
You're absolutely correct on this but because of the point you're making they've downvoted you into the grey
> Israel has also been funding Hamas and other enemies of Israel.
That's not what this article says. To quote:
> Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.
> Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
> Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.
That's not what this article says. To quote:
> Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.
> Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
> Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.
The Times of Israel article's title is "For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces". The article's lede is "For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group."
You are not understanding what the article is saying, because you're mixing up different Palestinians. Palestine has a left wing party, the Palestine Authority, and a right wing party, Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas, recognizes the state of Israel and wants a two-state solution that also establishes a Palestinian state. Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel and wants to destroy it. Netanyahu is against the Palestinian Authority because he's more against giving legitimacy to Palestinian statehood than he's against war. He funded Hamas to delegitimize Abbas/Palestinian statehood/two-state solution/peace.
You are not understanding what the article is saying, because you're mixing up different Palestinians. Palestine has a left wing party, the Palestine Authority, and a right wing party, Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas, recognizes the state of Israel and wants a two-state solution that also establishes a Palestinian state. Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel and wants to destroy it. Netanyahu is against the Palestinian Authority because he's more against giving legitimacy to Palestinian statehood than he's against war. He funded Hamas to delegitimize Abbas/Palestinian statehood/two-state solution/peace.
The PA still uses a pay to slay program encouraging the murder of Israeli civilians within the 67 borders.
President Abbas has a PhD in holocaust denial.
Calling the PA left wing isn't accurate. It's also bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
President Abbas has a PhD in holocaust denial.
Calling the PA left wing isn't accurate. It's also bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
You don’t need a lot of funding to convince 15 year olds in Palestine to go murder. Pay closer attention to the settlements, it did more for mobilizing Israel’s enemies than any amount of psyops or military funding could ever do.
It’s very clear to me Israel has had some of the most retarded foreign policy experts for decades now. The truth is the same truth we have in the U.S, 70+ million that voted for Trump harbor a higher degree of racism that is near impossible to stop (will take generations). Israelis HATE Palestinians, and therefore they cannot make even the most obvious game theory choices on building better safety environments (finance and launch a multi decade campaign to uplift Gaza from poverty of mind, heart, and material - unless you are fucking racist and would rather live in conflict than EVER give an inch.)
It’s very clear to me Israel has had some of the most retarded foreign policy experts for decades now. The truth is the same truth we have in the U.S, 70+ million that voted for Trump harbor a higher degree of racism that is near impossible to stop (will take generations). Israelis HATE Palestinians, and therefore they cannot make even the most obvious game theory choices on building better safety environments (finance and launch a multi decade campaign to uplift Gaza from poverty of mind, heart, and material - unless you are fucking racist and would rather live in conflict than EVER give an inch.)
> It’s very clear to me Israel has had some of the most retarded foreign policy experts for decades now.
Well, it's outcome of how they were treated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
If everybody hates you anyways you eventually morph into the thing that deserves that hatred.
Well, it's outcome of how they were treated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
If everybody hates you anyways you eventually morph into the thing that deserves that hatred.
> Iran has been supplying and funding Hamas
Qatar has probably funded Hamas more than Iran and now the future Air Force One is a Qatari plane...
“Qatar has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas
Qatar has probably funded Hamas more than Iran and now the future Air Force One is a Qatari plane...
“Qatar has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level”
- Donald J. Trump - June 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas
The Don in charge of the USA isn't concerned about the money goes to Hamas, he just wants his slice. Qatar knows that and can respect that.
Unfortunately for basically everyone, this suggests a quick-win strategy for Iran: Bribe Trump, personally, with lots money or equivalent, to literally nuke Israel.
What's wrong with this picture? (And I don't mean in the sense of a Futurama meme of Farnsworth saying "I don't want to live on this planet any more").
What's wrong with this picture? (And I don't mean in the sense of a Futurama meme of Farnsworth saying "I don't want to live on this planet any more").
This would absolutely work if the other gulf states weren't prepared to bribe him much, much more to prevent it. And yes, it is dismal. We are essentially run by foreign countries until January 20, 2029.
Qwertious(1)
That’s the point of my comment. Israel and several other nations like Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc have all been undergoing attacks by Iranian funded proxies for decades.
Why do you think that’s true? You can take an average person globally and more or less realize it takes very little to make someone anti-Israeli foreign policy. It doesn’t take some large brainwashing operation. In fact, one could argue the propaganda is coming from a side that wants to paint a narrative that there is this huge operation against Israel when in reality an average 16 year old in America can spot the bad actor in a situation rather quickly (yes, that’s genz , the supposedly “brainwashed” dumbasses).
Jews are a traumatized people. They can never truly shed the insecurity that entire continents and countries can be hostile toward them (the entirety of Europe during ww2). They are making trauma informed decisions, and can never be trusted to do so alone because it’s actual trauma.
The biggest myth is that Israel is a first world country but there’s no evidence of it. Buildings and infrastructure do not make you a first world country (behold China). Any country that is that brutal will never meet the criteria, it’s a third world country that is new and learning just like every other third world country.
Blood-thirst (blood-rage? They see red.) is an understatement when it comes to this country as of 2025. We need things to change over the next 20 years. They do not know how to manage life due to just how intense their historical trauma was. There’s no one over there with a cool head and clinically there wouldn’t be (how do you just act normal after the holocaust? You can’t.)
The failure of the Trump admin is unique and unlike any other administration. It is was once accepted that Israel is not level headed (again, not an insult, one cannot be balanced if one emerges through hellfire) and cannot dictate foreign policy. Trump just said “fuck it, go ahead traumatized child, do as you please” - this was pure insanity.
Love is protecting your brothers and sisters from themselves (my brothers keeper). The world did not get safer, where are the cooler heads in the room?
Jews are a traumatized people. They can never truly shed the insecurity that entire continents and countries can be hostile toward them (the entirety of Europe during ww2). They are making trauma informed decisions, and can never be trusted to do so alone because it’s actual trauma.
The biggest myth is that Israel is a first world country but there’s no evidence of it. Buildings and infrastructure do not make you a first world country (behold China). Any country that is that brutal will never meet the criteria, it’s a third world country that is new and learning just like every other third world country.
Blood-thirst (blood-rage? They see red.) is an understatement when it comes to this country as of 2025. We need things to change over the next 20 years. They do not know how to manage life due to just how intense their historical trauma was. There’s no one over there with a cool head and clinically there wouldn’t be (how do you just act normal after the holocaust? You can’t.)
The failure of the Trump admin is unique and unlike any other administration. It is was once accepted that Israel is not level headed (again, not an insult, one cannot be balanced if one emerges through hellfire) and cannot dictate foreign policy. Trump just said “fuck it, go ahead traumatized child, do as you please” - this was pure insanity.
Love is protecting your brothers and sisters from themselves (my brothers keeper). The world did not get safer, where are the cooler heads in the room?
> Trump just said “do as you please” - this was pure insanity.
I'm all for attacking Trump when justified, but given how Biden managed Gaza it is spectacularly unclear that we would expect a different outcome from Dems.
I'm all for attacking Trump when justified, but given how Biden managed Gaza it is spectacularly unclear that we would expect a different outcome from Dems.
We can’t know for sure since we’re not God. If Biden did what Trump did, then all that would solidify is that the Israeli lobby in America is hierarchically above both parties.
I don’t think Biden would have done it. Take the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, which happened in Trump’s first term. What stable President agitates a situation like that? He was uniquely allied with Netanyahu for awhile, and Netanyahu has exclaimed that Trump is the best friend Israel ever had:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-calls...
I don’t think Biden would have done it. Take the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, which happened in Trump’s first term. What stable President agitates a situation like that? He was uniquely allied with Netanyahu for awhile, and Netanyahu has exclaimed that Trump is the best friend Israel ever had:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-calls...
[deleted]
> Why do you think that’s true? You can take an average person globally and more or less realize it takes very little to make someone anti-Israeli foreign policy. It doesn’t take some large brainwashing operation. In fact, one could argue the propaganda is coming from a side that wants to paint a narrative that there is this huge operation against Israel when in reality an average 16 year old in America can spot villainy rather quickly.
Because I lived there for 6 months during a study abroad I randomly ended up doing. I'd never had a Jewish or Muslim friend before going. Living there I had Palestinian and Jewish neighbors. I had to read lots of books on both sides of the topic and write papers on them. Along with deep conversations with both Israelis and Palestinians. Admittedly more with Israelis than Palestinians. Though I do have some fond memories of Palestinians.
The experience forced me out of my previously much more sheltered technology and American centric world view which is what I'd say was your somewhat average 16 year old American's viewpoint, if on the more liberal atheistic side at the time. I likely would've been convinced of the same things as yourself when I was younger and more naive and saw the headlines I do now.
That said, I'm not pro-Netanyahu or many of the things he does. He's a hardliner.
> Jews are a traumatized people. They can never truly shed the insecurity that entire continents and countries can be hostile toward them (the entirety of Europe during ww2).
You're not wrong. They're also a resilient people. Remember it's not just WWII, but most Israeli's, their parents and grand parents have also grown up with constant war or thread of war.
It does affect psychology when many neighboring groups like Iran and Hamas not only want to destroy your state but also want to kill all Jews. That's their public official positions. It's not just rhetoric either as they routinely attack. Ultimately Palestinian leaders and political groups have never wanted peace with Israel from everything I've studied, and neither does Iran.
Finally Israel was making progress towards peace with the Abraham accords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords) which Trump helped negotiate. Some scholars I've read believe this is part of what led to Hamas's October 7th attacks as they would loose influence if Arab nations started making peace with Israel.
> Bloodthirst is understatement when it comes to this country as of 2025.
It's easy to throw such statements around. However, look at the state of most of the region. What Israel is doing is tame compared to some of the atrocities occurring but which don't make regular news.
Because I lived there for 6 months during a study abroad I randomly ended up doing. I'd never had a Jewish or Muslim friend before going. Living there I had Palestinian and Jewish neighbors. I had to read lots of books on both sides of the topic and write papers on them. Along with deep conversations with both Israelis and Palestinians. Admittedly more with Israelis than Palestinians. Though I do have some fond memories of Palestinians.
The experience forced me out of my previously much more sheltered technology and American centric world view which is what I'd say was your somewhat average 16 year old American's viewpoint, if on the more liberal atheistic side at the time. I likely would've been convinced of the same things as yourself when I was younger and more naive and saw the headlines I do now.
That said, I'm not pro-Netanyahu or many of the things he does. He's a hardliner.
> Jews are a traumatized people. They can never truly shed the insecurity that entire continents and countries can be hostile toward them (the entirety of Europe during ww2).
You're not wrong. They're also a resilient people. Remember it's not just WWII, but most Israeli's, their parents and grand parents have also grown up with constant war or thread of war.
It does affect psychology when many neighboring groups like Iran and Hamas not only want to destroy your state but also want to kill all Jews. That's their public official positions. It's not just rhetoric either as they routinely attack. Ultimately Palestinian leaders and political groups have never wanted peace with Israel from everything I've studied, and neither does Iran.
Finally Israel was making progress towards peace with the Abraham accords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords) which Trump helped negotiate. Some scholars I've read believe this is part of what led to Hamas's October 7th attacks as they would loose influence if Arab nations started making peace with Israel.
> Bloodthirst is understatement when it comes to this country as of 2025.
It's easy to throw such statements around. However, look at the state of most of the region. What Israel is doing is tame compared to some of the atrocities occurring but which don't make regular news.
[deleted]
> What Israel is doing is tame compared to
this.
even though some Israel's actions are spooky (targeted-exploding walkytalkies?), they're at least designed to minimize civilian deaths (or at least they're trying)
But... Iran and their ilks (eg. Hamas)? they not only don't give a shit, but actively seek to kill civilians with maximum brutality (baby beheadings, killing & parading even with non-israeli bodies)
this.
even though some Israel's actions are spooky (targeted-exploding walkytalkies?), they're at least designed to minimize civilian deaths (or at least they're trying)
But... Iran and their ilks (eg. Hamas)? they not only don't give a shit, but actively seek to kill civilians with maximum brutality (baby beheadings, killing & parading even with non-israeli bodies)
Can you explain to us what the genocide in Gaza is? I need a thorough explanation of the images I see out of there. What the hell is 50k dead and ghetto camp conditions?
“Tame”
Either you have no respect for my eyes or brain or I am truly an idiot. Write blog articles explaining how what we see and hear is bullshit and post it here please, we’ll assess.
1200 != 50,000
But here is the true mind fuck, 1200 != even one innocent.
Barbaric != Tame
So we march people down from the North to the South, level the area, and then logistically starve them? Tame. Do you know how the Americans marched the Native Americans to death? We’re all fucking idiots to you right?
HN is just subset of society. You’ve got everyone here, including Israeli apologists. Plenty of Jewish developers too. You don’t have to live or die by your “team” when they are literally fucking wrong about this.
Your typical educated American does not even attempt to defend most American policy since the end of WW2 (there’s literally not a single right thing America did). Maybe we’re lucky that we get to have such clear heads about it finally, and I hope the same for those on the wrong side of history on this one, however long it takes.
When one realizes they were barbarically wrong is a true moment of personal and spiritual growth.
The definition of modern national pragmatism appears to be the following based on what so many apologists say:
2 wrongs == 1 right
(The only way this can be correct in anyone’s heart is if emotions have fully overtaken the person)
Let me fix that for you:
2 wrongs != 1 right
“Tame”
Either you have no respect for my eyes or brain or I am truly an idiot. Write blog articles explaining how what we see and hear is bullshit and post it here please, we’ll assess.
1200 != 50,000
But here is the true mind fuck, 1200 != even one innocent.
Barbaric != Tame
So we march people down from the North to the South, level the area, and then logistically starve them? Tame. Do you know how the Americans marched the Native Americans to death? We’re all fucking idiots to you right?
HN is just subset of society. You’ve got everyone here, including Israeli apologists. Plenty of Jewish developers too. You don’t have to live or die by your “team” when they are literally fucking wrong about this.
Your typical educated American does not even attempt to defend most American policy since the end of WW2 (there’s literally not a single right thing America did). Maybe we’re lucky that we get to have such clear heads about it finally, and I hope the same for those on the wrong side of history on this one, however long it takes.
When one realizes they were barbarically wrong is a true moment of personal and spiritual growth.
The definition of modern national pragmatism appears to be the following based on what so many apologists say:
2 wrongs == 1 right
(The only way this can be correct in anyone’s heart is if emotions have fully overtaken the person)
Let me fix that for you:
2 wrongs != 1 right
> Can you explain to us what the genocide in Gaza is?
A population caught up in a horrible conflict. In part due to the choices of the leaders they've supported for decades now.
> I need a thorough explanation of the images I see out of there. What the hell is 50k dead and ghetto camp conditions?
They're the same tragedies as those from most of the other war torn areas in the region. I hate to say it, but Gaza is at the "risk of famine" while the Sudan and Yemen are in full on famine. There's also two orders of magnitude more civilians suffering in Sudan currently as well. Similarly in Yemen, which is being bombed routinely by Saudis and Americans which include innocent civilian deaths. I've not heard of one anti-Saudi protest by Muslims in the west in recent years.
Where's the constant Wester or Muslim outrage for the 100,000s or millions of civilian deaths directly caused by Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah or more throughout the region by extremist Islamists?
You can also find the recent videos of interviews with Palestinians where they praise and thank Trump for giving the food (GHF) while they curse Hamas for hoarding the food and using their children as war fodder.
Did the media also show you the videos of the Palestinians in Northern Gaza protesting Hamas for being terrorists and killing their children in March? Many of them understand who started and wanted the war. They call it war and blame Hamas.
Does that justify all the actions of Israel? No, but I also believe Israel also acts to prevent the worse from coming around. They supply water, food, and aid while the other military forces like Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc do not do that for their enemies civilians. They regularly provide bombing warnings and evacuation notices to civilians, unlike pretty much any other force in the region.
Does the IDF also have bad actors and commit war crimes as well? Yes, but most Israeli's don't want or support that.
> But here is the true mind fuck, 1200 != even one innocent.
Tell that to almost any nations at war. There's always civilian casualties. For the Israelis it's 1200 today, and in their experience it'll be another 1200 tomorrow, and 1200 the day after and so on if they did not attack back and remove Hamas. 50,000+ dead is terrible but the statistics of civilians to combatant casualties are similar to other conflicts in the region, despite Hamas being internationally known for using civilians as shields.
Where's the constant outrage for the 150,000 dead in Yemen due to the fighting there and the 227,000 dying of famine and the ghetto conditions there? The conflict in Palestine isn't that unique in the region except that the media covers Palestine far more. The double standards on display in the west are absurd and masterfully exploited by the Islamist extremists spearheaded by Iran.
A population caught up in a horrible conflict. In part due to the choices of the leaders they've supported for decades now.
> I need a thorough explanation of the images I see out of there. What the hell is 50k dead and ghetto camp conditions?
They're the same tragedies as those from most of the other war torn areas in the region. I hate to say it, but Gaza is at the "risk of famine" while the Sudan and Yemen are in full on famine. There's also two orders of magnitude more civilians suffering in Sudan currently as well. Similarly in Yemen, which is being bombed routinely by Saudis and Americans which include innocent civilian deaths. I've not heard of one anti-Saudi protest by Muslims in the west in recent years.
Where's the constant Wester or Muslim outrage for the 100,000s or millions of civilian deaths directly caused by Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah or more throughout the region by extremist Islamists?
You can also find the recent videos of interviews with Palestinians where they praise and thank Trump for giving the food (GHF) while they curse Hamas for hoarding the food and using their children as war fodder.
Did the media also show you the videos of the Palestinians in Northern Gaza protesting Hamas for being terrorists and killing their children in March? Many of them understand who started and wanted the war. They call it war and blame Hamas.
Does that justify all the actions of Israel? No, but I also believe Israel also acts to prevent the worse from coming around. They supply water, food, and aid while the other military forces like Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc do not do that for their enemies civilians. They regularly provide bombing warnings and evacuation notices to civilians, unlike pretty much any other force in the region.
Does the IDF also have bad actors and commit war crimes as well? Yes, but most Israeli's don't want or support that.
> But here is the true mind fuck, 1200 != even one innocent.
Tell that to almost any nations at war. There's always civilian casualties. For the Israelis it's 1200 today, and in their experience it'll be another 1200 tomorrow, and 1200 the day after and so on if they did not attack back and remove Hamas. 50,000+ dead is terrible but the statistics of civilians to combatant casualties are similar to other conflicts in the region, despite Hamas being internationally known for using civilians as shields.
Where's the constant outrage for the 150,000 dead in Yemen due to the fighting there and the 227,000 dying of famine and the ghetto conditions there? The conflict in Palestine isn't that unique in the region except that the media covers Palestine far more. The double standards on display in the west are absurd and masterfully exploited by the Islamist extremists spearheaded by Iran.
Callous blood-thirst. It's not righteous and no one is entitled to acting on it. I won't go any further, but you can have the last word.
[deleted]
> Israel just launched a perfidious pre-emptive defence by assassinating a lot of their top military leadership.
And Iran retaliated and actually some of it's missiles inflicted damage. We can only imagine what the damage would be if Isreal patiently waited for the Iran to feel read to attack Israel which it's always advertised as its goal. Also it already happened once. Nations of the region decided they are strong enough to attack Isreal and they did. It was bound to happen again and as the death toll in Isreal in the current conflict shows, despite pre-emptive strike damaging Iran's missile potential significantly, there's only so much you can do with defensive weapons.
In this specific context pre-emptive strike on leaders and long range attack capabilities is not perfidious, it's just about the only thing you can do that's not stupid.
And Iran retaliated and actually some of it's missiles inflicted damage. We can only imagine what the damage would be if Isreal patiently waited for the Iran to feel read to attack Israel which it's always advertised as its goal. Also it already happened once. Nations of the region decided they are strong enough to attack Isreal and they did. It was bound to happen again and as the death toll in Isreal in the current conflict shows, despite pre-emptive strike damaging Iran's missile potential significantly, there's only so much you can do with defensive weapons.
In this specific context pre-emptive strike on leaders and long range attack capabilities is not perfidious, it's just about the only thing you can do that's not stupid.
> One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation?
Allah or Jahwe, what's the difference. Both countries are some kind of theocracies, that see infidels as inferior. If Israel has nukes, so should Iran. At least Iran is Shia, so different from the most Muslims, which are Sunni.
Allah or Jahwe, what's the difference. Both countries are some kind of theocracies, that see infidels as inferior. If Israel has nukes, so should Iran. At least Iran is Shia, so different from the most Muslims, which are Sunni.
> Allah or Jahwe, what's the difference.
...there is no difference. Islam and Judaism trace to Abrahamic monotheism. One through the son Isaac, the other through Ishmael.
...there is no difference. Islam and Judaism trace to Abrahamic monotheism. One through the son Isaac, the other through Ishmael.
Just to set the story straight:
- Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason. And from a functioning dictatorship it is a failed state.
- Syria was invaded by Turkey/US right after the civil war started.
In the world we all live in you need to have powerful deterrents so that the US/France/UK/NATO will not dare to bomb you for whatever reason they feel "justified" to do.
In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business.
- Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason. And from a functioning dictatorship it is a failed state.
- Syria was invaded by Turkey/US right after the civil war started.
In the world we all live in you need to have powerful deterrents so that the US/France/UK/NATO will not dare to bomb you for whatever reason they feel "justified" to do.
In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business.
Forget Ryssian involvment in Syria and Libiya!
I did not forget that. But the Russians banked on the opportunity after the fact. They did not bombed them because they did not like their leaders just because.
> other countries can mind their own business
Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you.
People thought nuclear weapons are a defensive deterrent but what war in Ukraine showed us they are actually offensive weapons that deter anyone from defending to strongly when you attack them with your conventional forces.
Both russia and USA used their nuclear weapons in that manner for the last few decades. It's time to call the thing that quacks what it is, a duck.
Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you.
People thought nuclear weapons are a defensive deterrent but what war in Ukraine showed us they are actually offensive weapons that deter anyone from defending to strongly when you attack them with your conventional forces.
Both russia and USA used their nuclear weapons in that manner for the last few decades. It's time to call the thing that quacks what it is, a duck.
> Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you.
You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup. Who decides that? You? Me? A random guy on the street? A random bureaucrat from a random country?
There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange. And somehow I don't think a random guy in Africa or the Middle East is so sure about it that it risks launching nukes at its neighbor(s).
You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup. Who decides that? You? Me? A random guy on the street? A random bureaucrat from a random country?
There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange. And somehow I don't think a random guy in Africa or the Middle East is so sure about it that it risks launching nukes at its neighbor(s).
> You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup.
Of course. How is that controversial?
> Who decides that? You?
Of course. I decide what I believe to be right. And in practice the countries that get to have nuclear weapons are the countries that got nuclear weapons. Not because they deserve it or should have it. Just because they got it. Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.
> There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange.
You mistake humans for rational actors. Have you heard what the stance of russia is for example? "What's the use for the world if there's no russia in it." Basically if they can't do what they want, they think world deserves to get nuked into oblivion.
Of course. How is that controversial?
> Who decides that? You?
Of course. I decide what I believe to be right. And in practice the countries that get to have nuclear weapons are the countries that got nuclear weapons. Not because they deserve it or should have it. Just because they got it. Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.
> There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange.
You mistake humans for rational actors. Have you heard what the stance of russia is for example? "What's the use for the world if there's no russia in it." Basically if they can't do what they want, they think world deserves to get nuked into oblivion.
> Of course. How is that controversial?
Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup?
> Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.
Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast.
> Have you heard what the stance of Russia is for example?
Have you heard of peacocking? If it were actually true, they would have nuked the world way before probably me and you were born.
Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup?
> Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.
Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast.
> Have you heard what the stance of Russia is for example?
Have you heard of peacocking? If it were actually true, they would have nuked the world way before probably me and you were born.
> Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup?
Democracies tend to be more resilient against rule by aggressive idiots. So being a democracy should be lowest common denominator.
> Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast.
I have no idea why are you talking about it like it's hypothetical. Iran did whatever it could to get its hands on nukes as fast as it could since Trump destroyed the agreement that Obama signed with Iran.
And it resulted with their top leaders getting assassinated and their nuclear attempts destroyed. So was that really something they should have been doing?
Democracies tend to be more resilient against rule by aggressive idiots. So being a democracy should be lowest common denominator.
> Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast.
I have no idea why are you talking about it like it's hypothetical. Iran did whatever it could to get its hands on nukes as fast as it could since Trump destroyed the agreement that Obama signed with Iran.
And it resulted with their top leaders getting assassinated and their nuclear attempts destroyed. So was that really something they should have been doing?
> In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business.
The problem is that countries tend to assume that the neighbors are also their business.
The problem is that countries tend to assume that the neighbors are also their business.
Well, if every of your neighbors would have a big bad bomb, you will more inclined to mind your business. But if only you have a big bad bomb, then most likely you will have opinions about what your neighbors should do.
> Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th...
The old mantra of bombing for peace and having sex for virginity, no?
You’re not going to win an argument with someone who will always blame the Jews for all the world’s (and his personal) woes.
> And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US.
By what means are the israeli nukes (I assume thats whats meant by WMDs?) illegal? They didn't sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and I don't think spying and stealing is illegal between countries under international law.
By what means are the israeli nukes (I assume thats whats meant by WMDs?) illegal? They didn't sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and I don't think spying and stealing is illegal between countries under international law.
By the moral law of not being a hypocrite, for one.
When I said I was conflicted I meant that on one side it seems like a bad idea to give up WMDs for these countries, but it's also a bad idea for them to have them.
In Iran's case this is further compounded by their consistent anti Israeli PR and anti-Israeli militias funding.
In Iran's case this is further compounded by their consistent anti Israeli PR and anti-Israeli militias funding.
> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.
100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. The "existential threat" bs being peddled by a certain government is simply to give cover to illegal attacks on a sovereign nation. This is "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.
100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. The "existential threat" bs being peddled by a certain government is simply to give cover to illegal attacks on a sovereign nation. This is "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.
I think they are stupid for broadcasting the program and threatening Israel with it.
Believe people when they tell you what they are going to do. Even if Iran wouldn’t use it if they had it, threatening to use it shifts the probability for them using it.
Khomeini isn’t on Kim jong un’s level
Believe people when they tell you what they are going to do. Even if Iran wouldn’t use it if they had it, threatening to use it shifts the probability for them using it.
Khomeini isn’t on Kim jong un’s level
> 100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid.
I'm not sure how can you say that, now that they are dead, completely due to how they positioned themselves on the regional and global landscape.
I'm not sure how can you say that, now that they are dead, completely due to how they positioned themselves on the regional and global landscape.
This was Israel's thinking with Hamas - they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge and they wouldn't do anything to jeopardise that, etc. Israel's thinking was wrong, and they've learned to believe their enemies when they say they want to destroy Israel. There isn't a country in the world that would allow their enemies, who have repeatedly stated that said country's demise is a key goal of theirs, to develop nukes if they have with the capability to stop it.
>[Hamas] they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge
That's just being deluded, being a in open air prison is different from being a sovereign nation.
That's just being deluded, being a in open air prison is different from being a sovereign nation.
They’re not stupid, the believe in an ideology that glorifies martyrs. If you actually believe in martyrdom nuking Israel is the sensible thing to do even knowing you’ll get it right back.
Silly! Such flippant language. Yes, it would be silly. Jihadists do “silly” things all the time. Their goals are “silly”.
> illegal WMD
Who has "legal" WMDs - the P5? Israel is a non-signatory to NPT, meaning their WMDs are as legal as anyone else's.
Who has "legal" WMDs - the P5? Israel is a non-signatory to NPT, meaning their WMDs are as legal as anyone else's.
It can be both. You're creating a false dichotomy.
https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2015/04/Khalaji-Apocalyptic...
Mutual destruction makes sense when you're a death cult and the enemy is evil. Iran nuking Israel knowing full well they will get nuked back IS rational if your belief is that Allah will reward you for it in the afterlife and they do sincerly believe that.
You should read books published by reformed Islamists. Radical by Maajid Nawaz is a good one.
They profess to believe (and they are sincere) that they will be rewarded for dying killing Israelis. There's a reason that if I tell you a story about a suicide bomber blowing up a public square in political protest you do not have to wonder what religion they are. It's not because all Muslims are insane, they aren't, it's because some of them have beliefs that make that action rational.
(For example, see how Hamas will not surrender even when offered free passage out of Gaza. They'd rather Israel grind their way through the Palestinian population bomb by bomb because they think every Palestinian killed goes to heaven. If they were rational as we understand the world, they'd realize their plight is hopeless and the only thing they ensure by staying is civillian deaths.)
https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2015/04/Khalaji-Apocalyptic...
Mutual destruction makes sense when you're a death cult and the enemy is evil. Iran nuking Israel knowing full well they will get nuked back IS rational if your belief is that Allah will reward you for it in the afterlife and they do sincerly believe that.
You should read books published by reformed Islamists. Radical by Maajid Nawaz is a good one.
They profess to believe (and they are sincere) that they will be rewarded for dying killing Israelis. There's a reason that if I tell you a story about a suicide bomber blowing up a public square in political protest you do not have to wonder what religion they are. It's not because all Muslims are insane, they aren't, it's because some of them have beliefs that make that action rational.
(For example, see how Hamas will not surrender even when offered free passage out of Gaza. They'd rather Israel grind their way through the Palestinian population bomb by bomb because they think every Palestinian killed goes to heaven. If they were rational as we understand the world, they'd realize their plight is hopeless and the only thing they ensure by staying is civillian deaths.)
>(For example, see how Hamas will not surrender
Yup.
Hamas will fight to the last Palestinian. They could have ended the Gaza war a year ago (or more). All they have to say is: "Here are the hostages. Here are our weapons. We are now shoemakers."
Why don't they do this?
Because they would rather fight to the last Palestinian child.
Hamas has agency. They could end war any time since October 8, 2023.
Yup.
Hamas will fight to the last Palestinian. They could have ended the Gaza war a year ago (or more). All they have to say is: "Here are the hostages. Here are our weapons. We are now shoemakers."
Why don't they do this?
Because they would rather fight to the last Palestinian child.
Hamas has agency. They could end war any time since October 8, 2023.
The PLO pulled out of Beirut in the early 1980s after being given guarantees from the international community that the remaining Palestinian population, unarmed civilians, would be protected both from Lebanese Christians and Israeli forces.
Then Israeli forces colluded with Christian militias to massacre Palestinians in their camps.
Hamas was never going to disarm and hand back the hostages based on "Trust me, bro".
Then Israeli forces colluded with Christian militias to massacre Palestinians in their camps.
Hamas was never going to disarm and hand back the hostages based on "Trust me, bro".
There is not a single person in the Middle East who maps the behavior of Hamas to that of the PLO in the 1980's.
Hamas is a death cult. They will fight to the last Gazan child.
They have agency. They could end the war tomorrow, or a year ago.
Hamas is a death cult. They will fight to the last Gazan child.
They have agency. They could end the war tomorrow, or a year ago.
> Hamas is a death cult. They will fight to the last Gazan child.
This is just... utterly absurd. The entity killing children (literally on a daily basis!), bombing hopsitals, schools, water treatment facilities etc, and carrying out campaigns of terrorism across the Middle East, is the rogue nuclear state of Israel.
'Propaganda' doesn't quite cover it; I think we need a new word for propaganda that is so delusional and verifyiably false, that it has no basis in any reality.
This is just... utterly absurd. The entity killing children (literally on a daily basis!), bombing hopsitals, schools, water treatment facilities etc, and carrying out campaigns of terrorism across the Middle East, is the rogue nuclear state of Israel.
'Propaganda' doesn't quite cover it; I think we need a new word for propaganda that is so delusional and verifyiably false, that it has no basis in any reality.
Because they are a death cult. They sincerely believe exactly what they profess, everyone who Israel kills is a martyr and goes to heaven with extra benefits.
From their perspective it’s all wins. Every bomb Israel drops sends their people to heaven and makes Israel look bad to the world.
The hardest part of conversing with a lot of people about this situation is getting them to understand the idea of a death cult. Once you accept that some people not only don’t fear death but actively seek it for themselves and their tribe, the Middle East makes a lot more sense. There’s so much evidence both in what they say (they do not hide it) and what they do but so much of the west refuses to accept it.
From their perspective it’s all wins. Every bomb Israel drops sends their people to heaven and makes Israel look bad to the world.
The hardest part of conversing with a lot of people about this situation is getting them to understand the idea of a death cult. Once you accept that some people not only don’t fear death but actively seek it for themselves and their tribe, the Middle East makes a lot more sense. There’s so much evidence both in what they say (they do not hide it) and what they do but so much of the west refuses to accept it.
Well said.
What I try to emphasize is that Hamas has agency. They make the decision to keep fighting, or stop fighting.
To deny Hamas agency is to dehumanize them. They have as much agency as Israel or any other actor.
And they are a death cult.
With two million Gazans between their tunnels and the IDF.
There is no way to make that nice or neat or pleasant.
What I try to emphasize is that Hamas has agency. They make the decision to keep fighting, or stop fighting.
To deny Hamas agency is to dehumanize them. They have as much agency as Israel or any other actor.
And they are a death cult.
With two million Gazans between their tunnels and the IDF.
There is no way to make that nice or neat or pleasant.
Yep. The western liberal is well-intended and can’t get behind the idea that anyone should ever kill anyone. But Hamas’s order of preference is:
1. They kill you (because God will give them the eternal hookup)
2. You kill them (same as #1)
3. Nobody kills anyone
Suicide bombing seems crazy and far from rational to those of us who aren’t in the death cult. But if you look at the actions of radical Islamists from that perspective, it is entirely rational and in line with both their stated beliefs and their actions.
1. They kill you (because God will give them the eternal hookup)
2. You kill them (same as #1)
3. Nobody kills anyone
Suicide bombing seems crazy and far from rational to those of us who aren’t in the death cult. But if you look at the actions of radical Islamists from that perspective, it is entirely rational and in line with both their stated beliefs and their actions.
israel could also end it at any point, by not shooting, or by dissolving the whole state.
why do they not do this? israel has had the ability to end the war since before its inception.
the answer to why is no surprise, the same as hamas' reason to not surrender. the israeli goal is the disappearance of all palestinians, and hamas so happens to be made up of palestinians.
why do they not do this? israel has had the ability to end the war since before its inception.
the answer to why is no surprise, the same as hamas' reason to not surrender. the israeli goal is the disappearance of all palestinians, and hamas so happens to be made up of palestinians.
>dissolving the whole state
What?
You understand what would happen next, right?
Is there a single time in history when that has occurred? And if so, what happened next?
What a fantastically violent thing to say or propose.
>the israeli goal is the disappearance of all palestinians
If that is true, why are so many Palestinians alive?
If that is true, how do Palestinians have a population growth rate higher than any European country?
Palestine: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-pale...
Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
What?
You understand what would happen next, right?
Is there a single time in history when that has occurred? And if so, what happened next?
What a fantastically violent thing to say or propose.
>the israeli goal is the disappearance of all palestinians
If that is true, why are so many Palestinians alive?
If that is true, how do Palestinians have a population growth rate higher than any European country?
Palestine: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-pale...
Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
Indeed, nuclear weapons are a tricky thing. On one hand, there are nuclear non-proliferation treaties, on the other, peaceful nuclear power plants. To obtain nukes, you have to have good relationships with the current big powers, build peaceful nuclear installations, and very covertly produce the weapons based on it, while the big boys look the other way, or maybe even secretly help. That's approximately how China, India, Pakistan, and Israel obtained their nukes. (North Korea is a special case.)
Once you've obtained some nukes, complete with decent rockets to liv them, nobody is going to mess with you too badly, or try to take the nukes back; you're now a member if the club.
Japan or South Korea would likely be able to produce nuclear weapons in a few months if they needed to. I bet even Ukraine could, with its remaining nuclear plants and relatively advanced industry, and are on friendly terms with the US.
But if you made enemies with the big members of the nuclear club, and with the US in particular, they will do everything to stop you, and your situation would become much harder; that's the case with Iran.
Once you've obtained some nukes, complete with decent rockets to liv them, nobody is going to mess with you too badly, or try to take the nukes back; you're now a member if the club.
Japan or South Korea would likely be able to produce nuclear weapons in a few months if they needed to. I bet even Ukraine could, with its remaining nuclear plants and relatively advanced industry, and are on friendly terms with the US.
But if you made enemies with the big members of the nuclear club, and with the US in particular, they will do everything to stop you, and your situation would become much harder; that's the case with Iran.
But why a nuclear bomb?
I never understood the logic.. (or maybe it's the theatric element?) There are other WMD that seem much simpler. If they hypothetically release some horrible biological agent in Israel - it could incapacitate the country overnight
Or set off a dirty bomb to make huge regions unlivable (just the perception of radiation risk would preclude many from living there.. see Fukushima)
I never understood the logic.. (or maybe it's the theatric element?) There are other WMD that seem much simpler. If they hypothetically release some horrible biological agent in Israel - it could incapacitate the country overnight
Or set off a dirty bomb to make huge regions unlivable (just the perception of radiation risk would preclude many from living there.. see Fukushima)
> You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
Or had them, and then gave them up because they were under the impression that they would be protected if they did so; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...
Or had them, and then gave them up because they were under the impression that they would be protected if they did so; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...
why do you view nukes as the ultimate deterrent? Israel has nukes and it gets attacked. This proves the above is a logical fallacy.
Add Ukraine to that list.
> "You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked."
It's not that simple. Those countries were destined towards collapse with or without nuclear weapons. Iraq, Libya, Syria—those are three countries that fell into catastrophic civil wars, along internal conflict lines, in power vacuums succeeding an unpopular dictator. None of those autocracies were stable in the long-term. (But a nuclear weapon is quite stable; it succeeds the falls of governments and passes on to whoever replaces them).
Deplore US' strategic stupidities all you want; but it's not the only actor with agency in the world.
Would anyone have been better off with Assad fighting a version of the 2010's civil war with nuclear weapons in his arsenal? Or Hussein, that sectarian war? Those are two men who gassed thousands of innocents with nerve agents; they wouldn't surely wouldn't hesitate long about dropping nukes.
(Can you deter a civil war with nuclear weapons?)
We could also ask who would have inherited a hypothetical Qaddafi nuke, after his fall: which Libya? There were at least three Libyas one point. ISIL governed one!
(One semantic nitpick: I don't think it's fair to say those dictators "gave up" their WMD's. With all three, their WMD programs were forcibly taken from them. In Iraq, 1981, the bombing of the Osirak reactor; and again in the 1991 Gulf War the bombing of Tuwaitha (which permanently ended Iraq's uranium enrichment). Qaddafi turned over all his nuclear materials to the USA, after being directly threatened, in the months following US' 2003 invasion of Iraq. And Assad lost his North Korean-built plutonium reactor in 2007, to an airstrike. Did anyone of these dictators have agency in those "give up WMD" choices? I think not).
It's not that simple. Those countries were destined towards collapse with or without nuclear weapons. Iraq, Libya, Syria—those are three countries that fell into catastrophic civil wars, along internal conflict lines, in power vacuums succeeding an unpopular dictator. None of those autocracies were stable in the long-term. (But a nuclear weapon is quite stable; it succeeds the falls of governments and passes on to whoever replaces them).
Deplore US' strategic stupidities all you want; but it's not the only actor with agency in the world.
Would anyone have been better off with Assad fighting a version of the 2010's civil war with nuclear weapons in his arsenal? Or Hussein, that sectarian war? Those are two men who gassed thousands of innocents with nerve agents; they wouldn't surely wouldn't hesitate long about dropping nukes.
(Can you deter a civil war with nuclear weapons?)
We could also ask who would have inherited a hypothetical Qaddafi nuke, after his fall: which Libya? There were at least three Libyas one point. ISIL governed one!
(One semantic nitpick: I don't think it's fair to say those dictators "gave up" their WMD's. With all three, their WMD programs were forcibly taken from them. In Iraq, 1981, the bombing of the Osirak reactor; and again in the 1991 Gulf War the bombing of Tuwaitha (which permanently ended Iraq's uranium enrichment). Qaddafi turned over all his nuclear materials to the USA, after being directly threatened, in the months following US' 2003 invasion of Iraq. And Assad lost his North Korean-built plutonium reactor in 2007, to an airstrike. Did anyone of these dictators have agency in those "give up WMD" choices? I think not).
>Those countries were destined towards collapse with or without nuclear weapons. Iraq, Libya, Syria—those are three countries that fell into catastrophic civil wars, along internal conflict lines,
For Libya and Syria, sure, but what are you talking about for Iraq? Saddam was unambiguously ousted from an internally secure position of power by a foreign invasion that followed in the wake of over a decade of heavy sanctions and no-fly zone imposure. By many accounts, Saddam had a strong base of support within his population and his rule was stable (backed by a blend of patronage and severe terror obviously) right up until the day he was ousted by vastly superior military might from outside.
While it's extremely hard to know what would have happened to his regime had he still been in power by the time of the Arab Spring and the events that caused the ouster of Gaddafi and eventually Assad, Saddam would surely have been able to stay in power at least up to then. I certainly don't imagine him having more difficulty handling an internal strife of the kind that ruined Assad's dictatorship. Except for his catastrophic miscalculation of making a long-term enemy of the US during the first, utterly pointless Gulf War, he at least showed himself to be the far more experienced and careful dictator during his rule.
For Libya and Syria, sure, but what are you talking about for Iraq? Saddam was unambiguously ousted from an internally secure position of power by a foreign invasion that followed in the wake of over a decade of heavy sanctions and no-fly zone imposure. By many accounts, Saddam had a strong base of support within his population and his rule was stable (backed by a blend of patronage and severe terror obviously) right up until the day he was ousted by vastly superior military might from outside.
While it's extremely hard to know what would have happened to his regime had he still been in power by the time of the Arab Spring and the events that caused the ouster of Gaddafi and eventually Assad, Saddam would surely have been able to stay in power at least up to then. I certainly don't imagine him having more difficulty handling an internal strife of the kind that ruined Assad's dictatorship. Except for his catastrophic miscalculation of making a long-term enemy of the US during the first, utterly pointless Gulf War, he at least showed himself to be the far more experienced and careful dictator during his rule.
[deleted]
Ukraine is another example from a different area
> On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects.
That sounds insane. I don't think world would be more peaceful if every country under every government had WMDs. We'd be in the middle of nuclear winter now if that was the case. You could draw analogies to everyone owning a gun. We know it just ends up with many more dead and nothing being more peaceful.
> Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
He's wrong. What protects North Korea is that it's poor, has no natural resources and devastated human capital and neither attacks anyone with terrorist attacks nor credibly prophesies their intent to kill any nation or ethnicity.
If they did that, they'd be steamrolled already. WMDs or not.
That sounds insane. I don't think world would be more peaceful if every country under every government had WMDs. We'd be in the middle of nuclear winter now if that was the case. You could draw analogies to everyone owning a gun. We know it just ends up with many more dead and nothing being more peaceful.
> Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
He's wrong. What protects North Korea is that it's poor, has no natural resources and devastated human capital and neither attacks anyone with terrorist attacks nor credibly prophesies their intent to kill any nation or ethnicity.
If they did that, they'd be steamrolled already. WMDs or not.
All those countries would have plunged into internal turmoil after arab spring - us involvement or not - so Isis, hezbullah or al quaida with nukes would be the news now.
> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
By your logic, I am a little surprised Iran is still even a state then.
By your logic, I am a little surprised Iran is still even a state then.
> 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.
So, I have an honest (non rhetorical) question: Was NK saved more by having their own nukes, or by sharing a land border with China who has nukes and doesn't want the US getting involved in the area?
So, I have an honest (non rhetorical) question: Was NK saved more by having their own nukes, or by sharing a land border with China who has nukes and doesn't want the US getting involved in the area?
I have a question: why did China allow NK to develop nukes?
North Korea deterrent has always been the amount of artillery 50 km from soul.
Nuclear weapons can target, the US based on the region, sure. But NK does not need nukes to reduce the south Korean capital to rubble.
Nuclear weapons can target, the US based on the region, sure. But NK does not need nukes to reduce the south Korean capital to rubble.
> You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that
No you don't, unless you're a dictatorship (including all the examples you gave).
No you don't, unless you're a dictatorship (including all the examples you gave).
Ukraine would like to have a word with you.
Ukraine was not in the examples given and you read both the original post and my response wrong. The post did not say „if you have nuclear weapons you don‘t get attacked“. It said „if you don‘t have nuclear weapons you get attacked“. Of course you get attacked by Russia either way, but that‘s not the point.
The point is that you don‘t get attacked by anyone else unless you‘re a dictatorship.
The point is that you don‘t get attacked by anyone else unless you‘re a dictatorship.
Ukraine gave up working nukes, don’t forget them.
I think the point of this bombing is to change the calculus you just mentioned. Now there’s an actual reason to not try for nukes, you may get bombed.
NK’s conventional weapons (and SK’s pointed right back at them) saved them from conflict, that’s how they got to nukes without us doing something like this. They already had mutually assured destruction from conventional weapons and proximity to an ally.
Iran’s problem is we don’t care much about anyone around them except Israel, and they already would destroy Israel if they could, so they had nobody’s head at which to aim their bullet.
NK’s government is an evil one but the Kims really like being alive and that keeps them somewhat rational. They are quite obviously not religious since they claim to be God (and surely are aware they are not), so they don’t believe in benefits to martyrdom.
Islamism is a death cult (and I mean that literally) so their actions aren’t rational as we would define the word. We can’t rely on their self-preservation instinct the way we can with the Kims.
I think the point of this bombing is to change the calculus you just mentioned. Now there’s an actual reason to not try for nukes, you may get bombed.
NK’s conventional weapons (and SK’s pointed right back at them) saved them from conflict, that’s how they got to nukes without us doing something like this. They already had mutually assured destruction from conventional weapons and proximity to an ally.
Iran’s problem is we don’t care much about anyone around them except Israel, and they already would destroy Israel if they could, so they had nobody’s head at which to aim their bullet.
NK’s government is an evil one but the Kims really like being alive and that keeps them somewhat rational. They are quite obviously not religious since they claim to be God (and surely are aware they are not), so they don’t believe in benefits to martyrdom.
Islamism is a death cult (and I mean that literally) so their actions aren’t rational as we would define the word. We can’t rely on their self-preservation instinct the way we can with the Kims.
Ukraine never had "control" of nukes. Russia was the sole producer/controller of nukes within the USSR. Those nukes were then deployed throughout the USSR, but the individual regions within the USSR never had any capability to independently launch or control those nukes. It would be akin to what will happen when the US eventually collapses and we have military bases and nukes scattered throughout the world.
Germany in that case will then briefly technically have nukes, but no ability to knowledge of how to launch or control them. Had Ukraine tried to hold onto those nukes and/or figure out how to launch them they would likely have been invaded by just about every country in the world, including the US, so they gave them up for a few bucks and some kind words.
And I strongly disagree about Iran. Pakistan is also an Islamic country (with its proper name being the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and a nuclear power, and they haven't just decided to go nuke India who they have abysmal relations with. Religion does provide a different level of comfort with death (and Iran has a longgggggg history of enduring pain to expel invaders on top), but it does not just turn people into death cult members.
There's some irony in that if Iran had nuclear weapons their relations with Israel would likely have been much better. Because Israel wouldn't have been constantly attacking, assassinating, and otherwise doing everything they could to undermine the country. It's similar to how if North Korea didn't have nukes then South Korea, largely as a proxy of the US, would likely have been actively attacking them.
Germany in that case will then briefly technically have nukes, but no ability to knowledge of how to launch or control them. Had Ukraine tried to hold onto those nukes and/or figure out how to launch them they would likely have been invaded by just about every country in the world, including the US, so they gave them up for a few bucks and some kind words.
And I strongly disagree about Iran. Pakistan is also an Islamic country (with its proper name being the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and a nuclear power, and they haven't just decided to go nuke India who they have abysmal relations with. Religion does provide a different level of comfort with death (and Iran has a longgggggg history of enduring pain to expel invaders on top), but it does not just turn people into death cult members.
There's some irony in that if Iran had nuclear weapons their relations with Israel would likely have been much better. Because Israel wouldn't have been constantly attacking, assassinating, and otherwise doing everything they could to undermine the country. It's similar to how if North Korea didn't have nukes then South Korea, largely as a proxy of the US, would likely have been actively attacking them.
Islamism != Islam. Plenty of Muslims (most, thankfully) are not Islamists, including Pakistan. Pakistan also does not fund terror globally (though India says they do it locally) because they do not believe they go to heaven for killing Israelis. There are a number of Muslims, including the Supreme Leader, who do. My contention was not that any muslims would nuke Israel if they had a chance, most surely would not, but it's reasonable to believe Iran would. Hamas and Hezbollah would, and Iran would love to give them the opportunity.
South Korea was never going to attack North Korea because, as I mentioned, they had plenty of conventional weapons they could easily deliver to South Korea. They had mutually assured destruction before they even tried to get nukes, that's why they succeeded. Iran does not have that yet, and must be stopped before they do.
I do now know whether this was the right way to do it by any means, and I think it's a shame that the Obama-era deal was abandoned. I think we could possibly have gotten here through peaceful measures. But we did need to get to here.
South Korea was never going to attack North Korea because, as I mentioned, they had plenty of conventional weapons they could easily deliver to South Korea. They had mutually assured destruction before they even tried to get nukes, that's why they succeeded. Iran does not have that yet, and must be stopped before they do.
I do now know whether this was the right way to do it by any means, and I think it's a shame that the Obama-era deal was abandoned. I think we could possibly have gotten here through peaceful measures. But we did need to get to here.
Pakistan was historically one of the most active sponsors of terrorism worldwide. [1] Their activities over time have moderated, but again exactly as I was suggesting would happen with Iran - this is likely in large part because they're not a target of various offensive activities, precisely because they have nukes. Each time you attack a country and kill people, those friends, relatives, and parts of the unconnected population do not forget nor forgive. You create the radicalism you claim to fight against.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_t...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_t...
Historically yes. They’ve since renounced it and seem to keep it confined to their region.
I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that fighting terrorism creates more terrorists than it kills, that’s just a thing people say and reality seems to show the opposite. We haven’t had waves of terror since gutting Al Queda, ISIS, etc. There’s neither research nor data to support it, people just like the way it sounds so they repeat it.
I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that fighting terrorism creates more terrorists than it kills, that’s just a thing people say and reality seems to show the opposite. We haven’t had waves of terror since gutting Al Queda, ISIS, etc. There’s neither research nor data to support it, people just like the way it sounds so they repeat it.
What about the Taliban? Fighting them for 20 years seemed to achieve absolutely nothing.
And Pakistan has also historically had nukes - they were first obtained in 1998. This [1] page offers a variety of data on terrorism. I recommend selecting the "terrorist attacks by region" graph as it illustrates it most clearly. At the time of 9/11, global terrorism was in its death throes. 9/11 was a Hail Mary by Bin Laden and it's been a resounding success. Global terrorism has exponentially skyrocketed since the war on terror.
And on top of this terror groups are now growing powerful enough to fully control their own countries. The Taliban now has rock solid control of Afghanistan (before the war on terror they had majority control, but were struggling against a powerful insurgency), Abu Mohammad al-Julani controls Syria and US propaganda is framing him as a moderate or reformer, but he's not. He had a $10 million bounty on his head as one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, even as we started running propaganda for him, exactly as we did for [de facto] Al Qaeda(from which he came) before they came back to bite us later, exactly as he will. Then there's the Houthis who went from a political movement to an insurgency to now having near complete control of Yemen in spite of ongoing conflicts with Saudi Arabia and the US.
[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism
And on top of this terror groups are now growing powerful enough to fully control their own countries. The Taliban now has rock solid control of Afghanistan (before the war on terror they had majority control, but were struggling against a powerful insurgency), Abu Mohammad al-Julani controls Syria and US propaganda is framing him as a moderate or reformer, but he's not. He had a $10 million bounty on his head as one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, even as we started running propaganda for him, exactly as we did for [de facto] Al Qaeda(from which he came) before they came back to bite us later, exactly as he will. Then there's the Houthis who went from a political movement to an insurgency to now having near complete control of Yemen in spite of ongoing conflicts with Saudi Arabia and the US.
[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism
> Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
How has the situation been better in the twenty years NK has had nuclear weapons than the fifty years after the Korean war and before NK got nukes?
How has the situation been better in the twenty years NK has had nuclear weapons than the fifty years after the Korean war and before NK got nukes?
South Africa gave up actual nuclear weapons and didn't get attacked. I think tying the "got attacked" back to "gave up their nuclear program" bit requires justification.
North Korea had enough conventional artillery to level Seoul with an estimated 1M casualties. That was why Clinton decided against attacking North Korea as they moved towards building the bomb:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/north-koreas-artill...
Iran’s deterrent was/is through its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) along with its sizable missile inventory, anti-air capabilities and strategic threats to oil and gas exports.
Israel’s investment in missile defense and the outcome of the Oct 7th attacks severely weakened Iran’s deterrence to a conventional attack.
I think the lesson should be that any nation that has enough conventional leverage to deter an attack could choose to build nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons may complement, but can’t displace other capabilities.
The US has nuclear weapons but that didn’t deter Iran from launching direct attacks on US troops in the Middle East or sponsoring insurgents in Iraq. Nuclear weapons are also essential worthless against non nation-state actors such as Al-Qaeda.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/north-koreas-artill...
Iran’s deterrent was/is through its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) along with its sizable missile inventory, anti-air capabilities and strategic threats to oil and gas exports.
Israel’s investment in missile defense and the outcome of the Oct 7th attacks severely weakened Iran’s deterrence to a conventional attack.
I think the lesson should be that any nation that has enough conventional leverage to deter an attack could choose to build nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons may complement, but can’t displace other capabilities.
The US has nuclear weapons but that didn’t deter Iran from launching direct attacks on US troops in the Middle East or sponsoring insurgents in Iraq. Nuclear weapons are also essential worthless against non nation-state actors such as Al-Qaeda.
I have become much more skeptical about DNK’s artillery after seeing the results of a frontline air-superiority stalemate in Ukraine and the Israeli campaign against Iran.
If South Korea’s coalition could establish air superiority over the DMZ and artillery range in the first moves, I think it takes you from “Seoul destroyed” to a “pretty average modern conflict.”
Hot take for sure, but war has changed.
If South Korea’s coalition could establish air superiority over the DMZ and artillery range in the first moves, I think it takes you from “Seoul destroyed” to a “pretty average modern conflict.”
Hot take for sure, but war has changed.
> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked
That's ahistorical in the case of Syria and Iraq. Israel destroyed the nascent nuclear weapons programmes of Syria and Iraq, just as it has done to Iran's. Syria and Iraq did not give up those programmes willingly.
That's ahistorical in the case of Syria and Iraq. Israel destroyed the nascent nuclear weapons programmes of Syria and Iraq, just as it has done to Iran's. Syria and Iraq did not give up those programmes willingly.
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.
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.
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.
m8 they literally swear on the bible
/s
/s
You… don’t see it?
[deleted]
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.
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.
> The USA is not a theocracy, though.
Hence I brought it up, yes.
> Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute.
Many reputable democracies[1], including Germany, Australia, Norway or Switzerland, have a reference to god in their constitution; that doesn't make them theocracies. Even in the USA, presidents swear their oath on the bible!
> businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays
Try purchasing something on a Christian holiday in Germany. Did you know it's prohibited by law to play Life of Brian in public on Easter Sunday there?
> such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god
That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several. Now I'm very much in opposition to a lot of what the Israeli government does, but they're really not what the term Theocracy means. That claim is just ridiculous.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_G...
Hence I brought it up, yes.
> Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute.
Many reputable democracies[1], including Germany, Australia, Norway or Switzerland, have a reference to god in their constitution; that doesn't make them theocracies. Even in the USA, presidents swear their oath on the bible!
> businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays
Try purchasing something on a Christian holiday in Germany. Did you know it's prohibited by law to play Life of Brian in public on Easter Sunday there?
> such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god
That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several. Now I'm very much in opposition to a lot of what the Israeli government does, but they're really not what the term Theocracy means. That claim is just ridiculous.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_G...
> Many reputable democracies[1], including Germany, Australia, Norway or Switzerland, have a reference to god in their constitution
None of these say that their states are Christian and Democratic, nor do they have government decisions finding that this means anything at all. In Israel, by contrast, their highest court has found that, for example, a right to return for Palestinians would be unconstitutional - as it would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel. A reference to some god in their constitution would be a completely different thing.
> That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several.
This is an extreme downplaying of what I said. Several of the people in charge of the Israeli government have explicitly and exclusively, religious motivations in their decision making - that is a very clear sign of a form of theocracy.
None of these say that their states are Christian and Democratic, nor do they have government decisions finding that this means anything at all. In Israel, by contrast, their highest court has found that, for example, a right to return for Palestinians would be unconstitutional - as it would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel. A reference to some god in their constitution would be a completely different thing.
> That in turn isn't government directive, but a political opinion amongst several.
This is an extreme downplaying of what I said. Several of the people in charge of the Israeli government have explicitly and exclusively, religious motivations in their decision making - that is a very clear sign of a form of theocracy.
[deleted]
> 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?
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.
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 US was far too eager to carry out regime change and so we have the dreadful situation today.
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.
> The US didn’t have anything more to do with this.
Only if one is utterly blind and put fingers in their ears, can one truly believe that. Nuland's call was leaked where she was proudly deciding who would form the next government in Ukraine and who should be kept on the outside. And her personal choice of puppet: "Yats" did in-fact become the prime minister. Nuland was even handing out cookies to anti-Yanukovych protests for Christ's sake. Mc Cain actually flew in and congratulated the protesters.
Imagine if that was happening in the US against a US President - members of foreign nation's government cheering on a coup and deciding who would be the next President. There would be Absolute War.
Only if one is utterly blind and put fingers in their ears, can one truly believe that. Nuland's call was leaked where she was proudly deciding who would form the next government in Ukraine and who should be kept on the outside. And her personal choice of puppet: "Yats" did in-fact become the prime minister. Nuland was even handing out cookies to anti-Yanukovych protests for Christ's sake. Mc Cain actually flew in and congratulated the protesters.
Imagine if that was happening in the US against a US President - members of foreign nation's government cheering on a coup and deciding who would be the next President. There would be Absolute War.
For those reading this and doubting: Read the call transcript for yourself, annotated by Jonathan Marcus of the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Yes, the USA is attempting to facilitate talks here. No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Yes, the USA is attempting to facilitate talks here. No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda.
I also fully support not just reading the call transcript, but also listening to the leaked call so you get Nuland's firm tone. I would reserve very skeptical judgement on the "annotations". Those weren't part of the call.
Listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y
> No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda
Anyone with a rational brain who separates themselves from biases and emotions and carefully listens to the call would realize there is no propaganda involved here. Also, for better clarity of judgement, please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government.
Listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y
> No, that does not mean they have "decided" who is going to form the next government. That claim is just Russian propaganda
Anyone with a rational brain who separates themselves from biases and emotions and carefully listens to the call would realize there is no propaganda involved here. Also, for better clarity of judgement, please perform a thought exercise and consider what would happen if a foreign government's members were discussing the personal choices , makeup and "talks" for members of the next American government.
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"?
All politicians "mispresent themselves". Kicking them out during elections is the way they are thrown out in a functioning democracy. Or do you believe Americans should storm the White House and beat up the President anytime a campaign promise is broken ? And one that is magnified by the funding and urging of a foreign government ? Such actions - which break the "deal of democracy" naturally lead to civil war - which is exactly what happened in Ukraine.
I don't care what Americans do, but I'd quite like to storm our parliament and kick out the current government.
> All politicians "mispresent themselves".
No. The ones that try to push agendas that go against their programme and are deeply unpopular will often see public protests and even general strikes demanding policy reversals or governments stepping down. Do you call those regime changes as well?
No. The ones that try to push agendas that go against their programme and are deeply unpopular will often see public protests and even general strikes demanding policy reversals or governments stepping down. Do you call those regime changes as well?
you neglect to mention that those were peaceful protests till protestors (mostly students) got brutal beat down by police (on advise of russian advisors).
after this protests "for eu integration" moved to protests against brutality and when police escalate more it became "ant-regime" protest
after this protests "for eu integration" moved to protests against brutality and when police escalate more it became "ant-regime" protest
Sorry, I just had to respond to this ridiculous assertion..your "peaceful protestors" were building and firing slingshots, molotov cocktails and even DIY rocket launchers - they were even fawned upon and idolized by the Western press for this. You do that in any nation and you will get a beating from the police. You do that in the US and you will be rapidly sent to the after-life.
Hell, several people even made a giant catapult on-site (props given for engineering knowledge though). What surprised me at that time watching is that the Ukrainian police were so tolerant of rocks falling on them. American police would have immediately opened fire. Of-course, that tolerance didn't last long once policemen started taking casualties.
Hell, several people even made a giant catapult on-site (props given for engineering knowledge though). What surprised me at that time watching is that the Ukrainian police were so tolerant of rocks falling on them. American police would have immediately opened fire. Of-course, that tolerance didn't last long once policemen started taking casualties.
No, I disagree.
The right to protest, assemble, and even impeach representatives is just as paramount to democracy as voting. There's no rule anywhere that you just have to endure a poor leader - especially a leader who is leaning towards harming or removing democracy.
The right to protest, assemble, and even impeach representatives is just as paramount to democracy as voting. There's no rule anywhere that you just have to endure a poor leader - especially a leader who is leaning towards harming or removing democracy.
I agree with you.
> they're saying the guy was misrepresenting himself
You mean like "peacemaker"/"America First" Donald Trump?
> why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"?
If Americans can wait out for the second Trump term to be over, Ukrainians could do it too for Yanukovych.
You mean like "peacemaker"/"America First" Donald Trump?
> why is the solution to that problem "just endure four years of destruction until he leaves"?
If Americans can wait out for the second Trump term to be over, Ukrainians could do it too for Yanukovych.
I'm not 100% sure of Ukraine, but most democracies have a legal way to impeach a sitting president. If Yanukovich was committing literal treason, acting on behalf of a foreign country, there should have been a slam dunk case for impeachment.
Our government killed 50 people in a train accident because they couldn't be bothered to maintain the safety systems, then immediately ordered crews to the site to cover everything up with dirt so there would be no trace of fuel additives being illegally transported on a passenger train. The courts found no wrongdoing, and they're still in power.
Who's going to impeach them?
Who's going to impeach them?
There's no way of knowing that Russia wouldn't have incited the "rebellions" anyway. Once the writing was on the wall that the majority of Ukrainians didn't want to be Russia's puppets, Putin would likely have acted one way or the other. Why take chances?
"He could have been overthrown in the next elections"
Let me see if Erdogan can be overthrown in the next elections in Turkey. No US involvement either.
If you live in a stable Western country, your trust in the next elections being fair and free is understandable, but in that case, refrain from any authoritative talk ("your arguments don't matter") about other places. In recent democracies that transitioned from totalitarian rule just a decade or two ago, elections are far easier to hijack than in the UK or Denmark.
"no-one would have batted an eye"
You cannot really make such a strong prediction about places like Ukraine, the Balkans, the Middle East etc. These are places where empires collide, and several crises in a century are almost a given.
Anyway I am fairly glad that Ukraine didn't end up like Belarus did, a satellite state of Moscow. Anything is better than becoming a satellite state of Moscow. Most of us from behind the Iron Curtain would rather fight a war than submit to Moscow again.
Interestingly, the Western leftists, who otherwise preach anti-colonialism from breakfast to sunset and then some, don't understand the same dynamic among white-majority nations. But it is still there.
Let me see if Erdogan can be overthrown in the next elections in Turkey. No US involvement either.
If you live in a stable Western country, your trust in the next elections being fair and free is understandable, but in that case, refrain from any authoritative talk ("your arguments don't matter") about other places. In recent democracies that transitioned from totalitarian rule just a decade or two ago, elections are far easier to hijack than in the UK or Denmark.
"no-one would have batted an eye"
You cannot really make such a strong prediction about places like Ukraine, the Balkans, the Middle East etc. These are places where empires collide, and several crises in a century are almost a given.
Anyway I am fairly glad that Ukraine didn't end up like Belarus did, a satellite state of Moscow. Anything is better than becoming a satellite state of Moscow. Most of us from behind the Iron Curtain would rather fight a war than submit to Moscow again.
Interestingly, the Western leftists, who otherwise preach anti-colonialism from breakfast to sunset and then some, don't understand the same dynamic among white-majority nations. But it is still there.
Did you somehow magically miss the part where Yanukovych's election was extensively observed and vetted by the EU and several other international bodies ? The EU’s own delegation — alongside the OSCE and other bodies — stated that the election was "free, fair, and transparent".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
"Over 700 observers from EU member states participated, in addition to OSCE/ODIHR, the EU Parliament, PACE, and other international delegations"
The Guardian reported EU-led observers praised the vote as "fair and truly competitive" noting only "minor irregularities” that did not affect overall results".
"After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukov...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
"Over 700 observers from EU member states participated, in addition to OSCE/ODIHR, the EU Parliament, PACE, and other international delegations"
The Guardian reported EU-led observers praised the vote as "fair and truly competitive" noting only "minor irregularities” that did not affect overall results".
"After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukov...
"Did you somehow magically miss the part"
Could you tone down your arrogance, please?
I was talking about the next election. You expressed your conviction that Yanukovich could be removed in the next election, remember?
I expressed my doubt about iron-cladness of such future election. Strongmen-like leaders in fresh democracies have a lot of methods how to win next elections without actually winning them.
Could you tone down your arrogance, please?
I was talking about the next election. You expressed your conviction that Yanukovich could be removed in the next election, remember?
I expressed my doubt about iron-cladness of such future election. Strongmen-like leaders in fresh democracies have a lot of methods how to win next elections without actually winning them.
Ok, but I am really incredulous now - If he won the next election even after extensive vetting by EU and a plethora of international observers who called the elections "fair and transparent", then he has completely won the seat of the Presidency. On what basis does your personal opinion overrule the result of democracy ?
> 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.
Yes, he was. What you are leaving out is the fact that in spite of being elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU platform, it turned out he was a Russian agent and betrayed his mandate to enforce Kremlin's anti-west agenda and force himself upon Ukraine as another kremlin-controlled dictatorship.
Except the people of Ukraine wanted none of that and protested against this betrayal, which culminated in the wannabe dictator seeking exile in Russia.
Somehow you leave this out when you talk about basic democratic principles. Why is that? Is it out of sheer ignorance?
What's also very odd is the way that you somehow try to portray anti-government protests as revolutions and regime changes, when this is a Hallmark of any democratic system: when a government doesn't follow through with their compromise and go directly against their mandate and people's will, they express their discontent and demand elections. How odd that when democracies reject Russia's interference, this is deemed as an anti-democratic coup.
Yes, he was. What you are leaving out is the fact that in spite of being elected based on an enthusiastically pro-EU platform, it turned out he was a Russian agent and betrayed his mandate to enforce Kremlin's anti-west agenda and force himself upon Ukraine as another kremlin-controlled dictatorship.
Except the people of Ukraine wanted none of that and protested against this betrayal, which culminated in the wannabe dictator seeking exile in Russia.
Somehow you leave this out when you talk about basic democratic principles. Why is that? Is it out of sheer ignorance?
What's also very odd is the way that you somehow try to portray anti-government protests as revolutions and regime changes, when this is a Hallmark of any democratic system: when a government doesn't follow through with their compromise and go directly against their mandate and people's will, they express their discontent and demand elections. How odd that when democracies reject Russia's interference, this is deemed as an anti-democratic coup.
[deleted]
How nice of you to insert some Russian bullshit narrative into the discussion.
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.
[deleted]
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".
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".
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.
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.
your selective definition of democracy accommodates a country
- whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state
- where 50% of the population doesn't have the right to vote, land ownership, or travel on the same roads
- and faces 99% conviction rates in military, not civil, courts
- where parties can be banned directly by government decision if it arbitrarily deems them to be anti-Jewish
- whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state
- where 50% of the population doesn't have the right to vote, land ownership, or travel on the same roads
- and faces 99% conviction rates in military, not civil, courts
- where parties can be banned directly by government decision if it arbitrarily deems them to be anti-Jewish
The problems of Israeli democracy are not the ones you list.
The fundamental issue is the population of the West Bank, who, outside of Palestinian Authority areas (aka "Area A"), are largely controlled by Israel but cannot vote. Note that 1-2 million West Bank Palestinians live in Area A under the Palestinian Authority.
- Within Israel, there is a Communist Party (which rejects religion and ethnicity) and other parties (including two Arab parties).
- A key problem in Israeli democracy, which it would be helpful if you noted, is that although there are two Arab parties (and majority Jewish parties who welcome Arabs), the Arab population of Israel votes at a low rate. This results in their being under-represented in the Knesset.
- The Basic Law you refer to made zero change to who can have political power.
- The 50% you refer to is neither the right percentage, nor does it take into account areas of great Palestinian autonomy.
- Function of the legal system has never been relevant to who can vote or hold office.
If you want to reflect what is on the ground, I suggest you take in the whole picture.
The fundamental issue is the population of the West Bank, who, outside of Palestinian Authority areas (aka "Area A"), are largely controlled by Israel but cannot vote. Note that 1-2 million West Bank Palestinians live in Area A under the Palestinian Authority.
- Within Israel, there is a Communist Party (which rejects religion and ethnicity) and other parties (including two Arab parties).
- A key problem in Israeli democracy, which it would be helpful if you noted, is that although there are two Arab parties (and majority Jewish parties who welcome Arabs), the Arab population of Israel votes at a low rate. This results in their being under-represented in the Knesset.
- The Basic Law you refer to made zero change to who can have political power.
- The 50% you refer to is neither the right percentage, nor does it take into account areas of great Palestinian autonomy.
- Function of the legal system has never been relevant to who can vote or hold office.
If you want to reflect what is on the ground, I suggest you take in the whole picture.
> whose Basic Law 2018 declared it a Jewish supremacist state
The Basic Law which passed with 62 for and 55 against, just states what the constitution of pretty much any European country does. Most European countries are nation states. It's countries like Switzerland, Russia and Belgium which are outliers. (Hopefully, one day, they will be broken up too.)
The Basic Law which passed with 62 for and 55 against, just states what the constitution of pretty much any European country does. Most European countries are nation states. It's countries like Switzerland, Russia and Belgium which are outliers. (Hopefully, one day, they will be broken up too.)
Is it a fair democratic vote when a very substantial number of the people that Israel claims are residents cannot participate in this vote?
> 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
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
Absurd.
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.
spwa4(1)
I think you have not paid attention to European and Middle Eastern countries.
They are all ethno states.
The very concept "nation-state" is an alignment of "ethnic tribe" with "political borders"
You might want to hit a history book or two.
In this regard, Israel is more normal and places like the U.S. are abnormal. (Once you get outside the U.S....)
They are all ethno states.
The very concept "nation-state" is an alignment of "ethnic tribe" with "political borders"
You might want to hit a history book or two.
In this regard, Israel is more normal and places like the U.S. are abnormal. (Once you get outside the U.S....)
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
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee
It's a bad law (although somewhat covered with 'good intentions', it does have a scent of racism which shouldn't exist in state laws).
However, note that the outcome was the unintentional creation of Jewish/Arabs communities in the Galilee, which actually help bring Jews and Arabs together.
It is also important to note that Arab Israelis have full rights as citizens, have representatives in the parliament and even were a part of the previous coalition. This, of course, is not the case for Palestinians in the occupied territories, and this issue MUST be resolved (one- or two-state solution, either way the current situation is unbearable).
With that, the current coalition does include extremists, and many (according to recent polls, >60%) in Israel want to see them replaced.
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.
> 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.
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.
They said "theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first". If this is true - and it is their stated position - then, since Israel has nukes, either they are not a theocracy or they are begging to be nuked. The commenter has, I think reasonably, concluded that the other commenter doesn't think Israel is begging to be nuked, and is therefore addressing the apparent contradiction. It seems entirely genuous.
Not any longer but one might have thought of Britain as a theocracy at some point in the recent past insofar as members of the governing party would have put down Christian in the box marked Religion. On the other hand, in 2025, formal occasions in the UK usually take place in Christian cathedrals and churches. The King (albeit with no executive powers in the Government) is head of the Church of England - the 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.
Interesting that 20% of Israelis do not believe in a deity. 18% are Muslim. In Iran, Jews are 0.03% of the population.
Interesting that 20% of Israelis do not believe in a deity. 18% are Muslim. In Iran, Jews are 0.03% of the population.
It would quite concerning if Israel had non-Zionist (read: not in favour of the existence of Israel) parties.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
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.
On the contrary: at this point all of that spending appears to have been a waste. Hezbollah neutralized, Syria regime-changed, Gaza in tatters, and now they've lost their nuclear program.
Imagine if they'd spent the money on education, or developing their economy. They could easily have reconciled with the U.S. if they stopped chanting "Death to America" and done something productive with their time and money. This was the inevitable result of their plans, and easily predictable.
Imagine if they'd spent the money on education, or developing their economy. They could easily have reconciled with the U.S. if they stopped chanting "Death to America" and done something productive with their time and money. This was the inevitable result of their plans, and easily predictable.
[deleted]
I'm not sure you know much about Iran.
They did spend a lot of the oil revenue on both education and developing their economy.
Compare them perhaps to Saudi Arabia, a similar sized country with much more oil and much fewer people. Saudi does not have any industry, does not export anything except hydrocarbons. All the extraction is done by foreign engineers.
Iran educates engineers, including many foreign students, has industry outside of oil, and largely works its own drilling and refinery. The Iranian economy is not dependent on migrant labor.
Saudi pays billions to Europe and America for high tech weaponry, yet can't defeat the Houthis. A considerable proportion of the money goes to baksheesh both for the Saudis themselves and their western suppliers. If Saudi decided tomorrow to challenge its Western backers in any real way, the umbrella would be withdrawn and the guys in the solid gold cars would last about a week.
Iran has wreaked havoc throughout the region for 40 years by putting $30 rifles, $200 RPGs, $100 IEDs and now, $2000 drones in the right (wrong) hands at the right time. They haven't lost a regular soldier in battle since the 1980s.
Even if you're calling the end of Iranian influence in the region right now, it's still an incredible run of hitting above one's weight. The only country in the Middle East this can be compared with is Israel, who are themselves legendary for hyper-insightful tactical leverage.
They did spend a lot of the oil revenue on both education and developing their economy.
Compare them perhaps to Saudi Arabia, a similar sized country with much more oil and much fewer people. Saudi does not have any industry, does not export anything except hydrocarbons. All the extraction is done by foreign engineers.
Iran educates engineers, including many foreign students, has industry outside of oil, and largely works its own drilling and refinery. The Iranian economy is not dependent on migrant labor.
Saudi pays billions to Europe and America for high tech weaponry, yet can't defeat the Houthis. A considerable proportion of the money goes to baksheesh both for the Saudis themselves and their western suppliers. If Saudi decided tomorrow to challenge its Western backers in any real way, the umbrella would be withdrawn and the guys in the solid gold cars would last about a week.
Iran has wreaked havoc throughout the region for 40 years by putting $30 rifles, $200 RPGs, $100 IEDs and now, $2000 drones in the right (wrong) hands at the right time. They haven't lost a regular soldier in battle since the 1980s.
Even if you're calling the end of Iranian influence in the region right now, it's still an incredible run of hitting above one's weight. The only country in the Middle East this can be compared with is Israel, who are themselves legendary for hyper-insightful tactical leverage.
I’ve seen this Iranian engineer myth perpetuated ad nauseum on every social network for the last 24 hours and never before that, as if a desperate attempt to repaint the country as anything but a failed state. The reality is that Iran has been propped up by China and Russia for decades and has wasted all of its incoming capital on weapons and kickbacks rather than doing anything to boost its domestic situation.
Just because you didn't know something until 24 hours ago does not make it a myth.
Having lived in the U.S. my entire life, I’ve worked closely with many Iranian-born and -educated mathematicians, computer scientists, and software engineers. To OP’s point, I’ve never encountered anyone from Saudi Arabia in those fields.
Iran spends a massive portion of its budget on military, which has ultimately amounted to nothing. The official budget is 10-15% of government spending, but the IRGC is mostly off-books, and likely to be at least 4x higher than the official budget states when counting just funds embezzled from public works projects [1] — since the official budget has about a third of all military spending going to the IRGC, this implies Iran's actual military expenditures are more like 30% or more of total government spending.
You can try a lot of mental contortions to justify it, but I think the simplest explanation is the cleanest: this forever war against Israel and America — the "little Satan" and the "great Satan" as they referred to them — was a catastrophic miscalculation. They should have spent the time and money elsewhere, and reconciled with America at least, and life would be better for Iranians if they had.
1: https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-and-national-se...
You can try a lot of mental contortions to justify it, but I think the simplest explanation is the cleanest: this forever war against Israel and America — the "little Satan" and the "great Satan" as they referred to them — was a catastrophic miscalculation. They should have spent the time and money elsewhere, and reconciled with America at least, and life would be better for Iranians if they had.
1: https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-and-national-se...
Result 1 of 9 for "death to America".
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
> clearly all these smart people are not involved in the decision making
Why not? Smart people can make decisions that look weird from the outside.
The foreign policy of the US been looking weird for decades to most outside parties, yet I'm sure there are smart people involved in it on a daily basis. But even with smart people involved, the US been invading countries based on false premises more than once, not sure why it would need to be different for Iran or any other country.
Why not? Smart people can make decisions that look weird from the outside.
The foreign policy of the US been looking weird for decades to most outside parties, yet I'm sure there are smart people involved in it on a daily basis. But even with smart people involved, the US been invading countries based on false premises more than once, not sure why it would need to be different for Iran or any other country.
> 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.
America also has lots of brilliant people. Then we have Hegseth, Noem and the other fuck.
1. Haha, just because someone is smart/knows one thing, doesn't mean they are smart/knows everything about all things. Especially when talking about people educated in STEM, not Humanities or Philosophy
2. There are plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who are religious fanatics or just power hungry or want to advance in the IRGC ranks/carrier ladder. Khamene.ai is a Living God and there are many engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who worship this deity
3. There are also lots of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who are threatened and forced to work for the IRGC. Just like it was in the Soviet Union under the Communism
2. There are plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who are religious fanatics or just power hungry or want to advance in the IRGC ranks/carrier ladder. Khamene.ai is a Living God and there are many engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who worship this deity
3. There are also lots of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts who are threatened and forced to work for the IRGC. Just like it was in the Soviet Union under the Communism
Of course you get down voted.So many delusional people on this forum that believe themselves to be experts in all domains because they get well paid to write javascript.
We will just forget that von Neumann advocated for nuclear first strike based on game theory.
We will just forget that von Neumann advocated for nuclear first strike based on game theory.
As you say 'probably. How do you know no simulations have been explored? Or is this an assumption that events somehow prove that suggestion? Some might take issue with that.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
Today strike on Iran nuclear sites endangers millions of American and Israeli lives. It teaches Tehran the same lesson North Korea learned long ago. That only a nuclear deterrent secures a regime survival. To believe Iran will absorb this blow without striking back is not merely naive, it is dangerously delusional.
It is also clear any Iranian nuclear critical assets were moved to alternative secret sites long before the strikes, as satellite photos show: "Satellite images show activity at Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility before U.S. air strikes" - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/satellite-images-show-activi...
Today strike on Iran nuclear sites endangers millions of American and Israeli lives. It teaches Tehran the same lesson North Korea learned long ago. That only a nuclear deterrent secures a regime survival. To believe Iran will absorb this blow without striking back is not merely naive, it is dangerously delusional.
It is also clear any Iranian nuclear critical assets were moved to alternative secret sites long before the strikes, as satellite photos show: "Satellite images show activity at Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility before U.S. air strikes" - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/satellite-images-show-activi...
or, you know, they just want power generators, like they claimed for decades now and all the UN auditors confirmed every time?
They were not inching towards nukes though, were they? And why is the threat calculus here their fault when the Israelis attacked Iran unprovoked? This top-voted comment is consent-manufacturing tripe.
Israel's attack wasn't entirely unprovoked; Iran frequently calls for attacks on Israel, wiping them from the face of the earth, and funding organizations that attack Israel. The fear that they might use nuclear weapons offensively against Israel is very real.
Note that I'm not a fan of Israel, condemn their genocide in Gaza, and consider Netanyahu a war criminal. I'm also not a fan of this attack on Iran and prefer a peaceful and democratic overthrow of that regime. But calling the attack unprovoked is not entirely correct; Iran spends a lot of time provoking Israel.
Note that I'm not a fan of Israel, condemn their genocide in Gaza, and consider Netanyahu a war criminal. I'm also not a fan of this attack on Iran and prefer a peaceful and democratic overthrow of that regime. But calling the attack unprovoked is not entirely correct; Iran spends a lot of time provoking Israel.
If you are familiar with how Israel came to be founded, and how Iran became an Islamic republic, you'll see how that is a naive narrative.
For one, Balfour's illegal concession of Palestine to the Israelis had the clear strategic purpose of keeping pan-Arabism at bay. The ensuing establishment of Israel - by the UNSCOP, in contravention of international law - had the side effect of turbocharging settler colonialist violence (1948 and ongoing) and expansionism (e.g. 1967 annexations).
That was the background to the 1953 CIA coup, and the eventual Islamic revolution in 1979. Sure, it's not the liberal democratic outcome Iranians would've liked, but it reclaimed sovereignty lost, and they are aware of the historic role of Israel and their strategic and moral position in relation to it, regardless of their regime.
Bottom line, if we look closely at who really is threatening whom, the reactions of the Iranians are probably quite understandable
For one, Balfour's illegal concession of Palestine to the Israelis had the clear strategic purpose of keeping pan-Arabism at bay. The ensuing establishment of Israel - by the UNSCOP, in contravention of international law - had the side effect of turbocharging settler colonialist violence (1948 and ongoing) and expansionism (e.g. 1967 annexations).
That was the background to the 1953 CIA coup, and the eventual Islamic revolution in 1979. Sure, it's not the liberal democratic outcome Iranians would've liked, but it reclaimed sovereignty lost, and they are aware of the historic role of Israel and their strategic and moral position in relation to it, regardless of their regime.
Bottom line, if we look closely at who really is threatening whom, the reactions of the Iranians are probably quite understandable
As far as I'm aware, the background of the 1953 coup was oil. The democratic government of Iran want to nationalize the oil industry, and western oil companies did like that. On top of that, Iran was willing to do business with the USSR. That's why US and UK secret services conspired with the ayatollahs to overthrow the democratic government and replace it with the shah.
No shit the result of 1979 is not what the Iranians wanted; there have been frequent democratic uprisings since then. Most Iranians didn't really care one way or the other about Israel, although you can't really blame them for not liking the US. And Israel has never really had an issue with Iran. But it's the ayatollahs who have been extremely hostile towards Israel, and have spent decades funding Hezbollah attacks against Israel.
I'm not going to defend Israel; they've committed plenty of crimes. And war crimes. But almost entirely against the Palestinians, not against Iran.
The Middle East is complex, and there's no simply good vs evil there, but the ayatollahs are definitely not on the side of good.
No shit the result of 1979 is not what the Iranians wanted; there have been frequent democratic uprisings since then. Most Iranians didn't really care one way or the other about Israel, although you can't really blame them for not liking the US. And Israel has never really had an issue with Iran. But it's the ayatollahs who have been extremely hostile towards Israel, and have spent decades funding Hezbollah attacks against Israel.
I'm not going to defend Israel; they've committed plenty of crimes. And war crimes. But almost entirely against the Palestinians, not against Iran.
The Middle East is complex, and there's no simply good vs evil there, but the ayatollahs are definitely not on the side of good.
All the intelligence says they weren't building nukes, but all the sudden we are to believe the narrative provided by a prolific liar who can't even articulate what it is that he wants Iran to do?
Israel started bombing Iran and they returned fire. Is trump asking the largest economic and military power in the region to sit by idle as Israel sends missiles and bombs daily? He won't clarify even when asked directly. I don't think we have any reason to believe his narrative if he can't even explain it himself.
I would also like to add that Trump himself is the one who removed IAEA inspectors from routine inspections of Iran, so occams razor would suggest this ambiguity is by design.
Israel started bombing Iran and they returned fire. Is trump asking the largest economic and military power in the region to sit by idle as Israel sends missiles and bombs daily? He won't clarify even when asked directly. I don't think we have any reason to believe his narrative if he can't even explain it himself.
I would also like to add that Trump himself is the one who removed IAEA inspectors from routine inspections of Iran, so occams razor would suggest this ambiguity is by design.
> All the intelligence says they weren't building nukes
> IAEA inspectors
What are some good reasons for producing >60% HEU?
> IAEA inspectors
What are some good reasons for producing >60% HEU?
Nuclear powered ships and submarines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
The attraction is that high enrichment permits a smaller reactor and less frequent refuelling. US submarines go over 96% enrichment.
Bunker fuel is in the news. Cheap oil for marine diesel engines is both polluting in the traditional sulfur etc sense and in the modern CO2 global warming sense. There are occasional attempts at wind powered sailing ships, or at least sail assisted ships, to reduce the burning of bunker fuel. Nuclear power for shipping is currently out of fashion, but is a legitimate topic for research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
The attraction is that high enrichment permits a smaller reactor and less frequent refuelling. US submarines go over 96% enrichment.
Bunker fuel is in the news. Cheap oil for marine diesel engines is both polluting in the traditional sulfur etc sense and in the modern CO2 global warming sense. There are occasional attempts at wind powered sailing ships, or at least sail assisted ships, to reduce the burning of bunker fuel. Nuclear power for shipping is currently out of fashion, but is a legitimate topic for research.
What are some things you might use a nuclear submarine for?
jonyt(1)
With all due respect, please reconsider these points:
> This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent
Well now we should all be terrified.
> Theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first
You should reflect on the religious elements prominently at play within these belligerent states.
I deplore kakistocracy of any stripe, but it is obvious that dictatorships and dictatorship-curious regimes of any sort are an existential threat.
> This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent
Well now we should all be terrified.
> Theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first
You should reflect on the religious elements prominently at play within these belligerent states.
I deplore kakistocracy of any stripe, but it is obvious that dictatorships and dictatorship-curious regimes of any sort are an existential threat.
[deleted]
> you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you?
So you're saying we're here because America has mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations and this is the best move?
So you're saying we're here because America has mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations and this is the best move?
they were sprinting covertly. Thats why this happened.
> What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move.
Why are you swallowing the propaganda you've been spoon-fed?
"Gabbard: Iran is not currently developing nuclear weapons"
https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-curren...
Why are you swallowing the propaganda you've been spoon-fed?
"Gabbard: Iran is not currently developing nuclear weapons"
https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-curren...
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.
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.
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.
Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.
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
But that doesn’t matter anymore
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo
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)
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)
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
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
No it hasn't, you don't sit on 60%-enriched Uranium for 3 years (they announced it back in 2022!) if you plan to make a bomb.
IAEA also confirmed that Iran didn't have ongoing military nuclear project.
The reason why they raised their enrichment level was to raise their bargaining power to force the US to come back to the negotiation table in an attempt to get rid of the sanctions.
They almost succeeded since US and Iran were supposed to meet last Sunday, but that was not taking Israel into account, which killed the chief negotiator and convinced Trump to bomb Iran just 3 days in the “two weeks” negotiation deadline he had set earlier this week.
IAEA also confirmed that Iran didn't have ongoing military nuclear project.
The reason why they raised their enrichment level was to raise their bargaining power to force the US to come back to the negotiation table in an attempt to get rid of the sanctions.
They almost succeeded since US and Iran were supposed to meet last Sunday, but that was not taking Israel into account, which killed the chief negotiator and convinced Trump to bomb Iran just 3 days in the “two weeks” negotiation deadline he had set earlier this week.
> Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.
It's a dire enemy because they're Shia and the rest (with some exception in Eastern Saudi Arabia) are Sunni.
It's a dire enemy because they're Shia and the rest (with some exception in Eastern Saudi Arabia) are Sunni.
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.
Quite different from the Iraq war.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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…)
Probably. Since of the three involved only Iran has a regime. The other two have democratically elected governments.
A democratically elected government that then flaunts the law and the constitution, such as illegally attacking another country without congressional approval, is a regime. Particularly when it has historically low approval ratings.
>But Trump is still running ahead of his approval rating at this point in his first term. And at this point in his second term, he’s actually running slightly ahead of Obama and Bush at this point in their second terms.
From Rey Teixeira.
So obviously not historically low.
From Rey Teixeira.
So obviously not historically low.
According to The Economist, not some left-wing lunatics or anything, his net approval rating is -12%, a rare negative approval rating.
> https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
> https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
Israel's government is probably only in power as long as they continue to start and wage war against countries in the neighborhood. It was very convenient for them, that the attack of October 7th happened, just when ten thousands of people went on the streets to protest against their attempt to take away power from the judges and elevate themselves.
In the US the election might have been tempered with, according to newest reports, so the government might not even be actually democratically elected and Trump is playing the autocrat's playbook, going as far as arresting political opponents without a warrant.
Iran no question there.
That makes 3 out of 3 in my book.
I am not so sure your statement is footed on a solid base these days.
In the US the election might have been tempered with, according to newest reports, so the government might not even be actually democratically elected and Trump is playing the autocrat's playbook, going as far as arresting political opponents without a warrant.
Iran no question there.
That makes 3 out of 3 in my book.
I am not so sure your statement is footed on a solid base these days.
lets not go crazy here. israel didnt conduct those attacks as a false flag to dodge the regime change
all my allies are heroes and my enemies degenerates
Lets not jump to conclusions here, about what I meant. There are other possibilities, that you are not considering.
Iran will just employ asymmetrical means of defense and it will go on for years
Israel’s decades long subjugation of the Palestinian people hasn’t brought them closer to peace
Israel’s decades long subjugation of the Palestinian people hasn’t brought them closer to peace
> Israel’s decades long subjugation of the Palestinian people hasn’t brought them closer to peace
Recent events have convinced me the goal is not peace, but extermination.
Recent events have convinced me the goal is not peace, but extermination.
That will be hard to do with a whole Iraq in between. I don't think Israel's military has what it takes. They already struggled in Gaza and are on the lifeline of US support. US could probably not even do it with massive amount of effort, and it would turn into a second Vietnam for them. Without troops on the ground no chance anyway.
Sorry if unclear, I was talking about Palestinians.
I think you need to take a look at Gaza and revise a little about Israeli tactics.
how long did it take to kill bin laden, the most wanted man on the planet? and what happened to afghanistan more than a decade after he was actually killed
this isnt software bro. its probabilistic and has high variance. even then the expected value is vietnam
this isnt software bro. its probabilistic and has high variance. even then the expected value is vietnam
Bin Laden was never part of any state's elite
I wish I could upvote this more than once. Well said.
Missiles don't sell themselves
Trump only wants to get richer. He'll do as many wars as he can get away with. Laws don't matter anymore. He just struck Iran because he felt like it and announced it on his social media network. This is beyond Idoicracy.
You think the not-Trump president would do something different? Not an American, but I have assumed the outcome would be the same.
Yes. Trump shredded the deal we had in place an decided on his own to strike without congress. No one else would have done this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside...
>...decided on his own to strike without congress.
The US defense establishment has been looking to attack Iran for decades. "Decided on his own", seems inaccurate in this regard. The outrage over unauthorized uses of military force is largely performative partisan outrage. Although I would personally regard it as unconstitutional, it is the established norm for US Presidents to order airstrikes. There are very few politicians who have been consistent in their opposition to this.
>...decided on his own to strike without congress.
The US defense establishment has been looking to attack Iran for decades. "Decided on his own", seems inaccurate in this regard. The outrage over unauthorized uses of military force is largely performative partisan outrage. Although I would personally regard it as unconstitutional, it is the established norm for US Presidents to order airstrikes. There are very few politicians who have been consistent in their opposition to this.
Sure. Make a technical analysis of a casual comment. Of course he has support from others. At the very least defense contractors who profit from this. My comment was from his perspective. He only cares to get richer.
There's always been an authorization for military force even if it's a blanket one and they claim they're fighting ISIS, at least there has been deniability. Here there's no authorization, it's unconstitutional. I don't care about partisan politics. Most politicians are scummy.
There's always been an authorization for military force even if it's a blanket one and they claim they're fighting ISIS, at least there has been deniability. Here there's no authorization, it's unconstitutional. I don't care about partisan politics. Most politicians are scummy.
I'm not sure how it will enrich Trump. I can see how it will appease the interventionist faction. Previously, these people styled themselves as, "The adults in the room".
However aside from a few consistent non-interventionists, opposing partisans seem to uniformly be using this as yet another opportunity to attack. So even there it hasn't served to appease all of the interventionists.
However aside from a few consistent non-interventionists, opposing partisans seem to uniformly be using this as yet another opportunity to attack. So even there it hasn't served to appease all of the interventionists.
Simply put, bribes. Trump won't talk to you for less than a million if your name isn't Putin. It was an illegal strike. Should we be praising him for attacking random countries without authorization by congress? I think it's a very valid critique. Especially since this particular person literally tried to overthrow the government in 2021 and continues to act consistently as if laws don't apply.
As an outsider, I believe that the outcome would be exactly the same: Trump did not push a minority. Of course it is politics, the other side would say something bad about him. Both parties are supporting Israel unconditionally. Maybe I am being naive.
> 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.
There's not been a President like the current incumbent.
There's not been a President like the current incumbent.
that read would have predicted the US not bombing not bombing iran, and yet here we are. the current administration doesnt care what people want. trumps own base is against and they'll still do it. the "nothing ever happens" bet is not looking likely. with the calculus trump and netenyahu have shown, this looks like its heading towards US boots in iran
It’s hard to think of another president with a huge number of such dedicated followers, who actively hates the mass of Americans who don’t support him, and with a Congress so unwilling to exercise its power.
Let’s say Trump decides to order an invasion. What would happen then? Mass protests? Surely. Impeachment? No way. Military decides enough is enough and removes him? Definitely not. He realizes how unpopular this move is and backs down? Lol. Lmao.
Let’s say Trump decides to order an invasion. What would happen then? Mass protests? Surely. Impeachment? No way. Military decides enough is enough and removes him? Definitely not. He realizes how unpopular this move is and backs down? Lol. Lmao.
the protests in 2003 were massive
We're just one Iran-backed terrorist attack that causes mass casualties away from popular support for a war against Iran.
Change of the Iran regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war.
From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.
From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.
What is this commentary? We literally just attacked them. We punched them in the face. We're doing the war. Not them.
You must be trolling. In case you are not - the US attacked their nuclear research facilities. This is as far removed from attacking "them", as Iranian people, as it gets.
You're the one who must be trolling. If China bombed American nuclear research facilities, I can't imagine many Americans would agree it's "not an attack on the American people".
Because of course no Iranian people work at those bombed sites.
So if China strategically bombed some US weapons research facilities, that would be just fine and normal?
??? WTF are you on. If Iran bombs US research facilities it's okay? I don't understand at all.
If Al Qaeda had just managed to fly planes into the Pentagon, would we somehow have decided "oh that's not really an attack on us?"
I think you meant to say:
Change of the US regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war.
From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.
Change of the US regime would help lessening the risk of a prolonged war.
From what can be glanced from the news seeping through it seems that the population has been largely ready for it for a while now.
It's still almost an even split in the US - https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...
We changed the regime in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That worked great at preventing a prolonged war.
This "oh the Iranians actually want to be bombed" stuff is absolutely nonsense.
This "oh the Iranians actually want to be bombed" stuff is absolutely nonsense.
That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war.
Which experience is that?
Trump's handling of military strikes/operations, which have been mostly symbolic. Killing Soleimani, and not retaliating to the retaliationary strikes. A completely useless strike on Shayrat airbase in Syria. Pulling out of Yemen strikes this year because it was ineffective (never admitting to this though). Trump wants to be known as a deal maker. I don't think that has changed, he's just become more delusional regarding the practicality.
My hunch is Iran will bomb a US base, not causing any real damage, as a tough gesture and continue striking Israel.
>Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this.
It's also breeding a generation of young Americans that consider Israel their enemy: https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-american...
It's also breeding a generation of young Americans that consider Israel their enemy: https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-american...
What I'm missing is that as one by one middle eastern countries are stomped to the curb, finding a balance between the countries gets harder. The more functional countries there are, the more room for negotiation, realignment, factions, and thus stability. We should want a muddy mess of interlinked allies. If after Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iraq now Iran gets stomped, it's easier for the remaining powers to swing hard left out right instead of to continue muddying forward.
This thread is a prime example of education != wisdom.
It’s not even education. Many people operate on the belief that being able to use Google and following a couple “experts” on Twitter, of both sides, automatically qualifies their opinion.
At best everyone is repeating the same propaganda talking points, whether US or Iranian (though most of us are from Western countries, so it skews heavily on one side). The Internet is an echo chamber of ill-informed opinions.
At best everyone is repeating the same propaganda talking points, whether US or Iranian (though most of us are from Western countries, so it skews heavily on one side). The Internet is an echo chamber of ill-informed opinions.
Not the whole thread--just the posts I disagree with.
I think both sides can agree, the other side is stupid and evil.
Or rather, a prime example of education != wisdom != experience. Who has experience operating at the geopolitical scale? Very, very few. And this is by nature of the problem: coherent choices are only made at the individual level, by political leaders. The real cohort that should be considered expert are therefore political leaders, past and present. Unfortunately, they all have deeply ingrained bias for their own nation's geopolitical goals, and so cannot be objective. To make matters worse, the context of every crisis point is so unique as to be almost worthless in meeting the demands of the next one, so even experience is not necessarily enough for expertise.
I would argue that the best voices to listen to about such matters are the academic historians that focus on the region involved, and who've studied in great detail the evolution of the region over time, how crises were resolved in the past, and who therefore have an informed intuition for the current state of the region. Furthermore, because they are academics they are practiced in objectivity -- the ability to look at horrifying situations with fascination rather than disgust.
But such experts tend to be ignored for two reasons: they generally aren't charismatic enough to get attention, and "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it; those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it". This might seem rather gloomy. It is precisely the same level of gloom with which we would watch any slow-moving natural phenomena threaten life on Earth, for example. Like seeing a nearby supernova explode, knowing that one of it's nuetrino jets will eventually rotate and hit us within 100 years. The mass and momentum of geopolitics is enormous and almost impossible to change, with or without understanding.
So, we chat with each other, armchair quarterbacking this game in which no-one really has control.
I would argue that the best voices to listen to about such matters are the academic historians that focus on the region involved, and who've studied in great detail the evolution of the region over time, how crises were resolved in the past, and who therefore have an informed intuition for the current state of the region. Furthermore, because they are academics they are practiced in objectivity -- the ability to look at horrifying situations with fascination rather than disgust.
But such experts tend to be ignored for two reasons: they generally aren't charismatic enough to get attention, and "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it; those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it". This might seem rather gloomy. It is precisely the same level of gloom with which we would watch any slow-moving natural phenomena threaten life on Earth, for example. Like seeing a nearby supernova explode, knowing that one of it's nuetrino jets will eventually rotate and hit us within 100 years. The mass and momentum of geopolitics is enormous and almost impossible to change, with or without understanding.
So, we chat with each other, armchair quarterbacking this game in which no-one really has control.
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".
[deleted]
Kinda easy when you can drop a GPS guided bus from 50k feet and have no fear of return fire
"The U.N. nuclear watchdog says there's 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after US strikes on Iran nuclear sites"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-says-0510491...
That's the whole article.
If we blow up a place filled with enriched uranium, shouldn't there be an obvious spike in off-site radiation levels, as the uranium settles to the ground?
Meaning, isn't this damning evidence that there was no enriched uranium?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-says-0510491...
That's the whole article.
If we blow up a place filled with enriched uranium, shouldn't there be an obvious spike in off-site radiation levels, as the uranium settles to the ground?
Meaning, isn't this damning evidence that there was no enriched uranium?
Possibly. It could also be evidence that the bombs didn't really do their job. Either they missed or the bunkers were fortified enough and/or deep enough to avoid even the bunker busters.
In Iran's defense, there was credible OSINT[0] warning of the B-2s taking off 12+ hours in advance of the strike. Iran knows what a GBU-57 is, the writing was pretty clearly on the wall that a strike was imminent.
It's possible (though not guaranteed) that they simply relocated the enriched uranium before the attack.
[0] https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207
It's possible (though not guaranteed) that they simply relocated the enriched uranium before the attack.
[0] https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207
Yes, that too. It was in newspapers hours before the attack, so there's no way Iran didn't know it was coming.
> "there was credible OSINT[0] warning"
That one was counterintelligence deliberately placed in OSINT to confuse Iran. The B-2's that flew west over CONUS in daylight, in plain view, were decoys on a wrong timing.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strik... ("U.S. Strike on Iran Began With a Ruse")
That one was counterintelligence deliberately placed in OSINT to confuse Iran. The B-2's that flew west over CONUS in daylight, in plain view, were decoys on a wrong timing.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strik... ("U.S. Strike on Iran Began With a Ruse")
The enriched uranium was reportedly moved before the bombing. As far as I know, the objective was to destroy the enrichment facilities.
Based on satellite imagery from Maxar and reports from Iran state news agencies, they moved the uranium in about 50 trucks to a “safe location” [1].
From Reuters [2]: > Hassan Abedini, deputy political head of Iran's state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites some time ago. > "The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots," he told the channel.
1. https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclear-strikes-us-donald-trum... 2. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-launch...
From Reuters [2]: > Hassan Abedini, deputy political head of Iran's state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites some time ago. > "The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots," he told the channel.
1. https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nuclear-strikes-us-donald-trum... 2. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-launch...
perihelions(1)
Those sites getting blown up was kinda obvious. I would have been shocked if they didn't move everything once Israel sneak attacked them.
The uranium is supposed to be uranium hexaflouride, right? That's solid at room temperature, so if the mountain collapsed onto it you would't expect to see it off-site.
I'm curious to hear people's predictions for the future:
1. Will Iran escalate, stay-the-course, or yield more in negotiations? Or take some other action I haven't thought of.
2. If Iran escalates, how far will it go?
3. If Iran does a token retaliation without major escalation, but refuses to give up its remaining nuclear program, what happens? Will the Israeli's be satisfied with a 2-4 year delay in Iran's program or will they continue low-grade attacks for the foreseeable future?
4. If Iran yields in negotiations, how far will they go? Will the agree to cease enrichment? If so, will they try to cheat? Or will the US accept some amount of enrichment and end up with a variant of JCPOA?
5. Do you think something else will happen not covered above?
6. What will the situation be in 10 years? 25 years?
1. Will Iran escalate, stay-the-course, or yield more in negotiations? Or take some other action I haven't thought of.
2. If Iran escalates, how far will it go?
3. If Iran does a token retaliation without major escalation, but refuses to give up its remaining nuclear program, what happens? Will the Israeli's be satisfied with a 2-4 year delay in Iran's program or will they continue low-grade attacks for the foreseeable future?
4. If Iran yields in negotiations, how far will they go? Will the agree to cease enrichment? If so, will they try to cheat? Or will the US accept some amount of enrichment and end up with a variant of JCPOA?
5. Do you think something else will happen not covered above?
6. What will the situation be in 10 years? 25 years?
IMO #3. They'll moan for a bit. Continue firing rockets. A couple weeks of this; Iran will claim that Iran won, Israel will claim Israel won. There won't be negotiations or concessions. They'll continue trying to develop nukes, but these past two weeks has set them back years. Things go quiet. In ten years we'll do this all over again.
The thing people seem to not recognize is: There's basically three countries on the planet capable of actually waging war in the 21st century (US, and Russia/China barely). Every other country is just a proxy for one of these three; their domestic capabilities look more like "throwing a tantrum" than actual war. Israel can't wage war without the US. Iran can't wage war without China/Russia. Currently, the superpower contribution to this fight is just dropping some bombs and diverting a few crates of AK-47s.
There's zero capability for long-term war here. But, there's also too much face-saving for negotiations or concessions to happen. So, the fire mostly quenches into embers; like the middle east has always been.
The thing people seem to not recognize is: There's basically three countries on the planet capable of actually waging war in the 21st century (US, and Russia/China barely). Every other country is just a proxy for one of these three; their domestic capabilities look more like "throwing a tantrum" than actual war. Israel can't wage war without the US. Iran can't wage war without China/Russia. Currently, the superpower contribution to this fight is just dropping some bombs and diverting a few crates of AK-47s.
There's zero capability for long-term war here. But, there's also too much face-saving for negotiations or concessions to happen. So, the fire mostly quenches into embers; like the middle east has always been.
That seems ideal, but my fear is that Iran won't stop.
It's cheaper to build low precision rockets/drones than the Israeli interceptors, so the war _could_ swing in Iran's favor in the long term.
Additionally, Iranians aren't rising up because they don't want to be seen as being controlled by foreigners, but once the war stops, the Iranian regime will have to answer to its citizens. This means the mullahs have no incentive to stop.
It's cheaper to build low precision rockets/drones than the Israeli interceptors, so the war _could_ swing in Iran's favor in the long term.
Additionally, Iranians aren't rising up because they don't want to be seen as being controlled by foreigners, but once the war stops, the Iranian regime will have to answer to its citizens. This means the mullahs have no incentive to stop.
Not only will they not stop, this has massively increased their incentive to successfully create a nuclear program.
In the opposite direction but with the same outcome, the just-barely-enough aid that Ukraine has received after being invaded by Russia, has demonstrated that it's foolish for countries to give up their own nuclear weapons, on the understanding that a friendly superpower will protect them.
This has been a very bad decade of events for incentivizing nuclear non-proliferation. I hate it!
In the opposite direction but with the same outcome, the just-barely-enough aid that Ukraine has received after being invaded by Russia, has demonstrated that it's foolish for countries to give up their own nuclear weapons, on the understanding that a friendly superpower will protect them.
This has been a very bad decade of events for incentivizing nuclear non-proliferation. I hate it!
That is certainly the conventional wisdom. But is it right?
Imagine that Iran already had 10 nuclear bombs and the US bombed the production sites with B2s. What would Iran do? They can't drop a nuke on the US, and even if they could, that would just ensure their destruction.
Of course, one could argue that Iran is not rational and that it would nuke NYC even if it meant being destroyed as a country. But if we're assuming that they are irrational, then that's all the more reason to get rid of their weapons, even if it meant taking casualties.
And note that the same calculation applies with Iran vs. Israel. If Israel attacks Iran conventionally, Iran cannot escalate to nuclear without also getting destroyed (since Israel has a larger arsenal).
Moreover, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, actually demonstrates the uselessness of nuclear weapons. Yes, NATO and the US were initially deterred because of fears of Russian escalation, but we've continued to cross "red-lines" in arming Ukraine without escalation (tanks, F16, missile attacks on Russian soil, etc.). I'm pretty confident that Europe at least will continue to support Ukraine with ever more powerful weapons without fear of Russia's nuclear threats.
Imagine that Iran already had 10 nuclear bombs and the US bombed the production sites with B2s. What would Iran do? They can't drop a nuke on the US, and even if they could, that would just ensure their destruction.
Of course, one could argue that Iran is not rational and that it would nuke NYC even if it meant being destroyed as a country. But if we're assuming that they are irrational, then that's all the more reason to get rid of their weapons, even if it meant taking casualties.
And note that the same calculation applies with Iran vs. Israel. If Israel attacks Iran conventionally, Iran cannot escalate to nuclear without also getting destroyed (since Israel has a larger arsenal).
Moreover, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, actually demonstrates the uselessness of nuclear weapons. Yes, NATO and the US were initially deterred because of fears of Russian escalation, but we've continued to cross "red-lines" in arming Ukraine without escalation (tanks, F16, missile attacks on Russian soil, etc.). I'm pretty confident that Europe at least will continue to support Ukraine with ever more powerful weapons without fear of Russia's nuclear threats.
You don't have to speculate like this. We can just look at how North Korea is treated, now that they do have nuclear capability. From the Iranian (or Ukrainian) perspective, the conclusion can only be "better than us".
In your hypothetical, we're sending B2s to drop bombs on their production sites. In the reality, we would not do that, for the same reasons that we are not sending B2s to drop bombs on North Korea's production sites.
In your hypothetical, we're sending B2s to drop bombs on their production sites. In the reality, we would not do that, for the same reasons that we are not sending B2s to drop bombs on North Korea's production sites.
Maybe. It certainly would not surprise me if you're right--that's why it's the conventional wisdom.
But these kind of events--Israel defanging Hezbollah, US destroying nuclear sites--should change our priors. And it might change priors in Iran too. Until we actually sent B-2s in, Iran didn't know whether we ever would. They might have held out hope that we were bluffing--that we would never risk a $2 billion plane (not to mention a crew) on bombing a site that only sets back the program a couple of years.
Now that the US has done it, what's to stop us from doing it again later? Why bother spending so much effort on a program that gets blown up every few years? Maybe they'll just try to hide it better, but can they really rely on not having intelligence leaks, given the massive intelligence failures of the past few months?
And North Korea is not a great example. Even if it's true that their nuclear program has deterred us, they bought it at an enormous cost: North Korea is completely isolated. Iran would like to get rid of the current sanctions and start integrating into the rest of the world. Even if the regime doesn't care about its people, it still wants aircraft parts and oil revenue. The US and Israel would be fine if Iran continued to slowly rebuild its nuclear program, as long as it remained under sanctions. They can just wait five years and bomb again. But is that really a victory for Iran?
My point is that these events might cause Iran to re-evaluate the cost/benefits of their current strategy. They might decide that rushing to build a nuclear bomb is not worth the very large costs.
But these kind of events--Israel defanging Hezbollah, US destroying nuclear sites--should change our priors. And it might change priors in Iran too. Until we actually sent B-2s in, Iran didn't know whether we ever would. They might have held out hope that we were bluffing--that we would never risk a $2 billion plane (not to mention a crew) on bombing a site that only sets back the program a couple of years.
Now that the US has done it, what's to stop us from doing it again later? Why bother spending so much effort on a program that gets blown up every few years? Maybe they'll just try to hide it better, but can they really rely on not having intelligence leaks, given the massive intelligence failures of the past few months?
And North Korea is not a great example. Even if it's true that their nuclear program has deterred us, they bought it at an enormous cost: North Korea is completely isolated. Iran would like to get rid of the current sanctions and start integrating into the rest of the world. Even if the regime doesn't care about its people, it still wants aircraft parts and oil revenue. The US and Israel would be fine if Iran continued to slowly rebuild its nuclear program, as long as it remained under sanctions. They can just wait five years and bomb again. But is that really a victory for Iran?
My point is that these events might cause Iran to re-evaluate the cost/benefits of their current strategy. They might decide that rushing to build a nuclear bomb is not worth the very large costs.
First of all, I disagree with your characterization of what the conventional wisdom is. I don't think most people are thinking about this at all. Most people will come down on rah rah America or boo war is bad, not "it's bad that specifically only countries that don't have nuclear weapons get attacked, because of the bad incentives".
But if this were the conventional wisdom, I'd say that it's clearly right, and you're doing 5d chess to avoid looking it in the face.
But if this were the conventional wisdom, I'd say that it's clearly right, and you're doing 5d chess to avoid looking it in the face.
> First of all, I disagree with your characterization of what the conventional wisdom is.
Okay, you could be right about that. I don't know.
> But if this were the conventional wisdom, I'd say that it's clearly right
That's really the crux of the disagreement: I don't see it as being clearly right. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe it's biased reasoning on my part (wouldn't be the first time). But I don't think it is obvious how the Iranian regime is going to react. I don't think any one person inside Iran knows how the regime is going to react yet (maybe not even the Khamenei).
It sounds like you think it's obvious how things will play out. That's cool, but that's where we disagree.
Okay, you could be right about that. I don't know.
> But if this were the conventional wisdom, I'd say that it's clearly right
That's really the crux of the disagreement: I don't see it as being clearly right. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe it's biased reasoning on my part (wouldn't be the first time). But I don't think it is obvious how the Iranian regime is going to react. I don't think any one person inside Iran knows how the regime is going to react yet (maybe not even the Khamenei).
It sounds like you think it's obvious how things will play out. That's cool, but that's where we disagree.
Yeah; I also tend to feel that nukes are vastly overstated in their sovereign defensive capability. Definitely non-zero, they help, but at the end of the day having strong normative political and especially economic ties is vastly more powerful.
Ukraine didn't have nukes. Would they have been invaded if they had nukes? Unclear. Maybe. Maybe not.
Taiwan doesn't have nukes. China wants to control Taiwan so, so bad. But, they're staying at a distance for now. Why? Taiwan is an extremely valuable economic ally of the rest of the world. No one wants to disrupt the status quo. We're too interconnected.
Iraq was reported to have nukes back in the 00s, and this was a reason why the US invaded them. We now know, they never had nukes. Maybe there were leaders in the US who knew this at the time, and just outright lied. But, if not: nukes did not protect them from being rubbleized by the US military industrial complex.
Poland doesn't have nukes. Russia isn't going to touch them, despite bordering deep Russian ally Belarus. What makes them so different from Ukraine? NATO. Political alliances. Ukraine didn't make political alliances. No one gave any thought to Ukraine before and even after Crimea; they were always just a weirdly dysfunctional and corrupt ex-Soviet country that no one cared about. Poland is different; they played ball with the west.
North Korea does have nukes, but they don't really have any significant or interesting way of using them. They could hit SK and Japan, but that's about it. We leave them alone. Why? Well, maybe nukes. But moreso: they're chill. They don't have external ambition. They can barely take care of themselves. They aren't calling for the rubblezation of their enemies anymore. Its not the nukes that keep them safe; its the reality that they're kinda playing ball with the rest of the world, in their own way.
Nukes probably help, but the far more likely guarantor of sovereignty is to be valuable to the rest of the world. Have a democratic government. Communicate. Trade. Address corruption. The main thing that Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, 1950s Vietnam, Syria, Libya, etc all have in common is that they're all backward, isolationist countries that never wanted to join up on the global stage, for either side. NK is the only one that's really managed to stay that way mostly unscathed.
Ukraine didn't have nukes. Would they have been invaded if they had nukes? Unclear. Maybe. Maybe not.
Taiwan doesn't have nukes. China wants to control Taiwan so, so bad. But, they're staying at a distance for now. Why? Taiwan is an extremely valuable economic ally of the rest of the world. No one wants to disrupt the status quo. We're too interconnected.
Iraq was reported to have nukes back in the 00s, and this was a reason why the US invaded them. We now know, they never had nukes. Maybe there were leaders in the US who knew this at the time, and just outright lied. But, if not: nukes did not protect them from being rubbleized by the US military industrial complex.
Poland doesn't have nukes. Russia isn't going to touch them, despite bordering deep Russian ally Belarus. What makes them so different from Ukraine? NATO. Political alliances. Ukraine didn't make political alliances. No one gave any thought to Ukraine before and even after Crimea; they were always just a weirdly dysfunctional and corrupt ex-Soviet country that no one cared about. Poland is different; they played ball with the west.
North Korea does have nukes, but they don't really have any significant or interesting way of using them. They could hit SK and Japan, but that's about it. We leave them alone. Why? Well, maybe nukes. But moreso: they're chill. They don't have external ambition. They can barely take care of themselves. They aren't calling for the rubblezation of their enemies anymore. Its not the nukes that keep them safe; its the reality that they're kinda playing ball with the rest of the world, in their own way.
Nukes probably help, but the far more likely guarantor of sovereignty is to be valuable to the rest of the world. Have a democratic government. Communicate. Trade. Address corruption. The main thing that Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, 1950s Vietnam, Syria, Libya, etc all have in common is that they're all backward, isolationist countries that never wanted to join up on the global stage, for either side. NK is the only one that's really managed to stay that way mostly unscathed.
> North Korea does have nukes, but they don't really have any significant or interesting way of using them. They could hit SK and Japan, but that's about it. We leave them alone. Why?
Attacking North Korea means millions of starving brainwashed uneducated refugees flooding into China. China will make any deal to avoid that nightmare, that (and Seoul’s destruction) is why no one bothers with North Korea.
Attacking North Korea means millions of starving brainwashed uneducated refugees flooding into China. China will make any deal to avoid that nightmare, that (and Seoul’s destruction) is why no one bothers with North Korea.
Attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities did not create millions of Iranian refugees. Targeted strikes are just that: Targeted.
> Ukraine didn't have nukes. Would they have been invaded if they had nukes? Unclear. Maybe. Maybe not.
Generally interesting comment, but this particular thing is faux uncertainty, I think. The answer is clearly no.
The way North Korea is using their nukes is by not being invaded by their neighboring rivals.
Generally interesting comment, but this particular thing is faux uncertainty, I think. The answer is clearly no.
The way North Korea is using their nukes is by not being invaded by their neighboring rivals.
I genuinely do not understand where this take is coming from.
The incentives for having a nuclear program have not changed. Ukraine did not have nukes. Crimea, as a part of Ukraine. Syria. Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. Libya. None of these countries had nukes. They paid for it.
What happened today isn't only not a "massive" change to the status quo, as you seem to think it is. Its so much less significant than what happened to the rest of those countries I just listed. Yet, you used the word "massive". Why? I have no idea.
Iran did not learn any new lessons yesterday. Nothing they didn't already know. The US does not want them to have nukes. We've done everything short of boots on the ground to stop them from having them. They should still want them. They're correct, in the defense of their territorial sovereignty, to want them. But, we'll keep stopping them. That's how it was in the 2000s, the 2010s, its how it is the 2020s, and it's how it will be in the 2030s and 2040s. They keep trying, we keep stopping them. The incentives haven't changed. Nothing has changed. Yet you doomers keep thinking this is the end of the world or its WW3. It isn't.
If anything has changed: Iran just learned that something which took them a decade of development, cost hundreds of lives, and billions of dollars, was stopped by a couple planes from a country half a world away at basically no cost to us, without barely a thought or care. Fox News was tracking these B2s on ADSB a day before they hit Iran; it didn't matter. That's how ahead the US is. The asymmetry here should scare the shit out of them, and the world; that they will never have a conventional nuclear program because they're so unbelievably outmatched and outgunned that if our President has one bad nights sleep he could just wipe out half their country, half of any country, with no congressional authorization, no checks, no balances, just launch a plane and they're dead. Maybe this pushes them to non-conventional means of obtaining nukes; but it shouldn't significantly change their desire for wanting one in the first place. They've always wanted nukes.
The incentives for having a nuclear program have not changed. Ukraine did not have nukes. Crimea, as a part of Ukraine. Syria. Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. Libya. None of these countries had nukes. They paid for it.
What happened today isn't only not a "massive" change to the status quo, as you seem to think it is. Its so much less significant than what happened to the rest of those countries I just listed. Yet, you used the word "massive". Why? I have no idea.
Iran did not learn any new lessons yesterday. Nothing they didn't already know. The US does not want them to have nukes. We've done everything short of boots on the ground to stop them from having them. They should still want them. They're correct, in the defense of their territorial sovereignty, to want them. But, we'll keep stopping them. That's how it was in the 2000s, the 2010s, its how it is the 2020s, and it's how it will be in the 2030s and 2040s. They keep trying, we keep stopping them. The incentives haven't changed. Nothing has changed. Yet you doomers keep thinking this is the end of the world or its WW3. It isn't.
If anything has changed: Iran just learned that something which took them a decade of development, cost hundreds of lives, and billions of dollars, was stopped by a couple planes from a country half a world away at basically no cost to us, without barely a thought or care. Fox News was tracking these B2s on ADSB a day before they hit Iran; it didn't matter. That's how ahead the US is. The asymmetry here should scare the shit out of them, and the world; that they will never have a conventional nuclear program because they're so unbelievably outmatched and outgunned that if our President has one bad nights sleep he could just wipe out half their country, half of any country, with no congressional authorization, no checks, no balances, just launch a plane and they're dead. Maybe this pushes them to non-conventional means of obtaining nukes; but it shouldn't significantly change their desire for wanting one in the first place. They've always wanted nukes.
Analysed logically the aim of your post was a positive message that pushes back against "doomers", yet somehow it left me more depressed about the utter futility and meaningless of existence than any other comment I've read so far.
There is nothing "doomer" about my comment that they replied to! It's just true (as this person agrees) that everyone has the incentive to build their own nuclear weapons, because they can't trust anyone else to protect them. That's just how it is now. And maybe non-proliferation was always a pipe dream. But I do feel like we could have given it a better go!
But it's also just how it is that the biggest countries already had huge nuclear stockpiles. I'm not convinced that small countries trying to build them also is a huge contributor to that base level of risk. But we've been surviving in that state of the world for about three-quarters of a century now.
It can't be the case that being open-eyed about the current state of things is "doomer", right? I'm not speculating impending future doom, just describing current conditions as I see them.
But it's also just how it is that the biggest countries already had huge nuclear stockpiles. I'm not convinced that small countries trying to build them also is a huge contributor to that base level of risk. But we've been surviving in that state of the world for about three-quarters of a century now.
It can't be the case that being open-eyed about the current state of things is "doomer", right? I'm not speculating impending future doom, just describing current conditions as I see them.
Ukraine had nuclear weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union. They were persuaded to get rid of them.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me, you're just comparing to a more recent status quo.
Nuclear non-proliferation was based on the idea that small countries didn't need their own nuclear weapons, because they could ally with a superpower / bloc with nuclear weapons, and piggy-back on those superpowers not wanting to go to war, to avoid nuclear confrontation.
It is true that some countries, like Israel and North Korea, never bought that idea, and went ahead and got their own nukes.
That those countries who didn't buy into non-proliferation have fared better in the last couple decades than the ones on your list who have been attacked with little repercussion, is exactly the point.
Ukraine was willing to give up its nukes decades ago, now it's clear they shouldn't have. Iran was willing to enter into a non-proliferation agreement a decade ago, now it's clear they shouldn't.
But this is a much worse equilibrium than if we could have actually made non-proliferation work. Now every small country should clearly be trying to build nuclear weapons, if they can. And I think that's bad.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me, you're just comparing to a more recent status quo.
Nuclear non-proliferation was based on the idea that small countries didn't need their own nuclear weapons, because they could ally with a superpower / bloc with nuclear weapons, and piggy-back on those superpowers not wanting to go to war, to avoid nuclear confrontation.
It is true that some countries, like Israel and North Korea, never bought that idea, and went ahead and got their own nukes.
That those countries who didn't buy into non-proliferation have fared better in the last couple decades than the ones on your list who have been attacked with little repercussion, is exactly the point.
Ukraine was willing to give up its nukes decades ago, now it's clear they shouldn't have. Iran was willing to enter into a non-proliferation agreement a decade ago, now it's clear they shouldn't.
But this is a much worse equilibrium than if we could have actually made non-proliferation work. Now every small country should clearly be trying to build nuclear weapons, if they can. And I think that's bad.
> Nuclear non-proliferation was based on the idea that small countries didn't need their own nuclear weapons, because they could ally with a superpower / bloc with nuclear weapons
There are dozens of examples of denuclearized countries that are, today, at near-zero risk of being attacked or invaded, possibly because of their political and economic relationship with the United States. Taiwan, Japan, Poland, Canada, Spain, Australia, many others, these are all countries that do not have nukes, have a great political and economic relationship with the US, and are currently at 0% risk of attack or invasion by our shared enemies (ok, you can put Taiwan at slightly higher than 0%).
Ukraine never had this kind of relationship. They tried to play both sides with their denuclearization agreement; that's what screwed them. Other countries picked a side when they denuclearized.
Statistically: There are, I believe, zero examples of a US political or economic ally being attacked or invaded, regardless of their nuclearization status, post-Vietnam. The only example of anyone who is remotely close to this is Taiwan, and even that's very far away from igniting.
There are dozens of examples of denuclearized countries that are, today, at near-zero risk of being attacked or invaded, possibly because of their political and economic relationship with the United States. Taiwan, Japan, Poland, Canada, Spain, Australia, many others, these are all countries that do not have nukes, have a great political and economic relationship with the US, and are currently at 0% risk of attack or invasion by our shared enemies (ok, you can put Taiwan at slightly higher than 0%).
Ukraine never had this kind of relationship. They tried to play both sides with their denuclearization agreement; that's what screwed them. Other countries picked a side when they denuclearized.
Statistically: There are, I believe, zero examples of a US political or economic ally being attacked or invaded, regardless of their nuclearization status, post-Vietnam. The only example of anyone who is remotely close to this is Taiwan, and even that's very far away from igniting.
> Taiwan, Japan, Poland, Canada, Spain, Australia, many others (...) have a great political and economic relationship with the US, and are currently at 0% risk of attack or invasion
I'm sorry, are you from the past? You literally listed Canada which Trump threatened with invasion.
The U.S. has no stable economic relationship with any country under the current administration and won't regain the trust for years or decades to come.
There's just these two quite different non-economic relations - not relationships - Israel and Russian Federation. The latter may even be Trump's hallucination but I'm giving him a benefit of the doubt. He finds common language with warmongering dictators.
I'm sorry, are you from the past? You literally listed Canada which Trump threatened with invasion.
The U.S. has no stable economic relationship with any country under the current administration and won't regain the trust for years or decades to come.
There's just these two quite different non-economic relations - not relationships - Israel and Russian Federation. The latter may even be Trump's hallucination but I'm giving him a benefit of the doubt. He finds common language with warmongering dictators.
> Taiwan, Japan, Poland, Canada, Spain, Australia, many others, these are all countries that do not have nukes, have a great political and economic relationship with the US, and are currently at 0% risk of attack or invasion by our shared enemies (ok, you can put Taiwan at slightly higher than 0%).
Including Taiwan in this list is hilarious.
Poland, Canada, Spain, Australia, and others, are certainly reevaluating the wisdom of their current strategy. That's the whole point I'm making.
Including Taiwan in this list is hilarious.
Poland, Canada, Spain, Australia, and others, are certainly reevaluating the wisdom of their current strategy. That's the whole point I'm making.
No they aren't. Literally none of them are. You just made all that up.
Poland has said that they want nukes, but their specific ask was that US nukes be hosted on their soil; not that they want sovereign nukes under their own control, that the public has heard.
Poland has said that they want nukes, but their specific ask was that US nukes be hosted on their soil; not that they want sovereign nukes under their own control, that the public has heard.
Watch the last episode of SILO.
> Dan is a congressman, and what journalist Helen really wants from him is information. She’s particularly interested in a “dirty bomb”—particularly, whether the rumors of one exploding in New Orleans are real, or merely fabricated to advance a war between America and Iran. Dan doesn’t answer, instead choosing to leave. It’s all vague, but it gives the viewer a chance to piece some details together: It was likely the bomb and the escalation of a war between America and Iran that led to the creation of the silos.
https://time.com/7206478/silo-season-2-finale-explained/
> Dan is a congressman, and what journalist Helen really wants from him is information. She’s particularly interested in a “dirty bomb”—particularly, whether the rumors of one exploding in New Orleans are real, or merely fabricated to advance a war between America and Iran. Dan doesn’t answer, instead choosing to leave. It’s all vague, but it gives the viewer a chance to piece some details together: It was likely the bomb and the escalation of a war between America and Iran that led to the creation of the silos.
https://time.com/7206478/silo-season-2-finale-explained/
[deleted]
#5. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia will look for a proxy to fight Iran. China to determine if it should back Iran or not.
Timeline of previous events
2006 – Hezbollah–Israel War: Iran arms Hezbollah during the 34-day conflict with Israel.
2010 – Stuxnet cyberattack: U.S. and Israel deploy malware against Iran’s Natanz uranium centrifuges.
2020 – Assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani by Trump who orders drone strike that kills the IRGC Quds commander
2021 – Houthi–Saudi Escalation: Iran-backed Houthis use drones and missiles against Saudi Arabia.
2022 – Iran supplies thousands of Shahed-136 kamikaze drones to support Russia’s war in Ukraine and transfer technology to Russia
2023 – Iran-backed Hamas conducts large-scale attack against Israel who responds with major military operations in Gaza.
2025 – Israel and the US bomb Iran’s nuclear sitesWorldwide, it’s always the presidents who need to cling to power to avoid accountability.
We already pulled the “they have WMDs” card, despite significant credibility problems.
We have a completely inexperienced 22 year old in charge of terrorism prevention at a time when any act of terrorism against the US would be a nightmarish scenario for escalation.
To me it looks as though we sent the invitation and left a note that the front door is unlocked.
We already pulled the “they have WMDs” card, despite significant credibility problems.
We have a completely inexperienced 22 year old in charge of terrorism prevention at a time when any act of terrorism against the US would be a nightmarish scenario for escalation.
To me it looks as though we sent the invitation and left a note that the front door is unlocked.
Medvedev wrote on social media today that “Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage. The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads”.
If there’s anything to that statement, things are likely to remain messy.
If there’s anything to that statement, things are likely to remain messy.
Medvedev is like the US’s Lindsey Graham. Of all the politicians, they are to be least trusted due to their absurd hawkish takes.
Trump’s now posting about regime change
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“…and we turned out just fine!”
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).
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.
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.
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.
How does that follow?
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.
> 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.
Israel is very clearly, without any question or doubt, a serious threat to every one of its neighbors.
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...
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?
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?
golol(1)
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.
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...
> 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...
> Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran.
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
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
And mein kampf was a book
Result 5 of 9 for "Death to America".
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
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.
more than 50% of americans oppose the current US regime[0] but thats not descriptive of wanting to tear the whole setup down
[0] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
[0] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
Not that secular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonyad
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Cambodia says hi. No one did it better than Kissinger.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
Yes, you're most probably not taking into consideration the Soviets' incursion into Northern Manchuria, which started on August 9th. The last thing the Japanese leadership wanted was to see a big part of their country turn communist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
the_gipsy(1)
dunekid(2)
[flagged]
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.
> Their intelligence heads are also all gone. What kind of response do you envisage?
It does not mean that their ability to gather intelligence or use it is 100% gone. It most likely means they are a bit in disarray because of their top-down command structure. And maybe it takes a day or two until they put someone in charge.
It does not mean that their ability to gather intelligence or use it is 100% gone. It most likely means they are a bit in disarray because of their top-down command structure. And maybe it takes a day or two until they put someone in charge.
Ukraine just demonstrated how to mess with long range aviation parked in the open.
I'm not saying it's easy, but there are many soft targets in America.
But yeah, who knows. The wise choice here is to go home and not play. The US and Israel are not about to invade with ground forces.
And if they were it'd be without support from European countries.
I'm not saying it's easy, but there are many soft targets in America.
But yeah, who knows. The wise choice here is to go home and not play. The US and Israel are not about to invade with ground forces.
And if they were it'd be without support from European countries.
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.
Agree that they can't retaliate through their military, but if they did it would likely be through terror attacks on civilians.
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.
It's going to be a very bad time for American interests and people outside of the United States in the next few years.
bigyabai(2)
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!
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.
The dictatorship that was so hated that it led to a plurality of people supporting an Ayatollah?
[deleted]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
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.
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?
Europe is now helping out in Ukraine a lot and buying thousands of Raytheon missiles to do so.
Come back to reality friend, nobody is alienated.
Come back to reality friend, nobody is alienated.
I'm not he one adrift from reality. Europe has always been helping out a lot, more than the US, because Ukraine has been politically aligned with the EU for well over a decade. It's the US that has been scaling back its involvement.
KIAs ratio is not what determine a war's success
This is a fanatic regime. I will have its people eating grass before giving up on anything.
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.
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?
I am confused. So it is impotent or the greatest threat in the middle east?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Comparing the plausible deniability of a nuclear bomb to grenade launchers seems a stretch.
> 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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
So you're saying that there are motivations that would make you perform suicide bombings?
There are incentives by which you would sacrifice your children?
The vast majority of Iranians and Palestinians are good people. Same as everyone. The leadership and nutcases are vastly different than normal people.
I have friends in Gaza and the west bank. They are victims of these nutcases, this sort of mentality is tolerance of intolerance. They are victims of Hamas as the Iranian people are victims of their leadership.
> 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
It isn't that they're irrational. Their decisions don't match western rationality which is based on different standards.
If you think that the death of your child will send him on a fast track to heaven that can seriously impact the rational choices you make down the line. It doesn't mean you can't speak calmly or even pretend to have a different set of objectives.
Their definition of reality leads them to a very different set of incentives and decisions. I understand exactly why the leadership wants nuclear weapons. They're paranoid and they aren't wrong in their paranoia, but that goes both ways. If Israel had listened to voices like this in the past then Saddam Husein and Assad would have had nuclear weapons. Luckily they don't and now we don't have to know what the Iranian leadership would have done. That's a good thing for everyone, especially for the Iranian people in the long term.
Assuming you're from the states, imagine the Mexican president calling death to America constantly, claiming it's their religious prerogative to destroy America and launch multiple terrorist cells against America... Then imagine them developing nuclear weapons... The USA would be justifiably paranoid.
So you're saying that there are motivations that would make you perform suicide bombings?
There are incentives by which you would sacrifice your children?
The vast majority of Iranians and Palestinians are good people. Same as everyone. The leadership and nutcases are vastly different than normal people.
I have friends in Gaza and the west bank. They are victims of these nutcases, this sort of mentality is tolerance of intolerance. They are victims of Hamas as the Iranian people are victims of their leadership.
> 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
It isn't that they're irrational. Their decisions don't match western rationality which is based on different standards.
If you think that the death of your child will send him on a fast track to heaven that can seriously impact the rational choices you make down the line. It doesn't mean you can't speak calmly or even pretend to have a different set of objectives.
Their definition of reality leads them to a very different set of incentives and decisions. I understand exactly why the leadership wants nuclear weapons. They're paranoid and they aren't wrong in their paranoia, but that goes both ways. If Israel had listened to voices like this in the past then Saddam Husein and Assad would have had nuclear weapons. Luckily they don't and now we don't have to know what the Iranian leadership would have done. That's a good thing for everyone, especially for the Iranian people in the long term.
Assuming you're from the states, imagine the Mexican president calling death to America constantly, claiming it's their religious prerogative to destroy America and launch multiple terrorist cells against America... Then imagine them developing nuclear weapons... The USA would be justifiably paranoid.
Not sure why are you very adamant in defending Israel's govt inhuman actions in all your postings? How do you sleep at night?
Not condoning suicide attack but early zionists in Israel are all the same attacking civilians by the same actions, and after more than hundreds years the autrocities still continue until today albeit in different inhuman forms [1].
Worst now they're using indiscriminate military bombings against Palestinian people mostly women and children that has no proper protection from state military [2]. From your logic and claims, zionist and Israel military don't match your so called western rationality and seems to be based on different standards.
Perhaps all these inhuman actions based on the fact that they wrongly believe that they're God's chosen people destined for the Heavens and will not be touched by the Hell fire for whatever autrocities they've committed? [3].
[1] The Hundred Years' War on Palestine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hundred_Years%27_War_on_Pa...
[2] Zionist political violence [1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
[3] Chosen people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people
Not condoning suicide attack but early zionists in Israel are all the same attacking civilians by the same actions, and after more than hundreds years the autrocities still continue until today albeit in different inhuman forms [1].
Worst now they're using indiscriminate military bombings against Palestinian people mostly women and children that has no proper protection from state military [2]. From your logic and claims, zionist and Israel military don't match your so called western rationality and seems to be based on different standards.
Perhaps all these inhuman actions based on the fact that they wrongly believe that they're God's chosen people destined for the Heavens and will not be touched by the Hell fire for whatever autrocities they've committed? [3].
[1] The Hundred Years' War on Palestine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hundred_Years%27_War_on_Pa...
[2] Zionist political violence [1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
[3] Chosen people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people
So, first, noting from your other comments here that you're not getting to armchair this from the safety of abroad like the rest of us - I sincerely hope you and your family stay safe and can know peace. I'm putting a lot of words into what may seem like a defense of either Iran or its proxies - believe me when I say I'm aiming to explain, not justify. I'm a pacifist and a humanist, and my genuine hope is that people everywhere can live in peace and safety. I'll also say that if I say things like "Israel does X" or something, I'm not ascribing the actions or morals of the state to you personally - I live in America, I know the difference between the actions of a government and the opinions of its people (unless you've got Bibi's private number, in which case - get dialing, damn).
> So you're saying that there are motivations that would make you perform suicide bombings? There are incentives by which you would sacrifice your children? <...> If you think that the death of your child will send him on a fast track to heaven that can seriously impact the rational choices you make down the line.
If your people were under threat, would you sacrifice yourself to save them? If your children died fighting to protect your country (genuinely protect, not in the "US invades Iraq to protect our god-given right to drive giant trucks" sense), would you be proud of them? Do you think they'd go to heaven?
This is why I keep pressing on this: under what circumstances would you do the same things that they're doing? Start from the premise that you did, and work backwards - what would it take? Why would you do that? If you continue to act like these people are weird alterna-humans, you're going to keep getting surprised by their actions. Start from the premise that they're like you or broadly like the people you know, work your way back to why the hell they're doing the things that keep surprising you, and then figure out what's going to make them stop.
(As a separate note, the concept of martyrdom doesn't start in Islam - there's a rich history of it across all the Abrahamic religions, and all of them presume the martyr's getting the fast track to paradise.)
I'd say one other thing, which is that Hamas is a militant group which considers themselves under existential siege and behaves accordingly - Iran is a different entity under different constraints whose people (and leaders) make different choices. Words are words - I'd suspect we've both heard plenty of revolting things from our countrymen that we brush off as idle talk that the other side would take as a dire threat.
And, for what it's worth, I understand the paranoia. I don't think it's unjustified. I get why Israel does not want Iran to get a nuclear bomb. But I don't think the actions of Israel or the US here are making that outcome less likely, and I think they're taking those actions due to the kind of misreading of Iran that we're discussing here.
To flip this on its head: if you were Iran, what on earth would convince you not to build a bomb now?
> So you're saying that there are motivations that would make you perform suicide bombings? There are incentives by which you would sacrifice your children? <...> If you think that the death of your child will send him on a fast track to heaven that can seriously impact the rational choices you make down the line.
If your people were under threat, would you sacrifice yourself to save them? If your children died fighting to protect your country (genuinely protect, not in the "US invades Iraq to protect our god-given right to drive giant trucks" sense), would you be proud of them? Do you think they'd go to heaven?
This is why I keep pressing on this: under what circumstances would you do the same things that they're doing? Start from the premise that you did, and work backwards - what would it take? Why would you do that? If you continue to act like these people are weird alterna-humans, you're going to keep getting surprised by their actions. Start from the premise that they're like you or broadly like the people you know, work your way back to why the hell they're doing the things that keep surprising you, and then figure out what's going to make them stop.
(As a separate note, the concept of martyrdom doesn't start in Islam - there's a rich history of it across all the Abrahamic religions, and all of them presume the martyr's getting the fast track to paradise.)
I'd say one other thing, which is that Hamas is a militant group which considers themselves under existential siege and behaves accordingly - Iran is a different entity under different constraints whose people (and leaders) make different choices. Words are words - I'd suspect we've both heard plenty of revolting things from our countrymen that we brush off as idle talk that the other side would take as a dire threat.
And, for what it's worth, I understand the paranoia. I don't think it's unjustified. I get why Israel does not want Iran to get a nuclear bomb. But I don't think the actions of Israel or the US here are making that outcome less likely, and I think they're taking those actions due to the kind of misreading of Iran that we're discussing here.
To flip this on its head: if you were Iran, what on earth would convince you not to build a bomb now?
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
Oh wow. A floor of 50,000 dead, every city razed, barely any functioning infrastructure and a blockage on medical and food assistance.
Israel chooses this.
Oh wow. A floor of 50,000 dead, every city razed, barely any functioning infrastructure and a blockage on medical and food assistance.
Israel chooses this.
How many of the 50,000 are indeed Hamas combatants?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/05/far-past-time-to...
Or archived link: https://archive.is/D85m0
Israel didn't start this war. Hamas started it and is keeping it going by refusing to release the 53 civilian hostages it is holding. They are hiding under the cities, under the hospitals and all over the region.
I think the Israeli right-wing took that Hamas bait and used that to commit far more violence than it should have. Hamas is using it to prop western outrage which it believes will bring down Israel. The Israeli right-wing is happy about western outrage because they believe it will force Israel into isolation and let them do whatever they want.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/05/far-past-time-to...
Or archived link: https://archive.is/D85m0
Israel didn't start this war. Hamas started it and is keeping it going by refusing to release the 53 civilian hostages it is holding. They are hiding under the cities, under the hospitals and all over the region.
I think the Israeli right-wing took that Hamas bait and used that to commit far more violence than it should have. Hamas is using it to prop western outrage which it believes will bring down Israel. The Israeli right-wing is happy about western outrage because they believe it will force Israel into isolation and let them do whatever they want.
> 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.
Ansar Allah suppresses the port of Eilat while Iran suppresses the port of Haifa ( https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/shipping-company-m... ). I don't think Israel can be adequately supplied by the throughput of Ashdod alone.
> That mixes a lot of different things and is mostly false.
No, it is NOT "mostly false".
Does Israel have an undeclared nuclear arsenal? YES.
Does Israel occupy territory in multiple neighboring countries? YES (in both Syria and Lebanon, see: https://www.972mag.com/southern-syria-new-israeli-occupation... and https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-will-leave-...)
Is Israel conducting an ethnic cleansing? See my clarification below, but also YES.
>The claim of ethnic cleansing is also false and shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation in Gaza.
Well if we want to get technical, Israel is conducting a genocide, as ethnic cleansing is not precisely defined. Any rational human being can pull up the definition of genocide on the UN website and conclude for themselves by assessing each criteria, particularly #1 and #3. It's not complicated. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
We see the stream of images of dead, maimed, and starving children. We have the first-hand accounts of western aid workers and doctors trying to save lives in Gaza, reporting anomalies that even veteran conflict doctors haven't seen before (such as disproportionate head and torso small arms wounds on children). And perhaps more importantly, we see and hear the things Israeli politicians say about Palestinians.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/senior-israeli-official-s...
Should we not take a member of the Knesset at his word? https://kol-barama.co.il/item/%D7%97%D7%9B-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A...
Should we not take Israeli Cabinet Ministers at their word, for establishing intent to destroy these people? https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-gaza-to-be-total...
and such language is not a new development, here's the Defense Minister back in 2018: https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/there-are-no-inn...
> There are many civilian casualties and that is indeed horrible and tragic, but blaming Israel for it is contributing to the death toll.
Why are you using passive language? Why are there civilian casualties? They don't just magically appear on their own. There would be no civilian casualties if Israel wasn't dropping bombs on peoples' homes. There would be no civilian casualties if the IDF wasn't ambushing convoys of first responders.
> If you're such a believer in Islamic logic then please explain why Hamas is still holding 53 Israeli hostages?
I will not allow you to deflect from the core issue at hand by pivoting the conversation to Hamas. The point is to compare and assess the two principle STATE ACTORS, one of which sits on a nuclear arsenal while massacring civilians, and one of which is on the receiving end of "preemptive strikes" while not possessing equivalent weapons.
> Hamas sees Israel as a western nation. It believes that without western support Israel will collapse.
Hamas isn't wrong, which is probably why Israel spends such a massive amount of treasure and effort on propaganda directed at western audiences. The Israeli air force would have been grounded months ago if not for a blank check to get fuel and ordnance from the US. Israel's jets drink more aviation fuel than Israel can ever refine itself.
> It encourages them to hoard the aid sent by the west and produce a picture of starvation amongst their own people.
Hamas aren't the ones intercepting aid shipments in international waters. Israel is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/02/europe/gaza-flotilla-ship...
Ansar Allah suppresses the port of Eilat while Iran suppresses the port of Haifa ( https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/shipping-company-m... ). I don't think Israel can be adequately supplied by the throughput of Ashdod alone.
> That mixes a lot of different things and is mostly false.
No, it is NOT "mostly false".
Does Israel have an undeclared nuclear arsenal? YES.
Does Israel occupy territory in multiple neighboring countries? YES (in both Syria and Lebanon, see: https://www.972mag.com/southern-syria-new-israeli-occupation... and https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-will-leave-...)
Is Israel conducting an ethnic cleansing? See my clarification below, but also YES.
>The claim of ethnic cleansing is also false and shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation in Gaza.
Well if we want to get technical, Israel is conducting a genocide, as ethnic cleansing is not precisely defined. Any rational human being can pull up the definition of genocide on the UN website and conclude for themselves by assessing each criteria, particularly #1 and #3. It's not complicated. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
We see the stream of images of dead, maimed, and starving children. We have the first-hand accounts of western aid workers and doctors trying to save lives in Gaza, reporting anomalies that even veteran conflict doctors haven't seen before (such as disproportionate head and torso small arms wounds on children). And perhaps more importantly, we see and hear the things Israeli politicians say about Palestinians.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/senior-israeli-official-s...
Should we not take a member of the Knesset at his word? https://kol-barama.co.il/item/%D7%97%D7%9B-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A...
Should we not take Israeli Cabinet Ministers at their word, for establishing intent to destroy these people? https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-gaza-to-be-total...
and such language is not a new development, here's the Defense Minister back in 2018: https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/there-are-no-inn...
> There are many civilian casualties and that is indeed horrible and tragic, but blaming Israel for it is contributing to the death toll.
Why are you using passive language? Why are there civilian casualties? They don't just magically appear on their own. There would be no civilian casualties if Israel wasn't dropping bombs on peoples' homes. There would be no civilian casualties if the IDF wasn't ambushing convoys of first responders.
> If you're such a believer in Islamic logic then please explain why Hamas is still holding 53 Israeli hostages?
I will not allow you to deflect from the core issue at hand by pivoting the conversation to Hamas. The point is to compare and assess the two principle STATE ACTORS, one of which sits on a nuclear arsenal while massacring civilians, and one of which is on the receiving end of "preemptive strikes" while not possessing equivalent weapons.
> Hamas sees Israel as a western nation. It believes that without western support Israel will collapse.
Hamas isn't wrong, which is probably why Israel spends such a massive amount of treasure and effort on propaganda directed at western audiences. The Israeli air force would have been grounded months ago if not for a blank check to get fuel and ordnance from the US. Israel's jets drink more aviation fuel than Israel can ever refine itself.
> It encourages them to hoard the aid sent by the west and produce a picture of starvation amongst their own people.
Hamas aren't the ones intercepting aid shipments in international waters. Israel is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/02/europe/gaza-flotilla-ship...
> Ansar Allah suppresses the port of Eilat while Iran suppresses the port of Haifa ( https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/shipping-company-m... ). I don't think Israel can be adequately supplied by the throughput of Ashdod alone.
Well... It isn't. It's a big port. We're doing perfectly fine and the shops are full.
> Does Israel have an undeclared nuclear arsenal? YES.
Probably. But assuming it does, did it ever threaten anyone with it even when it was under attack? Nope.
> Does Israel occupy territory in multiple neighboring countries? YES (in both Syria and Lebanon
Lebanon shot rockets into Israel for a year at an average of 10 rockets per day targeting civilian population killing children etc. They dug huge tunnels in an attempt to do a full out invasion/massacre on the north border. Israel responded "gently" at first. Gave them a year to back down.
Now there's a price to pay after that.
In Syria Israel is being cautious. Just like Turkey is being cautious. It's an unstable region. Furthermore, the Druzi population in Syria is under threat: https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2025/05/03/syria-c...
Israel is there to protect the family members of Israeli Druzi minorities and make sure they aren't murdered by the new regime.
> Well if we want to get technical, Israel is conducting a genocide, as ethnic cleansing is not precisely defined.
> 1. Killing members of the group; - Israel doesn't satisfy that criteria. There is a war which Israel didn't start. It's targeting Hamas which is in a specific region still holding hostages. People don't die because they are Palestinians.
Yes, civilian casualties happen a lot and it's tragic. But that isn't genocide by even the most lax definition of that.
> 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Again, war isn't that.
But let me help you with the arguments. First there's the ethnic cleansing which essentially means displacement. Initially when Palestinians were cleared from the north there were fears that they won't be able to return home. Some right-wing extremists even advocated for that. However, they have since returned.
The second claim is about starvation which I agree is terrible. Unfortunately, it's not as clear cut. Israel did plenty of stupid/evil stuff in that regard (cutting water, electricity and holding aid trucks). These were indeed bad. But they got restored.
The logic they had was that this is stolen by Hamas and then resold on the black market to fund their operation. This is also 100% true. That's why Israel is trying a different way around Hamas to bring down the organization for good.
That's horrible, but so are the other guys.
> > There are many civilian casualties and that is indeed horrible and tragic, but blaming Israel for it is contributing to the death toll. > > Why are you using passive language?
Because I never killed anyone and always voted for peace. I didn't do this, Hamas did it. I feel terrible for Palestinians. I can (and do) demonstrate against my government, I hope they will get a deal to release the hostages and end this.
A Palestinian who tries to do the same thing in Gaza will find himself in a shallow grave and the people who will put him there are his own countrymen.
Ideally, if Israel had a decent government this war should have been about freeing Palestinians from the clutches of Hamas. But with the current government it's unfortunately just terrible.
> Why are there civilian casualties?
There always are in war.
But mostly because of you. Hamas believe that without western support Israel will collapse. So they are making the war as brutal as possible for their own populace in the hope of de-legitimizing Israel. The Israeli extreme right-wing is actually for it, they think that if western support is no longer an option then no one will hold them back from forcing Palestinians out of Gaza entirely.
> They don't just magically appear on their own.
In a war zone people don't carry flashy signs indicating their civilian status.
> There would be no civilian casualties if Israel wasn't dropping bombs on peoples' homes.
Maybe. But there would be a lot more if Israel wouldn't just call them up and tell them to leave https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079
> There would be no civilian casualties if the IDF wasn't ambushing convoys of first responders.
There were several cases of Hamas using Ambulances to drive around and move troops. There were cases of mistaken identity by the IDF. It's horrible and that's exactly what Hamas wants.
> I will not allow you to deflect from the core issue at hand by pivoting the conversation to Hamas.
Why is that deflection?
You're pretending that Israel is there shooting civilians while ignoring the reason it's there to begin with.
> The point is to compare and assess the two principle STATE ACTORS, one of which sits on a nuclear arsenal while massacring civilians,
Again. Not murdering civilians, you have no concept of what war is.
> and one of which is on the receiving end of "preemptive strikes" while not possessing equivalent weapons.
They didn't receive a "preemptive strikes". They were the people behind the rise of Hezbolla in Lebanon who attacked Israel repeatedly. They funded the Huttis who attacked the Saudis and shipping. They blew up embassies and were behind countless terrorist action. They are the trigger, training and a major driver for the October 7th attacks.
Once they gain nuclear weapons it would be too late and WWIII will start. This strike was essential to prevent that.
> > Hamas sees Israel as a western nation. It believes that without western support Israel will collapse. > > Hamas isn't wrong, which is probably why Israel spends such a massive amount of treasure and effort on propaganda directed at western audiences.
Israel is one of the worlds largest manufacturers of weapons. Why?
Because we were under embargo before and it helped us build up our economy and technology. When we first got American aircrafts we had to strip that junk down and rebuild it. Thanks to us Americas aircrafts are now far better. Missile defense systems actually work.
An embargo will hurt Israel a lot. But would probably be far worse to the Palestinians.
> The Israeli air force would have been grounded months ago if not for a blank check to get fuel and ordnance from the US. Israel's jets drink more aviation fuel than Israel can ever refine itself.
If Israel can fly fewer missions it would just have to make every bombing count.
> Hamas aren't the ones intercepting aid shipments in international waters. Israel is.
The amount of aid in these flotillas is minuscule. They are for show only. Aid comes through trucks. Gaza has no port large enough for a ship, Biden tried to build one and failed.
These flotillas try to present the Israeli blockade as illegal. It isn't. Hamas is a threat and blockades are legal. Starvation tactics are illegal, but whether Israel is at fault here is debatable.
The problem I have with people like yourself is that you have a lot of criticism but no actual solutions. It's really easy to blame Israel, but what would you have Israel do exactly?
Go nicely and ask Hamas kindly to return the hostages? Stop firing rockets?
You say don't kill civilians, which school of urban warfare did you study in?
Give Palestinians a state: Israel tried it twice, arguably three times (leaving Gaza).
Leave Gaza: tried that before. That's how we got here.
Well... It isn't. It's a big port. We're doing perfectly fine and the shops are full.
> Does Israel have an undeclared nuclear arsenal? YES.
Probably. But assuming it does, did it ever threaten anyone with it even when it was under attack? Nope.
> Does Israel occupy territory in multiple neighboring countries? YES (in both Syria and Lebanon
Lebanon shot rockets into Israel for a year at an average of 10 rockets per day targeting civilian population killing children etc. They dug huge tunnels in an attempt to do a full out invasion/massacre on the north border. Israel responded "gently" at first. Gave them a year to back down.
Now there's a price to pay after that.
In Syria Israel is being cautious. Just like Turkey is being cautious. It's an unstable region. Furthermore, the Druzi population in Syria is under threat: https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2025/05/03/syria-c...
Israel is there to protect the family members of Israeli Druzi minorities and make sure they aren't murdered by the new regime.
> Well if we want to get technical, Israel is conducting a genocide, as ethnic cleansing is not precisely defined.
> 1. Killing members of the group; - Israel doesn't satisfy that criteria. There is a war which Israel didn't start. It's targeting Hamas which is in a specific region still holding hostages. People don't die because they are Palestinians.
Yes, civilian casualties happen a lot and it's tragic. But that isn't genocide by even the most lax definition of that.
> 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Again, war isn't that.
But let me help you with the arguments. First there's the ethnic cleansing which essentially means displacement. Initially when Palestinians were cleared from the north there were fears that they won't be able to return home. Some right-wing extremists even advocated for that. However, they have since returned.
The second claim is about starvation which I agree is terrible. Unfortunately, it's not as clear cut. Israel did plenty of stupid/evil stuff in that regard (cutting water, electricity and holding aid trucks). These were indeed bad. But they got restored.
The logic they had was that this is stolen by Hamas and then resold on the black market to fund their operation. This is also 100% true. That's why Israel is trying a different way around Hamas to bring down the organization for good.
That's horrible, but so are the other guys.
> > There are many civilian casualties and that is indeed horrible and tragic, but blaming Israel for it is contributing to the death toll. > > Why are you using passive language?
Because I never killed anyone and always voted for peace. I didn't do this, Hamas did it. I feel terrible for Palestinians. I can (and do) demonstrate against my government, I hope they will get a deal to release the hostages and end this.
A Palestinian who tries to do the same thing in Gaza will find himself in a shallow grave and the people who will put him there are his own countrymen.
Ideally, if Israel had a decent government this war should have been about freeing Palestinians from the clutches of Hamas. But with the current government it's unfortunately just terrible.
> Why are there civilian casualties?
There always are in war.
But mostly because of you. Hamas believe that without western support Israel will collapse. So they are making the war as brutal as possible for their own populace in the hope of de-legitimizing Israel. The Israeli extreme right-wing is actually for it, they think that if western support is no longer an option then no one will hold them back from forcing Palestinians out of Gaza entirely.
> They don't just magically appear on their own.
In a war zone people don't carry flashy signs indicating their civilian status.
> There would be no civilian casualties if Israel wasn't dropping bombs on peoples' homes.
Maybe. But there would be a lot more if Israel wouldn't just call them up and tell them to leave https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079
> There would be no civilian casualties if the IDF wasn't ambushing convoys of first responders.
There were several cases of Hamas using Ambulances to drive around and move troops. There were cases of mistaken identity by the IDF. It's horrible and that's exactly what Hamas wants.
> I will not allow you to deflect from the core issue at hand by pivoting the conversation to Hamas.
Why is that deflection?
You're pretending that Israel is there shooting civilians while ignoring the reason it's there to begin with.
> The point is to compare and assess the two principle STATE ACTORS, one of which sits on a nuclear arsenal while massacring civilians,
Again. Not murdering civilians, you have no concept of what war is.
> and one of which is on the receiving end of "preemptive strikes" while not possessing equivalent weapons.
They didn't receive a "preemptive strikes". They were the people behind the rise of Hezbolla in Lebanon who attacked Israel repeatedly. They funded the Huttis who attacked the Saudis and shipping. They blew up embassies and were behind countless terrorist action. They are the trigger, training and a major driver for the October 7th attacks.
Once they gain nuclear weapons it would be too late and WWIII will start. This strike was essential to prevent that.
> > Hamas sees Israel as a western nation. It believes that without western support Israel will collapse. > > Hamas isn't wrong, which is probably why Israel spends such a massive amount of treasure and effort on propaganda directed at western audiences.
Israel is one of the worlds largest manufacturers of weapons. Why?
Because we were under embargo before and it helped us build up our economy and technology. When we first got American aircrafts we had to strip that junk down and rebuild it. Thanks to us Americas aircrafts are now far better. Missile defense systems actually work.
An embargo will hurt Israel a lot. But would probably be far worse to the Palestinians.
> The Israeli air force would have been grounded months ago if not for a blank check to get fuel and ordnance from the US. Israel's jets drink more aviation fuel than Israel can ever refine itself.
If Israel can fly fewer missions it would just have to make every bombing count.
> Hamas aren't the ones intercepting aid shipments in international waters. Israel is.
The amount of aid in these flotillas is minuscule. They are for show only. Aid comes through trucks. Gaza has no port large enough for a ship, Biden tried to build one and failed.
These flotillas try to present the Israeli blockade as illegal. It isn't. Hamas is a threat and blockades are legal. Starvation tactics are illegal, but whether Israel is at fault here is debatable.
The problem I have with people like yourself is that you have a lot of criticism but no actual solutions. It's really easy to blame Israel, but what would you have Israel do exactly?
Go nicely and ask Hamas kindly to return the hostages? Stop firing rockets?
You say don't kill civilians, which school of urban warfare did you study in?
Give Palestinians a state: Israel tried it twice, arguably three times (leaving Gaza).
Leave Gaza: tried that before. That's how we got here.
>>Does Israel have an undeclared nuclear arsenal? YES.
> Probably. But assuming it does, did it ever threaten anyone with it even when it was under attack? Nope.
It's not a "probably". It's in Wikileaks emails from Colin Powell. https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-leaked-emails-colin-powell-...
Plus anyone in the DoD with an elevated clearance can read US intel info about various aspects of the Israeli WMD program in surprising detail, which I won't elaborate on here.
As for threats, have you not heard of the Samson Option? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option#Martin_van_Creve...
> Again. Not murdering civilians, you have no concept of what war is.
Twenty years of military service, and I've worked with Fallujah veterans. Even we in the notoriously heavy-handed Marine Corps somehow manage to not annihilate as many families as the IDF does in Gaza. Don't think we have a systemic history of using human shields either: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-arm...
> They are the trigger, training and a major driver for the October 7th attacks.
The world didn't start on October 7th. How many Palestinians were killed by the IDF prior to October 7th? This is from 4 months earlier than that event: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/06/israel-opt-ci...
And from 2019: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/02/no-justifica...
> In a war zone people don't carry flashy signs indicating their civilian status.
A responsible military would establish Rules of Engagement that assumes people are civilians, and only opens fire when there are CLEAR indications of a threat (visual confirmation of weapons, incoming fire of clear origin, etc...). It helps keep you from shooting your own hostages because you mistook them for unarmed Palestinians, for example.
> You say don't kill civilians, which school of urban warfare did you study in?
I've been an infantryman in the US National Guard and an officer in the United States Marine Corps. I know what it's like to be expected to clear rooms while only having Reservist-level training (like most of the mobilized IDF ground forces). We were fortunate because we had a bunch of prior Active Duty NCOs (with both Army and Marine combat vets) who were experienced and understood restraint. Working as an Aviation C2 officer, I understand the killchain of air support missions, which is why I'm highly critical of how much ordnance is landing on the heads of entire families. The Israeli air force has a reputation for competence, so the only rational explanation is malevolence.
> If Israel can fly fewer missions it would just have to make every bombing count.
The implication in this statement is that you aren't making every sortie count now....which is coherent with the conclusion that you are bombing the population as punishment, not judiciously targeting actual military threats.
> The amount of aid in these flotillas is minuscule. They are for show only.
It's not the quantity of aid that is significant, it is the purpose, process, and optics of aid delivery. Members of the international community are attempting to relieve human suffering, and you are boarding their ships, shooting them, and attacking them with drones. That is objectively evil.
> The problem I have with people like yourself is that you have a lot of criticism but no actual solutions.
We have a lot of criticism because you are killing women and children using OUR taxpayer dollars, protected by OUR diplomatic influence with the UN/ICC/etc. We've presented solutions: a one-state solution with complete emancipation for the Palestinian population. The problem is the Jewish demographic refuses to accept this, because population trends will soon lead to Jews becoming a minority, which the Jewish population, traumatized by a history of persecution, refuses to accept.
Plan B would be to lift the Gaza Blockade and allow foreign investment to build up Gaza's transport links and offshore natural gas resources, so the Palestinians have sovereign control of their economic development. Also completely halt West Bank settlement expansion. Combine this with expanded UN peacekeeping patrols (maybe some sort of joint patrols, with one European Christian and one Pakistani/Indonesia/etc. Muslim) to try to keep violence to a minimum until both sides get past their collective traumas.
>Leave Gaza: tried that before. That's how we got here.
You removed your ground troops, but you destroyed the Gaza airport before you left (why?), destroyed the foundations of the Gaza seaport as well (why?), and as you said insist on maintaining a maritime blockade. The population has no transportation links to establish meaningful trade relationships and economic prosperity. The young men who make up the backbone of Hamas foot soldiers circa 2023 were probably all the children you traumatized in ~2006. That's how you got here.
> 1. Killing members of the group; - Israel doesn't satisfy that criteria.
> I didn't do this, Hamas did it.
I'm honestly glad that you engage online. I think it is important for as many eyes as possible to see into the thought processes and state of mind of the apparently moderate Israeli demographic. Because you guys come across as total fucking psychopaths, with NO sense of introspection whatsoever. I work with Marines who have fought house-to-house in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are more well-adjusted and humane that what I hear from the average Israeli internet commenter, even on a fairly "enlightened" site such as HN (this place isn't a dumpster fire like Reddit or 4Chan).
> Probably. But assuming it does, did it ever threaten anyone with it even when it was under attack? Nope.
It's not a "probably". It's in Wikileaks emails from Colin Powell. https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-leaked-emails-colin-powell-...
Plus anyone in the DoD with an elevated clearance can read US intel info about various aspects of the Israeli WMD program in surprising detail, which I won't elaborate on here.
As for threats, have you not heard of the Samson Option? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option#Martin_van_Creve...
> Again. Not murdering civilians, you have no concept of what war is.
Twenty years of military service, and I've worked with Fallujah veterans. Even we in the notoriously heavy-handed Marine Corps somehow manage to not annihilate as many families as the IDF does in Gaza. Don't think we have a systemic history of using human shields either: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-arm...
> They are the trigger, training and a major driver for the October 7th attacks.
The world didn't start on October 7th. How many Palestinians were killed by the IDF prior to October 7th? This is from 4 months earlier than that event: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/06/israel-opt-ci...
And from 2019: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/02/no-justifica...
> In a war zone people don't carry flashy signs indicating their civilian status.
A responsible military would establish Rules of Engagement that assumes people are civilians, and only opens fire when there are CLEAR indications of a threat (visual confirmation of weapons, incoming fire of clear origin, etc...). It helps keep you from shooting your own hostages because you mistook them for unarmed Palestinians, for example.
> You say don't kill civilians, which school of urban warfare did you study in?
I've been an infantryman in the US National Guard and an officer in the United States Marine Corps. I know what it's like to be expected to clear rooms while only having Reservist-level training (like most of the mobilized IDF ground forces). We were fortunate because we had a bunch of prior Active Duty NCOs (with both Army and Marine combat vets) who were experienced and understood restraint. Working as an Aviation C2 officer, I understand the killchain of air support missions, which is why I'm highly critical of how much ordnance is landing on the heads of entire families. The Israeli air force has a reputation for competence, so the only rational explanation is malevolence.
> If Israel can fly fewer missions it would just have to make every bombing count.
The implication in this statement is that you aren't making every sortie count now....which is coherent with the conclusion that you are bombing the population as punishment, not judiciously targeting actual military threats.
> The amount of aid in these flotillas is minuscule. They are for show only.
It's not the quantity of aid that is significant, it is the purpose, process, and optics of aid delivery. Members of the international community are attempting to relieve human suffering, and you are boarding their ships, shooting them, and attacking them with drones. That is objectively evil.
> The problem I have with people like yourself is that you have a lot of criticism but no actual solutions.
We have a lot of criticism because you are killing women and children using OUR taxpayer dollars, protected by OUR diplomatic influence with the UN/ICC/etc. We've presented solutions: a one-state solution with complete emancipation for the Palestinian population. The problem is the Jewish demographic refuses to accept this, because population trends will soon lead to Jews becoming a minority, which the Jewish population, traumatized by a history of persecution, refuses to accept.
Plan B would be to lift the Gaza Blockade and allow foreign investment to build up Gaza's transport links and offshore natural gas resources, so the Palestinians have sovereign control of their economic development. Also completely halt West Bank settlement expansion. Combine this with expanded UN peacekeeping patrols (maybe some sort of joint patrols, with one European Christian and one Pakistani/Indonesia/etc. Muslim) to try to keep violence to a minimum until both sides get past their collective traumas.
>Leave Gaza: tried that before. That's how we got here.
You removed your ground troops, but you destroyed the Gaza airport before you left (why?), destroyed the foundations of the Gaza seaport as well (why?), and as you said insist on maintaining a maritime blockade. The population has no transportation links to establish meaningful trade relationships and economic prosperity. The young men who make up the backbone of Hamas foot soldiers circa 2023 were probably all the children you traumatized in ~2006. That's how you got here.
> 1. Killing members of the group; - Israel doesn't satisfy that criteria.
> I didn't do this, Hamas did it.
I'm honestly glad that you engage online. I think it is important for as many eyes as possible to see into the thought processes and state of mind of the apparently moderate Israeli demographic. Because you guys come across as total fucking psychopaths, with NO sense of introspection whatsoever. I work with Marines who have fought house-to-house in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are more well-adjusted and humane that what I hear from the average Israeli internet commenter, even on a fairly "enlightened" site such as HN (this place isn't a dumpster fire like Reddit or 4Chan).
Result 5 of 9 for "Death to America".
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
> Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Fair. Let's give context to "Death to America":
1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing
1984–1985 Lebanon Kidnappings
1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
Iraq War Era IED Campaign (2003–2011)
2011 Attempted Assassination of Saudi Ambassador in Washington, D.C.
2019–2020 Attacks on U.S. Forces and Embassy in Iraq
Iranian Missile Strikes on U.S. Forces in Iraq (2020)
Here I'm ignoring most proxy action and ignoring the many attacks that targeted Israel.
I 100% agree context is important.
Fair. Let's give context to "Death to America":
1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing
1984–1985 Lebanon Kidnappings
1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
Iraq War Era IED Campaign (2003–2011)
2011 Attempted Assassination of Saudi Ambassador in Washington, D.C.
2019–2020 Attacks on U.S. Forces and Embassy in Iraq
Iranian Missile Strikes on U.S. Forces in Iraq (2020)
Here I'm ignoring most proxy action and ignoring the many attacks that targeted Israel.
I 100% agree context is important.
They are a threat as a terrorist, not as a military force.
Well, it certainly was the greatest threat. It's unlikely to remain so.
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 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.
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.
One country already did.
their IRBMs are rather unpleasant. and one of reasons for "all of it", it's that they decided to build 10k of them in order to have capacity to launch 1k at once
> 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?
You mean they changed their mind and want to postpone the Armageddon now?
Evangelical here.
That statement is ignorant.
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.
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.
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.
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 am obviously proof standing before you that not all evangelicals believe what you suggested.
So who were you referring to?
They, as in those evangelicals who subscribe to apocalyptic accelerationism.
Ah. Well, had you said this in the first place the conversation would be a different one.
Yes, there is a subset of evangelicals that think along those lines. But not all of us.
Yes, there is a subset of evangelicals that think along those lines. But not all of us.
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.
Still 80 != 100, and not all evangelicals are white males. Alienating the reasonable evangelicals isn’t going to help fix stuff.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
My point is that evangelicals are not a monolith, and not all share the same beliefs.
The originating comment makes no hint that it is referring to anything less than 100%. It’s like saying “Black people think…” or “Women want….”, which invariably leads to some not funny generalization. Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO.
The originating comment makes no hint that it is referring to anything less than 100%. It’s like saying “Black people think…” or “Women want….”, which invariably leads to some not funny generalization. Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO.
I qualified twice that I did not mean it that as a blanket statement, so what new point are you trying to make?
I’m now making the point that generalizing evangelicals as a monolith that can ‘change their mind’ in unison is akin to generalizing people by race, gender, etc. I hope you are in agreement on that one.
Had your first statement been clear in referring to the subset of evangelicals ( instead of using a pronoun that refers back to the whole, evangelicals ), the statement would not have been properly called ignorant. As it stands, it reads as if all evangelicals wish for Armageddon without delay, which is an ignorant statement.
Had your first statement been clear in referring to the subset of evangelicals ( instead of using a pronoun that refers back to the whole, evangelicals ), the statement would not have been properly called ignorant. As it stands, it reads as if all evangelicals wish for Armageddon without delay, which is an ignorant statement.
> Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO.
But here's the thing. That wasn't the suggestion. The bunch of links that he gave you don't suggest that.
At least my impression is that there are a considerable amount of Evangelicals that support whatever you think is going on in Israel under theological pretenses. Any notion of timing carried by his initial remark is likely attributed to this.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the sum of the links handfuloflight shared. Maybe he should have done us the courtesy of spelling it out for us instead, as in, when you asked him:
> Do you believe all evangelicals believe the same thing, and that we want the end of the world to come immediately?
He should've answered the question straight up instead of (what I interpret as) responding to the emotional side of your comment:
> Where would you get such a strange idea? I can assure you it is an ignorant thought.
With an indirect explanation of his point through a bunch of links.
I get it, that's the responsible thing to do when the discourse is trying to present itself as something other than a flamewar, or something like that, which it might as well just be so we can all be more direct and upfront with what we think and feel instead of doing this half-bunned Socratic dialogue.
On the other hand, if someone tries to insult your intelligence in a sophomoric way it makes sense to leave them to their own devices and if they're so smart themselves they can read between the lines on their own.
Anyway, these are non-rhetorical, please-say-yes-or-no questions:
* Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support whatever you think is going on in Israel 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 whatever you think is going on Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for, because it has grave moral implications and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large?
If you're offended, then suck it up and be open about your vulnerabilities instead of goading the other party into an exchange that they're better suited than you at carrying on. Maybe they'll show you the empathy you desire, within reason.
But here's the thing. That wasn't the suggestion. The bunch of links that he gave you don't suggest that.
At least my impression is that there are a considerable amount of Evangelicals that support whatever you think is going on in Israel under theological pretenses. Any notion of timing carried by his initial remark is likely attributed to this.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the sum of the links handfuloflight shared. Maybe he should have done us the courtesy of spelling it out for us instead, as in, when you asked him:
> Do you believe all evangelicals believe the same thing, and that we want the end of the world to come immediately?
He should've answered the question straight up instead of (what I interpret as) responding to the emotional side of your comment:
> Where would you get such a strange idea? I can assure you it is an ignorant thought.
With an indirect explanation of his point through a bunch of links.
I get it, that's the responsible thing to do when the discourse is trying to present itself as something other than a flamewar, or something like that, which it might as well just be so we can all be more direct and upfront with what we think and feel instead of doing this half-bunned Socratic dialogue.
On the other hand, if someone tries to insult your intelligence in a sophomoric way it makes sense to leave them to their own devices and if they're so smart themselves they can read between the lines on their own.
Anyway, these are non-rhetorical, please-say-yes-or-no questions:
* Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support whatever you think is going on in Israel 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 whatever you think is going on Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for, because it has grave moral implications and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large?
If you're offended, then suck it up and be open about your vulnerabilities instead of goading the other party into an exchange that they're better suited than you at carrying on. Maybe they'll show you the empathy you desire, within reason.
No, your first assumption is not a fair one. Like many people, my religious views are not lock step with my political ones and the relationship is not straightforward.
I see handfuloflights remark as an attempted joke, alongside jokes that assume all Black people think alike, all women want the same thing, etc. Like those diverse groups, evangelicals are not a monolith, especially in political matters.
I’m not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.
I see handfuloflights remark as an attempted joke, alongside jokes that assume all Black people think alike, all women want the same thing, etc. Like those diverse groups, evangelicals are not a monolith, especially in political matters.
I’m not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, there are some.
But not all, or even most.
But not all, or even most.
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!
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.
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.
The statement was “they changed their mind and want to postpone the Armageddon now?”
This is not the same as believing in the second coming. It specifically deals with the timing, suggesting all evangelicals think alike and want Armageddon immediately.
This is not the same as believing in the second coming. It specifically deals with the timing, suggesting all evangelicals think alike and want Armageddon immediately.
That kind of sounds like two pretty different complaints.
I can see the issue with the “changed their mind” comment. Of course armageddon accelerationist evangelicals aren’t going to change their minds, that position comes from deeply held convictions and values that are for many inextricable from their faith. To suggest that they would abandon their enthusiasm for the coming of the savior and the age of messianic peace that he brings with him is kind of dismissive of how seriously evangelicals take the topic of the second coming.
Conversely, the complaint about the enthusiasm about the timing of the return of Christ is kind of a head scratcher for me. You seem to assert that Jesus’ return is fundamental to your beliefs but you personally would prefer that he arrives later. Like it is important and central to your faith but it is also offensively presumptive to assert that anybody would actually want it to happen.
It is kind of like you are simultaneously complaining that he is taking the evangelical position on the second coming both too seriously and not seriously enough.
I can see the issue with the “changed their mind” comment. Of course armageddon accelerationist evangelicals aren’t going to change their minds, that position comes from deeply held convictions and values that are for many inextricable from their faith. To suggest that they would abandon their enthusiasm for the coming of the savior and the age of messianic peace that he brings with him is kind of dismissive of how seriously evangelicals take the topic of the second coming.
Conversely, the complaint about the enthusiasm about the timing of the return of Christ is kind of a head scratcher for me. You seem to assert that Jesus’ return is fundamental to your beliefs but you personally would prefer that he arrives later. Like it is important and central to your faith but it is also offensively presumptive to assert that anybody would actually want it to happen.
It is kind of like you are simultaneously complaining that he is taking the evangelical position on the second coming both too seriously and not seriously enough.
Thank you for articulating, better than I could have, the currently unexpressed thoughts in my own mind.
Thank you for speaking up man. I'm an evangelical atheist and get sick of people generalizing what all evangelicals think too.
What exactly is an "evangelical atheist" ?
At one point in the history of the Internet, it was synonymous with Redditor.
[deleted]
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.
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.
The term you are looking for is dispensationalist. Most evangelicals seem to be dispensationalists who back Israel because of their apocalyptic eschatology, but not all evangelicals hold that belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
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.
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.
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.
What about the factions within the regime? Maybe someone is going to take responsibility for all these failures?
> 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.
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.
[deleted]
you willing to take that risk?
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
in what universe is that happening? you think the world is safer with even a 10% likliehood of the world's largest terror network getting access to WMD? you're off your rocker.
The US over the past few decades and Russia over the past five years and Israel over the past year have inflicted quite a bit of terror, and they all have nuclear weapons.
None of them would have done it if their victims had them.
Iran's contribution to inflicting misery, death, and indiscriminate destruction on the world is a rounding error in comparison, and its bound by the same formula of MAD as anyone else is.
None of them would have done it if their victims had them.
Iran's contribution to inflicting misery, death, and indiscriminate destruction on the world is a rounding error in comparison, and its bound by the same formula of MAD as anyone else is.
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.
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.
more like if we see you're getting nukes, go bust - that's a world i much prefer to live in.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Because they're dumb and caught up in the propaganda. They think war is a video game and it's normal for a country to just bomb a country.
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.
I chose a very good time to buy an electric car.
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.
Iran already closed Red Sea.
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 (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.
Why would Iran do something so suicidal?
Why would Iran do something so suicidal?
> 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.
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 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.
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.
This is where the logic stops.
If Iran is going to behave logically with a nuke, then why is it so terrible for them to have one? If they are illogical, then why would they NOT choose to wipe out Israel and blow up a couple major US cities?
The arguments I hear about Iran are almost completely contradictory.
If Iran is going to behave logically with a nuke, then why is it so terrible for them to have one? If they are illogical, then why would they NOT choose to wipe out Israel and blow up a couple major US cities?
The arguments I hear about Iran are almost completely contradictory.
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.
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.
You are assuming they’re rational actors, and extremist religious ideologies are by their very nature irrational.
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.
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.
And also a gigantic, gigantic escalation.
"You made a deal that disadvantages us so we're going to rape and murder a bunch of teenagers and kidnap people."
"You made a deal that disadvantages us so we're going to rape and murder a bunch of teenagers and kidnap people."
It’s not a justification, obviously. But it is a (partial) explanation. Israel wanted to keep sweeping the Palestinian issue under the rug, and Hamas and its sponsors were not going to allow that.
You claimed that Iran "time and again does not escalate against provocations by the US and Israel".
Sure, it's an explanation. Everything shitty Israel or Hamas has done since 1950 has an "explanation" of "that other group did something to me".
Sure, it's an explanation. Everything shitty Israel or Hamas has done since 1950 has an "explanation" of "that other group did something to me".
Iran FM saying no to negotiations on Friday was insane
https://www.yahoo.com/news/irans-foreign-minister-says-no-10...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/irans-foreign-minister-says-no-10...
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.
"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.
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.
Because the the nuke thing is a ruse; Iran's economic relationship with China is the problem for the U.S. which wants global hegemony.
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.
Nukes among peers aren't there to be used. They are there to immobilize and freeze a layer of conflict.
Do you really think that they wouldn’t have done this by now if they could?
I had the same expectation myself but now everyone will be looking out for that type of attack.
> 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's strange how this "Sum of All Fears" scenario is dismissed out of hand, or doesn't even occur, to the tankie-types on HN and reddit rooting for the Ayatollah to cross the nuclear finish line--the same Supreme Leader who, three days ago, permitted large protests in Tehran where crowds chanted "Death to America" and burned US flags.
Even weirder is that many (most?) of them are urban types who live, or aspire to live, in big cities like NYC or LA so they can enjoy the large LGBTQ communities, the ethnic restaurants, the bars serving craft IPAs, and the reduced commute times to and from protests. Hasan Piker, a prominent tankiefluencer, lives in LA, for example. So you would think they especially would have misgivings about Iran's enrichment program, even if they don't support intervention against it. And yet most of them dismiss any concern over it, or even outright state Iran should have nuclear weapons.
It's strange how this "Sum of All Fears" scenario is dismissed out of hand, or doesn't even occur, to the tankie-types on HN and reddit rooting for the Ayatollah to cross the nuclear finish line--the same Supreme Leader who, three days ago, permitted large protests in Tehran where crowds chanted "Death to America" and burned US flags.
Even weirder is that many (most?) of them are urban types who live, or aspire to live, in big cities like NYC or LA so they can enjoy the large LGBTQ communities, the ethnic restaurants, the bars serving craft IPAs, and the reduced commute times to and from protests. Hasan Piker, a prominent tankiefluencer, lives in LA, for example. So you would think they especially would have misgivings about Iran's enrichment program, even if they don't support intervention against it. And yet most of them dismiss any concern over it, or even outright state Iran should have nuclear weapons.
as a sum of all fears, you should also be worrying much more that texas will drop a nuke in LA, and so the texas government needs to be wiped off the map, all texans included.
local terror attacks are already a constant and accepted danger
local terror attacks are already a constant and accepted danger
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.
- 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
Actually his base is very disappointed by him becoming a total neocon. The influential ones are already speaking out , harshly
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.
[deleted]
political fallout? if you tell people the west hates you and then west bombs you, it makes it easier for you to continue preaching what you preached
Incredible to see the bloodlust and warmongering here, cloaked in the language of technical interest.
Incredible to see the people who have zero contact with extremist Muslims or familiarity with what the Quran and hadiths actually say or understand Iran in any way talking about how Iran is the victim or burying their heads in the sand with their coexist bumper stickers acting like we can just be nice and everyone will get along.
>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.
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.
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.
The Ottoman Empire did indeed subject a large portion of the Muslim world to colonial extraction.
[deleted]
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.
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.
> 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.
"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.
With intercontinental weapons and shipping, we're sorta all part of every region. In Zeeland I'm literally as far from New Zealand as humanly possible, but if another SARS pops up there or a war breaks out there, it's very likely to affect me in some way
So I guess we're on the same anti-war side, but for opposite reasons?
So I guess we're on the same anti-war side, but for opposite reasons?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
Yes, I guess if all of your neighbors want to kill Jews, then having Jews there is quite the threat!
The amount of jews killed by Israels neighbours is statistically insignificant compared to the amount of gentiles killed by Israel.
Jewish lives are not worth more than other peoples.
Jewish lives are not worth more than other peoples.
>The amount of jews killed by Israels neighbours is statistically insignificant
it's not for lack of trying
it's not for lack of trying
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.
With less snark, this will only end peacefully as soon as possible with some diplomacy, or in a massive humanitarian disaster.
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...
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...
Why do you take her testimony as gospel? As I understand it, the Israelis have infiltrated Iranian chain of command far more thoroughly than the US has. Maybe she didn't have all the info the Israelis had at the time? Maybe new information came to light? Maybe it was a diplomatic response attempting to get them to the bargaining table? Lots of possibilities here other than "the DNI testimony is was and will always be true"
I find it fairly suspicious to hear "Iran doesn't have a nuke program. Yes, they're enriching uranium to a point where it's only use is a nuclear weapon, but they have no plans to build a nuclear weapon"
I find it fairly suspicious to hear "Iran doesn't have a nuke program. Yes, they're enriching uranium to a point where it's only use is a nuclear weapon, but they have no plans to build a nuclear weapon"
It's good for Iran enemies. The world is not one of Iran's enemy
People have made the point that the world, relative to the time before the bomb, is a more peaceful place. So if a few countries having the bomb makes it peaceful, maybe more bombs make it more peaceful?
ACCount36(2)
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.
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
pembrook(3)
boxed(1)
The new generation is far more anti war than the 90s hippies. The social media might have set society back on some fronts, but on some fronts, like cross-border understanding and humanisation, it has been a blessing.
The Iranian regime is a the bad side. I’m not sure how you would think otherwise. Speak to some Persians.
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!"
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!"
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.
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.
You have plenty of friends who are supporters of the regime in Iran and its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, or just plenty of Iranian friends? Those feel like very distinct categories.
>Those feel like very distinct categories.
They aren't. In the sense that, while a lot of Iranians are exasperated with their clerical elite under normal conditions and abscence of external threats, even domestic regime opponents tend to be very allergic to having their sovereignty destroyed by the US. Iraq should have been a lesson in that regard ("they'll greet us as liberators"), apparently it was not.
They aren't. In the sense that, while a lot of Iranians are exasperated with their clerical elite under normal conditions and abscence of external threats, even domestic regime opponents tend to be very allergic to having their sovereignty destroyed by the US. Iraq should have been a lesson in that regard ("they'll greet us as liberators"), apparently it was not.
I'm more scared of the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons than I am of Iran
They do seem distinct. The ones who are Iranian are not the ones who support the Iranian regime. It's the anti-Israeli groups who support Iran's nuclear aspirations. Similarly, the Israeli friends are also not in support with Israel's actions.
I'm positive there's some selection bias here - ultra-nationalists don't hang out with other races.
But it goes with what we've been saying about bloodlust and dehumanization. The most excited ones are the ones who don't live anywhere near there.
I'm positive there's some selection bias here - ultra-nationalists don't hang out with other races.
But it goes with what we've been saying about bloodlust and dehumanization. The most excited ones are the ones who don't live anywhere near there.
Be warned the false dichotomy between whether this is a good or bad. It lets proponents use more arguments than they should.
The relevant question is: Why was it necessary to bomb Iran right now?
The relevant question is: Why was it necessary to bomb Iran right now?
"why was it" and "was it" both, though...
I predict a false flag cyber attack on the US that is supposed to whip us into a frenzy for war in Iran.
that's a loaded question, as if everyone had agreed bombing was needed at any stage
The pattern continues. Continue to create a power vacuum in the middle east, leaving the two military heavyweights: Israel and Turkey to take over. The question is when will the inevitable clash between them happen?
Oh, that's an easy question. It will never happen. Why? Because they're both US puppets in the region.
You can't look at what the leaders of these countries say. You look at what they do. Turkey's population, for example, is extremely sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. Erdogan will even get up there and bang the drums about Israel's evils. But that's just to placate the populace. In reality, he's done absolutely nothing when he could fatally wound Israel if he so chose.
There are allegations Erdogan's family (his son, specifically) is still doing business with Israel. Israel and Turkey have largely cooperated with the collapse of Syria. Both regimes simply cannot exist without material support, arms specifically, from the US.
What could turkey do? Cut off Israel's energy imports. IIRC ~40% of Israel's energy comes from Azerbijan from a pipeline that transits Turkey. Erdogan could absolutely shut it off if he wanted to. That would absolutely cripple Israel.
But he doesn't. Because he's not actually opposed to Israel.
You can't look at what the leaders of these countries say. You look at what they do. Turkey's population, for example, is extremely sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. Erdogan will even get up there and bang the drums about Israel's evils. But that's just to placate the populace. In reality, he's done absolutely nothing when he could fatally wound Israel if he so chose.
There are allegations Erdogan's family (his son, specifically) is still doing business with Israel. Israel and Turkey have largely cooperated with the collapse of Syria. Both regimes simply cannot exist without material support, arms specifically, from the US.
What could turkey do? Cut off Israel's energy imports. IIRC ~40% of Israel's energy comes from Azerbijan from a pipeline that transits Turkey. Erdogan could absolutely shut it off if he wanted to. That would absolutely cripple Israel.
But he doesn't. Because he's not actually opposed to Israel.
Domestic military production in Turkey is ramping up especially in air defence while currently building the "Steel Dome" obviously inspired by Israel's Iron Dome [0] and partially in response to Israel's military conquest. Israel funded the PKK in Syria to attack Turkish armed forces [1] though the PKK have recently dissolved.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/17/heres-a-look-at-tur... [1] https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/dark-and-dangerous-...
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/17/heres-a-look-at-tur... [1] https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/dark-and-dangerous-...
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?
[deleted]
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
If the West lets it happen, sure. Still seems like there is some amount of time to reverse course and stop handing the future to China if the West so desires.
But democracies these days can't help but tie themselves in knots, so not holding my breath.
But democracies these days can't help but tie themselves in knots, so not holding my breath.
It makes sense as the people that got rich doing that and the people that are going to get screwed are definitely not the same.
Chinese growth spurt is basically over already. Gone are the days when their economy grew by 10 per cent y/y, nowadays it is under 5. Still a respectable number, but the trend is going down.
Yours is an interesting conspiracy theory, though. Most people would say that this war is obviously about Israel.
Yours is an interesting conspiracy theory, though. Most people would say that this war is obviously about Israel.
I don't see how an answer that assumes hostility can be a helpful answer to why US to hostile. Would US also be equally hostile if France was surpassing US in all these ways?
Yes, they would. America is extremely insecure about not being number one and has a zero sum view of global politics.
Because China started threatening war. It's not really sudden. It's from Xi coming to power and saying he'll take Taiwan.
Because the U.S. wants global hegemony and time is against the U.S. so there is a rush to crush China sooner rather than later.
I agree it's not going to end here, but I disagree on the reason. China doesn't rely on oil that much anymore as they have leaned heavily into nuclear and solar; further, Iran only provides about 12%.
US is getting sucked into a 1300-year old Shia-Sunni conflict.
Personally, I don't understand why Iran had to meddle in Palestine. When Palestine's own neighbors don't give a rat's ass for the suffering of the Palestinians, who are these mullahs sitting 1000 mi away to get involved?
After the first Gulf War itself, Iranian rulers should have seen the light and stayed tf out of the US's way (and Israel might just be the 51st state, practically speaking). Just work on improving your economy, educating your kids, building up your infrastructure and turn Iran into one of the world's top economies.
But noooo...... those idiots had to get involved in Palestine: supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.... WHY? Just why?!?
Personally, I don't understand why Iran had to meddle in Palestine. When Palestine's own neighbors don't give a rat's ass for the suffering of the Palestinians, who are these mullahs sitting 1000 mi away to get involved?
After the first Gulf War itself, Iranian rulers should have seen the light and stayed tf out of the US's way (and Israel might just be the 51st state, practically speaking). Just work on improving your economy, educating your kids, building up your infrastructure and turn Iran into one of the world's top economies.
But noooo...... those idiots had to get involved in Palestine: supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.... WHY? Just why?!?
swesour(1)
Because they turned Israel into their Boogeyman the same way the US tries to turn countries like China into theirs or Russia treating Ukraine as their Boogeyman. North Korea treating the US as one.
Countries run by dictators need an external enemy to paint as the cause for problems.
Countries run by dictators need an external enemy to paint as the cause for problems.
They just want to annihilate the non-believers. If the Jews wouldn't have priority, they would probably bully the majority Sunni Palestinians themselves.
> Just work on improving your economy, educating your kids, building up your infrastructure
Who cares about all this secular nonsense. Killing Jews, that's what god wants you to do. Doesn't matter if you sacrifice a 100x your own muslim brothers in the process. They die as martyrs. That's an express ticket to paradise.
I think this makes a theocratic regime even more dangerous than a (more or less) secular autocrat like MBS. These guys ultimately want something that's not in this world. How can make a deal with that?
> Just work on improving your economy, educating your kids, building up your infrastructure
Who cares about all this secular nonsense. Killing Jews, that's what god wants you to do. Doesn't matter if you sacrifice a 100x your own muslim brothers in the process. They die as martyrs. That's an express ticket to paradise.
I think this makes a theocratic regime even more dangerous than a (more or less) secular autocrat like MBS. These guys ultimately want something that's not in this world. How can make a deal with that?
The religious absolutism you criticize is present in Israel's current leadership. Smotrich and Ben Gvir call Gaza reconquest and West Bank annexation a religious duty, claim that it's a redemption. Justifying tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and a war bill funded mostly by the US [1].
There is also hatred within the Israeli population against Arabs and Iranians in the region, and still that's no reason to justify continued aggression.
I'm seeing these no-nuance, dehumanizing, views everywhere on this thread, though I'm not sure why I expected better. Maybe because this "Iran big bad" rhetoric closely mirrors what happened during the Iraq war, and only helps justify further escalation.
[1] https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
There is also hatred within the Israeli population against Arabs and Iranians in the region, and still that's no reason to justify continued aggression.
I'm seeing these no-nuance, dehumanizing, views everywhere on this thread, though I'm not sure why I expected better. Maybe because this "Iran big bad" rhetoric closely mirrors what happened during the Iraq war, and only helps justify further escalation.
[1] https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
Bombing another country is literally a declaration of war. With explosions.
Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
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.
_We_ do special operations, interventions, liberations, preventive strikes, weapon destructions.
Also the enemy is always a guerrilla, terrorist, or a rebel and works for a regime, dictator, or king.
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.
Part of the reason why countries stopped declaring war is because the laws of war make it harder to do so, so it's easier to have a war without one. Also, declaring war on certain groups would entitle them to being treated as war combatants, and people don't want to extend that privilege to terrorists (al Qaeda, ISIS, etc)
The US, as rational thinking US citizens may have thought it to be, no longer exists.
In fact, it may never have actually existed.
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.
By the body of American legislative tradition, no this is not an act of war. In fact, we haven't declared one since WWII.
BartjeD(2)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t recall USA saying death to Mexico
So if we change the example to Canada, responding to threats of annexation, you'l engage on the point in substance?
I didn't know the US envisions throwing Mexicans and Canadians to the sea (at best)
Squint a bit harder and see if US toppled a democratically elected government in Mexico and installed a cruel dictator for oil? And shot down a civilian flight from Mexico? Maybe not.
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).
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).
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.
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.
> Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria ...
Interesting. Bombing Muslim-majority countries seems to be accepted exception?
Interesting. Bombing Muslim-majority countries seems to be accepted exception?
2001 seems like a long time ago, is that really the legal helmet here?
I don't know if the current administration has articulated a legal basis for the Iran strike. I was only pointing out that the earlier strikes mentioned did have (a gesture toward) congressional authorization.
Only a minor difference, but from what I know, those strikes were not against government targets?
That ship sailed decades ago, my friend.
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 War Powers Act of 1973 was approved literally to avoid it happening in the future.
> Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
Yes, but when only when you really need to go to a full wartime economy. Otherwise is just business as usual.
Yes, but when only when you really need to go to a full wartime economy. Otherwise is just business as usual.
A country like Iran doesn‘t need nuclear energy. It could be like Norway and produce all its energy from renewables/solar, sell its oil and get rich easily. Instead they threaten neighbors, support terrorism and suppress their own people. But if the Israeli/US bombs will convince them to become smarter I really don‘t know.
Somehow we have the same feelings about Pakistan as we do Iran for most things in geopolitics, but we let Pakistan have a nuclear program. You know, the nation literally harboring Bin Laden.
It's almost as if geopolitical environments evolve over time.
I don't think anyone today would feel any differently about preventing Pakistan from attaining nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately it's very difficult to take nukes away from a country.
I don't think anyone today would feel any differently about preventing Pakistan from attaining nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately it's very difficult to take nukes away from a country.
Pakistan / US relations are much, much less strained than Iran / US relations. I'd say Pakistan is more of an ally. Iran is clearly an adversary, its current government declaring the US an enemy and literally Satan.
I wonder what the economics of solar are like Iran. As I understand it, the cost for gasoline/benzine is something like 0.04 USD per liter because of state subsidies. It must be hard to justify investing in solar panels when burning dino juice is so inexpensive. I guess you could argue nuclear makes even less sense in that case.
They could sell the oil instead. Even theocracies like money a whole lot.
Given their general economic state and level of corruption, selling oil is likely to make things much, much worse. Just look at Venezuela.
Also selling oil will only work for a few more decades before people stop buying. It isn't sustainable anymore
Also selling oil will only work for a few more decades before people stop buying. It isn't sustainable anymore
Sell oil, use income to diversify the economy is a well worn strategy.
There were diplomatic treaties from Obama that worked, and that Trump cancelled in his last mandate. Doing things competently often allows one to get strictly better outcomes in life, and the current US regime is just horrible.
USA says Iran can't have nuclear weapons. Says China can't have modern silicon.
USA only has a limited amount of time left to dictate these things. We are playing with fire before the world order shifts. It is inevitable, and we would all be better off recognizing this and working towards a better future for all of humanity than trying to pretend like the USA is always going to be able to dictate who gets to do what.
USA only has a limited amount of time left to dictate these things. We are playing with fire before the world order shifts. It is inevitable, and we would all be better off recognizing this and working towards a better future for all of humanity than trying to pretend like the USA is always going to be able to dictate who gets to do what.
China, by all means, can have as modern silicon as they can produce themselves! And they are not bad at it, just not as good as TSMC.
Iran, OTOH, can't have the nuclear weapons they could produce themselves.
(BTW can your neighbor, who keeps saying that he's going to kill you, or maybe your friend, obtain a machine gun? Would you approve of that?)
Iran, OTOH, can't have the nuclear weapons they could produce themselves.
(BTW can your neighbor, who keeps saying that he's going to kill you, or maybe your friend, obtain a machine gun? Would you approve of that?)
> BTW can your neighbor, who keeps saying that he's going to kill you, or maybe your friend, obtain a machine gun?
Definitely. This is America. There is nothing I can do to stop them.
> Would you approve of that?
No, but I don’t really have much of a say in the matter, and that’s kind of the point. I just have to accept it and try to make peace with my neighbor.
Are you suggesting that if your neighbor threatens you that you should just go over and murder them first?
Definitely. This is America. There is nothing I can do to stop them.
> Would you approve of that?
No, but I don’t really have much of a say in the matter, and that’s kind of the point. I just have to accept it and try to make peace with my neighbor.
Are you suggesting that if your neighbor threatens you that you should just go over and murder them first?
> BTW can your neighbor, who keeps saying that he's going to kill you, or maybe your friend, obtain a machine gun?
Thy are currently doing to Palestinians what they are suggesting Iran would potentially do to them.
If they had a deterrent, Israel would think twice. But since this neighbour stole a machine gun, they can do what they want...
Thy are currently doing to Palestinians what they are suggesting Iran would potentially do to them.
If they had a deterrent, Israel would think twice. But since this neighbour stole a machine gun, they can do what they want...
The US is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. You don't get to do that, and still keep the moral high ground.
[deleted]
> 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 (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.
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.
The material cannot be destroyed.
However, uranium hexafluoride is very heavy and won't go far.
Also, it reverts into a solid at ≤ 56 °C.
Finally, it has a very long half life, meaning it is not super radioactive.
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.
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.
From a game-theoretical perspective, the key question is whether Iran was actually developing a bomb with the intention to use it, rather than adhering to the Cold War logic of deterrence. Most people seem to assume the latter, but the former was also a plausible possibility.
There's no game theory to question. Israel has second-strike capabilities, and even if they get completely glassed America would retaliate by cratering Tehran. Iran needs a nuclear weapon for the precisely same reason Israel's state demands them; it's a credible last-ditch deterrent against invading forces. A strategic weapon when the chessboard is scrambled.
Whether or not any of that is justified is another question, arguably long since expired. Strategic arms reduction is a two-way road, it requires transparency and genuine humility from both parties at the table. It's why Reagan could never secure his deal from Gorbachev, and it's why Trump won't reach a deal playing "mad gunman" with the B-2.
Whether or not any of that is justified is another question, arguably long since expired. Strategic arms reduction is a two-way road, it requires transparency and genuine humility from both parties at the table. It's why Reagan could never secure his deal from Gorbachev, and it's why Trump won't reach a deal playing "mad gunman" with the B-2.
Another bunch of smoking craters, another sovereign warning shot. Iran’s nuclear facilities go up in flames yet again, and the script rolls on—same actors, same lines.-
The elite nuclear club, forged in fire and sealed with hypocrisy, has made its position unmistakably clear: if you're not already in, you're never getting in. The path to national security does not run through treaties or IAEA inspections — it runs through enrichment, warheads, and the credible threat of annihilation. The lesson from history is as brutal as it is consistent: Those who gave up their deterrents — Saddam, Gaddafi, Ukraine — earned their place not at the table, but under the table.-
Non-proliferation, once wrapped in the language of peace and stability, now reads more like a cartel agreement. An exclusive arrangement to ensure the existing shareholders retain total dominance over the levers of this existential power. Meanwhile, aspiring states are lectured on restraint while having their infrastructure surgically removed via high explosives, or worse, sanctioned into collapse.-
It’s not deterrence anymore. It’s deterrence for some. The rest? They’re told to disarm and die quietly. Welcome to the age of managed apocalypse — where those with the bomb hold the moral high ground by sheer altitude, and everyone else is collateral in the performance of global order.-
The elite nuclear club, forged in fire and sealed with hypocrisy, has made its position unmistakably clear: if you're not already in, you're never getting in. The path to national security does not run through treaties or IAEA inspections — it runs through enrichment, warheads, and the credible threat of annihilation. The lesson from history is as brutal as it is consistent: Those who gave up their deterrents — Saddam, Gaddafi, Ukraine — earned their place not at the table, but under the table.-
Non-proliferation, once wrapped in the language of peace and stability, now reads more like a cartel agreement. An exclusive arrangement to ensure the existing shareholders retain total dominance over the levers of this existential power. Meanwhile, aspiring states are lectured on restraint while having their infrastructure surgically removed via high explosives, or worse, sanctioned into collapse.-
It’s not deterrence anymore. It’s deterrence for some. The rest? They’re told to disarm and die quietly. Welcome to the age of managed apocalypse — where those with the bomb hold the moral high ground by sheer altitude, and everyone else is collateral in the performance of global order.-
I am confused.
Iran knew USA would come along one day, and they knew the max capability of the bombs they would drop.
So why did they not go a lot deeper/reinforce to a level where the b52 payloads cannot reach.
Iran knew USA would come along one day, and they knew the max capability of the bombs they would drop.
So why did they not go a lot deeper/reinforce to a level where the b52 payloads cannot reach.
How do we know they didn’t? I’d be surprised if this is actually one and done.
Trump tweeted it, must be definitely true!
pretty basic - they know they have no chance of hiding from the US. so they go plausibly in reach but outside of being casually bombed by missiles from israel.
the moment they go deep US will go after them hard.
The GBU-57A started service in 2011. Fordow was completed in 2006, Natanz somewhere before 2002, so there's a good chance they did not know that kind of bomb would be available.
While they could've said "let's just assume there will be something X times stronger than anything known", it would also have increase the price to build these facilities by a factor of X+Y.
I'm no expert, but I imagine once you have your centrifuges up and running, you don't want to continue setting of blasts nearby to add another sub-level to your plant.
While they could've said "let's just assume there will be something X times stronger than anything known", it would also have increase the price to build these facilities by a factor of X+Y.
I'm no expert, but I imagine once you have your centrifuges up and running, you don't want to continue setting of blasts nearby to add another sub-level to your plant.
These bombs were basically made to target these specific facilities.
It's very possible that Iran moved the important stuff off-site before the attacks.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441734/satellites-show...
> "The program has been seriously set back, but there's a lot of odds and ends," Albright says. Ultimately he thinks the only way to truly end Iran's nuclear program is through additional nuclear inspections by international monitors and cooperation from the Iranian regime, probably through some kind of diplomatic agreement.
Weird, kinda like what we had with the Iran Nuclear Deal that our president pulled us out of.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441734/satellites-show...
> "The program has been seriously set back, but there's a lot of odds and ends," Albright says. Ultimately he thinks the only way to truly end Iran's nuclear program is through additional nuclear inspections by international monitors and cooperation from the Iranian regime, probably through some kind of diplomatic agreement.
Weird, kinda like what we had with the Iran Nuclear Deal that our president pulled us out of.
Which nuclear sites?
https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/1936650574939685121
https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/1936650574939685121
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.
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.
My knowledge in these matters is limited, but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? At least, it can't produce the classical chain reaction, as there's not enough U235 to sustain it, I think.
> but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it?
Right now? Not that we know of.
Historically? Yes.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...
Right now? Not that we know of.
Historically? Yes.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...
2B years ago, the U235/U238 ratios were different. Isn't that (part of) the explanation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto... says:
> A key factor that made the reaction possible was that [back then] the fissile isotope ²³⁵U made up about 3.1% of the natural uranium, which is comparable to the amount used in some of today's reactors.
> A key factor that made the reaction possible was that [back then] the fissile isotope ²³⁵U made up about 3.1% of the natural uranium, which is comparable to the amount used in some of today's reactors.
> Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
So if russia do not want it as part of their country, and if it was not that level of radioactive, that would justify such attack ?
So, attacking a nuclear facility is valid if they are not that radioactive (since you are attacking you are not planning to use it anyway)
Did I get your answer correctly ?
So, attacking a nuclear facility is valid if they are not that radioactive (since you are attacking you are not planning to use it anyway)
Did I get your answer correctly ?
> nuclear facility in ukraine
Above-ground facilities containing highly radioactive actinide products, supplying power to nearby civilization, cooled using nearby waterways
> us can in iran
Deep underground enrichment facilities containing weakly radioactive uranium, hours away from population centers
Above-ground facilities containing highly radioactive actinide products, supplying power to nearby civilization, cooled using nearby waterways
> us can in iran
Deep underground enrichment facilities containing weakly radioactive uranium, hours away from population centers
Ukraine has not been saying death to Russia for 40 years straight.
Ukraine did not sponsor terrorism in Russia and other countries.
Ukraine does not install and arm suppletive militia in other countries.
Ukraine does not physically eliminate opposition at home and abroad.
Ukraine does not hang homosexuals.
Ukraine does not have a supreme leader for life.
Etc.
https://www.uaportal.com/ukr/section-mixed/news-moskalej-na-...
And it's quite amusing what you just confirmed with your own words what Russia isn't a genocidal fanatical society hellbent on eradicating everything they don't like.
And it's quite amusing what you just confirmed with your own words what Russia isn't a genocidal fanatical society hellbent on eradicating everything they don't like.
When iraq attacked iran, the major funding came from us, about 5b dollar. Not to mention, all of these years iran has been sanctioned, and showed as a terror regime. İt is not like; us was doing nothing and iran was saying death to us out of nowhere…
So us has been funding the death of iran 40 years ago, and iran has no right to say anything about it? This is far more than supporting terrorism. This is supporting your neighboring country to attack you.
Rest of your arguments are irrelavant. Biggest ally of us is saudis, and they are doing pretty much everything iran does, in a highly totaliter regime. They kill opponent, hang homosexuals, have a supreme regime, yet us loves them.
I am just saying, there is bit of an inconsistency here.
So us has been funding the death of iran 40 years ago, and iran has no right to say anything about it? This is far more than supporting terrorism. This is supporting your neighboring country to attack you.
Rest of your arguments are irrelavant. Biggest ally of us is saudis, and they are doing pretty much everything iran does, in a highly totaliter regime. They kill opponent, hang homosexuals, have a supreme regime, yet us loves them.
I am just saying, there is bit of an inconsistency here.
Where did I say KSA is all nice and dandy?
This argument basically boils down to "because I think they're bad" as being the differentiating factor. That's not a strong argument when every country has a rap sheet of horrible things they've done. Half the damn world has a legitimate moral claim to nuke the US into dust based on what we've done/continue to do
to them.
Trying to moralize actions that are simply in the strategic interest of the US and our allies will lead you nowhere. Ukraine could have a king and stoned the gays and we still would have backed them against Russia.
Trying to moralize actions that are simply in the strategic interest of the US and our allies will lead you nowhere. Ukraine could have a king and stoned the gays and we still would have backed them against Russia.
No morals here. (save for the hanging homosexual parts and supreme leader for life parts).
The thing is, they can do whatever they want in their own countries. Different cultures and traditions.
Iran installed Hezbollah in Lebanon, Russia foments coups in Africa…and yes, KSA, Qatar have sponsored terrorism.
Did Ukraine do such things to Russia?
US has intervened at times but it is a democracy, administrations come and go. They shook off McCarthyism. To my knowledge, the US has not expressed the will to wipe off a population.
Did Ukraine do such things to Russia?
US has intervened at times but it is a democracy, administrations come and go. They shook off McCarthyism. To my knowledge, the US has not expressed the will to wipe off a population.
All those "nice guys" vouching for negotiations — you have absolutely no idea who are we dealing with here.
Only street laws and rules apply to them. They see negotiations as weakness, nothing more. History proved many times - you don't negotiate with tyrans and bloody dictators. Period.
If you have enough brain to crack leetcode puzzles, why can't you nail that?
Only street laws and rules apply to them. They see negotiations as weakness, nothing more. History proved many times - you don't negotiate with tyrans and bloody dictators. Period.
If you have enough brain to crack leetcode puzzles, why can't you nail that?
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...
https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2025/05/25/3320800/freigh...
[deleted]
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.
> 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)
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)
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.
Possibly trivial additional point is that the oil traded between Iran and China using Chinese currency, not the US dollar.
It’s sad to see how Europe leaders are reacting to this and further show how Europe is a vassal state to the US in all but name.
Europe is going to have to pick up the tab for the inevitable refugee and migrant crisis that will result from a wider war in the region - which they won’t be able to afford thanks to Trumps 5% military spending demand.
Imagine what it means for Europe if a fraction of 90 million people (5 times larger than Syria) suddenly find themselves in a situation that would necessitate fleeing for survival.
Europe is going to have to pick up the tab for the inevitable refugee and migrant crisis that will result from a wider war in the region - which they won’t be able to afford thanks to Trumps 5% military spending demand.
Imagine what it means for Europe if a fraction of 90 million people (5 times larger than Syria) suddenly find themselves in a situation that would necessitate fleeing for survival.
How are Europe's leaders reacting to this? I'm not sure the rest of the world can do much except watch.
During the period when Israel was rapidly achieving air superiority I was reflecting on the hypothetical- “What if Iran already had a small number - 1 or 2 - poorly tested weapons. When would they decide to use them? Would the Ayatollah order them to destroy Tel Aviv in revenge for killing him?”
And now, assuming this sets their program back 10-20 years, what will the answer to that question be?
Has anyone seen any analysis on this? It feels like maybe the nuke might be less of a deterrent than threatening to acquire one because using it would put you in a MAD situation where your ballistic missle might malfunction???
And now, assuming this sets their program back 10-20 years, what will the answer to that question be?
Has anyone seen any analysis on this? It feels like maybe the nuke might be less of a deterrent than threatening to acquire one because using it would put you in a MAD situation where your ballistic missle might malfunction???
[deleted]
This is the "Why don't you use diplomacy?" administration, right? So why didn't the great negotiator use diplomacy?
No one in their right mind wants the Supreme Leader armed with nukes… but there are many ways to prevent this outcome.
I first read this as referring to Trump but I can't quite place the rest of the comment. Do you mean whoever is in charge of Iran or is it a way of saying both/either?
Supreme Leader (officially Supreme Leadership Authority) is the head of state of Iran, combining both political and religious ultimate power, appointed for life.
It is the official title for the head of state in Iran.
Would it change much if Iran had nukes?
Israel has nukes too so as soon Iran bombs Israel they strike back, not to mention the US reaction.
MAD would lead to a stalemate
Israel has nukes too so as soon Iran bombs Israel they strike back, not to mention the US reaction.
MAD would lead to a stalemate
Iran believes in martyrdom, which absolutely changes the reasoning. They would destroy Israel in a heartbeat even if it meant losing 90% of their population.
> Iran believes in martyrdom
Don't confuse religious rhetoric with actual state behavior.
In Iran’s case the highest religious authority has repeatedly issued a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons forbidden.
Pakistan’s army motto invokes jihad, yet it has treated its arsenal as a shield against invasion so far, not a ticket to paradise.
Israel’s so-called Samson Option evokes a biblical suicide attack, but I doubt they'll use nukes for anything but deterrent.
North Korean propaganda urges citizens to die for the Leader, and I'm sure there are other nations I've not listed who's dominant religions have some sort of martyrdom idea, which use nukes as deterrents.
Look at political interests, command structures, and the costs of escalation, not whether a nation honors death in battle (which one doesn't?)
Don't confuse religious rhetoric with actual state behavior.
In Iran’s case the highest religious authority has repeatedly issued a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons forbidden.
Pakistan’s army motto invokes jihad, yet it has treated its arsenal as a shield against invasion so far, not a ticket to paradise.
Israel’s so-called Samson Option evokes a biblical suicide attack, but I doubt they'll use nukes for anything but deterrent.
North Korean propaganda urges citizens to die for the Leader, and I'm sure there are other nations I've not listed who's dominant religions have some sort of martyrdom idea, which use nukes as deterrents.
Look at political interests, command structures, and the costs of escalation, not whether a nation honors death in battle (which one doesn't?)
Not sure how that plays out with international law. It started to feel more like guidelines and less of rules. I get that it has always been the case, but this feels like the final straw.
[deleted]
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 think this one is less of a Trump flip-flop in particular. It seems that US presidents just can’t defy these things, even when their whole point is being an outsider. The pressures and propaganda a president is subject to must hit substantially different. Or, if you will, the realities they have to face. Obama ran on closing Gitmo and even that he couldn’t do in two terms (which seems especially absurd in light of Trump’s evident power to just make things happen unilaterally). I’m no Trump supporter but I do still think he was in a unique position to ignore this sort of stuff. Pity it wasn’t enough.
Bodes well this does not.
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.
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.
> 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.
He’s a career con artist, that’s what’s going on.
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.
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.
Sides are a distraction.
Violence and conflict creators and propagators are bad.
Violence and conflict creators and propagators are bad.
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.
> 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.
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.
One thing about this situation is that makes me reassess my impression of "deep state / military industrial complex".
Both Trump and Tulsi Gabbard (pre election) was running a "no war" platform with heavy connotation of "deep state" and wars only serving special interests (including Israel). My impression was that this outsider aspect really bought many libertarian and non-hawk republicans vote.
Hell, Gabbard was even branded Russian parrot after trying to talk to Assad, running as an independent after that. She even disagreed about this strike not even 3 months ago, 1 month ago and few days ago, with Trump.
But now they support it. They all just lied during election is the most probable reason but at least Gabbard have been saying same thing since 2016 election, 8 years, and all it took was Israel striking to go "aight let's go".
Is there just some information available to high official positions that makes you turn 180 on your opinion as soon as you get access to it, or what.
Both Trump and Tulsi Gabbard (pre election) was running a "no war" platform with heavy connotation of "deep state" and wars only serving special interests (including Israel). My impression was that this outsider aspect really bought many libertarian and non-hawk republicans vote.
Hell, Gabbard was even branded Russian parrot after trying to talk to Assad, running as an independent after that. She even disagreed about this strike not even 3 months ago, 1 month ago and few days ago, with Trump.
But now they support it. They all just lied during election is the most probable reason but at least Gabbard have been saying same thing since 2016 election, 8 years, and all it took was Israel striking to go "aight let's go".
Is there just some information available to high official positions that makes you turn 180 on your opinion as soon as you get access to it, or what.
Seemingly a public facing opinion is not some deeply held belief for your platform, but simply a means to an end (IE votes from libertarians). Actual short term and long term objectives mean making decisions that go against your publicly stated stances - a political risk that could alienate your base, but clearly not impacted by the fact that you’ve claimed the opposite for many years.
Voter polls?
US foreign policy is uniparty: anti-war candidates enter office, face pre-existing security briefs, donors, contracts, and pro-Israel politics, and align with the existing consensus.
Much of the money fueling election campaigns flows from entrenched defense contractors, lobbyists, and think tanks. That momentum has more predictive power than what the current "Commander-in-chief" claims they'll do.
Campaign rhetoric may change, but policy is harder, and this is another reason to believe that US democracy is a veneer.
Much of the money fueling election campaigns flows from entrenched defense contractors, lobbyists, and think tanks. That momentum has more predictive power than what the current "Commander-in-chief" claims they'll do.
Campaign rhetoric may change, but policy is harder, and this is another reason to believe that US democracy is a veneer.
Deep state: Mr dump, we do wars to get access to more oil, not to cut off what we already have access to you dorky orangutan
Dump: I hired the greatest WOMAN that has ever lived to dismantle you deep state losers on day 1
Deep state: Sir, it is day 200
Dump: buy my son's phone, you can buy $TRUMP coin directly from us, any time of the day or night
Dump: I hired the greatest WOMAN that has ever lived to dismantle you deep state losers on day 1
Deep state: Sir, it is day 200
Dump: buy my son's phone, you can buy $TRUMP coin directly from us, any time of the day or night
You know how the english Queen isn't really holding power? She smiles and nods and gets to live a good life.
[deleted]
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.
- 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.
deadbabe(1)
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
Allow Gaza to happen? You mean Biden approved of Oct 7?
No the "self defence" that happened in response to that. 1000s of tonnes of bombs shipped to kill civilians and enact genocide.
Self defense? Afaik it was a war that now is a genocidal war.
Air quotes because that's how Israel propogandizes it.
He means the genocide and forced starvation of over a hundred thousand innocent Palestinians
Biden was not in office when the war went from some genuine cause to full blown they can do whatever they want.
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.
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.
Israel ran out of bombs. Biden sent them more so the destruction and killing could continue.
Just one phone call from Biden saying STOP would have halted everything, but Biden is a self-admitted Zionist who never really wanted to stop things.
Just one phone call from Biden saying STOP would have halted everything, but Biden is a self-admitted Zionist who never really wanted to stop things.
Did we live through the same Biden presidency?
“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.
> “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.
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 Israel, when America had no enemies in the mideast. Thanks for confirming.
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...
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v07/d5...
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v07/d4...
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.
1) Libya is not in the middle east.
2) This was before our war with Canada and just after our Quasi-war with France.
2) This was before our war with Canada and just after our Quasi-war with France.
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.
Libya is nowhere near the Middle East. It's not even the Near East. It's in northern Africa.
Before Israel, the middle east was controlled by Great Britain
Yeah but only on a temporary basis as they had to promise independence to the Arab tribes for their support against the Ottomans. Which brings us to the land of Palestine, which they actually promised exclusive dominion over to both the Jews and the Arabs. And that brings us full circle to the true shittiest ally America has in the middle east, "Great" Britain
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.
greenavocado(1)
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.
if you think it's one-sided you're either severely misinformed or bigoted.
Obviously I must be an anti-Semite if I don’t 150% support the politics of Israel and their brutality in the West Bank.
In reality though, I have completed 5 CENTCOM US military deployments. There are few people on HN more qualified to speak to the nature of US alliances in the region.
In reality though, I have completed 5 CENTCOM US military deployments. There are few people on HN more qualified to speak to the nature of US alliances in the region.
Israel is a terrorist state. I don't know how else you can call it. They have a state policy of terrorizing their neighbors in order to get them to leave their land and have for decades. The fact that they also help spy on our citizens for our government should not be a reason to support them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess that's better than "axis of evil".
Looking forward to the strait of Hormuz shutting down...
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.
China is the only country that can help Iran.
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).
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.
fastball(1)
Not really. In much of the middle east, Iran is detested and considered an immediate enemy.
That's not true at all.
> 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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Is it really about the treaties. Like US is a world cop and good guy that honours all treaties?
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?
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?
> "Western liberals" aren't stupid or naive, they're just seeking a peaceful solution if possible.
They're not stupid, but they are naive. Look at UN Resolution 1701. Hezbollah agreed to disarm. Then, they just ... didn't.
Predictably, there was no self-reflection among the people that believe in the primacy of diplomacy. This chain of events may as well have not even happened in their minds.
Then when Hezbollah attacks Israel, the same people call for more diplomacy, instead of telling Israel to just win the war against the group that has proven to be unwilling to adhere to agreements.
Then when Israel won the war, finally there was a reconstitution of the Lebanese sovereignty over South Lebanon, which would not have occurred under any diplomatic solution. But predictably, still no self-reflection from any of the people that tried to pursue diplomacy.
I also disagree they want peace. They want "peace", meaning appeasement and kicking the can down the road, and meaning they don't have to be bothered hearing about this stressful news cycle anymore.
They're not stupid, but they are naive. Look at UN Resolution 1701. Hezbollah agreed to disarm. Then, they just ... didn't.
Predictably, there was no self-reflection among the people that believe in the primacy of diplomacy. This chain of events may as well have not even happened in their minds.
Then when Hezbollah attacks Israel, the same people call for more diplomacy, instead of telling Israel to just win the war against the group that has proven to be unwilling to adhere to agreements.
Then when Israel won the war, finally there was a reconstitution of the Lebanese sovereignty over South Lebanon, which would not have occurred under any diplomatic solution. But predictably, still no self-reflection from any of the people that tried to pursue diplomacy.
I also disagree they want peace. They want "peace", meaning appeasement and kicking the can down the road, and meaning they don't have to be bothered hearing about this stressful news cycle anymore.
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...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/trump-iran-i...
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
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
What is surreal about Trump being in the Situation Room?
As photojournalism, the image is brilliant. Though not entirely candid, that subtext contributes.
You didn't answer the question.
I'm not going to bother, when already-triggered people are downvoting this thread so hard.
The use of a crisis for a photo-op, for one. He's wearing a fucking MAGA hat!
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"
I see a lot of nonsense in the comments.
Here are the facts:
1. Iran may or may not have been building a nuclear weapon. US intelligence says they were at least 3 years away.
2. Iran did not attack Israel. Israel attacked Iran.
3. Iran did not attack the US. The US bombed Iran only because Israel asked the US to do so.
Here are the facts:
1. Iran may or may not have been building a nuclear weapon. US intelligence says they were at least 3 years away.
2. Iran did not attack Israel. Israel attacked Iran.
3. Iran did not attack the US. The US bombed Iran only because Israel asked the US to do so.
Has everyone forgotten the music festival massacre?
Not Iran related and not US related.
Ah, it happened in a vacuum -- got it.
That is what all the intelligence says. I am unclear what you are hinting at.
Hamas was installed, backed and supplied by Iran.
Please stop making shit up. Hamas was voted into power.
Iran had nothing to do with the Oct7 attack on Israeli civilians. They were not part of the planning, had no prior knowledge of it, and supplied no material support for it.
Actually, let’s take this to the next level. Iran did provide financial support to Hamas. So, did Israel.
* https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
* https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/qatar-sent-millions-to-...
* https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-security-forces-escor...
Iran had nothing to do with the Oct7 attack on Israeli civilians. They were not part of the planning, had no prior knowledge of it, and supplied no material support for it.
Actually, let’s take this to the next level. Iran did provide financial support to Hamas. So, did Israel.
* https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
* https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/qatar-sent-millions-to-...
* https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-security-forces-escor...
No one can possible forget, given that we're reminded daily of it, you know, by the ongoing genocide.
Ukraine should learn. This how you do it. Bribe enough US Senators and the US will do anything for you. Even put US military lives in danger.
> Iran did not attack Israel. Israel attacked Iran.
Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah are supported by Iran.
Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah are supported by Iran.
This is a stupid argument. It’s chaos theory. Iran receives support from Russia and China. Did Russia and China attack Israel? No, they didn’t and neither did Iran.
Most of the weapons used by Mexican drug cartels come directly from the US. That does not mean the US supports the actions of the drug cartels.
Most of the weapons used by Mexican drug cartels come directly from the US. That does not mean the US supports the actions of the drug cartels.
Indeed the US does not support the drug cartels, Iran does support Hezbollah. They are different. Wikipedia:
> Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto outlined its key objectives, which include expelling Western influence from the region, destroying Israel, pledging allegiance to Iran's supreme leader...
> Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto outlined its key objectives, which include expelling Western influence from the region, destroying Israel, pledging allegiance to Iran's supreme leader...
What does that have to do with Israel bombing Iran right now? I just see people performing absurd mental gymnastics to invent unfounded qualifications for going to war.
Iran has declared it wants Israel destroyed, attacked it via it's proxies and been working on making weapons grade uranium. Israel not wanting to be destroyed or nuked has arranged to attack Iran's nuke facilities. Is it that complicated?
Yes, it is complicated. Israel says the same things and now its primary proxy just bombed Iran. Iran did not initiate these attacks. Israel did. Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is years away from having them, but Israel has them.
When you peel back the baseless rhetoric this issue is completely one sided.
When you peel back the baseless rhetoric this issue is completely one sided.
> This is a stupid argument
Every time I try to talk to someone online and they start with "you are/your arguments are stupid", that says more about the person saying it than anything else. I won't continue.
Every time I try to talk to someone online and they start with "you are/your arguments are stupid", that says more about the person saying it than anything else. I won't continue.
Yes, when I see ignorant people string together hyperbolic word salad far deviated from any fact I get to call it stupid, especially when that stupidity likely qualifies sending me to an unnecessary war while they hide behind their computer, like cowards, getting their news from TikTok.
Relax.
Lol
Re 2: Iran previously launched drones and missiles at Israel about a year ago. See https://apnews.com/article/strait-of-hormuz-vessel-33fcffde2...
That was in response to an Israeli attack on Iran. If you really want to dig that up then it’s twice now in the recent term that Israel attacked Iran without provocation.
[deleted]
Why can't the Iran just buy a nuke from Russia?
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.
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.
[deleted]
The endless irony that the only country that has actually dropped nukes on civilian populations gets to decide whether other countries can have them.
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.
This will be one of the single-most proliferation-inducing events in history, maybe save Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
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.
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!
This is the kind of high information commenters we have on HN when it comes to non CS related issues
North Korea has nukes, which has seriously changed the calculus in the region. Worse is that they are a vassal state of China.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Ayatollah wasn't killed, but Gaddafi and Hussein were, while the Kim family is still fine.
So from a regime leader point of view, it's better to have a nuclear weapon than not have it. For a member of the population it's probably a good idea to stay away from it.
So from a regime leader point of view, it's better to have a nuclear weapon than not have it. For a member of the population it's probably a good idea to stay away from it.
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
deterrence works. we should admit it
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.
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.
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.
Russia and China can’t project power either. Only few countries can and the US is the best at it.
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
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.
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.
selivanovp(1)
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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 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.
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.
9 countries exist. So much for self-determination.
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 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.
That would be fine too. The Soviets stealing our nuclear information was the biggest pro-peace act of the 20th century.
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??
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
* the Swiss nuclear weapons programme ran for over four decades during the Cold War
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.
As Iranians, we are exhausted and frustrated with the Islamic regime in Iran, which has proven to be more destructive than any weapon. Despite numerous attempts to peacefully change the regime, each effort has been met with brutal violence, mass killings of civilians, and imprisonment of anyone who dares to oppose them. Over time, we’ve realized that protests alone cannot overthrow this regime; it requires a force stronger than them to bring about change. Now, after 45 years, Israel’s strikes on the regime’s key figures and military installations have given us a glimmer of hope. When my non-Iranian friends ask how I feel, I tell them I’m overjoyed—this is something we’ve dreamed of for decades. War is not ideal, but in a far-from-perfect world, it can sometimes prevent greater harm. This conflict is doing just that by challenging a regime that promotes a toxic ideology, one that disregards human life and thrives on death and destruction to achieve its goals.
While many Iranians feel hopeful that this could pave the way for real change, it’s disheartening to see left-leaning activists worldwide aligning with apologists for the mullahs’ regime, chanting “Stop the war.” This is deeply troubling. Where were they during the past 45 years when the regime slaughtered thousands, forced countless people into exile, oppressed women and minorities, executed LGBTQ individuals, and held Western travelers hostage to extort foreign governments?
To those who believe they’re doing good by opposing this war, you are, at best, a useful idiot supporting the mullahs’ regime. You cannot fathom the consequences if this conflict ends without decisively weakening them—Iran’s people would face an even darker era.
I’m not here to glorify Netanyahu or Trump, but their actions have achieved something we’ve long hoped for. My hope is that this leads to the complete dismantling of the regime and its proxies.
I was thinking this could actually be a moment of hope for the world with Iran and Russia both wobbly it could be the fall of a good chunk of the world's murderous dictatorships.
As another Iranian, I don't think you would have taken this stance and supporting the actions of Israel and United States if you knew the history and the aftermath of IRAN-IRAQ war.
I'm fairly against this and most of my friends where I live think I’m with the Mullahs. It’s not a questions of who’s bad or good. It all comes down to the fact that a foreign government and military attacked our LAND.
History repeats itself and shows patterns. Look at the patterns. Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many then thought USA will bring democracy and freedom and economic benefits and relief. But what ended up happening is hundreds of thousands of innocents died, millions were displaced, and all the infrastructure was bombed and those countries were set back 50 years. And all western oil companies took over the oil fields of that country.
Netanyahu and the Zionists have been saying Iran is a couple months away from a nuclear weapon for 25 years now. All lies. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. While Israel illegally has nuclear weapons themselves and don’t disclose their nuclear program or allow inspections. Iran signed the non proliferation treaty and Israel to this day has not signed it. Even all western experts and analysts say they Iran does not have nuclear weapons or a plan to build one. Tulsi Gabbard, the US national security advisor said a couple months ago that Iran has no nuclear weapons or plans to make a weapon.
They attacked us first and when Iran retaliates they say Israel has a right to defend itself. It’s hypocrisy in broad daylight.
Using the nuclear enrichment and weapons is a decoy and a false premise. Netanyahu has wanted to topple Iran and invade since 2000. There’s videos of him saying it in congress. He specifically named Iraq, Syria, Lybia and Iran. They got 3 out of the 4 and now they wanna come for Iran.
You’d be naive and blind to think Israeli army or Americans won’t target civilians. They would bomb all universities, airports, bridges, railroads, ports, electric and oil fields and anything they want. Look at what they did in Iraq, Syria, Lybia and gaza. What makes you think they won’t do the same in Iran?
On top of all that the scary thing is Iran has a lot of enemies in the region. Many countries want to see Iran fall. And Iran unfortunately has a lot of separatist traitors. This would create a power vacuum and civil war and anarchy. If we want revolution it must be for the people and by the people, not outside intervention. If you have issues with your family and hate them, you wouldn’t side with your family’s enemy, even though you might hate them…
We’re the nation of Cyrus the great, Darius, Xerxes, Nader shah, Reza shah, Ferdowsi….Where is your pride and honor? We’re 90 million strong and 75 times larger than Israel. Our ancestors would turn in their grave if they saw the Iranians that side with enemy and are so naive to think they want the best for us. Why would they spend billion of dollars and fight for me and you? Thinkkkk
If you’re asking why Iran won’t negotiate. Iran was negotiating. Negotiations don’t take just one day. Even during the nuclear deal in 2015 signed with Obama administration it took them 3-4 years. A deal which the US ripped apart and left under Trumps first term.
A 6th session of negotiations was set for Sunday June 15th, but Israel attacked Iran on June 12. Sabotaging any negotiations and they killed all out top nuclear scientists and chief negotiators. What does that signal? They don’t want negotiation it was all lies all along. Even Trump was saying negotiations was going well a couple days before June 15th and suddenly they attacked. They cannot be trusted.
We have no one but ourselves. All these western democracies that scream and champion for human rights and freedom are silent and won’t help us. They don’t care about us. Believe me they don’t. They sell weapons to Israel and they sold weapons to Iraq in 1980s. The same countries that coward and traitor Iranians side with are the ones selling weapons to Israel. Our beloved brothers and sisters are dying and getting wounded with the weapons these champions of democracy and human rights (USA, Germany, France, UK….) give Israel. They’re all hypocrites. They will set us back 50 years or more by targeting highways, airports, universities and hospitals and all infrastructure. They turned a blind eye when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and helped Iraq and they’re doing the same with Israel’s invasion. They never wanted to see a strong Iran through history. They ousted the Shah and left him too.
Even Reza Shah or his son would not bow down to this or surrender to any foreign government. Have some pride and honor and remember your 3000 year old history and culture. They’d wipe away our nationality and history.
Those who side with and help the enemy of our motherland and nation just because they’re against the current government would sell their soul, family and own countrymen too. They have no soul, honor or integrity.
I'm fairly against this and most of my friends where I live think I’m with the Mullahs. It’s not a questions of who’s bad or good. It all comes down to the fact that a foreign government and military attacked our LAND.
History repeats itself and shows patterns. Look at the patterns. Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many then thought USA will bring democracy and freedom and economic benefits and relief. But what ended up happening is hundreds of thousands of innocents died, millions were displaced, and all the infrastructure was bombed and those countries were set back 50 years. And all western oil companies took over the oil fields of that country.
Netanyahu and the Zionists have been saying Iran is a couple months away from a nuclear weapon for 25 years now. All lies. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. While Israel illegally has nuclear weapons themselves and don’t disclose their nuclear program or allow inspections. Iran signed the non proliferation treaty and Israel to this day has not signed it. Even all western experts and analysts say they Iran does not have nuclear weapons or a plan to build one. Tulsi Gabbard, the US national security advisor said a couple months ago that Iran has no nuclear weapons or plans to make a weapon.
They attacked us first and when Iran retaliates they say Israel has a right to defend itself. It’s hypocrisy in broad daylight.
Using the nuclear enrichment and weapons is a decoy and a false premise. Netanyahu has wanted to topple Iran and invade since 2000. There’s videos of him saying it in congress. He specifically named Iraq, Syria, Lybia and Iran. They got 3 out of the 4 and now they wanna come for Iran.
You’d be naive and blind to think Israeli army or Americans won’t target civilians. They would bomb all universities, airports, bridges, railroads, ports, electric and oil fields and anything they want. Look at what they did in Iraq, Syria, Lybia and gaza. What makes you think they won’t do the same in Iran?
On top of all that the scary thing is Iran has a lot of enemies in the region. Many countries want to see Iran fall. And Iran unfortunately has a lot of separatist traitors. This would create a power vacuum and civil war and anarchy. If we want revolution it must be for the people and by the people, not outside intervention. If you have issues with your family and hate them, you wouldn’t side with your family’s enemy, even though you might hate them…
We’re the nation of Cyrus the great, Darius, Xerxes, Nader shah, Reza shah, Ferdowsi….Where is your pride and honor? We’re 90 million strong and 75 times larger than Israel. Our ancestors would turn in their grave if they saw the Iranians that side with enemy and are so naive to think they want the best for us. Why would they spend billion of dollars and fight for me and you? Thinkkkk
If you’re asking why Iran won’t negotiate. Iran was negotiating. Negotiations don’t take just one day. Even during the nuclear deal in 2015 signed with Obama administration it took them 3-4 years. A deal which the US ripped apart and left under Trumps first term.
A 6th session of negotiations was set for Sunday June 15th, but Israel attacked Iran on June 12. Sabotaging any negotiations and they killed all out top nuclear scientists and chief negotiators. What does that signal? They don’t want negotiation it was all lies all along. Even Trump was saying negotiations was going well a couple days before June 15th and suddenly they attacked. They cannot be trusted.
We have no one but ourselves. All these western democracies that scream and champion for human rights and freedom are silent and won’t help us. They don’t care about us. Believe me they don’t. They sell weapons to Israel and they sold weapons to Iraq in 1980s. The same countries that coward and traitor Iranians side with are the ones selling weapons to Israel. Our beloved brothers and sisters are dying and getting wounded with the weapons these champions of democracy and human rights (USA, Germany, France, UK….) give Israel. They’re all hypocrites. They will set us back 50 years or more by targeting highways, airports, universities and hospitals and all infrastructure. They turned a blind eye when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and helped Iraq and they’re doing the same with Israel’s invasion. They never wanted to see a strong Iran through history. They ousted the Shah and left him too.
Even Reza Shah or his son would not bow down to this or surrender to any foreign government. Have some pride and honor and remember your 3000 year old history and culture. They’d wipe away our nationality and history.
Those who side with and help the enemy of our motherland and nation just because they’re against the current government would sell their soul, family and own countrymen too. They have no soul, honor or integrity.
Israel is not interested in an invasion of Iran. What would be the benefit?
They are seeking security from the Iran government that has a record of supporting terrorism and calling for their death.
Now a if a regime change is in the cards, it is in the hands of the Iranian people.
Now a if a regime change is in the cards, it is in the hands of the Iranian people.
Beautifully said and my sentiments exactly. It's not nice to see even Iranians (assuming the very GPT-esque parent comment is actually from an Iranian) fall for Netanyahu's incredibly hollow and cringe "sympathy" for the Iranian people. zorobo replied to your comment saying that Israel doesn't want to invade Iran, but this is not true in an absolute sense. Israel doesn't work like that (outside of their borders, anyway). They are subversive[0] and want to invade the minds and culture of the Iranian people, just like they have subverted people elsewhere.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/09/12/Netanyahu-US-should-...
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/09/12/Netanyahu-US-should-...
You think I’m not Iranian because I used GPT? That’s just stupid. My English isn’t perfect—I’m Iranian, and like many of us, I use tools like GPT to help write clearly. Doubting my nationality over that is brain-dead logic. It’s 2025, and using GPT is normal for non-native speakers. Your weak attempt to shame me shows you’ve got no real point.
As for your claim about Israel “invading minds and culture,” that’s just wild conspiracy nonsense. Israel’s strikes hit the regime’s military, not our culture. You’re dodging the real issue: the mullahs’ 45 years of killing, oppressing, and ruining lives. Where’s your outrage for that? Instead, you’re twisting things to sound clever. Try focusing on the actual problem—the regime—before throwing shade at me for hoping they fall.
As for your claim about Israel “invading minds and culture,” that’s just wild conspiracy nonsense. Israel’s strikes hit the regime’s military, not our culture. You’re dodging the real issue: the mullahs’ 45 years of killing, oppressing, and ruining lives. Where’s your outrage for that? Instead, you’re twisting things to sound clever. Try focusing on the actual problem—the regime—before throwing shade at me for hoping they fall.
You’re Iranian and call me a traitor for wanting the regime gone? That’s nonsense. I know the Iran-Iraq War—my family suffered through it. The regime used that war to crush our people and grab more power. Don’t lecture me on history while ignoring 45 years of the mullahs’ crimes: killing protesters, jailing women, executing LGBTQ people. You’re okay with that?
You say Israel and the U.S. attacked “our land.” Wrong. They hit the regime’s military and leaders, not our culture or people. You bring up Libya, Syria, Iraq—sure, those were messes. But the mullahs are already destroying Iran: no freedom, no jobs, no hope. You want me to stay quiet while they ruin us? No way. I’m not cheering for Israel or the U.S.—I’m cheering for the end of the mullahs. If strikes weaken them, good.
You talk about pride in Cyrus, Darius, and Reza Shah. Where’s your pride in fighting a regime that shames our 3,000-year history? They’ve made Iran a prison, not a great nation. You say negotiations were happening? The regime’s negotiators and scientists were killed—how’s that for wanting peace?
You call me naive, but you’re the one ignoring the truth. The regime’s enemies aren’t attacking our soul—they’re hitting the mullahs. I’m not siding with Israel or the U.S.; I’m siding with Iranians who want freedom. If you think defending the regime saves our honor, you’ve lost yours.
You say Israel and the U.S. attacked “our land.” Wrong. They hit the regime’s military and leaders, not our culture or people. You bring up Libya, Syria, Iraq—sure, those were messes. But the mullahs are already destroying Iran: no freedom, no jobs, no hope. You want me to stay quiet while they ruin us? No way. I’m not cheering for Israel or the U.S.—I’m cheering for the end of the mullahs. If strikes weaken them, good.
You talk about pride in Cyrus, Darius, and Reza Shah. Where’s your pride in fighting a regime that shames our 3,000-year history? They’ve made Iran a prison, not a great nation. You say negotiations were happening? The regime’s negotiators and scientists were killed—how’s that for wanting peace?
You call me naive, but you’re the one ignoring the truth. The regime’s enemies aren’t attacking our soul—they’re hitting the mullahs. I’m not siding with Israel or the U.S.; I’m siding with Iranians who want freedom. If you think defending the regime saves our honor, you’ve lost yours.
Judging by history, external forces toppling a regime through violence usually leads to instability, with the result being militancy.
I hope if this does happen in Iran, the day after involves a movement towards a secular and free government. But I have my doubts, especially considering a government led by a dictator tends to be easier to control, so external powers may lean towards that option if given the choice.
I hope if this does happen in Iran, the day after involves a movement towards a secular and free government. But I have my doubts, especially considering a government led by a dictator tends to be easier to control, so external powers may lean towards that option if given the choice.
[deleted]
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.
He has betrayed his core by letting Israel suck our country into another Middle Eastern conflict, after promising to do the opposite.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
#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.
bravesoul2(1)
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.
Kamala and Biden both promised MORE war with Ukraine while already backing Israel in their genocide too.
Trump promised LESS war with Ukraine while having softer backing for Israel and (generally) turning down the heat during his first presidency.
I never voted for him, but I can certainly see why so many anti-war voters did as he had the most anti-war rhetoric around other than Ron Paul's libertarian run and maybe Bernie Sanders (with his primary getting stolen by Hillary).
Trump promised LESS war with Ukraine while having softer backing for Israel and (generally) turning down the heat during his first presidency.
I never voted for him, but I can certainly see why so many anti-war voters did as he had the most anti-war rhetoric around other than Ron Paul's libertarian run and maybe Bernie Sanders (with his primary getting stolen by Hillary).
It’s wild to me that in a time when trust of elites is so low that people would vote based on rhetoric and not past behavior.
the IR-6 centrifuges are each the size of scuba tanks, and they double as little storage tanks. you can stuff several centrifuges full of 60% heu in a shed. Iran will have squirreled some away in dozens of sites. to resume enrichment they can connect a much smaller cascade than they needed back when they were at 3.62%.
plus they can actually make bombs even with 60% heu, they just have to be fatter and use more energetic explosives.
the time to have bombed Iran's nuclear program would have been months ago. or to have, you know, kept the original nuclear deal.
plus they can actually make bombs even with 60% heu, they just have to be fatter and use more energetic explosives.
the time to have bombed Iran's nuclear program would have been months ago. or to have, you know, kept the original nuclear deal.
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.
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.
Before the election, I had conservatives telling me that Trump is anti-war and the world will be more stable under him. The war in Ukraine he promised to end is still ongoing, Gaza is still being bombed to nothing, and now US is kicking off war against Iran. I don't understand how you all keep falling for it.
Is it safe to blow up a nuclear plant? Doesn't that cause bad things to spread?
Americans only care about stealing oil and gas
If you believe they are manufacturing a nuclear weapon, then it is less bad than the nuke detonating.
[deleted]
Are we allowing politics on Hacker News now?
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics
They let it happen when they want it to but the rule remains for any other inconvenient time.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Anytime Trump says he ‘may or may not’ do something just bet the farm on him doing it. He can’t bluff without telegraphing the whole move.
Is HN getting political now?
It had been in the last few months. More political stories make the front page and the mods seem to allow more political discussion. The effect has not been positive.
Calling something "political" these days can sound dismissive.
The news of the US entering a war, with a first-strike major bombing, is extremely serious.
The news of the US entering a war, with a first-strike major bombing, is extremely serious.
Seriously, what is the benefit to the US here? I can't understand how this benefits the country at all.
[deleted]
It benefits the MIC, this is unlikely to be the end of this conflict.
It doesn't. It's all because Israel has extreme influence over US politicians.
We don't need a second North Korea. Nor do we want to normalize every country starting a nuclear program.
Air strikes do not constitute boots on the ground, and the rules based norms around "you break it, you own it" ended with the last flight from Kabul. Most likely, we will conduct bombing raids, but take no part in nation building.
Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003 (edit: 1993-94), but the Bush (edit: Clinton) administration pushed back because they were concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan (edit: Yugoslavia).
Edit 1:
Nuclear weapons ALONE do not act as a deterrent anymore. Most nuclear countries have second/third strike capabilities and nuclear triad capabilities.
This is something that Iran has been working on for decades with a fairly robust ballistics and cruise missile program, and attempts at building a domestic nuclear submarine program.
More critically, just about every regional power in the Middle East has been investing in similar capabilities in case an Iran breakout happens. Going from 1 additonal country with nuclear weapons to 3-4 leads to a cascading domino effect (a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi means a nuclear Turkiye means a nuclear Egypt...)
Edit 2:
For the downvoters - a country who's leadership explicitly chants "مرگ بر آمریکا" (Death to America) will unsurprisingly be viewed as a threat. Even our large rivals China or Russia do not normalize that kind of rhetoric.
Air strikes do not constitute boots on the ground, and the rules based norms around "you break it, you own it" ended with the last flight from Kabul. Most likely, we will conduct bombing raids, but take no part in nation building.
Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003 (edit: 1993-94), but the Bush (edit: Clinton) administration pushed back because they were concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan (edit: Yugoslavia).
Edit 1:
Nuclear weapons ALONE do not act as a deterrent anymore. Most nuclear countries have second/third strike capabilities and nuclear triad capabilities.
This is something that Iran has been working on for decades with a fairly robust ballistics and cruise missile program, and attempts at building a domestic nuclear submarine program.
More critically, just about every regional power in the Middle East has been investing in similar capabilities in case an Iran breakout happens. Going from 1 additonal country with nuclear weapons to 3-4 leads to a cascading domino effect (a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi means a nuclear Turkiye means a nuclear Egypt...)
Edit 2:
For the downvoters - a country who's leadership explicitly chants "مرگ بر آمریکا" (Death to America) will unsurprisingly be viewed as a threat. Even our large rivals China or Russia do not normalize that kind of rhetoric.
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 alone do not prevent invasions.
You need to have delivery mechanisms like medium/long range ballistic missiles and second strike capabilities like SLCMs.
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?
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.
> 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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
[deleted]
I understand that the phrase is intended to call for the end of the US government, not the end of the US people.
That even better supports my point though. Diplomacy is between two governments, not one government and the population of another government. Iran has practiced diplomacy at times, but calling for the end of the US government wouldn't exactly fit well in the implied reality of Iran having done everything they could diplomatically.
That even better supports my point though. Diplomacy is between two governments, not one government and the population of another government. Iran has practiced diplomacy at times, but calling for the end of the US government wouldn't exactly fit well in the implied reality of Iran having done everything they could diplomatically.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>I was talking about the current 40 year old regime
Oh, and how did it come to power?
Oh, and how did it come to power?
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 ignore decades of aggression and occupation in Gaza, along with the 4 other countries Israel has decided to launch wars against this year. "But Hamas" is not a convincing argument.
I’m not ignoring anything. The situation in Gaza and elsewhere has been horrible for decades. Israel has imposed various forms of nastiness on Gaza, and I imagine that Israel’s government and many of its people saw some of that nastiness (heavy handed restrictions on imports to Gaza for example) as necessary, since Hamas quite regularly converted whatever materials they could into weapons to fire across the border into Israel. Meanwhile, I imagine that Hamas, and many of the people of Gaza, saw that as necessary because Israel treated them poorly. It was a catch-22. Meanwhile, Iran most definitely interfered heavily from the sidelines, and I imagine that Iran’s government had reasons that seemed valid to them.
The situation was and remains unstable, and the factors that made it unstable were did not come from just one place. And you don’t have to look hard to find acts of war initiated by multiple different parties in the area.
I think that claiming that any one country “decided to launch wars” against multiple other parties ignores a whole lot of complexity.
The situation was and remains unstable, and the factors that made it unstable were did not come from just one place. And you don’t have to look hard to find acts of war initiated by multiple different parties in the area.
I think that claiming that any one country “decided to launch wars” against multiple other parties ignores a whole lot of complexity.
> 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.
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.
Israel is the principal destabilising element in the Middle East. It cannot even be argued at this point. It's them, the Israelis.
That is true in much the same way that the UK caused ww2 by refusing to make peace with the Germans in 1940. Or the soviets for selfishly resisting their invasion attempt.
Israel doesn't start any wars, it just finishes them. Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason. So they end up with a bloody nose. That's on them.
Israel doesn't start any wars, it just finishes them. Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason. So they end up with a bloody nose. That's on them.
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza as we speak and is expanding settlements more and more in the West Bank. The end game of the Israelis is very clearly complete ethnic cleansing. Israel is no victim here, it's a settler colonialist state that happens to be successful in being a settler colonialist state.
> Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason
If the UN decided to put a country for the Roma in the middle of India, how do you think that turn out? Very well or very badly? Is it surprising that everything turned out so badly in the ME with regards Israel? Seems obvious to me that putting a new country in the middle of a colony just as said colony is gaining independence seems like a shit idea?
Simply put, the very creation of Israel was fundamentally destabilising. We basically torpedoed our relations with the entire Islamic world (and especially the Arab world) just for the sake of some mostly (at that time) European colonists in Israel (who later became Israelis). That was retarded as shit. Say what you like about how good it was for the Israelis, but for us that was shit geopolitics, shit realpolitik, and a shit deal. Israel has now, rather predictably, become an ethnofascist state run by a (war)criminal. And we enabled them the whole way. And for what??? How exactly has anyone in the West actually benefited from this? It was clearly good for Israel and for Israelis, but how have we benefited from this???
> Hamas, hezbolla, syria, yemen and iran started up with Israel for no good reason
If the UN decided to put a country for the Roma in the middle of India, how do you think that turn out? Very well or very badly? Is it surprising that everything turned out so badly in the ME with regards Israel? Seems obvious to me that putting a new country in the middle of a colony just as said colony is gaining independence seems like a shit idea?
Simply put, the very creation of Israel was fundamentally destabilising. We basically torpedoed our relations with the entire Islamic world (and especially the Arab world) just for the sake of some mostly (at that time) European colonists in Israel (who later became Israelis). That was retarded as shit. Say what you like about how good it was for the Israelis, but for us that was shit geopolitics, shit realpolitik, and a shit deal. Israel has now, rather predictably, become an ethnofascist state run by a (war)criminal. And we enabled them the whole way. And for what??? How exactly has anyone in the West actually benefited from this? It was clearly good for Israel and for Israelis, but how have we benefited from this???
i actually hate it when people pull the victim card and i can't stand apologists either but happily i have a very pragmatic answer;
the West benefits from israel that at least one country in the region isn't an authoritarian hellhole and actually contributes to the global economy beyond just providing petrol.
You might resent it but that's the truth.
the West benefits from israel that at least one country in the region isn't an authoritarian hellhole and actually contributes to the global economy beyond just providing petrol.
You might resent it but that's the truth.
That's my point though, that's not pragmatic in the slightest. It would be ruthlessly pragmatic to favour the 400M Arabs and 2B Muslims over the 10M Israelis. The Israeli economy is 0.5% of global GDP.
> region isn't an authoritarian hellhole
It's colonising the West Bank, committing genocide in Gaza, is led by a (war)criminal... Israel is arguably worse than many of its neighbours. I honestly don't care how good gay people have it in Tel Aviv when they're simultaneously committing genocide in Gaza or settling the West Bank like it's 1899. And yeah Israel is a democracy but they use their democratic choice to vote for a war criminal who's in bed with the settlers and other theocratic extremists. So Israel is really no better than many of its neighbours and arguably worse than many of them. And it's only getting worse, the Israelis are only becoming crazier and more extreme. And now they've got the US into a war with Iran. Sorry, 0.5% of GDP: not fucking worth it.
> region isn't an authoritarian hellhole
It's colonising the West Bank, committing genocide in Gaza, is led by a (war)criminal... Israel is arguably worse than many of its neighbours. I honestly don't care how good gay people have it in Tel Aviv when they're simultaneously committing genocide in Gaza or settling the West Bank like it's 1899. And yeah Israel is a democracy but they use their democratic choice to vote for a war criminal who's in bed with the settlers and other theocratic extremists. So Israel is really no better than many of its neighbours and arguably worse than many of them. And it's only getting worse, the Israelis are only becoming crazier and more extreme. And now they've got the US into a war with Iran. Sorry, 0.5% of GDP: not fucking worth it.
You are exaggerating. Israel is not that bad and they and the Arab states have basically worked things out by now. And America are not in a war with Iran. They are simply engaging in bigger arms diplomacy.
I am not exaggerating at all. Israel is that bad, indeed it's worse than many of its neighbours.
> And America are not in a war with Iran
Bombing a country's nuclear infrastructure is surely an act of war.
We're going to see a big turn from Israel in the West. Boomers are absolutely obsessed with the place but the younger generations aren't. Netanyahu throwing his lot in with Trump means that Israel will become a partisan issue. Europeans already have mostly turned against Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/03/public-support...
> And America are not in a war with Iran
Bombing a country's nuclear infrastructure is surely an act of war.
We're going to see a big turn from Israel in the West. Boomers are absolutely obsessed with the place but the younger generations aren't. Netanyahu throwing his lot in with Trump means that Israel will become a partisan issue. Europeans already have mostly turned against Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/03/public-support...
andsoitis(9)
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.
[deleted]
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 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
If I had only one wish, it would be to burst this bubble.
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.
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.
I hate how much I agree with this assessment.
"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).
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.
Nonsense. The history of the US is one of regime change wars and genocide.
Trump has undermined the status quo at every opportunity. He feels the US hasn’t been compensated for its efforts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Now they likely do intend to get them asap if they’re able to.
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.
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.
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.
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 have not lived in the US, and I know a lot about the US national character
That is not a good comparison. The US is well reported enough in news and media and movie to have a good awareness of the culture within. You also understand their language.
However, the Arab world is not reported well enough apart from biased sources that seek to defame and discredit them. And neither would you understand their language. So no your awareness of their culture and country and leadership is so far fallen yet you think it is sufficient that it becomes dangerous.
There is no such thing as Islamic population unless you are an Islamophobe who have sought to “other” this part of the world
That is not a good comparison. The US is well reported enough in news and media and movie to have a good awareness of the culture within. You also understand their language.
However, the Arab world is not reported well enough apart from biased sources that seek to defame and discredit them. And neither would you understand their language. So no your awareness of their culture and country and leadership is so far fallen yet you think it is sufficient that it becomes dangerous.
There is no such thing as Islamic population unless you are an Islamophobe who have sought to “other” this part of the world
I will not seek to engage with you on this matter. You have developed a cynical and propagandistic approach to demonize and vilify. Just understand that all of your information is wrong.
> 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
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
yonisto(3)
Maybe it has something to do with Israel being an ally and Iran sponsoring terrorism all over the region
More and more I find our alliance with Israel in need of justification.
"terrorism" is just war fighting that we don't like. Israel is by far the biggest aggressor in the middle east having bombed half a dozen countries in the last year.
> it has something to do with Israel being an ally
There are many allies of the US, still they are not exempt from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). I'm not sure if it's a sane strategy to permit a single ally who has never signed the NPT [1] to build nuclear weapons, unlike your many other allies or non-allies:
> The roots of this preferential treatment go back to a secret 1969 understanding between U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The agreement essentially allowed Israel to keep its nuclear weapons as long as it remained silent about them and avoided nuclear tests. That bargain has held ever since, with successive U.S. administrations turning a blind eye to what would be a clear violation of international norms if committed by any other state.
Causing a power imbalance in the region doesn't seem the right way to keep peace.
[1] https://www.eurasiareview.com/23062025-israels-nuclear-ambig...
There are many allies of the US, still they are not exempt from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). I'm not sure if it's a sane strategy to permit a single ally who has never signed the NPT [1] to build nuclear weapons, unlike your many other allies or non-allies:
> The roots of this preferential treatment go back to a secret 1969 understanding between U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The agreement essentially allowed Israel to keep its nuclear weapons as long as it remained silent about them and avoided nuclear tests. That bargain has held ever since, with successive U.S. administrations turning a blind eye to what would be a clear violation of international norms if committed by any other state.
Causing a power imbalance in the region doesn't seem the right way to keep peace.
[1] https://www.eurasiareview.com/23062025-israels-nuclear-ambig...
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.
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.
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 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.
[deleted]
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...
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...
The world is better off if a theocracy whose leadership believes in jihad doesn’t have nukes.
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
Actions speak louder than words. Iran has been enriching Uranium beyond what is needed for civilian use and openly admits to doing so.
We should probably keep nukes away from these NAR whackadoodles and their puppets as well.
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
The third temple's holy of holies : Israel's nuclear weapons
https://dp.la/item/525bc46d51878c5e285d9069a80246d0
This is my honest assessment of the calculus of the move. Please don't interpret any of this as me personally supporting or approving of these motives. I'm just trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion about the potential thought processes of our collective leaders.
* Quick, victorious wars can be incredibly popular domestically, regardless of whether surveys say that only 16% of the US population supports the war. Trump needs an approval ratings boost. The global tariff shock was a PR disaster. A quick, victorious war is a tried-and-true approval rating booster over the last 200-300 years. The key, of course, is actually keeping the war truly short and victorious. If it drags on, or if people start asking "have we truly won?", then that's a whole different matter.
* We have moved out of a unipolar geopolitical world and into a multipolar one. The USA is checking the ambitions of the rival powers. Want to invade Ukraine? Sure, go ahead and try, but it will be a multi-year slog. Want to go for years maybe developing nuclear weapons, maybe not, and making US antagonism a central part of your political platform? Watch us systematically attack your nuclear program and and air power and do highly targeted assassinations of your political elites over the course of two weeks. Want to invade Taiwan? Look at what happened in Ukraine and Iran and maybe reset your expectations about how that will pan out.
* There has been a lot of questioning lately around whether the US will actually help their allies when they're in a pinch. This is sending a pretty strong message of reassurance to allies.
* Trump may actually want things to escalate to a point where he can reasonably declare martial law within the US. How do you stay in power when you've already hit your two-term constitutional limit?
Your question was "how does it benefit the US?" but I don't think that's answerable because everyone has a different take on what's best for the US. It's much more feasible to discuss "how does it benefit Trump?" or "how does it maintain US's position as a world power?"
* Quick, victorious wars can be incredibly popular domestically, regardless of whether surveys say that only 16% of the US population supports the war. Trump needs an approval ratings boost. The global tariff shock was a PR disaster. A quick, victorious war is a tried-and-true approval rating booster over the last 200-300 years. The key, of course, is actually keeping the war truly short and victorious. If it drags on, or if people start asking "have we truly won?", then that's a whole different matter.
* We have moved out of a unipolar geopolitical world and into a multipolar one. The USA is checking the ambitions of the rival powers. Want to invade Ukraine? Sure, go ahead and try, but it will be a multi-year slog. Want to go for years maybe developing nuclear weapons, maybe not, and making US antagonism a central part of your political platform? Watch us systematically attack your nuclear program and and air power and do highly targeted assassinations of your political elites over the course of two weeks. Want to invade Taiwan? Look at what happened in Ukraine and Iran and maybe reset your expectations about how that will pan out.
* There has been a lot of questioning lately around whether the US will actually help their allies when they're in a pinch. This is sending a pretty strong message of reassurance to allies.
* Trump may actually want things to escalate to a point where he can reasonably declare martial law within the US. How do you stay in power when you've already hit your two-term constitutional limit?
Your question was "how does it benefit the US?" but I don't think that's answerable because everyone has a different take on what's best for the US. It's much more feasible to discuss "how does it benefit Trump?" or "how does it maintain US's position as a world power?"
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 ?
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 ?
Why are people surprised when Trump does things illegally?
Did it surprise you when Obama did the same?
Nope. Because he didn't do anything illegal.
Thanks for calling, goodnight.
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.
Not to justify what Obama did, but that all fell under the post-9/11 "War on Terror" AUMF.
None of those required congressional oversight. The US hasn't officially declared war since WW2. That's largely due to every administration since then finding clever wording to get around it. Did Obama do unethical things? Probably, geopolitics is not a game of right/wrong. Did Obama do anything illegal, nope. Same with Trump. (Yes, in this context I'm both-sidesing, but not every context: Trump wants to imprison/deport/kill me and people I love, there's no comparision, and he's too dumb to be a nazi but is absolutely an evil dictator. Obama never put crosshairs on the heads of US citizens for not being straight white christians or not kissing his ass.)
He didnt?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
So is that the end of Iran’s nuclear programme, or is there more to 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.
Annihilation, that would make a good square on the bingo board
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.
On the contrary, modern research shows that the effects would be more severe and long-lasting: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006jd00...
[deleted]
They're committed. They'll rebuild. Just as Stuxnet just delayed things.
Paper are committed to stop them it seems as well.
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.
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.
Terminator Skynet rules, they just delayed it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shortly before the assassination of Rabin?
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
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.
[deleted]
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."
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.
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
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.
You wouldn't argue that the Manhattan Project wasn't a "real" nuclear weapons program until they started physically building the prototype.
I think our discussion hinges on the definition of "program". I agree that Iran was attempting to reduce its breakout time.
"doing the research and design required to build a nuclear weapon" ... "enriching uranium for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon"
Gabbard says "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons," but if there was knowledge they were actually building a nuclear weapon, she would have said so.
I could believe, but haven't seen claimed, that Iran was doing R&D in order to shorten the time between deciding they want an atomic bomb and having one completed. Or perhaps to have a second-order deterrent ("we could make a bomb") not a first order deterrent ("we have a bomb"). I think it's a big difference from actually trying to make one. Maybe you disagree on that point.
"doing the research and design required to build a nuclear weapon" ... "enriching uranium for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon"
Gabbard says "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons," but if there was knowledge they were actually building a nuclear weapon, she would have said so.
I could believe, but haven't seen claimed, that Iran was doing R&D in order to shorten the time between deciding they want an atomic bomb and having one completed. Or perhaps to have a second-order deterrent ("we could make a bomb") not a first order deterrent ("we have a bomb"). I think it's a big difference from actually trying to make one. Maybe you disagree on that point.
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
False.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/69513/7643
They also have the delivery mechanism. A huge ballistic missile program.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iraq completely shut down post war so yeh its possible
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.
Hard to see this being achievable over a just a couple of years if at all.
Iraq wasn't a populist movement. Iran is.
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.
All that is supported by the American public buying defense stocks. Just new war strategies when party in power changes.
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.
[deleted]
> It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.
> Israel is a hideous entity in the middle east which will undoubtedly be annihilated.
> Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.
> Western countries allow no freedom of expression, which they claim to advocate, with regard to the myth of the massacre of Jews known as the holocaust, and nobody in the West enjoys the freedom of expression to deny it or raise doubts about it.
- Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran
Those who defend the Iranian regime or suggest that the Israeli government is the greater threat do so to their disgrace. SMH.
> Israel is a hideous entity in the middle east which will undoubtedly be annihilated.
> Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.
> Western countries allow no freedom of expression, which they claim to advocate, with regard to the myth of the massacre of Jews known as the holocaust, and nobody in the West enjoys the freedom of expression to deny it or raise doubts about it.
- Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran
Those who defend the Iranian regime or suggest that the Israeli government is the greater threat do so to their disgrace. SMH.
Turns out credible Nations have their red lines.
- Russia warned NATO for decades to not keep coming closer.
- Israel kept warning the world it would directly attack Iran if they kept getting closer to a Nuke.
- Trump warned Iran, and followed through on his warnings.
- The Iranian regime kept telling the world they wanted the genocide of Jews and attack Americans.
The demented Iranian leaders kept feeding hypnotic battle-cries to their military troops about taking down some of the most technologically advanced nations. They just got a reality check.
- Russia warned NATO for decades to not keep coming closer.
- Israel kept warning the world it would directly attack Iran if they kept getting closer to a Nuke.
- Trump warned Iran, and followed through on his warnings.
- The Iranian regime kept telling the world they wanted the genocide of Jews and attack Americans.
The demented Iranian leaders kept feeding hypnotic battle-cries to their military troops about taking down some of the most technologically advanced nations. They just got a reality check.
Trump Meets the Moment on Iran
The President bombs three nuclear sites to spare the world from an intolerable risk.
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
June 22, 2025 1:01 am ET
President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s three most significant nuclear sites on Saturday helped rid the world of a grave nuclear threat and was a large step toward restoring U.S. deterrence. It also creates an opportunity for a more peaceful Middle East, if the nations of the region will seize it.
“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Mr. Trump said Saturday night. He made clear Iran brought this on itself. “For 40 years, Iran has been saying ‘death to America,’ ‘death to Israel.’ They’ve been killing our people,” he said, citing 1,000 Americans killed by Iran-supplied roadside bombs and other means. A nuclear Iran was a perilous threat to Israel, the nearby Arab states, and America.
Mr. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. The regime flouted his 60-day deadline to make a deal. Then Israel attacked, destroying much of the nuclear program and achieving air supremacy, and still the President gave Iran another chance to come to terms. The regime wouldn’t even abandon domestic uranium enrichment. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace.
Military conflict is often unpredictable and the potential for Iranian retaliation can’t be dismissed, no matter how self-destructive it would be. Iran and its Iraqi proxies have threatened U.S. regional bases with missile fire, but Mr. Trump warned that “future attacks will be far greater” if Iran goes down that road. The U.S. has evacuated some personnel and brought military assets into the region. If the regime values self-preservation, it will give up its nuclear ambitions and stand down.
Much of the press has fixated on the idea that Mr. Trump has now joined or even started a conflict. But Iran has been waging regional and terrorist war for decades. It’s as likely that he has helped end it. Leaving Iran with a hardened nuclear enrichment facility after an Israeli military campaign would have been a recipe for maximum danger, all but asking Iran to sprint to a bomb.
At the same time, the Israeli campaign yielded a unrivaled strategic opportunity. Suddenly, Iran’s airspace was uncontested. Its substantial ballistic-missile program was degraded. Several of its proxies had been bludgeoned into silence. Its nuclear program had been reduced to a few key sites, one of which only U.S. weapons could be trusted to penetrate.
The opportunity to act and the danger of standing pat may have proved decisive. We would say that they left Mr. Trump little choice, except U.S. Presidents always have a choice, and have been known to kick the can down the road. To his credit, Mr. Trump didn’t, hitting the Fordow enrichment site as well as Natanz and Isfahan. This shows the President wanted to leave no doubt about Iran’s nuclear program and take it all down.
Good for him for meeting the moment, despite the doubts from part of his political base. The isolationists were wrong at every step leading up to Saturday, and now they are again predicting another Iraq, if not a road to World War III. Mr. Trump had to act to stop the threat in front of him to protect America, which is his first obligation as President.
“History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday night. Mr. Trump thanked him and said “we worked as a team.” The Israelis, who proved their strategic value as an ally, would like to complete the mission by destroying what remains of Iran’s missile infrastructure. They deserve a green light, especially as those missiles are threatening U.S. bases.
The chatter about TACO—“Trump always chickens out”—will now quiet down, but the more significant reassessment has to do with U.S. foreign policy. The Obamaites of the left, and lately of the right, counseled that the world had to bow to Iranian intimidation. The best we could hope for was a flimsy deal that bribed Iran with billions and left open its path to a bomb. They were wrong.
President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s three most significant nuclear sites on Saturday helped rid the world of a grave nuclear threat and was a large step toward restoring U.S. deterrence. It also creates an opportunity for a more peaceful Middle East, if the nations of the region will seize it.
“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Mr. Trump said Saturday night. He made clear Iran brought this on itself. “For 40 years, Iran has been saying ‘death to America,’ ‘death to Israel.’ They’ve been killing our people,” he said, citing 1,000 Americans killed by Iran-supplied roadside bombs and other means. A nuclear Iran was a perilous threat to Israel, the nearby Arab states, and America.
Mr. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. The regime flouted his 60-day deadline to make a deal. Then Israel attacked, destroying much of the nuclear program and achieving air supremacy, and still the President gave Iran another chance to come to terms. The regime wouldn’t even abandon domestic uranium enrichment. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace.
Military conflict is often unpredictable and the potential for Iranian retaliation can’t be dismissed, no matter how self-destructive it would be. Iran and its Iraqi proxies have threatened U.S. regional bases with missile fire, but Mr. Trump warned that “future attacks will be far greater” if Iran goes down that road. The U.S. has evacuated some personnel and brought military assets into the region. If the regime values self-preservation, it will give up its nuclear ambitions and stand down.
Much of the press has fixated on the idea that Mr. Trump has now joined or even started a conflict. But Iran has been waging regional and terrorist war for decades. It’s as likely that he has helped end it. Leaving Iran with a hardened nuclear enrichment facility after an Israeli military campaign would have been a recipe for maximum danger, all but asking Iran to sprint to a bomb.
At the same time, the Israeli campaign yielded a unrivaled strategic opportunity. Suddenly, Iran’s airspace was uncontested. Its substantial ballistic-missile program was degraded. Several of its proxies had been bludgeoned into silence. Its nuclear program had been reduced to a few key sites, one of which only U.S. weapons could be trusted to penetrate.
The opportunity to act and the danger of standing pat may have proved decisive. We would say that they left Mr. Trump little choice, except U.S. Presidents always have a choice, and have been known to kick the can down the road. To his credit, Mr. Trump didn’t, hitting the Fordow enrichment site as well as Natanz and Isfahan. This shows the President wanted to leave no doubt about Iran’s nuclear program and take it all down.
Good for him for meeting the moment, despite the doubts from part of his political base. The isolationists were wrong at every step leading up to Saturday, and now they are again predicting another Iraq, if not a road to World War III. Mr. Trump had to act to stop the threat in front of him to protect America, which is his first obligation as President.
“History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday night. Mr. Trump thanked him and said “we worked as a team.” The Israelis, who proved their strategic value as an ally, would like to complete the mission by destroying what remains of Iran’s missile infrastructure. They deserve a green light, especially as those missiles are threatening U.S. bases.
The chatter about TACO—“Trump always chickens out”—will now quiet down, but the more significant reassessment has to do with U.S. foreign policy. The Obamaites of the left, and lately of the right, counseled that the world had to bow to Iranian intimidation. The best we could hope for was a flimsy deal that bribed Iran with billions and left open its path to a bomb. They were wrong.
Result 6 of 9 for "Death to America".
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
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.
[deleted]
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.
I guess this fatwa doesn’t apply to Pak Army?
Why would Sunni leaders adhere to another sect's fatwas?
Bombing a mountain spinning uranium around to find the right isotopes to make death spheres is an act of terrorism against uranium spinning around.
Vampires lack a reflection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
From about 2:50
Also talks about the likely success of the 'bunker busters' at Fodrow.
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?
My mental model does assume they must have plutonium in a meaningful quantity rather than just uranium for a dirty bomb to be remotely "effective" and I have no idea if that's even plausible. And if they do I'm not sure exactly what would lead to a dirty bomb over attempting an actual nuclear device.
But even a not very effective permutation of a dirty bomb seems like it could lead to headlines that look more "positive" for their leadership. (IE create outsized headlines.)
But even a not very effective permutation of a dirty bomb seems like it could lead to headlines that look more "positive" for their leadership. (IE create outsized headlines.)
Ukraine and Iran have showed that if a country doesn't have nukes they don't have sovereignty.
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.
And even nuclear armed nations aren’t exactly able to use their weapons to devastate an opponents military - see Ukraine and Russia.
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.
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.
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.
Taiwan has no nukes, and still has not been invaded by China.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't expect this to stay true for very long :(
Taiwan has a good friend with nukes though.
The US isn't nuking China over Taiwan, and China maintains an explicit "no first use" policy.
TSMC is an economic nuke and not just by accident. The Taiwanese intentionally tried with several industries it heavily subsidized to find one where it could make itself so valuable that other countries (with nukes) would be compelled to protect it (potentially with nukes).
> 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/
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/
Ok and so now Canada isn’t a sovereign country? That would be astonishing news to Canadians everywhere! Can someone tell them??!
I was looking forward to an interesting argument, sadly it's just a very badly written opinion piece.
Thats because they have friends with nukes (or thought they did).
Iran also has friends wit nukes: Russian and China. And China does care: it needs a secure oil supply.
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.
It looks like it might even be Iran.
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.
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.
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.
Russia was the first nuclear armed state to lose territory to a retired comedian.
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
Indeed. You'll be wrong but I doubt you'll have the integrity to discover why you're wrong.
This morning in Israel: https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395
> 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 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"?
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
It only works if you think victory was hitting the target.
What makes you think a ground invasion is likely?
Just like the famously successful regime change enacted upon Afghanistan.
> You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks.
This hasn't aged well...unsurprisingly
This hasn't aged well...unsurprisingly
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.
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
Otherwise uncle Sam will let you know you have them
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.
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.
Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
This is simply not true.
Iran's religious dictator issued a Fatwa declaring nukes haram. This is why they've consistently stopped at 60% enrichment.
In a religious cult, everything rides on the leadership. He can't just come out and change his mind. He must have a very definitive reason that doesn't disagree with the reasoning in the previous Fatwa. His only real out is an existential threat where threatening a nuke becomes a tool to preserve lives.
Israel and the US have now given him that out. It remains to be seen if he actually takes it.
Iran's religious dictator issued a Fatwa declaring nukes haram. This is why they've consistently stopped at 60% enrichment.
In a religious cult, everything rides on the leadership. He can't just come out and change his mind. He must have a very definitive reason that doesn't disagree with the reasoning in the previous Fatwa. His only real out is an existential threat where threatening a nuke becomes a tool to preserve lives.
Israel and the US have now given him that out. It remains to be seen if he actually takes it.
That Iran has been "full-tilt" pursuing nuclear weapons for decades doesn't make sense. Building a nuke isn't that hard, and getting the nuclear material is the hardest part. They've got that worked out. They've had the capability to do so for 20 years now. I defer to the intelligence community; they have the capability to build the bomb within about a year if they chose to do so, and are also not actively attempting to do that. (Until a few days ago at least).
If Kim can get nukes, Khomeini can gets nukes.
If Kim can get nukes, Khomeini can gets nukes.
> The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally
If Iran is willing to use its nuclear weapons in response to this (limited, conventional air strikes), then that's a clear demonstration they aren't rational actors and can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.
If Iran is willing to use its nuclear weapons in response to this (limited, conventional air strikes), then that's a clear demonstration they aren't rational actors and can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Why does the US not use conventional means to remove the Kim dictatorship?
Perceptions of trustworthiness and rationality are orthogonal to a nation's incentives to acquire nukes.
Perceptions of trustworthiness and rationality are orthogonal to a nation's incentives to acquire nukes.
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
That was when the research wasn't stable.
Any nuclear scientist today knows WAY more about the do's and don'ts of creating nukes than we did when muddling through the Manhattan project. Making basic uranium nukes is time consuming, but nothing too special.
The hard part (by far) is making the missiles to launch those nukes and hit the target. That part is so hard that we've continually failed to replace the Minuteman III which was designed before we even landed on the moon.
Any nuclear scientist today knows WAY more about the do's and don'ts of creating nukes than we did when muddling through the Manhattan project. Making basic uranium nukes is time consuming, but nothing too special.
The hard part (by far) is making the missiles to launch those nukes and hit the target. That part is so hard that we've continually failed to replace the Minuteman III which was designed before we even landed on the moon.
I will trust humanity on this view.
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.
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.
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.
If China ever succeeds in outmatching TSMC in both process and wafer output, Taiwan would have already lost as the big reason for defending them disappears.
> American president talking about annexing my country
You country can't even be bothered to meet its 2% NATO obligation, and now you're talking about pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and not to deter Russia, but to threaten the US? Canada and Iran both show how dangerous having state-run media is.
You country can't even be bothered to meet its 2% NATO obligation, and now you're talking about pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and not to deter Russia, but to threaten the US? Canada and Iran both show how dangerous having state-run media is.
Check your carbon-monoxide detectors
Jesus what nonsense. Russia isn't threatening to annex Canada, only the USA is. I don't understand this retarded American exceptionalism: we can threaten to annex you but you're not allowed to react or to care. I can't believe I used to look up to your country.
P.S. Fuck Russia too; we need to support Ukraine more.
P.S. Fuck Russia too; we need to support Ukraine more.
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.
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?
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
[deleted]
Neither of you are wrong. There are genuine reasons for hatred of the West in the Middle East, AND the Islamists are doing their best to whip up that hatred even more and weaponize it.
That said, "organic" hatred towards the US is much more common in the Arab world than in Iran. Smarter people who live under totalitarian regimes tend to become distrustful of the message that the regime goons are relentlessly pushing, and if that message is "Death to America", the underground reaction will be "America must be cool if the idiots up there hate it so much".
I saw the same with my own eyes in late-stage Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Regime propaganda is one thing, its effect on the people another. It usually works much less than expected.
That said, "organic" hatred towards the US is much more common in the Arab world than in Iran. Smarter people who live under totalitarian regimes tend to become distrustful of the message that the regime goons are relentlessly pushing, and if that message is "Death to America", the underground reaction will be "America must be cool if the idiots up there hate it so much".
I saw the same with my own eyes in late-stage Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Regime propaganda is one thing, its effect on the people another. It usually works much less than expected.
Okay so assuming the U.S. is 100% responsible for Iran wishing death on them, what do you think the U.S. should do? Let Iran make a nuclear weapon and nuke the U.S.? Or are you arguing Iran is harmless despite openly wishing death on the U.S.?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/iran-saudi-ara...
What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts.
The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously. Every relevant country has at least second strike capabilities against Iran, so it would be suicidal in the extreme -- it's also highly likely that the handful of nukes they'd have would be mostly intercepted. They haven't even developed second strike themselves, so they'd almost certainly lose any nuclear capacity on first attempted use. Iran's capacity for nuclear agression with nukes, is tiny.
Iran having a nuclear weapon would be one of the most stabilising outcomes in the middle east, as it would prevent israel (which is the most violent, destablising state in the region) from acting with impunity. This is why israel has, for 30 years, been complaining that iran is "months away" from a bomb, and why for 20 years its being trying to precipitate a war to drag the US into.
Iran having a nuclear weapon is the best possible outcome for global security, precisely because its the only configuration of events which prevents israel from waging wars of aggression on its neighbors (syria, iran, et al.).
What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts.
The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously. Every relevant country has at least second strike capabilities against Iran, so it would be suicidal in the extreme -- it's also highly likely that the handful of nukes they'd have would be mostly intercepted. They haven't even developed second strike themselves, so they'd almost certainly lose any nuclear capacity on first attempted use. Iran's capacity for nuclear agression with nukes, is tiny.
Iran having a nuclear weapon would be one of the most stabilising outcomes in the middle east, as it would prevent israel (which is the most violent, destablising state in the region) from acting with impunity. This is why israel has, for 30 years, been complaining that iran is "months away" from a bomb, and why for 20 years its being trying to precipitate a war to drag the US into.
Iran having a nuclear weapon is the best possible outcome for global security, precisely because its the only configuration of events which prevents israel from waging wars of aggression on its neighbors (syria, iran, et al.).
> What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts.
So... nothing?
> The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously.
When a country repeatedly calls for the genocide of nations and peoples, over decades and various leaders, and funds dozens of terrorist groups which carry out unspeakable acts of depravity and violence against said peoples, why on Earth would you think they don't mean it? Why would having more destructive power suddenly make them less violent? Your logic doesn't follow at all. It's clear you have little understanding of the various ways in which Iran has waged war on its neighbours over decades. Them having a nuke would merely enable them to become far more bold in their covert and overt attempts to cleans the world of their enemies.
So... nothing?
> The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously.
When a country repeatedly calls for the genocide of nations and peoples, over decades and various leaders, and funds dozens of terrorist groups which carry out unspeakable acts of depravity and violence against said peoples, why on Earth would you think they don't mean it? Why would having more destructive power suddenly make them less violent? Your logic doesn't follow at all. It's clear you have little understanding of the various ways in which Iran has waged war on its neighbours over decades. Them having a nuke would merely enable them to become far more bold in their covert and overt attempts to cleans the world of their enemies.
> nothing
So signing treaties, negotiating, having mass inspections, economic cooperation -- this is nothing? As of 2015 the official policy of the US was reintegration of iran into the economic system; trump undid that briefly, but then adopted exactly the same policy until a month ago.
> why on Earth would you think they don't mean it?
It's disappoing how effectively people are propagandised into offensive action based on the words of foreign nations.
Look at what Regan said about the USSR and vice versa, rhetoric much more extreme. At the time people couldnt understand the incomprehensibly insane world-ending rhetoric. Now we have a coherent theory of why leaders do this -- which is that you want your enemies to believe you will engage in suicidal behaviour or your deterrence isnt effective.
Here iran has enough missiles to detroy israel, but if it uses enough of them, its quite likely israel would nuke iran. Israel is the roge state in the region who goes around trying to topple regeims, bomb embassies, etc. They are the nation everyone is trying to contain.
Iran's rhetroic, and it's amassing of arms is a containment strategy for israel. Israel needs to find it semi-plausible iran will attack, or else Iran is screwed -- because israel will attack.
Welome to the world of geopolitics, where defensive behaviour by other countries looks like offensive behaviour if you're poorly informed about the situation. It makes waging wars of aggression, like this one, trivially easy to engineer consent for. Oh well, its the US's own blood and treasure, go spend it if you wish.
So signing treaties, negotiating, having mass inspections, economic cooperation -- this is nothing? As of 2015 the official policy of the US was reintegration of iran into the economic system; trump undid that briefly, but then adopted exactly the same policy until a month ago.
> why on Earth would you think they don't mean it?
It's disappoing how effectively people are propagandised into offensive action based on the words of foreign nations.
Look at what Regan said about the USSR and vice versa, rhetoric much more extreme. At the time people couldnt understand the incomprehensibly insane world-ending rhetoric. Now we have a coherent theory of why leaders do this -- which is that you want your enemies to believe you will engage in suicidal behaviour or your deterrence isnt effective.
Here iran has enough missiles to detroy israel, but if it uses enough of them, its quite likely israel would nuke iran. Israel is the roge state in the region who goes around trying to topple regeims, bomb embassies, etc. They are the nation everyone is trying to contain.
Iran's rhetroic, and it's amassing of arms is a containment strategy for israel. Israel needs to find it semi-plausible iran will attack, or else Iran is screwed -- because israel will attack.
Welome to the world of geopolitics, where defensive behaviour by other countries looks like offensive behaviour if you're poorly informed about the situation. It makes waging wars of aggression, like this one, trivially easy to engineer consent for. Oh well, its the US's own blood and treasure, go spend it if you wish.
> So signing treaties, negotiating, having mass inspections, economic cooperation -- this is nothing? As of 2015 the official policy of the US was reintegration of iran into the economic system; trump undid that briefly, but then adopted exactly the same policy until a month ago.
I was referring to this current round of sabre rattling, but if you're referring to the JCPOA, I should inform you that Iran agreed to monitoring and verification, not only under strictly restricted grounds. The deal did not give inspectors the right to freely roam. Access to military sites remained contentious and largely off limits. Iran never gave access to Parchin, for example. This meant Iran was free to continue their nuclear weapons development program - though of course in secret.
Further, the JCPOA unlocked $100B in frozen assets which the brutal dictator Ayatollah Khamenei immediately stole and used to cement his position of power. The JCPOA also lifted oil sanctions which further enriched Khamenei to the tune of $10-30B per year.
The JCPOA was commonly regarded as impotent and symbolic at best, and quite harmful at worst.
> Look at what Regan said about the USSR and vice versa, rhetoric much more extreme.
They both meant it. This is a crucial fact from the cold war. The world really was minutes away from nuclear war. I highly recommend reading the account of Stanislav Petrov [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov], a Russian lieutenant colonel, who in 1983 narrowly avoided nuclear war by heroically refusing to report an apparent missile launch by the U.S. During this period the U.S. formally developed the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine which automated nuclear launches in the event that no one was left alive to retaliate.
You use an example of two deadly serious adversaries willing to destroy the world as an example of something we should not fear?
I was referring to this current round of sabre rattling, but if you're referring to the JCPOA, I should inform you that Iran agreed to monitoring and verification, not only under strictly restricted grounds. The deal did not give inspectors the right to freely roam. Access to military sites remained contentious and largely off limits. Iran never gave access to Parchin, for example. This meant Iran was free to continue their nuclear weapons development program - though of course in secret.
Further, the JCPOA unlocked $100B in frozen assets which the brutal dictator Ayatollah Khamenei immediately stole and used to cement his position of power. The JCPOA also lifted oil sanctions which further enriched Khamenei to the tune of $10-30B per year.
The JCPOA was commonly regarded as impotent and symbolic at best, and quite harmful at worst.
> Look at what Regan said about the USSR and vice versa, rhetoric much more extreme.
They both meant it. This is a crucial fact from the cold war. The world really was minutes away from nuclear war. I highly recommend reading the account of Stanislav Petrov [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov], a Russian lieutenant colonel, who in 1983 narrowly avoided nuclear war by heroically refusing to report an apparent missile launch by the U.S. During this period the U.S. formally developed the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine which automated nuclear launches in the event that no one was left alive to retaliate.
You use an example of two deadly serious adversaries willing to destroy the world as an example of something we should not fear?
They weren't willing to destroy the world. You do observe that sometimes one's own propaganda can backfire, esp. if its runs over years, and create a "middle management" layer of zaelots who arent aware it was for show.
So one quite important feature of stabre-ratting systems is that you don't have regieme-change instability where "lower tier zealots" who have been propagandised their whole lives suddenly take power -- because they, like the public, may be unaware it was just for show.
You're just repeating decades of US propaganda to me. I know it all. This was just a TV show put on to defend the rise of two empires, the US and the USSR -- the claims about ideology, world-destruction, communism, capitalism, etc. are all propangada. The goal the entire time, of both nations, was to expand their spheres of influence to each other's borders and to contain one another.
Here, the near entirity of iran's foreign policy is -- just like that of the US, USSR (and many other nations) -- a containment strategy for an highly militarised adversary. If iran took any other approach, israel would have invaded far earlier.
So one quite important feature of stabre-ratting systems is that you don't have regieme-change instability where "lower tier zealots" who have been propagandised their whole lives suddenly take power -- because they, like the public, may be unaware it was just for show.
You're just repeating decades of US propaganda to me. I know it all. This was just a TV show put on to defend the rise of two empires, the US and the USSR -- the claims about ideology, world-destruction, communism, capitalism, etc. are all propangada. The goal the entire time, of both nations, was to expand their spheres of influence to each other's borders and to contain one another.
Here, the near entirity of iran's foreign policy is -- just like that of the US, USSR (and many other nations) -- a containment strategy for an highly militarised adversary. If iran took any other approach, israel would have invaded far earlier.
It would be a terrible strategy for Israel to attempt to invade Iran, regardless of what alternative approaches could have been taken in the past.
Israel would be outnumbered, fighting on enemy soil, and the logistics and supply chain would be insanely difficult to put in place and protect.
Israel would be outnumbered, fighting on enemy soil, and the logistics and supply chain would be insanely difficult to put in place and protect.
You cannot obtain regime change, nor end iran's nuclear capacity, without a ground invasion. Everyone involved knows this.
So either their state goals are lies, or their strategy is a losing one, or they anticipate a ground invasion.
Either way, the choice before israel/us is lose-lose.
But of course, it's imperative we take death threats very seriously, so just you know, err.. we.. err.. dont have to... err. dunno.
Of course that sentence should be, "it's imperative we pretend to take death threats seriously so that israel's ability to dominate the middle east through wars of aggression is maintained, even if that comes at the cost of the blood and treasure of the US"
So either their state goals are lies, or their strategy is a losing one, or they anticipate a ground invasion.
Either way, the choice before israel/us is lose-lose.
But of course, it's imperative we take death threats very seriously, so just you know, err.. we.. err.. dont have to... err. dunno.
Of course that sentence should be, "it's imperative we pretend to take death threats seriously so that israel's ability to dominate the middle east through wars of aggression is maintained, even if that comes at the cost of the blood and treasure of the US"
Unless I wildly misunderstand the meaning behind the "death to ___" phrase often used by Iranians, it is meant as a call against the foreign government not the people.
The Iraniansiranians, or at least the Iranian government, absolutely want the US and Israeli governments to fall, but when have they called for genocide?
The Iraniansiranians, or at least the Iranian government, absolutely want the US and Israeli governments to fall, but when have they called for genocide?
I wouldn't try to analyse any sabre-ratting rhetoric by foreign leaders either way. But if you really want to: start with your own.
Google all the times the US leaders have threatened annihilation against foreign nations, threats vastly more credible as a global superpower.
One should never take words very seriously in geopolitics. They are 2/3rds designed for domestic populations, to propagandize them (esp. in democracies, which must lie to their publics), and 1/3rds lies for the other side.
Serious analysers of geopoltical strategy are only concerned with actions, capabilities and growing capabilities. And they are esp. uninterested in domestic propaganda.
Everyone in the US elite is extremely well-aware of this; by pointing to iranian rhetoric now they are just propagandizing american audiences to support a war of aggression which is, largely, against the interests of the US population.
Google all the times the US leaders have threatened annihilation against foreign nations, threats vastly more credible as a global superpower.
One should never take words very seriously in geopolitics. They are 2/3rds designed for domestic populations, to propagandize them (esp. in democracies, which must lie to their publics), and 1/3rds lies for the other side.
Serious analysers of geopoltical strategy are only concerned with actions, capabilities and growing capabilities. And they are esp. uninterested in domestic propaganda.
Everyone in the US elite is extremely well-aware of this; by pointing to iranian rhetoric now they are just propagandizing american audiences to support a war of aggression which is, largely, against the interests of the US population.
* "Israel must be wiped off the map." -Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
* "Israel must be wiped off the map." -President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
* "The Zionist regime will perish in the not-so-far future." -Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
* "Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map." -General Hossein Salami
They have been clear and consistent in their intent. Whether it be rhetoric or their continued funding and training of various terrorist groups in the region and globally.
Lastly, I find the argument derisive and infantilising that they don't really mean "death" when they say "death to America/Israel/the West". We all understand what the word "death" means.
* "Israel must be wiped off the map." -President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
* "The Zionist regime will perish in the not-so-far future." -Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
* "Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map." -General Hossein Salami
They have been clear and consistent in their intent. Whether it be rhetoric or their continued funding and training of various terrorist groups in the region and globally.
Lastly, I find the argument derisive and infantilising that they don't really mean "death" when they say "death to America/Israel/the West". We all understand what the word "death" means.
Perhaps when you're done with iran then, you can move on to all other nations whose leaders have wished destruction on their neighbours. You'll find that's approximately all nations to have ever existed. Preferably, you might start with your own.
I'm sure that would happen if those countries enrich uranium to 60%.
Why in the world do you think they would use a nuke on the US? Why do you think they would use it at all? That is utter suicide. This is Iran, not ISIS (something a lot of Americans don’t know the difference between).
Their stated goal, and the only goal that makes any sense, is to use it for deterrence. Attacking any major power unprovoked like that would wipe them off the face of the earth. Just like if Israel tried to nuke Russia or something, it would be complete suicide. They know that without nuclear weapons to defend themselves, they will be conquered and the current regime will be overthrown, it’s only a matter of time. They don’t have the military power to resist being conquered by the major world powers. But some nuclear bomb would be enough to deter conquest (as it would have probably deterred Russia from attacking the Ukrain).
I think Israel has legitimate fears here, but with enough military capacity and a strong alliance with the US attacking them would also be suicide. Attacking basically anyone around them would be suicide.
Get your news from somewhere other than Fox. This isn’t “evil bad guys want to kill everyone”. This is “theocraric dictatorship doesn’t want to get conquered/overthrown by a major world power”.
Their stated goal, and the only goal that makes any sense, is to use it for deterrence. Attacking any major power unprovoked like that would wipe them off the face of the earth. Just like if Israel tried to nuke Russia or something, it would be complete suicide. They know that without nuclear weapons to defend themselves, they will be conquered and the current regime will be overthrown, it’s only a matter of time. They don’t have the military power to resist being conquered by the major world powers. But some nuclear bomb would be enough to deter conquest (as it would have probably deterred Russia from attacking the Ukrain).
I think Israel has legitimate fears here, but with enough military capacity and a strong alliance with the US attacking them would also be suicide. Attacking basically anyone around them would be suicide.
Get your news from somewhere other than Fox. This isn’t “evil bad guys want to kill everyone”. This is “theocraric dictatorship doesn’t want to get conquered/overthrown by a major world power”.
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 Israelis, so the Iranian government does not represent all Iranians.
Just as Netanyahu‘s actions do not represent all Israelis, so the Iranian government does not represent all Iranians.
They is the gov, along with some portion of the population.
That's a pretty broad net though. Is it the whole government you are talking about, or only certain positions?
And what is the actual percentage of the population you're implicating here? 5% vs 50% could make a huge difference.
And what is the actual percentage of the population you're implicating here? 5% vs 50% could make a huge difference.
Can you blame them. CIA overthrew the only democratic government they ever had, and replaced it with a dictator.
Result 3 of 9 for "Death to America".
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
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.
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...
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.
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.
How's your Persian?
"Marg Bar <noun" appears to a ritualistic phrase, meaning 'down with':
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/69301/what-do-t...
Here they are saying "Death to Khamenei" over power outages:
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2021-07-06/ty-...
Here's a story of a taxi driver saying "Death to traffic":
https://blog.ricksteves.com/blog/death-to-israel-death-to-tr...
It's also worth pointing out that wanting Israel (the state) destroyed is not the same thing as wanting everyone who lives there to die. I'm glad the Third Reich was destroyed, I'm also glad the German people survived it.
"Marg Bar <noun" appears to a ritualistic phrase, meaning 'down with':
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/69301/what-do-t...
Here they are saying "Death to Khamenei" over power outages:
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/2021-07-06/ty-...
Here's a story of a taxi driver saying "Death to traffic":
https://blog.ricksteves.com/blog/death-to-israel-death-to-tr...
It's also worth pointing out that wanting Israel (the state) destroyed is not the same thing as wanting everyone who lives there to die. I'm glad the Third Reich was destroyed, I'm also glad the German people survived it.
Let's retire this argument already. None of this rhetoric means anything until it's put to action, which Iran has never done. This is something the leaders say to gain popular support by acting like they have an enemy to fight. Similar to Trump claiming Mexico will pay for the wall.
>None of this rhetoric means anything until it's put to action, which Iran has never done.
Hezbollah.
Hezbollah.
Yeah, but with that it doesn't matter what they say to their own people.
My point wasn't that they haven't practiced some level of diplomacy. I was commenting on the level with with the earlier comment spoke of their diplomacy, and the seeming implication that they couldn't have been more diplomatic.
Calling for death to America, speaking of desires for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, funding non-state militant actors in the region, etc are all acts that inflame and go counter to the diplomacy they were otherwise taking part in.
Calling for death to America, speaking of desires for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, funding non-state militant actors in the region, etc are all acts that inflame and go counter to the diplomacy they were otherwise taking part in.
Result 4 of 9 for "Death to America".
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
You're just making my point. Calling for the death of the US or Israeli governments goes against the comment I replied to which attempted to make a case that Iran has been as diplomatic as possible.
I wasn’t implying they were diplomatic as possible. I was simply suggesting that diplomacy will only get you so far. there is a threshold after which you simply need to have the power and resources to defend your nation from foreign adversaries with whatever means possible, one of which is nukes - presumably a relatively cheap option if u already have the R&D.
[deleted]
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.
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 didn't say Iran has been unwilling to negotiate or that they haven't been diplomatic at all.
The prior comment I was replying to implied that the Iranians couldn't have been more diplomatic than they already have been.
That's simply untrue and ignores much of the rhetoric coming out from the Iranian government related to Israel and the US. More importantly, it ignores Iran's involvement with a handful of non-state militant groups in the region.
The prior comment I was replying to implied that the Iranians couldn't have been more diplomatic than they already have been.
That's simply untrue and ignores much of the rhetoric coming out from the Iranian government related to Israel and the US. More importantly, it ignores Iran's involvement with a handful of non-state militant groups in the region.
The rhetoric coming from Iran is very mild compared to the ulta-religious venom coming from Tel Aviv.
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.
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.
Wasn't so with India. Their first experimental test detonation was in 1974 (Smiling Buddha) in which they used nuclear material that US and Canada themselves supplied under "Atoms for Peace", but it wasn't until 24 years later in 1998 (Operation Shakti) that the country managed to test enough to call itself a nuclear state. They did all this while they were in consistent active conflict with large and powerful neighbors on three sides, along with explicit hostility from the US.
I was surprised to read that in Europe, the closest country to have nuclear weapons are the Netherlands (if they wanted to)
https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/90870/11473
https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/90870/11473
Do you mean as a new development? Because France (and the UK) already had them for a while.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...
Yes, new development.
When Trump dumped his support for NATO in Europe, everyone was looking at France to shield them and deter attacks. I was wondering if other EU countries were reasonably close to building a bomb and I found this question.
When Trump dumped his support for NATO in Europe, everyone was looking at France to shield them and deter attacks. I was wondering if other EU countries were reasonably close to building a bomb and I found this question.
The Netherlands has US nukes: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vliegbasis_Volkel
Apparently also Belgium , Italy, Turkey, Germany have the same type.
Apparently also Belgium , Italy, Turkey, Germany have the same type.
Yes, but these are US nukes, under complete US control. US decides when and where to use them. In other words, these countries are launch sites for the US army.
What I had in mind are nukes under the jurisdiction of a country (such as France or UK in Europe)
What I had in mind are nukes under the jurisdiction of a country (such as France or UK in Europe)
[deleted]
It’s horrible that the president can start a war without even asking congress.
My impression was that this wasn’t how the US worked?
You’re right; it’s how the US malfunctions.
Congress does not have a spine.
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
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
The last US declaration of war was in 1942, against Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania (allies of Nazi Germany).
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 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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
For a similar situation to Trump bombing Iran and only notifying a few members of Congress:
1983 Granada 1989 Panama 2011 Libya 2012 Syria
The 1990s actions in Yugoslavia were done without fall declaration of war, but Congress was more fully engaged in saying no at least.
The 1991 war against Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration allowed a witness to flat out lie to Congress about the horrors of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration lied to Congress about weapons of mass destruction.
I mentioned these last two because they make a mockery of the act itself, or of the US congress, or both...
1983 Granada 1989 Panama 2011 Libya 2012 Syria
The 1990s actions in Yugoslavia were done without fall declaration of war, but Congress was more fully engaged in saying no at least.
The 1991 war against Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration allowed a witness to flat out lie to Congress about the horrors of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was approved, in part, because the administration lied to Congress about weapons of mass destruction.
I mentioned these last two because they make a mockery of the act itself, or of the US congress, or both...
He didn't. The war was already started, he lent brief assistance.
[deleted]
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.
"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
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
It's been like that for more than 20 years.
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.
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.
As is tradition: Israel says jump, the US responds "How high?"
Suppose we should congratulate Bibi on his ascendancy to the US presidency.
If it were legal, Russia probably would surpass Israel in political influence...legally.
Russia’s main drone supplier is about to be knocked offline
According to a Ukrainian friend Russia is now producing them themselves. They got the design plans from Iran.
They've got a bunch of other facilities dotted around the place: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/16/ukraine-war-br...
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-...
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-...
Elon is out, Bibi is in.
[deleted]
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
> far more important here than strongly worded letters by the aging bureaucracy that governs the EU
Have you seen the bureaucracy currently running the US government? Makes the EU look pretty sane and well-rounded in comparison.
Have you seen the bureaucracy currently running the US government? Makes the EU look pretty sane and well-rounded in comparison.
Not sure what you want as a response, you won't find a friend in me, and you certainly won't be able to convince me if this is your response.
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
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.
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.
A truly sad indictment of the state of US government...
My trust with either of them having nukes is so low it's not worth comparing.
Trust him to what? Do what he says he would do with them?
[deleted]
> 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.
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...
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.
There are only two or three dots. They're not hard to connect.
He talks a big game but he doesn't want everyone in his country to die. How do those dots line up for you?
When someone says he'd like to destroy you, spends half a trillion dollars pursuing that ambition instead of feeding his people, and is in the midst of attempting to wipe one of your closest allies off the face of the earth, I think you should believe him. What would it take for you to think it's more than just talk?
If my government was responsible for funding, training and defending foreign torture camps from international scrutiny, their citizens probably are justified in demanding the destruction of my states as a form of justice for unaccounted human rights abuses: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-mag...
> SAVAK was established in 1967 with help from both the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
> 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.
Good luck convincing Iranians that they should welcome your kind into their country for any reason ever again.
> SAVAK was established in 1967 with help from both the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
> 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.
Good luck convincing Iranians that they should welcome your kind into their country for any reason ever again.
I am skeptical that your description is an accurate depiction of Iranians' views regarding the US and their own government. It seems more likely that you're ascribing your opinion to a much larger group than is justified.
No one wants my kind (Americans?) in Iran until they can go there as tourists. Apparently around 80% of Iranians would like that to be possible though.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg
"CHAPTER FIVE Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike"
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.
[deleted]
This will surely reduce government spending.
I mean I don't think anyone is still taking that goal seriously.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
Copy and paste this nonsense argument for Iraq 3 trillion dollars ago.
avoutos(1)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
> 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?
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.
If you botch the "quiet" part this seems more of a plan to get bombed quickly.
Probabilities.
Given the track record in the region and the relationships involved, not getting a nuke seamless will lead to getting bombed with almost 100% certainty over a long enough period.
If they botch the quiet part, they'll almost certainly get bombed in the short term, which may or may not lead to the end of the project. But then will almost certain prevent getting bombed more in the future.
Given the track record in the region and the relationships involved, not getting a nuke seamless will lead to getting bombed with almost 100% certainty over a long enough period.
If they botch the quiet part, they'll almost certainly get bombed in the short term, which may or may not lead to the end of the project. But then will almost certain prevent getting bombed more in the future.
They tried that. Saddam gassed them.
Some people say Iran having a nuke isn’t the threat some think it is.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
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.
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.
Right wing propaganda is too strong here.
Last night I tried to explain to my MIL that Iran did not do 9/11 (after she claimed this was finally payback for that). She responded that I was wrong because I listen to the liberal media. It was like a cartoon, I felt like a crazy person. she was so convinced that if Iran got nuclear weapons they would immediately use them on US soil. When I pointed out that would be suicide for them, and accomplish absolutely nothing, she said they aren’t rational, they just want to end the world.
Her only news source is Fox, so that must be who’s peddling this nonsense.
There’s an optimist in me that says, maybe by some small miracle that given enough time in a cold-ish war current Iranian regime will get replaced by something democratic and stable. Probably a pipe dream the way things are going, but not impossible.
Last night I tried to explain to my MIL that Iran did not do 9/11 (after she claimed this was finally payback for that). She responded that I was wrong because I listen to the liberal media. It was like a cartoon, I felt like a crazy person. she was so convinced that if Iran got nuclear weapons they would immediately use them on US soil. When I pointed out that would be suicide for them, and accomplish absolutely nothing, she said they aren’t rational, they just want to end the world.
Her only news source is Fox, so that must be who’s peddling this nonsense.
There’s an optimist in me that says, maybe by some small miracle that given enough time in a cold-ish war current Iranian regime will get replaced by something democratic and stable. Probably a pipe dream the way things are going, but not impossible.
And meanwhile the biggest threat to all our security, the climate crisis goes unaddressed.
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.
Feels a little bit narcissistic.
> pivoted to Palestine as her issue
Is that the case? she supports many other causes too, and they do not conflict the idea of climate change being the greatest risk. In her own words climate justice and social justice are inseparable and I can see that point.
We are now discussing the narcissism of Greta, a well meaning activist, rather than that of the president of peace, who just bombed Iran. The narcisism of the man who ran on "drill baby drill" is somehow acceptable, was exactly my point.
Is that the case? she supports many other causes too, and they do not conflict the idea of climate change being the greatest risk. In her own words climate justice and social justice are inseparable and I can see that point.
We are now discussing the narcissism of Greta, a well meaning activist, rather than that of the president of peace, who just bombed Iran. The narcisism of the man who ran on "drill baby drill" is somehow acceptable, was exactly my point.
She is spending nearly all of her political energy on Palestine and anti-Israel protests.
So, its very fair for people to pick up on it, he movements are very public as she is a public figure now.
So, its very fair for people to pick up on it, he movements are very public as she is a public figure now.
There are many issues one cam care about and some can be more urgent even if not the most serious.
I guess she’s hoping she can help humanitarian aid being delivered to Gaza where people are starving and dying right now.
I respect her for her efforts in both goals, even if I care more about handling climate change.
I guess she’s hoping she can help humanitarian aid being delivered to Gaza where people are starving and dying right now.
I respect her for her efforts in both goals, even if I care more about handling climate change.
A brutal war leaving untold numbers of children dead is a reasonable thing to focus on, is it not?
Additionally, military operations are terrible for the climate. The US military is (was?) responsible for more pollution/emissions than most countries, for instance.
Additionally, military operations are terrible for the climate. The US military is (was?) responsible for more pollution/emissions than most countries, for instance.
She has of course the right to get involved in any issue she cares about, just as everyone else.
But I think it was a bad move of hers to make the organisation "Fridays for Future" she had founded pivot towards other issues other than Climate Change. She should have kept her engagements separate.
But I think it was a bad move of hers to make the organisation "Fridays for Future" she had founded pivot towards other issues other than Climate Change. She should have kept her engagements separate.
Greta does get called mean things not because of her beliefs, but there is something about her (personal) behavior that makes her unlikable to many people.
Are you sure you are not just buying a narrative being pushed to you? Who benefits from Greta Thunberg the outspoken activist against climate change and Israel’s campaign in Gaza being labelled a narcissist?
Yeah, her behavior of being outspoken and blunt. And female, of course.
You really don't have to personally like someone for them to have useful information
The nazi party member Pascual Jordan contributed significantly to quantum physics but it's rarely mentioned because of that association. On the flip side, also the nazis ignored his suggestions for advanced weaponry, to their detriment I would imagine, because he valued jewish scientific contributions and so was considered unreliable politically. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan, discovered via AstroGeo podcast)
Also consider that you're on hacker news. Hacker ethics, or at least the version I've internalised, include judging people by what they say, not who is saying it (race, gender, and authority are commonly mentioned, but charismacy could also easily fall in that category)
The nazi party member Pascual Jordan contributed significantly to quantum physics but it's rarely mentioned because of that association. On the flip side, also the nazis ignored his suggestions for advanced weaponry, to their detriment I would imagine, because he valued jewish scientific contributions and so was considered unreliable politically. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan, discovered via AstroGeo podcast)
Also consider that you're on hacker news. Hacker ethics, or at least the version I've internalised, include judging people by what they say, not who is saying it (race, gender, and authority are commonly mentioned, but charismacy could also easily fall in that category)
I'm confused about your argument. At first, i didn't contest her cause or beliefs or usefulness of information. And second, I'm talking about how she speaks. I do not have good words to describe it (inflammatory, immature, full of self?). I do not believe this is a bogus criterium in the sense of the hacker ethics.
The "she is unlikable" argument is just working backwards. It is a mechanism to criticize climate activism without having to talk about the ways in which climate change is a crime against our children. There is no possible behavior that she could take that would not produce this "she is unlikable" response except to never speak in public whatsoever.
A bit less of the superlatives would help.
> ... talk about the ways in which climate change is a crime against our children.
For example, how is this phrase supposed to work, rhetorically. Shaming people into joining your cause?
> ... talk about the ways in which climate change is a crime against our children.
For example, how is this phrase supposed to work, rhetorically. Shaming people into joining your cause?
Don't you think it is funny that you are doing the same thing people are doing to Thunberg?
I do not believe that it would help. Respectability politics does not have an especially strong track record. Complaints merely shift.
I believe very deeply that climate change is a crime against our children. This is not me hyperbolizing.
I do not believe that it would help. Respectability politics does not have an especially strong track record. Complaints merely shift.
I believe very deeply that climate change is a crime against our children. This is not me hyperbolizing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I get it, your beliefs are strong, so must be your politics. Its somehow my fault for not liking your methods.
Gnah, just find your supporters elsewhere...
Gnah, just find your supporters elsewhere...
I will. I am not demanding that you end up as a supporter. What I'm saying is that I do not expect that me choosing different words would make you a supporter even if I tried.
[deleted]
[deleted]
not just unaddressed, it worsens significantly…
Worse than unaddressed, purposely preventing data collection / publication that would allow us to better assess the effects of climate change.
> In alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) will no longer be updating the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters product.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
> In alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) will no longer be updating the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters product.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
> And meanwhile the biggest threat to all our security, the climate crisis goes unaddressed.
That the climate crisis is the biggest threat to our security is the biggest fallacy of our times. It's not that climate change is unimportant, just that it needs to be evaluated to its fair potential consequences, compared to e.g. an all-out war.
That the climate crisis is the biggest threat to our security is the biggest fallacy of our times. It's not that climate change is unimportant, just that it needs to be evaluated to its fair potential consequences, compared to e.g. an all-out war.
These are all parts of the same equation.
Well, iran tried to address it by using nuclear energy to offset CO2 emissions, but alas the world attacked it. (i m not being serious)
Well, bombing a country after appointing a 22 year old heritage foundation intern as head of terrorism prevention seems like a good attempt at changing that.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-dhs-thomas-fugate-c...
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-dhs-thomas-fugate-c...
The Conflict and Environment Observatory published an article outlining actual and potential environmental consequences of this war:
https://ceobs.org/the-emerging-environmental-consequences-of...
What are you talking about this will make oil price spike, best thing you could do to support the green transition :)
Joking ofc, but any oil price spike will have more impact that policy changes at this point.
Joking ofc, but any oil price spike will have more impact that policy changes at this point.
I am a little confused. Is bombing a sovereign country under far-fetched excuse considered ok or not today?
[deleted]
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.
It's OK.
What is far fetched about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
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?
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??
The goal was to stop their progress, not reduce/increase incentives.
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.
[deleted]
Why not take moral upper hand and first destroy all of your own nuclear weapons?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If not to build a nuke, why have a secret uranium enrichment facility built over 250 ft under a mountain?
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?
> 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.
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.
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?
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
If you honestly think Iran is enriching uranium for clean energy, I have a bridge to sell you.
It would have worked if Iran had stopped also paying people to shoot missiles so often and donating to kill Ukraine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is detested because Iran is Shia and the other countries around them are Sunni. The cause is religious, not "we don't like them because they are bad".
The publicly revealed, internationally inspected secret uranium enrichment facility?
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...
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...
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
She stated they had unprecedented levels of enriched uranium for a country without weapons.
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).
[deleted]
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.
The point is they were moving _towards_ a nuke
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.
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.
Those UN buildings in Geneva and New York, are they up for sale already? What about the buildings of the US Congress?
[deleted]
Congress itself has been for sale for quite some time. Even more openly now than ever.
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.
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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?
Why would anyone sign up for military service after dump has personally pissed in their faces?
That’s the ideal situation to have vets and poor people in surviving mode.
Now you just release act of great benefits for those who sign and you get them onboard in a blink of an eye.
Same with the Russian mil conscripts in Ukraine.
Same with the crusade in mid ages.
Now you just release act of great benefits for those who sign and you get them onboard in a blink of an eye.
Same with the Russian mil conscripts in Ukraine.
Same with the crusade in mid ages.
How many million of dollars were spent in this spectacle? And to my average American, 50% of who seemingly live paycheck to paycheck, is this what you want your government to be doing? Asking as a Canadian.
[deleted]
I’m a US citizen and I don’t think it was necessary. Israel is doing just fine dismantling Iran in its own. If they can’t reach the underground sites from the air then task special forces to go in and blow them up from the inside. What I think happened is Trump got jealous of Israel’s success and wanted to do something so he could take some credit.
This is definitely a bold movement, I pray for peace, And hoping US stops jumping in conflicts that are not theirs
[deleted]
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
[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.
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.
I get that you consider this important enough to write ~40 variations of this comment in this thread.
But people might think it sounds a bit silly, when Iran have been 'months' to 'a year' away from nuclear weapons for thirty years [0].
Especially when the IAEA themselves say there is zero proof that Iran have made any effort to obtain nuclear weapons [1].
Do you have any evidence for this? Any at all?? ... If so, wouldn't it be smart to share it the next time you make these claims in defense of acts of war?
9 days ago, Israel assassinated Iran's lead nuclear negotiator, along with 9 scientists [2]. They didn't offer any evidence for doing this, just claimed it was necessary. If you have access to any genuine evidence, it would be great to see it. And if you don't - consider not presenting you claims as fact ~40 times in a single post.
0 - https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/for-3-decades-israeli-pm-neta...
1 - https://truthout.org/articles/iaea-head-we-did-not-have-any-...
2 - https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-kills-ali-shamkhani
But people might think it sounds a bit silly, when Iran have been 'months' to 'a year' away from nuclear weapons for thirty years [0].
Especially when the IAEA themselves say there is zero proof that Iran have made any effort to obtain nuclear weapons [1].
Do you have any evidence for this? Any at all?? ... If so, wouldn't it be smart to share it the next time you make these claims in defense of acts of war?
9 days ago, Israel assassinated Iran's lead nuclear negotiator, along with 9 scientists [2]. They didn't offer any evidence for doing this, just claimed it was necessary. If you have access to any genuine evidence, it would be great to see it. And if you don't - consider not presenting you claims as fact ~40 times in a single post.
0 - https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/for-3-decades-israeli-pm-neta...
1 - https://truthout.org/articles/iaea-head-we-did-not-have-any-...
2 - https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-kills-ali-shamkhani
Praying for peace will definitely help.
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.
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
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'.
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'.
[deleted]
[deleted]
they tested implosion devices back in 2003 https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-carried-implosion-tests-nucl...
for totally civilian purposes...
for totally civilian purposes...
There sure are a lot of people in here who are defaulting to "nuclear proliferation is okay" by thinking that not being involved somehow solves the problem. You are in a prisoner's dilemma. Choosing not to participate is still participating.
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.
Diplomacy was working until the US unilaterally withdrew from the treaty in 2018.
There are solutions other than war to nonproliferation.
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.
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 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?
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?
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
I expect a full no-fly zone enforcement, and with that the regime's domestic authority and power will quickly go down the drain.
Iraq today is alot less of headache to it's neighbours than if Saddam Hussein was still here. So clearly it did work on the long term.
Stuxnext was quite an achievement, too -- aside from it escaping containment and all. Kudos to ... whoever it was that pulled that off.
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.
> 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’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 are a warmonger. Take your game somewhere else.
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? 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.
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 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.
And to pile on, diplomacy with Iran was working until Trump fucked it up in 2018.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_fro...
During the Korean war, when the US started to lose, they threatened to use nuclear weapons to force negotiations.
Maybe that's why NK has nukes. They US declared war on them and then threatened them with nuclear weapons to prevent North Korea from winning the war.
Maybe that's why NK has nukes. They US declared war on them and then threatened them with nuclear weapons to prevent North Korea from winning the war.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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/
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
We tend to prefer stories where there is neatly a good guy and a bad guy. Much easier to reason and support our own moral perspective.
Reality doesn’t work like that. Netanyahu may indeed be a war criminal. That doesn’t make Iran the good guy and it doesn’t mean their stonewalling was not likely shielding the development of an offensive nuclear capability.
America’s sole responsibility is in its protection and the deterrence of these programs, regardless of who you have to hitch your wagon to. I really wish peace with Iran were possible. I see no evidence they’re interested in that peace.
Reality doesn’t work like that. Netanyahu may indeed be a war criminal. That doesn’t make Iran the good guy and it doesn’t mean their stonewalling was not likely shielding the development of an offensive nuclear capability.
America’s sole responsibility is in its protection and the deterrence of these programs, regardless of who you have to hitch your wagon to. I really wish peace with Iran were possible. I see no evidence they’re interested in that peace.
[deleted]
I wish more people were able to perform more balanced/critical thinking like that instead of constantly cheering for their team.
If America's responsibility is deterrence, why do we invade countries that don't have nuclear capabilities? Don't you suppose that incentivizes every country watching this to develop nukes? They see that if they don't, eventually they'll get invaded. That's the opposite of deterrence.
Declaration of War vs. Authorization for Use of Military Force: How America Goes to War
https://govfacts.org/explainer/declaration-of-war-vs-authori...
https://govfacts.org/explainer/declaration-of-war-vs-authori...
[deleted]
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.
watch as the US is now dragged into 10-20 years of war in the middle east again.
[deleted]
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.
(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.
Saw reports that natanz did get 2x too
So much for humanity learning from its 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.
"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.
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.
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
It definitely is not. The gulf in support between US politicians and the US public is wider than it ever has been. That's not sustainable in the long run (it is probably a notable factor already in the loss of the Dems' presidential candidate [among many others, of course])
> Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support,
Chuck Schumer still supports killing and maiming toddlers though.
Chuck Schumer still supports killing and maiming toddlers though.
Excellent case in point
[deleted]
Trump doesn’t seem like the kind of person to learn from his, or anyone else's mistakes.
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.
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.
[flagged]
[deleted]
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.
To us it would, to them it is defensive, especially if we keep saying we financially support suicide bombers etc.
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
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44341958
Here's the interesting wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
[deleted]
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.
The post about the stealth bomber doesn't have to be front page. I just disagree it should be flagged.
They didn't finish manufacturing consent yet. Novice mistake.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's wait and see if they're still unhappy about the bombing in one week. This is a pattern I've seen time and time again with his base, e.g. with January 6th - they start off unhappy & surprised until their media has started sharing theories and viewpoints that slowly move them towards accepting and supporting whatever happened.
I'd love to be wrong here, but I don't think I am.
I'd love to be wrong here, but I don't think I am.
This is literally the sort of response I was complaining about.
Trump's base have been consistently against wars in the middle-east and him being too close to Israel has been a consistent criticism of Trump from way back in 2016/2017. So his supporters have been consistent about this for almost a decade. So I don't think your assessment is correct at all.
It been almost a decade now since Trump has entered politics and there has been one thing that been consistent throughout this period. That is the inability for otherwise intelligent people to state the beliefs of Trump's supporters accurately.
Trump's base have been consistently against wars in the middle-east and him being too close to Israel has been a consistent criticism of Trump from way back in 2016/2017. So his supporters have been consistent about this for almost a decade. So I don't think your assessment is correct at all.
It been almost a decade now since Trump has entered politics and there has been one thing that been consistent throughout this period. That is the inability for otherwise intelligent people to state the beliefs of Trump's supporters accurately.
Again: I do genuinely hope that you're correct.
But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
> Again: I do genuinely hope that you're correct.
I don't believe you. You went for the old "they are all brainwashed" routine, specifically after I complained about people doing that. Which tells me you have bought into partisan politics.
> But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
No they haven't. They've consistently been against his supporting of the COVID Vaccine (to the point where Trump doesn't mention it anymore), Against wars in the middle-east.
The pro-Trump people were complaining about his bombing of the Syrian Airfield back in 2017. That was spun heavily by the media at the time.
You consistently keep claiming this to be a truism but it isn't true at all. This is wholly disingenuous or you don't know what you are talking about.
> We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
Even if you were wrong, I suspect that you will point to some AstroTurf'd poll and declare victory.
I don't believe you. You went for the old "they are all brainwashed" routine, specifically after I complained about people doing that. Which tells me you have bought into partisan politics.
> But the pattern I've seen is that it doesn't matter whether his supporters have consistently been against something, because they'll change their opinion once Trump actually does that thing. They start off by levying some criticisms, but quickly change over the coming days.
No they haven't. They've consistently been against his supporting of the COVID Vaccine (to the point where Trump doesn't mention it anymore), Against wars in the middle-east.
The pro-Trump people were complaining about his bombing of the Syrian Airfield back in 2017. That was spun heavily by the media at the time.
You consistently keep claiming this to be a truism but it isn't true at all. This is wholly disingenuous or you don't know what you are talking about.
> We'll see soon enough who is right. My prediction is: in one week, there'll be broad support in his base for the bombing. I'm sure enough of it that I'd be willing to bet money on it, and I'll gladly come back here and admit that I was wrong should things not turn out how I expect them to.
Even if you were wrong, I suspect that you will point to some AstroTurf'd poll and declare victory.
> I don't believe you. You went for the old "they are all brainwashed" routine, specifically after I complained about people doing that. Which tells me you have bought into partisan politics.
I'm doing that "routine" because it's what I've been seeing time and time again over the last years. I keep seeing lines drawn in the sand, those lines being stepped over, and everybody suddenly just accepting it and calling everyone who still keeps to those lines "RINOs" until they fully disappear.
But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
I'm doing that "routine" because it's what I've been seeing time and time again over the last years. I keep seeing lines drawn in the sand, those lines being stepped over, and everybody suddenly just accepting it and calling everyone who still keeps to those lines "RINOs" until they fully disappear.
But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
> I'm doing that "routine" because it's what I've been seeing time and time again over the last years. I keep seeing lines drawn in the sand, those lines being stepped over, and everybody suddenly just accepting it and calling everyone who still keeps to those lines "RINOs" until they fully disappear.
I have no idea what you are even referring to. I am specifically talking about anti-war sentiment from Trump's base (which is not the same as Republicans). It has been consistent over the last 9 years.
> But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
You literally did the routine that I specifically complained about in my original comment. Why should I extend to you any good faith? I specifically said I was tired of it and didn't want to hear it.
I have no idea what you are even referring to. I am specifically talking about anti-war sentiment from Trump's base (which is not the same as Republicans). It has been consistent over the last 9 years.
> But if you can't extend this much good faith to me, we have nothing to discuss. Good day.
You literally did the routine that I specifically complained about in my original comment. Why should I extend to you any good faith? I specifically said I was tired of it and didn't want to hear it.
Not sure how much we can trust this poll, but it's already happening:
https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/survey-results...
> Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. bombing nuclear sites in Iran?
Republicans say:
https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/survey-results...
> Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. bombing nuclear sites in Iran?
Republicans say:
Strongly approve 46%
Somewhat approve 22%
Somewhat disapprove 5%
Strongly disapprove 8%
Not sure 18%I don't trust YouGov polls. A few years ago everyone of their polls on English Politics came out at 71% vs 29%, which means they were sampling the same people repeatedly.
Also his base are a different group of people from Republicans, they are often a subset of Republicans.
You can go on Twitter, Youtube or any comment section and they are all saying "MAGA is dead", "I didn't vote for this" or some sort of signalling they are against a war with Iran.
Also his base are a different group of people from Republicans, they are often a subset of Republicans.
You can go on Twitter, Youtube or any comment section and they are all saying "MAGA is dead", "I didn't vote for this" or some sort of signalling they are against a war with Iran.
I'm willing to buy that YouGov is a low quality poll, but you can't be suggesting twitter and youtube comment sections as a better alternative. Half of those comments might not even be human.
It is pretty easy to spot botted accounts both on YouTube and Twitter. I generally try to judge the sentiment and the momentum.
I will admit I am a bit of a politico, I see myself as the equivalent of someone betting on horses or dogs.
Generally I do the following:
- It is pretty easy to spot botted accounts both on YouTube and Twitter. Especially on YouTube. You will typically get a lot of real sounding names and real looking avatars that almost say exactly the same thing, along with a fake conversation as replies. These bots aren't using advanced AI. They can be bought quite cheaply actually.
- I also talk to a lot of people both in left and right leaning Discord groups. The consensus to anyone that isn't a complete die-hard is "MAGA has jumped the shark".
- There are lower level commentators who represent maybe few tens of thousands of people. Some of these are political operative, some of these are grifters, others are genuine people that have moved towards nationalist politics over time. I've been around these spaces long enough to know the usernames, the characters and accounts of those that follow them.
I appreciate none of this is scientific. However, I will take that over a poll any-day of the week and has been more consistent IME than polling (which is well known to be skewed depending on who is doing it).
I've been not paying attention to any of it recently because quite honestly I've burned out on it and instead I am having a break from it.
I will admit I am a bit of a politico, I see myself as the equivalent of someone betting on horses or dogs.
Generally I do the following:
- It is pretty easy to spot botted accounts both on YouTube and Twitter. Especially on YouTube. You will typically get a lot of real sounding names and real looking avatars that almost say exactly the same thing, along with a fake conversation as replies. These bots aren't using advanced AI. They can be bought quite cheaply actually.
- I also talk to a lot of people both in left and right leaning Discord groups. The consensus to anyone that isn't a complete die-hard is "MAGA has jumped the shark".
- There are lower level commentators who represent maybe few tens of thousands of people. Some of these are political operative, some of these are grifters, others are genuine people that have moved towards nationalist politics over time. I've been around these spaces long enough to know the usernames, the characters and accounts of those that follow them.
I appreciate none of this is scientific. However, I will take that over a poll any-day of the week and has been more consistent IME than polling (which is well known to be skewed depending on who is doing it).
I've been not paying attention to any of it recently because quite honestly I've burned out on it and instead I am having a break from it.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike
While you are correct it wasn’t a war, but neither is this technically.
They have to believe it to have a reason to like Trump
It is fascinating. He lies so much, keeps repeating those lies and somehow people start believing those lies.
which was widely believed to be a mere gesture to appease warhawks and that's why they only hit a few empty landing strips
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.
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.
It's not random.
Yeah, I'm sure Trump raving about Obama invading Iran was part of a galaxy brain geopolitical master plan hatched back when he was just a real estate developer / minor reality TV star who wouldn't even run for president for another 5 years and not just random attempts to go viral.
That's the "unfulfilled wish" part I was referring to.
There are exceptions -- birtherism comes to mind -- but that's what they are, exceptions. In general, though, accusations from Republicans reliably reflect things they are either already doing, planning to do, or wish they could get away with.
There are exceptions -- birtherism comes to mind -- but that's what they are, exceptions. In general, though, accusations from Republicans reliably reflect things they are either already doing, planning to do, or wish they could get away with.
Why does it have to be galaxied brain?
He can just have wanted to punish Iran or something without it being a full blown plan. Trump assassinated an Iranian general during his first term [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani
He can just have wanted to punish Iran or something without it being a full blown plan. Trump assassinated an Iranian general during his first term [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani
> 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.
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.
He did strike Syria during his first term
[deleted]
[deleted]
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?
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?
[deleted]
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.
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.
Is “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE” about to become the new “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”?
[deleted]
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."
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.
[deleted]
mindslight(4)
le-mark(8)
According to Trump Fordow is gone.(https://x.com/Osint613/status/1936577812866945296)
[deleted]
Freedom2(6)
financypants(2)
mukmuk(2)
andrepd(5)
Prediction: Iran will fold somewhat quickly and history will remember this as good move.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
But yeah, I do think history will remember this as one of the few good things Trump does.
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.
US will be forced to join and millions of its citizen will die in WW3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>It won’t matter what the policies are as the majority of refugees will try to get to the EU illegally.
But policies directly influence people's motivation to become illegal migrants in a particular country.
But policies directly influence people's motivation to become illegal migrants in a particular country.
abletonlive(3)
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.
This is why the west has been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
infamouscow(1)
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.
The IDF has total air superiority. The regime has very little capabilities left at all.
Iran has been bombing Israeli targets at will, including Tel Aviv. Israel doesn't even have control over their own airspace.
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?
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?
Noam Chomsky, "Is Iran a threat?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
(... no)
(... 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.
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.
> "Nobody in their right mind wants iran to have nuclear weapons"
Does not sound like Chomsky is saying "no, iran isn't a threat" to me.
Does not sound like Chomsky is saying "no, iran isn't a threat" to me.
siltcakes(1)
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.
You really believe Trump would take meaningful action against Russia? He can even make a forceful statement, let alone act.
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.
tdeck(1)
arthurcolle(1)
FilosofumRex(10)
According to NYT the US is now at war with Iran: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/21/world/iran-israel-tr...
[deleted]
pelorat(1)
k4rli(2)
cchance(1)
derelicta(1)
jmward01(3)
testrun(2)
albiinics(1)
Koshkin(1)
2OEH8eoCRo0(1)
OhioMan2943(2)
mupuff1234(12)
beefnugs(1)
kjewsnow(1)
nsoonhui(1)
I think Netanyahu cleverly played on Trump's ego to get him to strike Iran.
Why do people talk like this is all just one person’s decision? There’s an entire government apparatus involved advisors, military leadership, intelligence agencies. It’s not a dictatorship where one guy just snaps his fingers and things happen. I just can't believe this whole thread.
[deleted]
Obviously complicated and dangerous, but I’m surprised (or, not really) how many people here are quick to condemn Israel and the US, with no consideration that the official Iranian policy is the ELIMINATION of Israel. Of course Israel cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Israel has many nukes, and in fact does not commit genocide, despite being capable. Some Islamic regimes would be much more likely to use that power, IMO.
The question is if Iran really was nearly capable of building nukes.
Everything else doesn’t matter as long the words aren’t followed by action.
Everything else doesn’t matter as long the words aren’t followed by action.
Of course they were near. Their mostly highly enriched uranium could have been further enriched to a crude bomb level within weeks. The question is not if they were near, but if they intended on crossing that line. Not something that Israel could just sit and wait for.
Source for that?
Here it‘s less clear
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo
Sound more like Musk‘s „FSD is ready next year“
Here it‘s less clear
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo
Sound more like Musk‘s „FSD is ready next year“
Maybe they were far from implementing modern nuclear weapon designs, but there are simple applications like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon delivered by ground. With that approach the bomb assembly is pretty straightforward engineering once they have sufficiently enriched uranium (which they already did the bulk of the work for).
Seems like they are near the bomb for the last 13 years
https://youtu.be/3Q08a7BI9XI?si=hRszAlQVMOLjJCg7&t=428
How often can you cry wolf?
https://youtu.be/3Q08a7BI9XI?si=hRszAlQVMOLjJCg7&t=428
How often can you cry wolf?
Regardless of whether any past claims were misleading or what not, today noone disputes that Iran has a large stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, and is officially in breach of their NPT obligations per the IAEA board.
> Israel has many nukes, and in fact does not commit genocide
This is being debated. A European judge who questioned this recently had his email access revoked by Microsoft.
This is being debated. A European judge who questioned this recently had his email access revoked by Microsoft.
You mean Khan? The charges he tried to prosecute didn't include genocide. Khan's initial list included extermination, but that was rejected by the pre-trial chamber.
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.
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.
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.
By now, most people trust a nuclear armed stable iran over an erratic, war hungry nuclear armed israel
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.
> 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...
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...
I think the contrary. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than a quarter of the world's oil gets shipped.
The world price of oil is then expected to go up, and the US economy is very oil-dependent.
Other oil producers would profit from this, ... including Russia's state-run oil company, which would help them fund their war in Ukraine.
Other oil producers would profit from this, ... including Russia's state-run oil company, which would help them fund their war in Ukraine.
All the talk in the west is about extreme Muslims, or extreme Jews.
But every group has their extremists.
We need to not forget the extreme Christians...
But every group has their extremists.
We need to not forget the extreme Christians...
Such as the US secretary of "defense", Pete Hegseth, who has the Latin phrase for "god wills it" tattooed on his bicep. A phrase that is also the motto of the first crusade.
Yes. The people are being lied to, the extreme elements of the two largest global religions, whichever it happens to be, will always be at some direct or indirect conflict. And it's a shame one side is pretending they are not driving it, but that their tiny little proxy country is.
[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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 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." 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> The way some people talk, very likely not.
Then it is very obviously a moral imperative for the leadership of Iran to have the ability to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon in order to protect its sovereignty, a concept you deny Iran, and its many people.
Then it is very obviously a moral imperative for the leadership of Iran to have the ability to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon in order to protect its sovereignty, a concept you deny Iran, and its many people.
Art of the un-deal
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_...
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?
The US was angry Iran had a civilian rocket program?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you agree they were not exploring nuclear weapons with that agreement in place?
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.
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
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.
In matters of nuclear proliferation, that's kind of close to the truth, whether we like it or not.
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.
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 US allowed Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea to get nuclear weapons, but Iran is a step too far? Pull the other one.
I mean, we could have not torn up the JPCOA for starters
They are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.
They have been saying that (at least) since 1995.
Well, it takes about 20 years. Throw in a virus, assassinations, inspections, ... sounds about right.
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.
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.
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 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)
- 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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-...
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...
https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-...
How'd any of that be a problem, even if it was true?
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...
This is the IAEA report [0], claiming enough material for 9 weapons.
[0] https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
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.
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...
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!
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.
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.
>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...? 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.
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.
"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.
>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.
Who is 'they'? United States, Israel, media outlet?
[deleted]
Do we have irrefutable evidence that Iran was that close to a nuke?
No. In fact, there is no (public) evidence at all.
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...
> 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.
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:
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.
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...
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.
It's much cheaper to use a cyclotron than get massively sanctioned - unless you what you really want is a weapon.
To negotiate back to a prior deal that was actually pretty great for all parties involved.
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.
But weapons are the ONLY reason to enrich that high.
Not true. Maybe the only plausible reason Iran has to make them, but that's a different claim.
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.
Many people on this thread are rather inexplicably pro-Iran-having-nukes.
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.
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.
'has them', 'could make them', it doesn't matter what the claim is when you there no requirement for evidence. There are no penalties for US presidents who lie to start a war.
Not ripping up a treaty that was being upheld by Iran would be an excellent start.
Aeolun(1)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
(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.)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
You don't build uranium enrichment facilities deep underground if it isn't part of a nuclear weapons project.
You might if a nuclear-armed genocidal pariah state backed by the most powerful and richest country in the world was obsessed with you. Especially if the superpower I've alluded to had previously installed its regime in your country.
You really should be ashamed to lie like this. Iran is the country that has said it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Israel just wants to live in peace with Iran. But the current religious nutjobs in charge of Iran absolutely will not allow that to happen.
The bombing of Iran by Israel and the US is the result of Iran picking a fight with them since 1979.
The bombing of Iran by Israel and the US is the result of Iran picking a fight with them since 1979.
Israel is actively engaged in a genocide and its ethnic cleansing program is fully supported by the USA, which is currently engaged in its own domestic ethnic cleansing through violent and illegal kidnappings by heavily armed, erratic, masked, unidentified secret police. The American genocide is informed by and its gestapo trained in Israeli doctrine.
Innocent children are being maimed, starved, and murdered and it is being done with materiel produced with my tax dollars and provided with the bipartisan endorsement of my government.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not perfect, they have promulgated many evils within their society. The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran, but even that pales in the light of the disgusting atrocities being committed today by the traitorous US government. Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty.
Innocent children are being maimed, starved, and murdered and it is being done with materiel produced with my tax dollars and provided with the bipartisan endorsement of my government.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not perfect, they have promulgated many evils within their society. The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran, but even that pales in the light of the disgusting atrocities being committed today by the traitorous US government. Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty.
"Israel is actively engaged in a genocide"
This is absolutely not true. Hamas is actively attempting to destroy Israel. I really hate this watering down of the word "genocide". Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" have specific meanings that shouldn't be diluted through overuse.
"The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran"
Don't remove agency from the Iranians. THEY chose an Islamic Theocracy all on their own after the Shah was overthrown. You "merica evil" types really like to remove agency from people.
"USA, which is currently engaged in its own domestic ethnic cleansing "
I truly, truly hate Trump and think what ICE is doing is stupid and sadistic but calling it "ethnic cleansing" is completely absurd. The federal government does have the constitutional authority to deport non-citizens.
"Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty."
Iran's biggest issue is that they constantly try to pick fights with MUCH stronger countries. They have spend every second since 1979 antagonizing the US and Israel in a profoundly foolish way. Compare this to how Vietnam doesn't hold a grudge against the US and benefits greatly from having a normal relationship with it.
This is absolutely not true. Hamas is actively attempting to destroy Israel. I really hate this watering down of the word "genocide". Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" have specific meanings that shouldn't be diluted through overuse.
"The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran"
Don't remove agency from the Iranians. THEY chose an Islamic Theocracy all on their own after the Shah was overthrown. You "merica evil" types really like to remove agency from people.
"USA, which is currently engaged in its own domestic ethnic cleansing "
I truly, truly hate Trump and think what ICE is doing is stupid and sadistic but calling it "ethnic cleansing" is completely absurd. The federal government does have the constitutional authority to deport non-citizens.
"Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty."
Iran's biggest issue is that they constantly try to pick fights with MUCH stronger countries. They have spend every second since 1979 antagonizing the US and Israel in a profoundly foolish way. Compare this to how Vietnam doesn't hold a grudge against the US and benefits greatly from having a normal relationship with it.
"Israel can't do genocide because it is Jewish and it is their right" is a fascist Big Lie, right up there with "The America people cannot do genocide because the USA is an inherently Good actor and entitled to the things it takes."
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.
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.
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.
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.
There were other candidates for supreme leader that had stronger clerical and jurisprudential backgrounds
Nuclear program != nuclear weapons program, though.
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.
Those of you who received adequate Liberal Arts education will see through him, whether you agree with his intended rhetorical outcome or not.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
After Israel assassinated Haniyeh in July and launched an air strike on Beirut that killed 30+ people, some of which were civilians. Keep going on with this game though.
I'm glad we're at the point where we recognize that an attack on Hezbollah was a military strike on Iran.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Do you think it's not public knowledge that Iran finances and orchestrates Hezbollah? Or is this the terrorism card? Maybe it's different when the US supports al-Zenki et al (or the many years of financial support and hands-off permission Israel gave Hamas and then encouraged Qatar to give Hamas).
I think Hezbollah has done some truly disgusting things and I have no delusions about the ill deeds of Iran's regime. But I think it's extremely fair to say that Israel is an even more egregious perpetrator of murder, displacement, and apartheid and Iranians have every right and reason to see themselves in solidarity with Palestinians and the people of Lebanon.
I think Hezbollah has done some truly disgusting things and I have no delusions about the ill deeds of Iran's regime. But I think it's extremely fair to say that Israel is an even more egregious perpetrator of murder, displacement, and apartheid and Iranians have every right and reason to see themselves in solidarity with Palestinians and the people of Lebanon.
If it helps understand where I'm coming from, I don't think Hezbollah is (was?) a terrorist force at all. It was designed to be a near-peer military adversary against Israel (on paper) and Sunni militias (in reality). It is (was?) an instrument of the IRGC, with very little of its own agency; a genuine part of the Order of Battle of the Iranian military command.
I think this is all common knowledge? A brigadier general of the IRGC was in the room with Nasrallah when he was killed IIRC. I might quibble with "militia", which has legal ramifications I'm sure you're aware of. Maybe there are conspiratorial cranks who deny that's what Hezbollah is, but I'm not sure I know any people who would disagree with this. I believe Khamenei called Hezbollah and Nasrallah "his children" with pretty clear connotations being conveyed after Nasrallah was assassinated.
Iran has been organizing and funding attacks on Israel via proxies for years?
Isn't that subterfuge?
Isn't that subterfuge?
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 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.
I come in good faith. I don't understand the intent of your reply. Can you explain more?
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.
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.
UltraSane(1)
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
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. [...]
> 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!
Nuts!
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.
It's not a suggestion. It's a well-supported historical fact.
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.
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.
There are two problems with this.
The first problem is that you are using this quote as an appeal to authority. Eisenhower might have written that he thought it wasn’t needed to end the war, but he was just one voice amongst many.
The second problem is you’re not reading carefully with historical context.
Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons to quickly end the war, Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
The hardliners who brought Japan into war still had enough sway at this juncture to continue the war and planned to do so.
When Eisenhower says “it was my belief”, he’s partially right, there in fact were Japanese military and political officials who were trying to end the war in a way that saves face, and protects the honor of the Emperor. But the problem with his belief as stated is that although there were in fact those folks seeking to end the war, they didn’t have control and could not stop the war on their own.
Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons, the United States knew the war was going to be won, but what it didn’t know was whether Japan really was going to fight to the last child or sue for peace. Given the American experience at Okinawa many believed the fighting would continue, and that it would be bloody and many lives would be lost.
Instead of dealing with all of that uncertainty, they used the bomb. Japan still hadn’t surrendered with some Imperial Army leadership believing the Americans couldn’t posses more than 1 or 2 and so Japan could keep fighting. The US used it again. Hirohito had enough. Japan surrendered. Etc.
The politics of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, domestic officials, and the Emperor are quite complicated. There were disagreements and misgivings before war with the United States even took place, and as the war continued there were disagreements even when it seems obvious in retrospect that the United States “didn’t need” to use the atomic weapons.
But presenting a single quote from a single man, albeit an important one, as though his disagreement is a coup de grace on a discussion about the usage of atomic weapons to end the war is lazy at the very least, if not downright rude.
Instead of dropping a random quote from Eisenhower and being lazy, you should pull up your keyboard and write your original thoughts on the matter, cite your sources where you see fit (I’m not asking for those) and present a coherent argument.
As easily as you can produce a quote, so too can that quote be dismissed as just some guy’s opinion. Clearly the President thought differently and used the bombs.
I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it. Japan started the war. I’m an American - American lives matter more to me than do the lives of others in the context of World War II, including civilians.
The first problem is that you are using this quote as an appeal to authority. Eisenhower might have written that he thought it wasn’t needed to end the war, but he was just one voice amongst many.
The second problem is you’re not reading carefully with historical context.
> It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”
Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons to quickly end the war, Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
The hardliners who brought Japan into war still had enough sway at this juncture to continue the war and planned to do so.
When Eisenhower says “it was my belief”, he’s partially right, there in fact were Japanese military and political officials who were trying to end the war in a way that saves face, and protects the honor of the Emperor. But the problem with his belief as stated is that although there were in fact those folks seeking to end the war, they didn’t have control and could not stop the war on their own.
Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons, the United States knew the war was going to be won, but what it didn’t know was whether Japan really was going to fight to the last child or sue for peace. Given the American experience at Okinawa many believed the fighting would continue, and that it would be bloody and many lives would be lost.
Instead of dealing with all of that uncertainty, they used the bomb. Japan still hadn’t surrendered with some Imperial Army leadership believing the Americans couldn’t posses more than 1 or 2 and so Japan could keep fighting. The US used it again. Hirohito had enough. Japan surrendered. Etc.
The politics of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, domestic officials, and the Emperor are quite complicated. There were disagreements and misgivings before war with the United States even took place, and as the war continued there were disagreements even when it seems obvious in retrospect that the United States “didn’t need” to use the atomic weapons.
But presenting a single quote from a single man, albeit an important one, as though his disagreement is a coup de grace on a discussion about the usage of atomic weapons to end the war is lazy at the very least, if not downright rude.
Instead of dropping a random quote from Eisenhower and being lazy, you should pull up your keyboard and write your original thoughts on the matter, cite your sources where you see fit (I’m not asking for those) and present a coherent argument.
As easily as you can produce a quote, so too can that quote be dismissed as just some guy’s opinion. Clearly the President thought differently and used the bombs.
I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it. Japan started the war. I’m an American - American lives matter more to me than do the lives of others in the context of World War II, including civilians.
>I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it.
You are an evil and stupid person.
>Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
No they didn't. They didn't want an unconditional surrender, they had sued for peace multiple times and it was ignored.
So instead of us negotiating with Japanese we completely destroyed two civilian cities to put them in their place.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
- Adm. William Leahy, President Harry Truman’s chief military adviser
"First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander
"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."
- Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
- Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. "
- Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950
So we have the supreme allied commander, commander and chief of the pacific fleet, and the chief military advisor to Truman all on record saying the bomb was not necessary nor really saved American lives.
Then we have people like you on the internet saying otherwise, with no proof.
Really quite the contrast.
You are an evil and stupid person.
>Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death.
No they didn't. They didn't want an unconditional surrender, they had sued for peace multiple times and it was ignored.
So instead of us negotiating with Japanese we completely destroyed two civilian cities to put them in their place.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
- Adm. William Leahy, President Harry Truman’s chief military adviser
"First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander
"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."
- Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
- Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. "
- Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950
So we have the supreme allied commander, commander and chief of the pacific fleet, and the chief military advisor to Truman all on record saying the bomb was not necessary nor really saved American lives.
Then we have people like you on the internet saying otherwise, with no proof.
Really quite the contrast.
Quotes aren’t an argument. Instead, write original thoughts. I’m sure it’s difficult since your contributions to this discussion are just rehashing quotes that you Google, but you’ll understand more about the war and the human condition by cracking open a few books. Really.
Anyway
Many people feel regret over various aspects of World War II, including veterans who only killed enemy soldiers in what was honorable combat against a violent and viscous enemy who attacked them. No reason to think military commanders wouldn’t also express regret over using destructive weapons, even if they would have made the same decision over again. There’s no moral difference between bombing a city and killing civilians and bombing a factory making ordinance and also killing citizens. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of warfare, and in particular Total War. There are no innocents. Unsurprisingly, the West were the only powers that gave even the slightest damn about minimizing civilian casualties. Which is why we are sitting here talking about western actions because we are a moral people by and large. Nobody in the former USSR has any regrets over raping and murdering Germans.
Same commanders ordered many gruesome, albeit necessary military decisions that resulted in the deaths of soldiers, women, and children.
Interestingly you aren’t quoting those who express regret over any number of those other decisions. Why is that?
Find us some quotes of Japanese commanders that survived the war and their regret over their heinous and disgusting acts. If not maybe you can find some Chinese friends or Filipino colleagues (or others) who can enlighten you.
Truman did not regret using the bombs and would have done it again, and as he said “at the snap of my fingers”, despite being sorrowful for the death and destruction caused. His opinion matters more than anyone else’s since it was his decision. And, your random quoting of people like “nuke them all “ Curtis LeMay shows you don’t even know anything about who you are quoting.
QED.
Anyway
Many people feel regret over various aspects of World War II, including veterans who only killed enemy soldiers in what was honorable combat against a violent and viscous enemy who attacked them. No reason to think military commanders wouldn’t also express regret over using destructive weapons, even if they would have made the same decision over again. There’s no moral difference between bombing a city and killing civilians and bombing a factory making ordinance and also killing citizens. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of warfare, and in particular Total War. There are no innocents. Unsurprisingly, the West were the only powers that gave even the slightest damn about minimizing civilian casualties. Which is why we are sitting here talking about western actions because we are a moral people by and large. Nobody in the former USSR has any regrets over raping and murdering Germans.
Same commanders ordered many gruesome, albeit necessary military decisions that resulted in the deaths of soldiers, women, and children.
Interestingly you aren’t quoting those who express regret over any number of those other decisions. Why is that?
Find us some quotes of Japanese commanders that survived the war and their regret over their heinous and disgusting acts. If not maybe you can find some Chinese friends or Filipino colleagues (or others) who can enlighten you.
Truman did not regret using the bombs and would have done it again, and as he said “at the snap of my fingers”, despite being sorrowful for the death and destruction caused. His opinion matters more than anyone else’s since it was his decision. And, your random quoting of people like “nuke them all “ Curtis LeMay shows you don’t even know anything about who you are quoting.
QED.
>Quotes aren’t an argument. Instead, write original thoughts.
Nothing you've written is an argument or original lol; it's baseless conjecture. It's certainly as original as flat earth perspectives.
Just out of curiosity what do you think I should respond to in your post above? There's nothing affirmative. There's nothing to counter, I can't even being debate anything because it doesn't say _anything_ other than wild claims that are based on pure narrative.
>I’m sure it’s difficult since your contributions to this discussion are just rehashing quotes that you Google
All of your posts are well, well, well below just rehashing quotes on Google. Try a little bit harder if you want to even being to critique other people?
Please say something substantive and supportable by evidence. Anything at all.
Nothing you've written is an argument or original lol; it's baseless conjecture. It's certainly as original as flat earth perspectives.
Just out of curiosity what do you think I should respond to in your post above? There's nothing affirmative. There's nothing to counter, I can't even being debate anything because it doesn't say _anything_ other than wild claims that are based on pure narrative.
>I’m sure it’s difficult since your contributions to this discussion are just rehashing quotes that you Google
All of your posts are well, well, well below just rehashing quotes on Google. Try a little bit harder if you want to even being to critique other people?
Please say something substantive and supportable by evidence. Anything at all.
> Just out of curiosity what do you think I should respond to in your post above?
That's for you to figure out. I've proven my point to my satisfaction.
The last thing I'll say is America rules, greatest country on earth. :)
For your reading and understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes?wprov=sfti...
That's for you to figure out. I've proven my point to my satisfaction.
The last thing I'll say is America rules, greatest country on earth. :)
For your reading and understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes?wprov=sfti...
It's pretty hard to come across as pathetic over text but you've somehow managed it lol.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not choosing random quotes. I chose Eisenhower since I was surprised to learn his opinion on the subject, and actually read the quote out of a paper copy of his autobiography. So while I can't be 100% sure that he wrote that, it seems extremely likely that he did.
Until a few years ago, I believed what I had learned in school - that the bombs were necessary to end the war more quickly, and that they actually saved both American and Japanese lives by hastening the surrender. If invading the home islands was the only way, and if there was a fight to the last person, then that would be a reasonable conclusion.
A few counterarguments I heard over time were not easy to dismiss:
1. Why did the surrender come on August 15th? Since no more bombs arrived after August 9th, what changed? In particular, if the US had more nuclear weapons to use, where was the August 12th bomb, since there was apparently a 3 day cycle. From the perspective of the Japanese military leadership, one explanation would be there were no more ready, so the urgency to surrender before further bombs would be lessened.
2. Why did Operation Meetinghouse (March 10th, 1945) which caused a similar amount of destruction with only conventional weapons not precipitate a surrender?
3. How important were the other reasons to use the weapons, such as: a. Testing out their effectiveness against a real enemy target. Conducting such a test initially seemed hard to believe, but in context of the firebombing of cities in Japan (e.g. Tokyo) and Germany (e.g. Dresden) may have made this test plausible to Allied military leaders. The fact that two different types of bomb were used bolsters the argument that this was in part a test. b. Deterring the Soviet armies from continuing to take territory because they had the conventional means to doing so. In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon. c. Making sure that the huge expense of developing the weapons wasn't "wasted" by not using them against an enemy.
I've read Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atom Bomb" (which I just re-read now) since it's the most concise yet persuasive argument I've encountered in favor of using atomic weapons to save lives. If I knew of a similar writing making the opposite case, I would share it here. If you know of such a thing, please let me know.
My current understanding of the situation is that the accumulation of damage inflicted against Japan helped cause the leadership to surrender. The proximate tipping point was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. That meant the end of their peace treaty with the Soviets, the foreclosing of the possibility of the Soviets facilitating peace negotiations with the Allies, and increased the likelihood of an invasion of the home islands by the Red Army before an American invasion could happen. This is the event that finally brought the Japanese government to their senses.
I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not choosing random quotes. I chose Eisenhower since I was surprised to learn his opinion on the subject, and actually read the quote out of a paper copy of his autobiography. So while I can't be 100% sure that he wrote that, it seems extremely likely that he did.
Until a few years ago, I believed what I had learned in school - that the bombs were necessary to end the war more quickly, and that they actually saved both American and Japanese lives by hastening the surrender. If invading the home islands was the only way, and if there was a fight to the last person, then that would be a reasonable conclusion.
A few counterarguments I heard over time were not easy to dismiss:
1. Why did the surrender come on August 15th? Since no more bombs arrived after August 9th, what changed? In particular, if the US had more nuclear weapons to use, where was the August 12th bomb, since there was apparently a 3 day cycle. From the perspective of the Japanese military leadership, one explanation would be there were no more ready, so the urgency to surrender before further bombs would be lessened.
2. Why did Operation Meetinghouse (March 10th, 1945) which caused a similar amount of destruction with only conventional weapons not precipitate a surrender?
3. How important were the other reasons to use the weapons, such as: a. Testing out their effectiveness against a real enemy target. Conducting such a test initially seemed hard to believe, but in context of the firebombing of cities in Japan (e.g. Tokyo) and Germany (e.g. Dresden) may have made this test plausible to Allied military leaders. The fact that two different types of bomb were used bolsters the argument that this was in part a test. b. Deterring the Soviet armies from continuing to take territory because they had the conventional means to doing so. In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon. c. Making sure that the huge expense of developing the weapons wasn't "wasted" by not using them against an enemy.
I've read Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atom Bomb" (which I just re-read now) since it's the most concise yet persuasive argument I've encountered in favor of using atomic weapons to save lives. If I knew of a similar writing making the opposite case, I would share it here. If you know of such a thing, please let me know.
My current understanding of the situation is that the accumulation of damage inflicted against Japan helped cause the leadership to surrender. The proximate tipping point was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. That meant the end of their peace treaty with the Soviets, the foreclosing of the possibility of the Soviets facilitating peace negotiations with the Allies, and increased the likelihood of an invasion of the home islands by the Red Army before an American invasion could happen. This is the event that finally brought the Japanese government to their senses.
> So while I can't be 100% sure that he wrote that, it seems extremely likely that he did.
I didn't meant to imply I was questioning that he wrote what was quoted and I apologize if I did so. It was just that he was but one person in an excruciatingly complicated political dynamic and neither the United States nor Japan had perfect information. I'm not sure we knew that Japan would surrender, and even so I think we forget the utter insanity of World War II and how that drove nation states to do, what seem like in hindsight, to be crazy things or at least take suboptimal actions. With respect to some of your questions regarding various dates, my understanding is that you can chalk some of that up to the fog of war, lack of instantaneous communication, and more. It takes time to send a message to Washington from the Pacific, etc.
> In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon.
I have little doubt that this was a factor (as were other items mentioned), though I don't think it was the primary reason of course - i.e. testing.
Given how absolutely abhorrent the Soviet Union was to become and even today the situation we find ourselves in with a nuclear armed Russia, Churchill and Patton (among others) made sincere, if not perhaps flawed arguments for taking the war immediately to the Soviets but we simply did not have enough nuclear weapons I think at the time.
We didn't know for sure that Communism would fail, although it seems so obvious in hindsight given that it's a failed/flawed ideology. What was it that Teddy Roosevelt said? I don't recall the exact quote but something about the man in the arena. I think that's applicable here. Well, it's applicable to almost all of the wartime decisions that were made. We weren't there. It wasn't my son or daughter dying on some random island in the Pacific. It wasn't me taking a bullet to the chest, or losing an eye, or a leg. How dare I, or anyone else alive today judge the actions of those enduring such horror? An end to the war, by any means possible, seems appropriate to me, however, even if that means as some say unnecessarily killing "innocent" civilians to save American lives. If there were other benefits to using the atomic weapons, so be it.
We're so quick to judge the actions of our leadership at the time, but we shouldn't forget that in the end we came not to conquer but to liberate. And we helped to liberate both Europe and Japan, and of course the Philippines, China, and others from the yolk of despotism. I reject any and all cynical takes to the contrary as useless and corrupt.
> My current understanding...
I largely agree, but want to reiterate that the leadership of Japan wasn't sitting around some conference table saying "oh but please America let us just surrender!". To the very moment of surrender there were hardliners who stood against it. Only when the emperor, with what I have come to understand to be quite a bit of difficulty, issued an end to the war did it finally end. My memory may be incorrect but even after that the Imperial Army, or at least factions of it, wanted to continue to fight. As you mention and I understand currently, there are some historians who have argued that the Japanese did not want to surrender or did not have the political will to do so when the atomic bombs were dropped (assuming the Americans did not have more) but the Soviet invasion was the tipping point. Which I think goes to further show that dropping the bombs on the Japanese wasn't some wonton act of aggression but the United States continuing to take the fight to a determined and dangerous enemy.
I think also with respect to the Soviets, they partially entered the war with Japan for territorial gain and to make sure they had a seat at the table for the negotiation in the Pacific.
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply
Thanks to you as well. I hope I didn't come across too poorly, it's hard to convey over text. I do find it irritating when someone is like "here's a link, here's a quote, go watch this video or read this book" and instead of making a compelling argument for themselves based on what they have learned they want you to spend all of your time arguing with their quote, so you spend a lot of time picking a part a video or an article or something and they don't contribute much to the discussion themselves.
I didn't meant to imply I was questioning that he wrote what was quoted and I apologize if I did so. It was just that he was but one person in an excruciatingly complicated political dynamic and neither the United States nor Japan had perfect information. I'm not sure we knew that Japan would surrender, and even so I think we forget the utter insanity of World War II and how that drove nation states to do, what seem like in hindsight, to be crazy things or at least take suboptimal actions. With respect to some of your questions regarding various dates, my understanding is that you can chalk some of that up to the fog of war, lack of instantaneous communication, and more. It takes time to send a message to Washington from the Pacific, etc.
> In other words, this was not just to end WW2, but to set the stage for the post-war environment that was coming soon.
I have little doubt that this was a factor (as were other items mentioned), though I don't think it was the primary reason of course - i.e. testing.
Given how absolutely abhorrent the Soviet Union was to become and even today the situation we find ourselves in with a nuclear armed Russia, Churchill and Patton (among others) made sincere, if not perhaps flawed arguments for taking the war immediately to the Soviets but we simply did not have enough nuclear weapons I think at the time.
We didn't know for sure that Communism would fail, although it seems so obvious in hindsight given that it's a failed/flawed ideology. What was it that Teddy Roosevelt said? I don't recall the exact quote but something about the man in the arena. I think that's applicable here. Well, it's applicable to almost all of the wartime decisions that were made. We weren't there. It wasn't my son or daughter dying on some random island in the Pacific. It wasn't me taking a bullet to the chest, or losing an eye, or a leg. How dare I, or anyone else alive today judge the actions of those enduring such horror? An end to the war, by any means possible, seems appropriate to me, however, even if that means as some say unnecessarily killing "innocent" civilians to save American lives. If there were other benefits to using the atomic weapons, so be it.
We're so quick to judge the actions of our leadership at the time, but we shouldn't forget that in the end we came not to conquer but to liberate. And we helped to liberate both Europe and Japan, and of course the Philippines, China, and others from the yolk of despotism. I reject any and all cynical takes to the contrary as useless and corrupt.
> My current understanding...
I largely agree, but want to reiterate that the leadership of Japan wasn't sitting around some conference table saying "oh but please America let us just surrender!". To the very moment of surrender there were hardliners who stood against it. Only when the emperor, with what I have come to understand to be quite a bit of difficulty, issued an end to the war did it finally end. My memory may be incorrect but even after that the Imperial Army, or at least factions of it, wanted to continue to fight. As you mention and I understand currently, there are some historians who have argued that the Japanese did not want to surrender or did not have the political will to do so when the atomic bombs were dropped (assuming the Americans did not have more) but the Soviet invasion was the tipping point. Which I think goes to further show that dropping the bombs on the Japanese wasn't some wonton act of aggression but the United States continuing to take the fight to a determined and dangerous enemy.
I think also with respect to the Soviets, they partially entered the war with Japan for territorial gain and to make sure they had a seat at the table for the negotiation in the Pacific.
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply
Thanks to you as well. I hope I didn't come across too poorly, it's hard to convey over text. I do find it irritating when someone is like "here's a link, here's a quote, go watch this video or read this book" and instead of making a compelling argument for themselves based on what they have learned they want you to spend all of your time arguing with their quote, so you spend a lot of time picking a part a video or an article or something and they don't contribute much to the discussion themselves.
[deleted]
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.
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.
"Iran with nukes is more geopolitically stable situation than Iran without nukes."
This is one of the most wrong things anyone has ever said. If Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly compel its regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, to pursue their own nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power. A Middle East with multiple nuclear states is a nightmare scenario, dramatically increasing the chances of miscalculation or nuclear use.
Iran with nukes would almost certainly act far more aggressively just like Russia has with Ukraine.
This is one of the most wrong things anyone has ever said. If Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly compel its regional rivals, namely Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, to pursue their own nuclear weapons to maintain a balance of power. A Middle East with multiple nuclear states is a nightmare scenario, dramatically increasing the chances of miscalculation or nuclear use.
Iran with nukes would almost certainly act far more aggressively just like Russia has with Ukraine.
It's perfectly consistent to be against both Iran nuclear development and the US attack yesterday. One does not imply the other.
China and the Soviet Union developing atomic and nuclear capabilities were never a justification to bomb Chinese or Soviet nuclear facilities.
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.
So just to be clear, it's only morally acceptable to wage wars against countries that are unquestionably incapable of defending themselves?
I did not say anything about "morally acceptable", I was talking about what's possible, and yes, it is much easier to wage wars against countries that are weaker than you.
The conversation wasn't about whether or not bombing Iran was possible (it obviously was), but whether or not it was morally justifiable.
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.
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.
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.
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
[1] https://archive.is/IcLBh
Both can be true. Bibbi is a war criminal. Iran pledged to wipe Israel off the map.
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.
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.
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, radiation is more or less a non-issue here, because uranium is only very weakly radioactive. There may be some uranium pollution at the immediate sites, but nothing like clouds of radiation blowing across the land with the wind.
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."
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.
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.
The counterbalance is Turkey at the moment. Saudi Arabia seems to be a careful observer much more interested in business than military conquest and much of the rest of the middle east is already crippled.
https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articl...
Most Muslim countries have horrifically high rates of consanguineous marriage, which directly results in reduced intelligence, increased birth defects, and other worse health outcomes. It also gives rise to dysfunctional, competitive clan structures that fragment and corrupt society: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/cousin-marriage-conu...
These countries will never be competitive and non-dysfunctional until they cut back on the practice.
Most Muslim countries have horrifically high rates of consanguineous marriage, which directly results in reduced intelligence, increased birth defects, and other worse health outcomes. It also gives rise to dysfunctional, competitive clan structures that fragment and corrupt society: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/cousin-marriage-conu...
These countries will never be competitive and non-dysfunctional until they cut back on the practice.
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.
Why did they even want nuclear energy to begin with? A country so wildly fossil fuel rich as Iran has no incentive to produce expensive nuclear energy..
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.
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.
Illegal war started by a man constitutionally ineligible to be president.
The only reason why he ran for office was to keep himself out of prison.
John Adams said the Constitution is intended for a moral (virtuous) people. Meaning, it isn't self executing. You need people willing to commit to its guidance. And yet just enough of the people gave consent to be governed to a man who sent a mob to assassinate the vice-president of the U.S. when that VPOTUS, Mike Pence, refused Trump's order to overturn an election that Trump had lost.
How can corruption of this magnitude be described as virtuous?
The only reason why he ran for office was to keep himself out of prison.
John Adams said the Constitution is intended for a moral (virtuous) people. Meaning, it isn't self executing. You need people willing to commit to its guidance. And yet just enough of the people gave consent to be governed to a man who sent a mob to assassinate the vice-president of the U.S. when that VPOTUS, Mike Pence, refused Trump's order to overturn an election that Trump had lost.
How can corruption of this magnitude be described as virtuous?
Very definitely is not illegal in American law.
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.